Iran Blows Up US Drone

Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, Lauran made a big mistake. This drone was in international waters. Clearly, we have it all documented. It's documented scientifically, not just words. And they made a very bad mistake. Okay, you'll find out. You'll find out. You'll find out, obviously, obviously you know we're not going to be talking too much about it. You're gonna find out. They made a very big mistake, a very big mistake, the President says about Uranians. Welcome

to the buck sex and show everybody. Great to have you here. Privilege and the pleasures always. So here's what we've got going on. Possibility of a millet, not just a military showdown, but real military action here. I can tell you that some in the news business because they tend to reach out ahead of time and want to know availability for folks like me who have a national security background to speak to these issues. There's at least a a preparation for a getting ready for the possibility

of US strikes. Don't know when, don't know where, don't know if they'll happen at all, but there are whisperers

of it right now in DC. We may fire a whole bunch of missiles or who knows what and who knows where, But that the Iranians need to be taught a lesson here that they're lashing out against the Trump administration in response to yes to pull out from the Iran nuclear Deal, but also the crippling sanctions Irani and economies in really rough shape right now, that we need to send the Iranians a message that this will not be tolerated. This is not going to not going to fly.

Pardon the expression, because they shot a drone out of the sky. There's no human casualty in this. But the drone they shot out of the sky was a hundred million dollar p of equipment flying in international airspace. Shot down by a sophisticated surface to air missile system. This was the drone was an RQ for a Global Hawk,

which gives intelligence, real time surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence gathering capability. Clearly, the US wants to keep an eye on what's going on in the Strait of Hormus, and so that's why we had this one hundred and thirty million dollar playing with a wingspan of about one hundred and thirty feet, flying around trying to keep an eye on things. The

Iranian shot it out of the sky. This is what you would call in the history textbooks an international incident, and these are the types of incidents that can lead to much more severe, much more serious conflicts. Depends on how one side chooses to escalate and how the other side retaliates. Here's just my baseline on all of this. I think that a war with Iran would be a terrible idea. I think that we should have learned at

this point the lessons of a Rock and Afghanistan. It is not only is it not our job to try and overthrow the government in Iran and rebuild that country and help them bring about a multi confession, well just a multi ethnic if not multi confessional democracy. That's not our mandate, that's not our job. And not only should we not try it, but I would offer to you that we would be foolish to try it, given what we already know about our efforts in that part of

the world. I would really like to have a whole generation pass where we don't have a real war going on in the Middle East that we are fighting. Wouldn't that be nice? We have since I was in college, and I'm now getting to be old enough that I can't I can't even find all the gray hairs my beard. We have been at war in the Middle East in some capacity now, stretching back for almost twenty years. I really don't think we should be adding another war on

our play now. This is where a lot of people that are very hawkish on the issue of Iran would come forward and say, but we're not saying that it would be a war. We're just saying, if to do something, you have to send a message, all right. I can understand that we did have the Trump administration fire a whole bunch of missiles into Syria after children had been

gassed there. So the president United States did that, and we're not at war with the Assad regime as a result, even though that is certainly an active war, but they did not declare war on us. We're not at war with the Assad regime. How would the Iranians react, though nobody really particularly knows. I'm not even sure in some ways the Iranians know. But Trump is going back and

forth in public on this a bit. He's saying that, well, Wan, he's making sure it is known that there will be action taken against the irudience that this happens again, or perhaps he'll already be reaction to this one incident. As it is, he has said that this was a He keeps saying it's a mistake, it's a mistake. Well, we'll see what exactly he means by that. Play eleven. I have a feeling I may be wrong, and I may

be right, but I'm right a lot. I have a feeling that it was a mistake made by somebody that shouldn't have been doing what they did. I think they made a mistake, and I'm not just talking to the country made a mistake. I think that somebody under the command of that country made a big hip. Let's just see what happens. She just let's see what happens. It's all going to work out. I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth.

I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that that it will be able to we put back and you'll understand exactly what happened. But it was a very foolish move, that I can tell you. So the President saying here that he finds it hard to believe it was intentional, says it was a very foolish move. Well, I think what he's saying is that he doesn't believe that this order was necessarily given from the very top of the Iranian government, and I think

that they's probably wrong on that. I think the Iranians this is exactly this is exactly what you would expect as an escu esculatory measure against us from the Iranians. It doesn't no casualties because I think they realize if they kill a bunch of American sailors or airman airman, or or anybody for that matter, there's a very real chance that the US response would be severe, that we would come back and hit them in ways that would be way worse than anything they've experienced up to this point.

So if you're looking for a measured response to the Iranians, you have to keep in mind that it's likely the Iranians themselves we're taking a measured response here. There are other things that they could do, the other ways that they could hit us. But then there's this. It's in the area you're hearing about it that there are people you have to remember, who are very senior in the

national security complex in this country. There are people who have been hoping to get to a new Iranian regime somehow. They've been hoping to push us towards, push the Iranians toward that for the better part now of thirty or forty years. And some of those who have been working the issue at least for a few decades are still in Capitol Hill, are still in the White House, in the National Security apparatus. They really want that to happen. And Trump is being asked about this a little bit.

Trump is being asked questions like, are you on board with all of your advisors? Is there anybody who's pushing you in directions that you're uncomfortable with? In terms of your Iran response, and here's the presence that played twelve. Yeah, that has of your administration. Who are I find to push you into No, not at all, not at all. In fact, in many cases it's the opposite. But I will say, look, I said I want to get out of these endless wars. I campaigned on that. I want

to get out. We've been in Afghanistan for nineteen years. As you know, we've reduced very substantially in Afghanistan. We beat the Caliphate. We took back one hundred percent of the Caliphate when it was ninety nine percent. Justin I said we're gonna get out, We're gonna start peeling back, and everybody went crazy because it was ninety nine. So I said, all right, so we'll finish it up. So we got one hundred percent, and we're pulling that back out of Syria. We're pulling a lot of people back.

But this is something, this is a new wrinkle, this is a new fly in the ointment. What happened shooting down the drone and this kind will not stand forth that I can tell you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that the president understands that part of his mandate,

part of what got him elected and it wasn't. An insignificant way that he separated himself from the rest of the republican field was that he was willing to say the Iraq war was a bad idea and that we should not be engaged in these wars for regime changed purposes in the Middle East. I know that the the regime change advocates, and there are many of them out there, they will generally not say, let's land one hundred and fifty thousand soldiers in Iran and do this whole thing

all over again that we've done before. But I also note that there's a there is a correlation, not a causation, but there are certainly there's a momentum to we're going to start with some military strikes against Iran, and then if that isn't enough, then what if we just side that Iran has to be stopped or Iran has to be punished severely enough that they will change their behavior, and they don't change their behavior. How far away are we really becoming much more heavily invested in in Iranian

regime change than we want to be? It is true, and I just because Democrats are even some very far left to say it doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong. It is true that a war in Iran would be a disaster, one for which this country has no stomach. We just it's not our fight. Stopping the Iranians from bad behavior by being willing to slap at them when necessary with military precision strikes, the continued crush of sections on their economy, freezing them out from the international community.

That all makes sense, But this is the blunder I just don't want Trump to make. He's in such a good position going into this twenty twenty election. There's so much about everything that he's done up to this point. I think he should be proud of, and that has really shown the American people the kind of results that would make us want to vote for him again. But a way to throw it all in the trash been very quickly is to find himself dragged into some war

in the Iran. Look in the early days with Obama and Syria, I was I was writing pieces about how we can do a little bit here, a little bit there, but it better be very minimal, no ground troops. Syria is not our war, and I stand behind that, and that's the case in Iran. This is not. It's it's our fight when they do things to us, and we

need to respond to that. But the overall narrative of events for our relationship or lack thereof, with Iran can't be that we really are just trying to find a way to overthrow their government and help get something else going there. That's just a terrible idea, and it's a way for the president to lose the second term of his presidency. If Trump gets dragged into a protracted conflict with Iran, I don't know if he can win re election. I think people are we're all so tired of it.

We're all so sick of it. We don't want to hear it anymore. And for those of you were saying, oh, Buck, but you don't want to be don't do Neville, chamberlain an appeasement, everything else. Okay, Well, you know, if I'm not saying if the Iranian start blowing civilian airliners out of the sky, or if the IRGC starts landing in rubber Dinghy's on Long Island trying to do sabotage operations, that we don't do whatever we have to do. I'm just saying, insofar as we have a choice in these matters.

In so far as this is not yet determined that we have to go to a full scale military conflict with Iran, we need to avoid it at almost all costs, not at all costs, at almost all costs. My generation, the generation above me, the generation below me, many of us have spent way too much time already in parts the Middle East that he didn't want to visit and really don't want to go back to. And I certainly wouldn't want to. I'll tell you this, all of you

who are listening this. I know many of you who listen serve yourselves, but I wouldn't want to be the officer or the I wouldn't want to be the commander in chief. That's a better way of saying it. That told your son or your daughter, yeah, you're going to now go and be part of the provincial reconstruction team for Tehran, you know, because we just took over that country again. It's just it's very unnerving that we could even be having a discussion about that as a possibility.

