'Nervous Nancy' Wants Trump In Prison

The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins as just say it's bad policy. The question is, though, why does the president have that much already? And that will be questioned. No, I'm just saying that it's wrong. I don't even think

it rises to the level of policy. I think it's notion mongering again, and it's really, well, let's face what it is. It's a distraction from the Mother Report. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Nancy Pelosi blathering and blathering claptrap. Express there just a lot of black, black black. What is she even trying to say? Anybody's guess, notion mongering. She calls Trump's proposal of tariffs on Mexico to get the Mexican governed to do more. Here is a little secret, Nancy.

We have a massive crisis at the border, one of the Democrats. Until about five minutes ago, we're pretending wasn't a crisis, and now they only call it a humanitarian crisis. President Trump keeps trying to use the authority invested in him via the constitution, invested in him in the Constitution, and judges block him, Democrats obstruct him, and now he's trying one more thing to get the Mexican government to play ball. Here and she says, what, Oh, it's a

distraction from Muller. How is this a distraction from you know what? The truth is that anything that he does, according to Democrats and Pelosi, is a distraction for Muller,

because Muller is an obsession of the left. If someone truly has a problem with rumination, if they can't give up a certain thought you bring up something else, it's inherently a waste of their time and their mental energy in their own mind, because there's something so much more important going on, and the most important thing of all right now to Democrats is what's the most effective method of destroying Trump? And I notice how I don't just

say defeat Nancy Pelosi. Let this slip. There was a meeting of Democrat rats last night here in the Swamp, and according to multiple sources there this was in Politico. Pelosi said that she doesn't want him to be just impeached. She wants him to go to prison. Ah quote, I don't want to see him peach. I want to see him in prison. WHOA, Nancy, isn't that interesting? So what she would like to see is the president lose the

next election so that than they can prosecute him. Now, I would note this is why some of you who have been telling me and others all along that Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted. I note you have a point here. Our good faith is never reciprocated. On the other side, they don't say, oh, well, Hillary Clinton broke the law very obviously. She was falsely and unfairly bailed out by

none other than sanctimoni is Jim Comi himself. And now we could the president could assign the dj to look at that, and a prosecutor could make a different decision and bring charges. The statute of limitations on the stuff that Hillary did has not run yet. It is not over. Why hasn't trumped on that, Well, I would say to you, well, because we don't want to set a precedent of using the law to go after political opponents. It's better for the country. It's it's a judgment call here. It's better

for the country to move past this. Well, it's better for the country if we set a precedent. It's better for the country if the other side would also play by the same rules. I don't know that we can think that they would. Here you have the third most powerful member of the United States government, third in line for the presidency, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, saying she wants President Trump to go to prison. And this is what I want to hone in on for a second,

go to prison for what? For obstruction of justice? That at best, at best is a stretch of a case, not an open and shotcase, not a clear case. It is. It is a stretch and then some. And let me tell you, as you all know, there are a lot of ways to interpret the law. There are a ton of statutes out there, you know, there are people that will tell you that every single one of us in breaking the law every day, we don't even think about it. Now, there's that book Three Felonies a Day and talks about

all the different statutes that you probably violate. You don't even realize you're violating. And that's why the position of the old secret police chief in the KGB Lavanti barrier. You show me the man, I'll show you the crime. That's so unsettling to us, because we do know in this country, if you have people with power and they want to go after after you, there are enough laws and enough people who will interpret laws as they see

fit that really no one is safe. And the interpretations of the obstruction snatute that you see from those who are saying Donald Trump violated the law, they show exactly that mentality. We got to get him somehow. Remember Coomey, Mueller. These are