That's where we are. I think that Trump's got this though. I think he knows that you can project strength, you can do things without doing everything and as long as that's his mantra and that's his focus, I think he'll come out of this okay. But everyone is a bit on edge over this right now, and I can understand why, because there's the Iranian response. We have to consider perhaps to talk a bit more about that. On the flip side,

Stay with me. A US Navy RQ four was flying over the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormus on a recent surveillance mission in international airspace in the vicinity of recent IRGC maritime attacks when it was shot down by an IRGC surface to air missile fired from a location in the vicinity of Goruk, Iran. This was an unprovoked attack on the US surveillance asset that had not violated Iranian airspace at any time during its mission.

This attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and the free flow of commerce. Iranian reports that this aircraft was shot down over Iran are categorically false. The aircraft was over the Strait of Hormuz and fell into international waters. I mean, Trump, I think said that he doesn't believe that this was intentional from the Iranians at the very top of the command chain to give the Iranians a

chance to back down. That would be my guess as to why Trump would say that, because this was clearly the Iranians and very likely that they did get this order from the very top. I don't think there's some rogue Samsite operator who's like, Yeah, I'm just gonna blow a one hundred and thirty million dollars us playing out of the sky and see what that does for me,

See what that does for my career. But it is interesting to watch the media go back and forth, depending on the hour of the day between Trump is a warmonger who wants to go to war with Iran and Trump isn't being strong enough in response to the Iran of to Iran. There's never any wow. Trump is handling this the way we want him to. And that just goes to show you that the press isn't even rooting for an outcome here. The press is rooting for something to be bad for Trump. The press is rooting for

the Trump. For President Trump to have some negative result, that's the most important thing. So it doesn't matter what he does. They're going to be opposed to it. They're going to say that's that's bad and we should all be very, very concerned about this. I will say Nancy Pelosi surprisingly is willing to say that Trump does not want to go to war. So play clip five. I think it's a dangerous situation. The high tension wires are up in the region. We have to be strong and

strategic about how we protect our interest. We also cannot be reckless in what we do. So it would be interesting to see what they have to say whether the I don't think the president wants to go to war. There's no appetite for going to war in our country. The president doesn't want to go to wars. She said, there's no appetite for going to war in our country. Um, true, that is true. I think the country does not want to go to war. The president does not want to

go to war. I don't think we're going to go to war. We just need to urge caution here. There's another component of this, though, and that is remember they were telling us the Iran deal with some great deal. Isn't that a laughable proposition in retrospect, isn't that And that's absolutely ridiculous when you see what this Iranian regime, how it acts and what it's doing. We'll get the more this coming up. They made a big mistake by shooting our drone down in and of itself to tweet that, no,

pus provocative is to shoot the drone down. PUS provocative is to blow up a Japanese oil tanker with a Japanese prime minister in your office trying to start negotiations with the United States. Push provocative is having your proxy shoot into Saudi Arabia. Trump's not the problem. The Iranians are the problem, which will be easy to forget in the days ahead as the media covers this, they will

use every opportunity. Look, this is where you really do see the mainstream media rooting against the country and rooting against America, because the interests of this country right now are to have some calm restored to the situation in the Middle East and have the Iranians back down and stop acting like this belligerent party. You know, we don't have sanctions against Uruguay. We're not bullying Thailand all the time,

you know, we don't. America doesn't just pick random countries to say, hey, you know what, we just want you to do some things differently. So we're going to cut you off from the international financial system and have you know, military might right next door in case you really step out of line. I mean, that's not how we operate.

We're in this situation because the Iranians are the largest state sponsor of terror in the world, and the Iranian regime very much wants to continue acting in this way even though they got this sweet deal from the Obama administration. You know, if the Iranians had a different mindset, if the Iranian leadership a different mindset, once Trump walked away from the deal, they should have just gone to the European European partners and said, guys, come on, we sign

this in good faith. We you know, you need to work with us here. We need to But no, I mean their response is, Okay, you're gonna do that. We're gonna put limpet minds on the side on the wholes of ships and international waters. In the straighter horror moves, We're gonna threaten the whole world. I mean, remember, the the oil issue as it pertains to the straighter horror moves is way more than just a US issue, where every major country in the world is affected by this.

So this isn't something the Iranians can just do and then say, well, we're trying to upset the Americans. This very quickly would turn into Iran versus the world. In Iran doesn't have the doesn't have the fight for that. So here we have a circumstance where the Trump administration may get the Mullahs to back down, and it may require us to slap them down first. I think that's very, very possible. But the Obama administration deal that so many of us were deeply critical of at the time, it

was a bad deal. That is a true thing. It was a very poorly conceived, poorly constructed deal that was all about getting a foreign policy legacy for President Obama, and it did not solve any of our problems in Ita East. In fact, I think you could argue very clearly it made them worse. There were decisions made by the Obama administration about foreign policy that revolved around how

the Iranians would react to this. In essence, we don't want the Iranians to be too upset with us, so we won't do this in Syria or that in Yemen, or this in Iraq. That was the approach for years, and that's how you have in Iran that was emboldened and felt like it was in its best strategic position in decades in the Middle East, which I think you

could vary. Now with the Iraqi rival taken out, Egypt is really a shadow of it of its former self in terms of military force projection and then broader Middle East, and our only real counterbalance against the Iranians is Saudi Arabia, which as we all know, brings its own huge set

of problems. The Iranians felt like they were making real progress and if you look at a map in the Middle East where they had proxy armies, whether it's Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza and the West, the Houthy militia and Yemen, the Shia Militia's and mulkata Alsader's outfit of THEO the Soders have had

a break with the Iranians. But in Iraq, there's a lot of places where Iran has been able to extend its influence pretty dramatically, and it had an economic recovery because of what Obama was willing to do. Now Trump has turned that around at some point, the Iranians may decide that it's just worth it to do what the president do what Trumps is telling them to do, and

that's how you win. You know, this is one part of Trump's approach on foreign policy, on all policy issues, is he has an understanding of the need for leverage and pressure that you can only get so far by asking really politely, by going up, whether it's dealing with the political opposition Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats and Schumer, or it's dealing with Kim Jong owner. Although look the Kim jong un stuff with Trump, I can and explain it,

I don't. I don't know why he thinks it's a good idea to be so tight and so cozy with Kim Jong un. I don't know what to tell you. It strikes me as odd. But I give him a lot of leeway because everyone else has failed an issue. But on these other foreign policy matters, dealing with Mexico and the migrant issue, threatened to put tariffs in place,

tariffs with China, and the trade war. If you want people to do stuff that they're not just willing to do, you have to have some reason for them to do it. Because Trump has negotiated deals before. He has an understanding

of this, and there's winners and losers. It's not you know that the congressional version of negotiating deal is Okay, we'll spend the taxpayers money, and you'll spend the taxpayers money, and we'll just all spend a lot of their money and then let's push it all through and then we'll pretend at election time that you know, we did everything right and didn't mess up. Has Trump died everything right on Iran? Right now? I don't know. We have to see. I think that there's going to be a response in

the next forty eight hours. I really do. I think something's going to happen. Something is going to change in the next forty eight hours here. I don't know what it's going to be. I've heard some things, but I'm obviously not on the inside anymore, so I can't tell you. And if I wasn't the inside, I definitely couldn't tell you.

So there's keep your fingers, keep your fingers crossed. Are better than that prey, and we have that the commander in chief has the right response here and that we don't get into something we don't want to get into that this doesn't escalate beyond what we want. A friend, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer is going to join and give his thoughts on this. Then we'll switch past the Iron topic for the second hour. Stay with me. So here's the deal. Trump's not the problem, Ditele is this drone

was in international waters. We've been flying patterns like this for months. We're trying to collect intelligence to make informed decisions. We've told the Iranians before they shot the drone down that I can engage against American personnel or assets. You do so at your own peril. The present does not want a war with Iran anybody else. President doesn't want a war the Iran. Lindsey Graham is saying, So what do we want? What should happen here? We have our friend,

Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer joining us now. Is the author of Operation dark Heart. He is a fellow at the London Center and he joined us to talk about what's going on. Tony, thanks so much, Hey, Buck, always great to be on with you. Thanks for having me. All right, so they shot they shot our drone down. What should we do now? Well? I think there's two things. First,

we need to state our objectives one last time. I think this is an I agree with Senator Graham President Trump, based on folks I've talked to at a tooral about this today, I think he President Trump's been completely right about Iran with us said, there's nothing in a case to me that we want to go to war. But after we make that second warning, Buck, I think we

have to be prepared for military action. And I don't want to say this in a threatening way, but if the President says he's done with the Iranians their navy, their navy will be pretty much evaporated in about twenty four hours. So I think we can safely use military precision strikes against specific military targets which have been used as part of the Iranian effort in the Gulf of Oman and in the Straits of Homoth to cause problems.

So you know, I'm not one for war, but I am one to say, if you continue to poke me in the eye with a stick, I'm going to take that stick, break it in half, and put it in your ear. And I think that's to the point where we're at right now. Now, what would you say to the concerns from from some including on the right that if we do that. Let's say, if we, as you

pointed out, made the Iranian navy effectively no more. Iran has a whole bunch of other things that they could do, ground based missiles, firing them at ships in the Straits of Straight, of Hormos, firing it off at oil tankers. You know, if they're what do we do if they escalate in response to our escalation or how concerned are you that they would do that? At this point? I got to be honest with you, I don't think that

they would respond in that level of kind. I think the more we appease them, And I think President Trump has tried to kind of split the baby here. He's trying to say, look, I don't want to go to war, don't push me. At the same time, if you push me, I'm going to go to war. In this case, they have continued to ratchet up their bad behavior. And by the way, this drone being down, this is not the first time that they've harassed drones over international waters in

the past. The Obama administration just kind of gave in. So this is where I think Uranians are trying to push the president to the point of where they think you'll get in. I just don't think the understanding is not going to get in. And while I don't believe we need to be looking at military troops on the ground, again, if the moment a military weapon is used against a commercial entity, I think we have the right to attack it.

So if the Rainings do what you stipulate Buck is they start firing missiles off and commercial ships, I think those those missile sites need to be dealt with very quickly and very effectively. And so this is why I don't think the Rains are going to do that, because the more they deal with us militarily, the more they're going to lose capability, which makes them more vulnerable to others who you know, may not be as welling as

us to restrain ourselves. So I don't think they want to do that, and I think they'll recognize I'd like to believe they'll be rational and understanding that if they use military force, we're going to be forced to use force back. What do you think is the proportional response? What is a proportional response to them shooting a one hundred million dollar drone out of the sky. Look like my response would be to take out every like weapon side.

That is, say, if they use, say, for example, the Chinese made surface to air missile that comes off the shore one of the ships, then we take them all out. And that's why I'm saying, you know, if the navy continues to be a problem, we take out the entire navy. And so it's one of those things where I don't believe for a minute we will be we will benefit

from just HIG one site. I think if if you continue to do things to the level of attacking commercial entities, we need to do it, you know, kind of take out the whole capability. And let me say something else here, which may seem a bit odd, but the Chinese have been stalking up on oil. The reason the Chinese are stocking up on oil is because they have an economy that has no more than two or weeks supply of

oil in a given time. So I think others that would not normally be on our side on this may well be on our side on this because while we don't need a rainy and oil, while we don't need oil from any source, we don't want to see commercial entities attacked in the Gulf, which result in the diminishing and other parts of the world's economy crashing. So and I don't think the Chinese want their economy to crash either.

So what I'm saying is we have to be very clear on our result, and there may be a need for some level of military force. And again, let me be clear on this, I'm not proposing a military invasion. I don't think we want booths on the ground. At the same time, we cannot allow the Iranians to continue unimpeded to act badly and try to interferece with an interfere with commercial operations within the Gulf. You hear a

lot about John Bolton's influence on the president's national security policy. Yeah, what do you think of John generally, Tony And should this be the concern that a lot of people make it out to be? Essentially that Look, I'll just say that they say that John is a warmonger. Now that's obviously a slur, but you think he's a little too quick to go for the go for the you know, the fire button. I think in the past John has had a record of encouraging military operations against Iran which

would have not produced good results. And I'm one of those where you know. Remember but back during the time that John was most vocal, he was trying to encourage the Bush forty three administer Creation to go in and do air strikes against nuclear sites. I was opposed to that because, first off, we just don't know how many sites they have, how many you know, if we miss one, what happens if you know, they continue to do it.

So I think there was a lot of issues that we just didn't know enough to do accurate air strikes. And I think that could have resulted in a larger war because that would have been an active aggression. In this case we're talking about here, if the Iranians shoot first. And this goes back to I use the Reagan metaphor in Libyan. You know, the Libyans were in the Mediterranean essentially shooting at our airplanes, and when Reagan was asked by my friend Budd McFarland, what do you want to do?

Regan says, shoot them down. So I'm not for aggressive offensive operations. I am for very aggressive defensive operations. It's based on the predicate of someone shooting at us or interfering with our commerce. And I think this is where maybe in the past, John there was a little bit too aggressive regarding trying to create offensive operations without a clear predicate, and I think that's where John got a

bad rep. Is John doing better now and that I think John is being much more in tune with what President Trump would want done. I really do believe that. Talking Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer, author of Operation dark Heart also you know him from the London Center for Policy Research. All right, Tony, what about if the Iranians follow through on their threat to enrich uranium? What is it up to twenty percent? Which puts them in very quick striking

distance of weaponizing uranium? What should should our policy just be keep the sanctions on, be patient, keep the squeeze on, or should it be stronger than that? Now? I'm one of those again that I think the sanctions and the very severe economic restrictions we've placed on them are actually having an effect. And I again, I've never been one for the idea of air strikes buck because we just don't know what we don't know to kind of do a quote of Don Rumstone, there's no unknowns and all

this other stuff. So I'm not comfortable with the idea of going in there and trying to bomb these things. So I think the use of sanctions to strangle their ability to do things. And by the way, that infusion of billions of dollars the Obama administration aid them did not help us and help them move their weapons programs along. So I think the best thing we can do is try to get them back to the negotiating table and go from there. But I'm not for military action at

this point regarding a nuclear program. What that said, the other thing we should be encouraging, and I'm saying this as Tony Shaper, Senior fellow at the London Center, not as a member or not as someone who advises the Trump administration, but I think we need to encourage a

regime change. A democratic Iran run by someone like the Green Movement, who are predisposed to not be trying to develop weapons of mass structure would be in our ent and the Green Movement back in two thousand and nine, I would argue the Obama administration made a huge problem by not supporting the Persian Spring. They supported the Arab Spring, but the Persians they had a Green movement who was seeking democracy, and the Obama administration had absolutely nothing to

help them. There's still a very strong movement within Iran that wants to get rid of the Molas to move towards democracy. I think we should encourage that. And frankly, if they're having their own internal problems, it gives them less opportunity to terrorize or be troublesome to their neighbors around them. Well, Tennant, Colonel Tony Shaff for everybody. Tony, thanks so much for joining us. Always appreciate your insights, Sir hey Buck, always great to be on with you.

Thank you, all right, team, We'll be right back about our ABC News investigation this morning. And did Joe Biden's son Hunter and questions about money he made from foreign business dealings while his father was Vice president? Was Hunter Biden profiting off his dad's work as vice president? And did Joe Biden allow it? We're talking about millions of dollars in at least two countries. Mister Vice President Tom Yamas with ABC News, How you doing. I got a

quick question for you. It's a question we tried to ask repeatedly. Can we ask you about Ukraine and China? But kept getting blocked questions about foreign deals? His son Hunter Biden pursued my father Joden in countries where Joe Biden was working as a Miracle's top diplomat. How do you judge what Hunter Biden was doing. I think that Hunter Biden did a very bad thing and he was

very wrong. He allowed his name to be abused. ABC News here doing a little rundown on some of the problems facing Hunter Biden, whom I believe is the same Hunter Biden who took up a relationship with the widow of Bobiden, his brother, after Bobiden died, which that strikes me as a quite odd thing to do. But at issue here is that Hunter Biden may have been receiving

money that was really just an influence peddling scheme. What does Hunter Biden have to do with these deals in Ukraine and in China where he was making millions of dollars? What expertise does he bring to them? Why would they put him on either the board of any of these companies or involved in deals with these companies. Why would they do any of that unless it was because they were trying to buy favor and buy access to his father. And this is what I will never let this go.

The Clintons were so corrupt, They were so completely brazenly willing to sell access to themselves and to sell access to the Clinton enterprise, that it was hard to keep up with it. And they almost created a perception of that activity in those behaviors as normal on their own, just by being so flagrant in their violations of those laws.

How is it that the guardians of our republic, the mainstream media that always pretends to be willing to speak truth to power, how is it that they were unable or uninterested in figuring out what was really going on? To the Clinton Foundation? How the heck did Hillary Clinton and it being worth and her husband worth over a hundred million dollars, never mind the I think it was two billion that they raised for the Clinton Global Initiative. How did all that happen? Why was all of that happening?

These were questions that journalists knew. If they wanted advancement, if they wanted to keep their privilege purchase, if they wanted to just be on the upward trajectory, they had to completely forget, completely abandon any pretense of neutrality of journalism, of honesty and earnestness in their endeavors, and cover for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and everywhere that they could. I don't know if they'll be quite as willing to do that for the Biden family. The Bidens have shown

that they are very interested in making money. For all the talk about being public servants. I mean, Hunter Biden here shown up in foreign countries. Well, think about this, what would he have to bring to the table, and with some oil company in Ukraine, or of course is that his dad's a vice president. There's nothing else here. There's nothing else that makes any sense. We know what this was all about, We understand what the game was

that was being played. Just be better if we could be honest about it, and if our journalists would be a bit honest about it. My old colleague, former colleague at the Hill, John Solomon, he's been breaking stories on this and he's saying, look this, this stuff is real. He says that Joe Biden made sure that there was the firing of a prosecutor who was looking into in Ukraine.

The prosecutor was looking into a fossil fuel production company that a Hunter Biden was on was involved with in some capacity I think consulting and getting some fat fees, and Biden shut the whole thing down. But these people want to want to get mad if someone from like the Embassy of Japan buys a hamburger the Trump International Hotel. I think that's a violation of the emoluments Clause. Sorry, I don't. I don't think so. I don't think we

should accept that kind of nonsense at all. By the way, you know, I think that we're starting to also see that people are running out of patients with this continued discussion over reparations. And I didn't get to play this for you yesterday, but because the reparation ideas, it's never going to go anywhere significant. It really is just for show. It is moral theater, and really mostly moral theater for white liberals who want to feel like they're doing the

right thing and they feel good about themselves. But here's what Burgess Owens, who is a former NFL player we've had on the show many times. Here's what he says about reparations. Play clip two. How about a Democratic party pay for all the misery brought to my race and those, after we learn our history decide to stay there, they should pay. Also, they're complicit, and every white American Republican or democrat, it feels guilty because they'll be your white skin.

You should need to pony up also the guilt, my friends, It's very powerful tool in the hands of liberals. They use it on any number of things. They use it with trying to push for things that are essentially racial preferences or some form of racial distinction within the law.

They use it to convince us all that environmental policy should be dictated from a kind of green priesthood that thinks that they're saving the world, even if they won't change their own behavior, and make no effort to be part of the solution other than to make everybody else part of a solution that will never happen, that will never really, never really occur. I think that in the aftermath of yesterday's hearing, a lot of people on reparations, A lot of people walk around saying, why was that

hearing even necessary? What would it mean for English common law based American law? I should say it was comona, But what I mean for English commonla based American law, if all of a sudden you could be held responsible for the sins of your parents, or your grandparents or your great grandparents, you personally could be it could be held out that you were going to be the one that had to pay the price. That would very quickly erode our entire system of jurisprudence, whereby you can only

be guilty if you've done something wrong. You can only be the person who has to be has to be punished if you've taken some action, If there's some part of this process where you have an you're an active participant in it. But I just thought that the reparations case that was being made yesterday in Capitol Hill, it was very weak and just does not make any sense.

And I didn't even get into yesterday, And this was a part of it that I always think about, Well, what if you're what if you're somebody who's half black, half white, somebody like Barack Obama, Where does do reparations go to you directly if you're from a mixed racial background, in the same to you to the same percentage as somebody that comes from an entirely African American background? Would that be there? You know, who would qualify for this?

And at ultimately that's when you realize it's just going to be a slush fund. It's just gonna be money set aside for left wing causes and the promotion of left wing ideas and everything else very quickly just would be meaningless. It would be billions and billions of dollars for progressive institutions, the kind that build really fancy mansions here in DC and you walk past them and you say yourself, what an organization is that? Did they have

this kind of money throw around? Well, a lot of unions, by the way, some of these unions AFLCIO and all this stuff, I know they would say, oh, we represent huge memberships. Man, They've got fancy buildings down here in DC, very very fancy indeed. So oh, one more thing, do you want to get a quick lesson from AOC on? Well, I don't have time for the Yeah, no, enough time

for it. We'll have to hold that one for tomorrow. Corruption, though, is this is one of the clear worst areas of the law, where there's a Republican standard and a Democrat standard. And you're seeing this with the hunter Biden thing. Why didn't we know about this before? It's only breaking now because hunter Biden has become more expendable with the left. In fact, I think there are a lot of people

on the left that want Biden to step aside. I do think that the smart people on the left realize that Biden just does not does not have it in any sense. He will not be able to beat President Trump. And so that means that the same left that was willing to fight so dirty with you and me, they're going to start fighting dirty with their own And I think you saw that with Kamala Harris and Corey Booker. They're going to be willing to really take it up a notch here. So team, we have a much more

show coming up in just a moment. Somebody running for president United States, somebody running to be the leader of our party should know that using the word boy and the way he did can cause hurt and pain, to coddle the reputations of segreds of people who, if they had their way, I would literally not be standing here to remember le and I've state Senate is I think, um, it's just it's misinformed. What happened all of a sudden,

the Democrats are going and turning on Biden. Some of the prominent, i would say, the most prominent establishment connected Democrat candidates here, Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, I'd say they're two of the very top, both US senators from big blue states, very friendly with the media, very cozy with the Democrat media establishment. They're going after Biden here and let's just go over a little well, well, let's just set the stage and then I'll tell you what's

what's really happening here. So Biden recently said of some of his colleague He was at a New York fundraiser yesterday when he pointed to the relationship he had with senators like James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia to say that DC or Washington, the swamp used to function with more civility and more smoothly than it does today. He was effectively a decrying the hyperpartisan atmosphere

of the current moment we are in now. Put aside whether or not you agree with that, or that's a worthwhile thing for Biden is SAA or whether everyone should care about any of that. The problem here is that Senators James Eastland and Herman Talmadge are or well they're not long dead, but they were segregationists. Ah, so you have Joe Biden who's saying that these two segregation of senators. We worked together really closely, and it was great because

there was a lot of civility. There were civility, we got things done, he said. And man, did his Democrat colleagues begin this pylon all of a sudden, quote Corey Booker jumped in, I have to tell Vice President Biden, as someone I respect, that he's wrong for using his relationship with Eastland and Talmadge as examples of how to bring our country together. New York City mayor build a Blasio,

who is also Democratic Candidate's a mayor. He's married to a black woman in New York City, he tweeted out, quote, it's twenty nineteen and Joe Biden is longing for the good old days of civility typified by James Eastland. Eastland thought my multi racial family should be illegal. California Senator Kamala Harris, a black presidential candidate, said Biden was coddling segregationist in a way that suggests that he doesn't understand the dark history of our country. And then Beto O'Rourke,

Oh my gosh, what did Biden say? What do you do for the Vice president to somehow say that we're seeing in this country today is a function of partisanship or of bipartisanship, completely ignores the legacy of slavery, the active suppression of African American and community of colors, communities

of color right now. So they're all jumping in here, folks, they're all pilot on with Biden saying, oh, how could he say that he worked with these senators back in the day and that they were civil to each other. That's not allowed, that's unacceptable. Biden has perhaps learned a little bit since the last time he was the subject of a pylon, which was over whether there should be a repeal of the High Amendment. Remember, the High Amendment

prevents federal funding for abortions. Taxpayer dollars to go to abortions, which is really a giveaway with no substance. Because your tax dollars, I can tell you do you go to abortion? They go to planned parenthood. And Planned parenthood may say that money doesn't go to abortions, but yeah, if you give me ten thousand dollars and I tell you that it's not going to my new sports car, it's going to my education, well okay, but you just give me ten thousand dollars, So I can spend the money on

whatever I want. That doesn't really make all that much difference. That Biden got caught being somebody without much in the way of principles or any particular core and so now he's decided that he's not going to apologize for this latest moment, this latest gaff. Play clip four. Corey should apologize. He knows better. There's not a racist bone in my body. I've been involved in civil rights my whole career. Period, period, period. It's kind of going on offense a little bit there.

Corey should know better. Although I don't think that's I don't think that's gonna cut it. I don't think Corey and Kamal and the rest are going to say, oh, okay, well, if Biden wants us leave us alone, we will. Let me say this, Where does the left draw the line here?

If you were a senator, and you've been a senator for a very long time, and you had to serve with fellow senators who were not just people who are segregationists, but what about people who, oh, give it some time, what about people who are for a traditional marriage in

the Senate? Will that be considered a mark against senators decades from now, What also do we say about the fact that then anybody who served in the Senate at that time on the Democrat side and worked with these two segregationists, because they would have had to work with them if they're going to be in the same party and they're going to try to get bills past, are they all guilty of being allies or activists or supporters of the segregationist senators? Is that is that what we're

supposed to take from this. The left doesn't really establish any clear guidelines. It's it's often just left to be whatever it is, that's what it's going to be. They make it up as they go along, and on this you just have some Democrat candidates who are clearly upset, not about what Joe Biden said so much as they're upset I think that their campaigns haven't caught on more, and that Joe Biden's getting so much of the attention

and so much of the money. He managed without an endorsement from Obama and without any particularly impressive career of his own, he managed to put himself in a position where he's just the he is the front runner, he

is the guy. And based on what I mean that it's based on eight years of Obama is pretty stunning because Biden didn't do all that much to speak of in those Obama years, and usually a vice president like that doesn't necessarily just get to be at the very very front of the pack in a crowded field in the next general election. But Biden, I've been you know, I've been saying all along. He's a weak candidate. He's

not going to be stronger as a candidate. There's no way that Joe Biden can beat Donald Trump in my opinion, unless something just completely unforeseen, unforeseeable and crazy happens. There's just no way, because why why would anyone vote for this guy change his positions on a whim? What ideas it does? Does he have? Oh, I'm gonna be more civil, I'm gonna be more friendly people by the team. I'm sorry my voice. I'm I've got a cold in June, which is really I don't know, that's the thing that

really happened to people. So my voice keeps cracking and my head's all stuffed up, and you know, I'm on taking some meds to try to get through the show. But I apologize if you hear my voice crack or something bad goes down during the show like that. I'm fighting through a team because neither rain nor snow nor sleet or whatever that is. Blah blah, I have a cold.

I'll keep doing my show. We'll grab back, Congresswoman. Tens of thousands were also brutalized, tortured, starved, and ultimately died in concentration camps camps like Takau. If you want to criticize the shameful treatment of people at our southern border, fine, they'll have plenty of company, but be careful comparing them to Nazi concentration camps, because they're not at all comparable in the slightest But here's where upsetting as are comments.

Some Democrats have been relucting to condemn her remarks, and I don't want to get criticized on Twitter. Fellow New Our Congressman Jerry Nadler tweeted in response, one of the lessons from the Holocaust is never again. We fail to learn that lesson when we don't call out such inhumanity right in front of us. Darry Nadler Shirley knows migrant detainment camps are not the same as concentration camps. So

why didn't he just say that? Why are we so cheapest calling out people we agree with politically these days? So Chuck Todd maybe accidentally is engaging in an active, somewhat sane journalism here Chuck Todd NBC? Why does this guy have the job he has? What is he particularly good at? Why shouldn't even listen to him? I can't answer any of those questions for you, folks. I don't know. You get a lot of these guys that we're just supposed to listen to because they've been around for a

while and they're friends with the execs that run these companies. Basically, what is it about Chuck Tbwell, who cares Chuck Todd? Meanwhile he's calling out AOC, and who wants to just in their own head here for a second, just just give it a little guess. Did Chuck Todd get treated like he was doing the right thing for calling out of Casey Cortez? Or was the response response to him that he's a terrible person and he's the worst and he's a sellout and everything else. Oh, that's right, it's

defend AOC no matter what time. That's where the left is that is where the left heart and soul is right now, whatever it has to be, defend AOC. She tripled down yesterday. She keeps going with this concentration thing. She said, we are calling these camps. We're calling these camps what they are because they fit squarely in an academic consensus and definition. History will be kind to those who stood up to this injustice. So say what you will. Kids are dying, and I'm not here to make people

free feel comfortable about that. Okay, Again, just demagoguery, I mean shameless demagoguery when she says kids are dying. There are no kids who are dying in the detention facilities because of the conditions or because of unsafe you know, unsafe holding cells or anything like that. The kids who have died have showed up at the border incredibly sick because they're going through a dangerous passage to get there

in the first place. Those kids have showed up, they've been very ill, and they've been immediately taken to get first world taxpayer funded American healthcare right away. But if you show up with the kid who was one hundred and four fever and is dehydrated, and you know, bad things can happen. It's terrible, it's a tragedy, but that's

what has been happening. But see her suggestion question here is that the kids are dying because of immigration and custom enforcement or because of border patrol, which is just wrong. I mean, it's it's wrong on the facts. It's also morally wrong. It's wrong to suggest that to make it seem like the men and women or border patrol are killing kids. Don't even get me started on how AOC and so much of the left only cares about kids

in the context of migrants, not in the womb. You know, there was a really interesting Cleveland Clinic video that they put out showing a cartoon essentially or a visualization of a spina bifida surgery being done on a fetus. And it's incredible and they just did the first successful one ever.

And this was making the rounds on Twitter and on social media because people were asking the obvious question, if this is basically this fetus is basically a tumor or a parasite or a clump of cells or the other stuff, the other deeply disingenuous, non scientific stuff that is said about it by libs who just want to justify what they're doing. Why are they doing a very complicated spina bifitous surgery on that fetus. You don't do a spina as in spine surgery on a clump of random cells.

Who certainly wouldn't do that on a tumor. But this is this is where we are now. The people that claim to embrace science reject science so blatantly in the case of life and the fight over life. Oh wait, here we go, there's more from me. I'm sorry, there's This is from Walter shab who is the Office of Government Ethics, former director of that. Okay, oh yeah, he's one of these guys who's always coming out now out to say like Trump is breaking this law or that laws.

There's a whole industry of people that come up with obscure laws or bizarre interpretations of laws that allows someone to try to throw Trump in prison. That's what they try, that's what they want, or at least tell themselves they maybe do that one day. Sky Walter Shaubs wrote here about the AOC dust up in the future of the history books, if there are history books, will have much to say about the people who did the normalizing this phenomenon.

Is not notable for its uniqueness of the times that, similar to other periods of darkness, the lessons have not been learned. And that's in response to a Kazi Ortel's writing to Chuck Todd. The fact that you slipped in Nazi when I never said that is pretty unfortunate, Almost as unfortunate as the fact that you spent this whole time without discussing DHS, freezers, dog pounds, missing children, and

human rights abuses that uphold use of this term. She's not backing off of saying concentration camps at the border. She's not, folks, After all the information that has been pushed her way, after all the free history lessons that she's been given, she's still saying concentration camps. Why because ultimately this is not really about those kids. It's not. She might say it is, she pretends it is. But by calling what's going on in a southern border concentration camps,

it serves two very important purposes for the left. One is that it ties into the whole Trump is basically basically Hitler is a fascist. And two, it keeps the focus off of the fact that the Democrats have no answers as to what should be done at the border, have no theories about how we can make this better, and so all they would like to do is continue to point the Republicans and say, see, these guys are bad. They don't like the migrants. Bad, bad, bad, and that's

what they're doing. AOC is an intellectual abomination, but she's very powerful and has a lot of people. Wow, four point four three million Twitter followers, she has a massive audience. I mean for somebody who is a third tier intellect, I mean somebody who's just not impressive at all in terms of the grasp of information and knowledge and her synthesis of all of that. It's appalling. But people are

still backing her up. People are still pretending that what she said was not the outrageous and stupid comparison that it was. But Chuck Todd, I'm surprised to see that he was willing to be not even a journalist, just be normal for a moment, just to speak the truth about something like this. So many journalists are just running scared from AOC all the time. They think that they have to constantly prop her up. They have to find some way to justify whatever it is that she says

it's pretty pathetic. It is pretty pathetic. And I know that the left would say, oh, but the right, or at least the conservative journals do that for Trump. It's not true. I know a lot of people on the right who will disagree with something Trump said or how he said it. They just support Trump as the movement. They don't think that everything he does is perfect. We don't have some Messiah complex with Trump. I think they do.

With AOC coming up in a few moments, we're going to talk about the injustice of the exoneration and now the lionization of the Central Park five, the individuals who are initially convicted of a brutal rape and attempted murder in Central Park back in nineteen eighty nine. They're now being turned into civil rights icons, folk heroes, and Hollywood is just completely completely changing the history and the facts to suit this this narrative. We all know what the

narrative is. The narrative is that evil white cops who were racist just grabbed the nearest black boys that they could in order to try and you know, get false confessions out of them because of pressure from city hall. You know that that's the narrative. That's the thing that they tried to do, and that's not what reality was. But I will get into that a few minutes. But I do have some good news here today from the legal front, because that that is bad news, that does

not work. But some good news from the legal front would be that the you may recall this, I talked about the story here on the show, the Sheila Jackson Lee staffer who decided to docks meaning to share the private information of members of the Republican Senate in order to do them harm just because they're Republicans. I mean, this was a this was a political hit, and this happened during the final hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

That Democrat congressional staffer has just been sentenced to four years in prison. This from the Daily Daily Wire today. Jackson Costco was described by prosecutors as having self righteous entitlement and believing that he could violate the sanctity of the United States Senate at will and threaten individual senators as he pleased. Prosecutors sought to make an example of Costco because his crime allegedly led to other incidents of

attacks on political opposition. Costco is the son of the CEO of a major construction company who has ties to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Diane Feinstein. He had previously worked as a staffer in Maggie Hassan's office, but has since moved on to working for Lee. While Senator's Question cabin On, doctor Christine Blasi Award Costco snuck into his former boss's office to use a computer to publish

the private information of senators who supported Kavanaugh. Now, this should not be surprising in a sense that this happens because the Left has adopted very much an attitude of anything that hurts the opposition is good. There are no more rules that we have to abide by. There's no more decency that we have to strive for or try to hold ourselves too. It's just about how do you crush the other side? How do you mess the other

guy up who disagrees with you? And doxing, which is the release of private information into a public domain in order to create harassment, threats, embarrassment. Doxing is a tactic that mainstream media outlets will use. I will never forget that CNN because somebody created a meme that CNN didn't like, you know, pro Trump meme that they threatened to docks the person, like, we're gonna we found out who you are, and we're gonna tell everybody unless you take this down

and do what we say. That's a major media organization. I mean, CNN is also a terrible joke and a festering boil on American journalism. But it is a big place with a lot of money and a lot of influence, a lot of reach. But if you really believe the rhetoric, and I keep coming back to this because it's so important, if you believe the rhetoric of the left, that we are in an existential fight for the future of this country, that Trump is a threat to this republic, that anybody

who stands with Trump needs to be made an example of. Well, why wouldn't you do this? Isn't it more important to defeat such a terrible opposition. Isn't it more important to do that than to play by whatever the Senate rules are? Well, this guy's gonna find four years. By the way, that's a pretty that's a real sentence. I mean, that's real,

that's real prison time. That's not messing around, but it's deserved you have to make an example of somebody like this that he would use his government access in this way for such a petty, spiteful part as an operation. And by the way, he even went further. He according to according to here in the Daily Wire, he threatened somebody who knew what he tried to do and said that he would release all of the stuff as essentially

was holding the information hostage. Costco pleaded guilty in April to crimes related to an unparalleled effort to ransaka Senate office, extorting a Democratic senator, illegally harming Republicans for their political views, and blackmailing a witness. Here you go, another staffer and Hassen's office recognized Costco and reported him. So he sent that staffer an email threatening to quote leak it all

if the staffer told anyone what he had done. He said, emails, signal conversations, gmails, senators, children's health information, and social security numbers. This guy, Costco wrote, what a sick maniac. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what the results of this would be, which was just a total nightmare for the people that would have been affected by it and all their socials and everything out there, or their phone numbers, their home addresses, everything to violate the

trust of the United States Senate in that way. Why isn't the medium more interested in this story? We know why. I mean, I asked that. I asked that question rhetorically, but it's so fascinating that's someone who was entrusted with that access on Capitol Hill would go to these lengths. But Kavanaugh, I keep coming back to it. Cavanaugh was a turning point in my mind in American politics. Cavanaugh

was something else. It was different. It was proof of what many of us had known was there for a long time, but now it was staring us in the face that the Left will do anything to destroy people that stand in the way of their power, that they have no demands of honor or decency in the way that they fight, and that they were cheering on that

destruction of Cavana. I mean, anyone in public life who was a part of defaming Brett Kavanaugh, who was hoping for and advocating for him to be destroyed, should be deeply ashamed. It was grotesque. It was grotesque. But the left's response to all this is not to try to clean up their act. It's not to be better going forward. They just feel like they lost that one, but they'll

win the next one. And that's how you have people like this Costco guy who figure, well, if we can't get our way and stop Kavanaugh, we might as well create problems, personal problems, put the safety of senators families in jeopardy. Given the that moment in politics, you think it's really a good idea to put the Republican senators who are willing to stand out for Kavanaugh do the right thing to put their information out there in the public domain for anyone to see, not just their address,

of their phone numbers, their kids health information. Does this stuff happen on the right, folks, because I never see it. It It always seems to happen the left. The really vicious, vindictive, crazy stuff seems to be stuck on the left. I don't think I'm imagining that. I don't think that's just my perception. Here, you and us, who you were in the park with, oh names, I's got a loss. Where did you see the lady one lady, the female charger.

It was severely beaten and raped. Every blackmail who was in the park last night is a suspect. I need all of them. What's going on with my son? Your certains are involved and we're rape in Central part they saw you rape the lady. Didn't see a lady or hit anyone. I didn't see any lady, Kevin, I didn't see any I want to see my son right now, right now. Whatever they said I did, I didn't. So in These Boys State Matches the central facts of the crime.

Let Netflix show when they see us about the Central Park what people known as a Central Park five. And this is a very politically charged documentary on a very politically charge, a very sensitive case that I remember, even though I was quite young at the time, I was eight years old, but I remember people talking about it. I grew up three blocks from Central Park in New York City. I used to go into the park for

all of my school years to play sports. And when I was growing up, you were told that if you went into Central Park at night, bad things were likely to happen, which in retrospect is just that's almost like saying that there's a whole area of a city that's been ceded to you know, bad guys or insurgents or something. I mean, this was just completely insane. I couldn't go to a park at night, a park in what is a very wealthy part of New York City, because there

was a real threat of physical violence against you. Central Park is not that big. I mean it's a really maybe four or five miles north to south and maybe two miles across. It's not that big of an area. So when you when you look at what the city was like at this time and the feelings that people had. As a native New Yorker growing up there, there was a sense that there was this lawlessness and this violence.

I could break it at any moment. And that's why when the Central Park jogger case happened, where a young woman who was jogging in the park was just viciously, brutally, horrifically beaten to within an inch of her life, raped horribly. The whole the whole incident just appalled and shocked the city. And you had these this group of of they were kids,

I mean, they were young, young, predominantly black. I think one of them was Hispanic men who were all arrested and prosecuted and convicted for their role in the Central Park jogger case. And now Hollywood has decided that this is all a racial injustice, and this is something that we have to we have to look back on and have a full accounting of the racism that led to

this outcome. I mean, I'm here to tell you that based on the facts as I know them, it could not be more clear to me that the people that did this were the people who were initially arrested and convicted, and that politics, not the justice system, dictated that they would be quote exonerated, and this has now turned into a disgraceful injustice that we are we are to treat these individuals like they are civil rights heroes, and I give when they are anything but that they committed a

Haines sack. I mean, I know there were fourteen fifteen. One was sixteen years old when they were a part of this. But if a sixteen year old holds a woman down while she's being rape, I want that sixteen year old to suffer very serious consequences, decades in prison

at a minimum. That's what I believe should happen. And there are very few voices right now, because there's such a breathtaking rewriting of history that's going on here, there are very few voices that will speak honestly about this case. And that's why I just so appreciate and I'll reach out. She's tough to get on radio sometimes she's a very busy lady. But I really do appreciate the work that Ann Coulter does on this because she'll just tell you this is all a lie, folks, This is a lie.

Then a whole generation now that wasn't around during the Central Park jogger case, that doesn't have any that doesn't have any connection in any knowledge of what New York City was like at the time and what the atmosphere was.

They are being told old through movies, through Hollywood, through Netflix, and now that the press and these different I think there's a Ken Burns documentary, and it as well that this was essentially racism, that the Central Park jogger case was about racism from the police force, that they just grabbed whatever black men they could to pin it on

and they coerced confessions and this was an injustice. The injustice is that these men are now being treated like heroes and are given tens of millions of dollars for being a part of one of the most heinous acts that anybody can think of. In the recent history of New York City. That's the injustice and we all need to be very clear on that. I watched this play out and I think to myself, how long is it before the narrative of the OJ Simpson case turns into

OJ was really innocent? You see. It's just that there were all these very racist white people in the District Attorney's office in Los Ange Jellis County, and they tried to pin it on OJ, who was an innocent man. You hear me say that, and you probably think that's absurd. Buck. Everyone knows OJ's guilty. Well at the time, everybody knew that these young men were guilty too. These young boys, they were boys at the time when they were arrested,

fourteen years old. They were guilty. What's the evidence for this? Ane's got a column out today that picks that picks from important evidence in this trial. I mean, a few things that we all need to know before we even get into the evidence. Is that one Michael Bloomberg, whom I worked for at the NYPD, he refused to give these individuals any money from the city, and the City of New York paid forty million dollars as soon as

de Blasio came into office. That was just a payment, that was just essentially a white guilt payment from Deblasio to try and buy support from the minority community, to try to buy support from white liberals who always feel guilt in any of these these situations. They feel like there's something that they've they have to atone for, they have to make up for it, even if they had nothing to do with it. So here's some of what

Anne talks about on this column today. And you really need to know this because you're you're being lied to you right now about the Central Park five. I mean, these these kids were out there and the Anna isn't even get into all the evidence against the First of all, they were out there attacking people. They put people in the hospital that weren't even this woman. They were out there engaging in gang violence effectively in the park at night, attacking,

attacking people, mugging people. So these are not these were not these were not good kids. Start. Let's start with that. Let's understand these were not kids that were pulled out of their beds at night and made to, you know, confess to something they had nothing to do with. They were in the park, they were attacking people. Now that doesn't mean that they were guilty of a gang rape.

But let's just understand they were in the park that night and they were attacking people, So they were criminals. They were criminals. Attacking somebody's a criminal act. So the question is just what degree of criminal are we really talking about here? Here's what Anne writes. The five accused rapists, Kevin Richardson, Anton McCrary, A McCray, Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salam, and Carrie Wise were convicted of the nineteen eighty nine Central Park rape, as well as other assaults in the

park that night. They were quote exonerated thirteen years later, and more than a decade after that, paid forty million dollars by the City of New York to settle a malicious prosecution case within months of Buildablasia becoming mayor, despite city lawyer's confidence that they would win at trial. Today, they are treated as civil rights heroes to Hollywood airheads and others completely unfamiliar with the facts of the case.

So here is some of the evidence against them. You know what, team, let me let's hit a quick take, a quick breather. I want to come back on the other side here, and I want to I want to work through the piece of evidence that are in the record that these young men initially were convicted based on, and then we can all come to our own decisions as to whether this is just the most despicable rewriting of history that's going on, and that to me seems

quite quite clear. But let me come back to the start of this break and we'll talk about what is the evidence of guilt of the so called Central Park Five. Stay with me, all right, team, We're talking about the evidence in the Central Park Jogger case that it involves the Central Park Five as they are now known, And I want you to really think about how could it

be possible that this evidence is what it is. But now we are supposed to believe that these these men, who at the time we're boys, were teenagers, were not involved in the raven Keep in mind, if you hold somebody down during a rape, even if you're not the one who does the penetration, you are culpable. You are guilty of that rape. That is the way the law sees, at least law in New York in New York State. So there's not this Oh, they were just there, you know,

holding her down while this was happening. By the way, just as a as a little bit of a fair warning here some of this. I'm not going to use any improper words, but this is tough stuff to hear about. So just a little bit of a content warning on that. So he mentioned the names of the boys, Kevin Richardson, Anton McCray, Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salam and carry wise are those in the names. Here's some of the evidence that Ann Coulter has pulled together on her in her most

recent column dealing with this issue. Santana was one of the first boys picked up in the dark the night of the attacks on April nineteenth, nineteen eighty nine. While being driven to the precinct, he blurted out, quote, I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's blank. The police didn't even know at that point that there had been a jogger even found that the police knew nothing about the rape when

he said that. So in the record, we now have a teenager in the park that night, picked up in the park, who says he's obviously scared because he realizes that he might be in trouble for something he doesn't know what, doesn't know what the police know. He says, I didn't rape her. I just felt her. I just felt her chest. It's a very strange thing to say for an innocent young man who wasn't there to nothing to do with it, right, that's a that's a very

weird thing for him to have said. Richardson quote road to the precinct with another boy who announced the police that he knew who the murder, naming Anton McCrary I mcray. Richardson concurred, saying, yeah, that's who did it. Keep in mind the police did not know about the jogger yet. Over the next five days, five teenage boys gave detailed confessions about the attack on the woman, as well as the other attacks. All five made their confessions in the

presence of their parents or guardians. It is absolute madness to imagine these officers did anything to coerce these confessions. Culter rights. When the boys confessed, No one, not that I'm not the prosecutors, not the police interviewing them, had any idea whether the jogger would emerge from her coma

remembering everything. Mercifully, she remembered nothing Why on earth would cops bully five random teenagers into false confessions knowing the victim might wake up at any moment and announced my boyfriend did it. That would be rather awkward for any cop who'd gotten someone else to confess. Does anybody want to try to explain that one? So these confessions were

allegedly coerced. They were coerced in the presence of adult relatives of the accused, and the police would have been coercing them with the possibility that the woman who was in a coma therefore was alive and still did live after this incident, could have woken up and destroyed all the confessions that they had allegedly coerced. Right, because they weren't coerced. Folks, We're not idiots, right, We all understand this. They were not coerced. These kids admitted it. They admitted

that they had a role in this. But there's more. The police had incriminating testimony from friends and acquaintances of the defendants. Quote Dennis Comedo, one of the boys who was part of the larger group, told the police that when he ran in Richardson in the park that night, he'd said, quote, we just raped somebody, Carrie Wise, told a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger, He only quote held her legs down while Kevin Richardson

blanked her. Jackson volunteered this information to police, thinking it would help Wise. That's right. Somebody thought, oh, I'm gonna help my friend out by telling the cops, Well, he didn't actually rape her, he just held her down. Was she was she part of the coerced confession too? I just want to know. Was that was that the big, bad,

mean white cops that were doing that? Okay? Two of Wise his friends, Carrie Wise, remember, one of the cues, said the next day he told them, you heard about that woman that was beat up and raped the park last night. That was us. Another boy arrested for the attacks but not the rape, told the detectives on videotape that he overheard Santana and a friend and laughing in the park about how they'd quote made a woman bleed. The defendants also new facts about the attack that only

someone who had been there could possibly know. Two of the boys, Santana and Richardson, independently pointed out the exact location where the rape had occurred wide Wise told the detective interviewing him that someone he thought was named Rudy had stolen the joggers walkman. The officer notes state quote persons present when girl raped Rudy took walkman. At that point, the jogger was still in a coma. Police investigators had no way of knowing that she'd been carrying a walkman.

Thirteen years later, the sixth rapist, Matthias Reyes, the only rapist according to Hollywood and former District Attorney Robert Morgenthaw, told police that in addition to raping the jogger, he had stolen her walkman. Someone explained to me, how would the cops be so slick, so smooth in they're set up here that they would have contemporaneous notes about somebody at the attack stealing or walkman, and then only thirteen years later did they have anybody confirming that, yes, in fact,

they stole a walkman. Unless the kids who were saying they were there at the time knew that this guy stole or walkman. These people were part of a vicious gang rape less than two miles from where I grew up, right in an area where I spent many years of my life playing sports, going for walks. They were a part of a heinous incident, and now they're being treated as heroes. There was no adjudication of their innocence. There

was just DNA exoneration. That is an exoneration and a politicized decision by a mayor who is a left wing idiot to write a massive check to them. And now you have Hollywood all jumping on this bandwagon too. There is real racism in America. There is a long history of very real and very disgraceful racism in this country. When the left creates stories like this, they undermine our ability to see and tackle and deal with the real racings out that's out there. This was not a case

of racism. This wasn't just the police acting out and grabbing five black boys to make an example of them. These people confessed they were guilty. They did a horrible thing. And now the media that is so unconcerned with real innocence or guilt pat themselves on the shoulders because they say that this is now justice. This is a grave injustice that is being done with this rewriting of history of the Central Park. Five very important question I'm about to pose to all of you, what is your comfort

food of choice? Now? I can't necessarily hear your answers, although you could all write into me on Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton. That's one way to go, Mark, what is your comfort food of choice? Don't think, just give me the answer. The first thing that popped into my head was mac and cheese. Very solid choice, very solid I mac and cheese. I think I have to put in my number two spot. I do love and people super poking to you mac and cheese. There's excellent gluten

free mac and cheese. It's all over the place. It's very easy to find. It's very good. It tastes exactly the same. Some of you're saying, no, it doesn't. I'm telling you it does. Excellent mac and cheese in the gluten free community. Does gluten free you get to call itself a community? Now? I hope so. But the different twenty twenty candidates have had their various comfort foods of choice compiled here by The New York Times. And there are some excellent choices, and there are some choices that

are so terrible. It's important we talk about them because it tells you a lot about the candidate that would ever say such a thing. I mean, I think the winner is Kamala Harris who said fries, because that's mine as well. French fries, for me, are the perfect food. I love French fries. I eat them too often. I'd probably be about five or ten pounds lighter if I did not eat French fries because I just love French

fries and it's a weakness. French fries, chocolate, I got a few things, but French fries are very high on my list. It reminds me when I was a teenager, people say, don't eat chocolate or French fries, you'll get pimples. Such a stupid wives tale. Has nothing to do with anything. It's hormonal and oil and secretion on the skin base that has nothing to do with chocolate or french But did you ever hear that mark was or is that my just tool? I definitely heard that, Yeah, right, don't

eat chocolate you'll get ziz. It's not true. There's no basis and science for that whatsoever. People are just absurd. But you know, it's just because people want to be mean to teenagers all the time. They'll tell us not to have any fun. Uh, so Warren said fries, which is a very solid choice. Mark said mac and cheese, also very solid, but no one on this list said mac and cheese. I'm sorry, Harris said fries. Warren said chips and guac. Chips and guac. That's now, first of all,

Elizabeth Warren. Once again, I'm just saying cultural appropriation from Lizabeth Warren, culturally appropriating from Mexico. But chips and guac is a very solid choice. Buddha Judge said beef jerky, which, okay, I'm not a beef jerky guy, but you know, he's from Indiana and he served overseas and they probably ate a lot of beef jerky. I can I can respect that. Jillah Brand Kristen Jillibrand said whiskey. She's just trying to sound cool, not think that that is our comfort food.

But that's a very Gilibrand answer. What can I say that will make people think I'm more interesting than I am? Tulsi Gabbard said vegan cupcakes, which I can believe. I can believe that that's something that she's really into vegan cupcakes or I've had vegan cupcakes that are good. You know, the thing is. I don't know if people who are vegan or people who are keto are more excited about telling you their dietary restrictions and plans, but there's keto

and vegan people. And then Klobaschar said a baked potato, which that's you know. I think Klobaschar's candidacy is about as exciting as a baked potato. But the worst dancer on here, well, the second worst answer was Mary and Williamson, who said quote, I have no comfort food, which is such an annoying and weird thing to say. I mean,

everyone has some kind of a comfort food. But the single worst answer given by a candidate who should be doing so much better than he is, but when he says things like this, it's clear to me why he's not doing better than he is. The worst answer on here, Corey Booker said, veggis. That's disgusting. Veggis what is wrong with him? Veggis are not a com First of all, veggis is so broad that it doesn't even mean anything, saying well, veggies are not a comfort food. I know

he's a is he a vegetarian? I think he's a vegan. Actually, that's all you have to know. I you know, I don't think I think that this country could handle somebody who was an atheist to be president long before they could handle a vegan, because at least with an atheist, you know what's going on vegans? I don't know. Something something funky there, something I'm inevitably going to get people reading to me. Who are vegans listening to the show.

What's wrong with you? Buck? I'm just kidding. I love you vegans. Calm down, and you love yourselves, that's for sure, because you like to talk about your veganism. Oh we'll be right back, team Buck. It's time for roll call. Team. Sorry if my voice is a little bit less powerful than it usually is. I managed to get a cold in mid June. We look up this morning. I was like, I don't understand. How do I have a cold. This

doesn't make any sense. I know that it's a virus that has nothing to do with the temperature outside, but who gets a cold virus in June? I'm uh, it is what it is? Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton, that's where you throw the roll call noise and let's get into it. Owen right, Hey, Buck, My eleven year old son has named his baseball player for the PS four game The Show twenty eighteen. He's named the player Buck Shields High. Well, that's awesome, Owen. It's a great name.

It's a strong name. It's a name that people will remember, hopefully, so I appreciate that. I'm not even sure if it's named for me, but I'll take it. I'll take it. It's a good name. You gotta you gotta lean into it. Though. If your name is Buck, you can't shy away from it. There's no easy way to be Buck. You got you gotta be Buck all the time. Claudia, Hello Buck. Just a quick note regarding free Medicare for all, it is

not free. My husband, who will be turning sixty five in November, has a work history of fifty years and is paid into the Medicare fund. He will be eligible for coverage in November, and the governmentill begin automatically taking one hundred and thirty eight dollars per month from his Social Security check, as done to all persons on Medicare. In addition, Medicare does not cover all his health needs. We will need to add an additional supplement at a

few hundred dollars a month. Again, Medicare is not free and does not cover all one's needs. Claudia, I know that that is all true, and I appreciate you walking us all through some of the realities of the Medicare program. But that's why I've always said that what Bernie Sanders has often talked about is really a true single payer program, which is different than Medicare because Medicare has a lot

of cost sharing. You spend money from your tax or you pay money through your taxes into Medicare for a long time. And then beyond that there is also a state and local government that excuse me, that will be a part of the whole Medicare situation. So there's a bunch of different things coming together there. And you are right that Medicare is not It's certainly not free, and it does not cover everything. Fill up. A few days ago,

you were searching for Howard Dean's yeah A moment. The reason for his instantaneous implosion was it reminded everyone of Slim Pickens writing an a bomb in doctor Strange Glove. Well, this is where I have to admit that I've never seen doctor Strange Glove. So Mark, should I go back and watch this one. Are we talking about Doctor Strange the Marvel movie or Doctor Strange Glove? No, Doctor Strange Glove.

They've never heard of it. It's an older one. And I'm somebody that gets into a lot of trouble, I know, with this audience, because I think that there is a bias in favor of older movies. I think that people tend to just assume, oh, if it's if it's an old classic, then it has to still be really worth watching today. Truth is that a lot of older movies don't really hold up. I know, I know people can get mad at me and say, oh, back, that's terrible and how could you say such a thing, And but no,

that's that's just the way it is, folks. A lot of older movies, the acting is kind of lame. There's just there's just stuff going on that's not it's not great. So there there you have it. I know people get mad at me, but I speak the truth. It is what I do here on the show. There's a lot of indicating instead of act right, yeah, thank you Mark. A lot of this stuff people go, oh, it's black and white, it's got to be good. False. The storylines

are cheesy. It's ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. Yeah, you know what I'm saying. Joey writes you just uh oh, No, Joey has fallen up on his message from yesterday. Okay, Joey, thank you. Kristin. Listen to Rush live on Newstalk twelve ninety whichtop Falls and heard your Trump twenty coin commercial. So cool to hear your voice when listening to someone else. Well, christ and that is cool. I'm glad that people get to hear me on some of the other platforms out there.

That's kind of fun. That's very cool. So yes, indeed, James Rights, hey Buck, bring back the haya buck slap sound? I chuckle to myself every time I hear it. Do we have that one? Mark we hand? Exactly? There we go. That's the that's got to be the buck slap sound, even though it makes no sense, like if you're gonna slap somebody, I don't think you'd go hey, But that's that is the buck slap because it's so powerful that even though it's just a slap, you have to psych

yourself up for it. There we go, Glenn Rights, hey Buck. I live in Massachusetts and I do believe it is part of the state electoral compact. Was curious if the compact is constitutional, whether anyone has looked at a class action lawsuit to revoke it. Things like this really make my blood boil. Anyway, great show, keep up the good work. We'll Glenn, thank you so much. I don't know anything about the electoral Compact, so I don't have a smart

thing to say here. I just will say that I appreciate you writing in and you listen to the show, and you're a great guy and a great American. Michael A right, Buck, I love these solidad O'Brien buck slap story. The only thing missing was the he have producer Mike teed up next time field tie from Lost Us. Yeah. See, people really like it. We gotta Mark, you gotta have that one ready going forward when I call for the buck slap, now you know, man, that's the one. So

that's the new buck slap. That is the one that is the one that people like. Here we go, Robert, Hey, Buck, I'd love to have a serious conversation about reparations for the descendants of slaves without turning it into a name calling session. How are today's African Americans harmed by slavery. An argument can be made that they about whoa Okay, I'm gonna at Robert, I don't have to dive into

this one little bit more. Thank you for writing in though, Carla, hey Buck, I'm wondering if AOC truly believes all the propaganda she is spewing her if she's just trying to get a reaction out of everyone, like a child looking for attention. I wonder if the best way for us to handle her is to write her off and ignore her, dismiss her as a child, or to recognize her as a real threat and continue to vocally oppose her. What your thoughts. Thank you for always speaking the truth, sending

you prayers for wisdom and encouraged to keep on keeping on. Carlo, thank you so much for the kind note. You know, I think that AOC the problem with trying to ignore her is that she has such a large social media following that if you ignore her, what often ends up happening is you allow her to preach to her side unopposed.

So I don't think that that's a good thing, because there are a lot of very impressionable Unfortunately, a lot of very ignorant people out there who if they hear AOC able to say things without someone pointing out that what she says is nonsense and lies, they're more likely to believe it. So I don't think we can just

write her off. I do believe that she is the future of the Democratic Party, not necessarily just her personally, but her view of the world and the way that she approaches governance, and her thoughts on things like social justice and socialism and the size and mission of the state. I think that the Democratic Party is trending toward AOC and not the other way around. So I don't think we can ignore her. I do think there's a little bit of a right wing media fixation on diving into

everything that she says, and occasionally it has backfired. I mean, the people that were getting all upset about her, well, no, that's not even true, because no one really got upset about her dance video. That was a lie. That was fake news. There was I never saw a single person who was upset about her having a dance video, but the left created this all. Oh, they're just upset about her video where she's dancing. Why would anyone be upset

about that? There's nothing people out to dance and have fun. This is one thing I wish conservatives did a better job of promoting, just as publicly as they can do as many people as they can. Conservatives want people to have fun. I want people to enjoy themselves. I want them to enjoy their lives. I think joy is a very important part of life, and you know, I'm all

for it. I like people to dance. I like people to have fun, drink responsibly, eat delicious food, go out see friends, you know, if you're not married, you know, go out on dates, meet new people. You know. I'm a big believer in all this. You know, the left is able to get away with creating this, this perception that conservatives don't like fun, don't want people to smile, don't want people out the I don't think it's really true.

And one example of all this is that all the or one example of how this is the perception doesn't match up with the reality is that people who are conservatives, and I believe this the statistic or the studies that conservatives who are married enjoy sex more than people who are not married. And it really makes a lot of sense when you think about it. I mean, people that are married are going to feel more comfortable, and that's

a very important part of it. There's going to be much greater connection and appreciation between those individuals for what they're doing. There's not the tremendous anxiety of like what if this goes wrong or what if this person doesn't call me, or any of those things. So conservatives in a lot of ways do have more fun, and we certainly have more fun in the realm of ideas. I think that the funniest people I know now are all conservatives. I mean, the people that are the most entertaining are

all the funniest people I know in life. This is I've never really thought about this until now. All of my funniest friends now are conservatives, none of them. None of the funniest people I know are liberals. And I and some of the people I know who would have considered themselves liberal who are very funny are now pretty much conservatives, And they've kind of switched over a little

bit because there's just been this change. If you're going to be a little bit provocative, a little bit contrarian, different in your thinking, willing to push some buttons, you're going to be a conservative these days because the Libs, they all they're all just repeating the same crap to each other all the time, and it's all very disingenuous, and it's it's not clever, it's not funny. It's really

often just quite nasty. So yeah, the funniest people I know, I mean, the people that can make me laugh very very hard, are my friends who are a right wing And you know, I've got a great right wing posse. So a lot of right wing, right wing, right wing squad down here in DC is a lot of fun. Let's see here. Gina hey Buck Opera. I love opera. I love a wide variety of music, from Volbeat to Fleetwood Mac to Counting Crows to def Leopard, But lately, when I'm cooking or stressed, it's labo am. I love

this opera. My favorite version on YouTube is with Paparatti the Full Opera. It's musically perfect, gets me from pasta to parmesan at a salad, Dude brusqueta, brilliant and probably designed that way. My next go to is Mozart the Full Opera Requiem, darker but so moving, chow and as always shields high. It's a nice one to end on today. Team, thank you so much for hanging out with me. Always great to be with you. The Freedom Hut Talk to you tomorrow. She'll tie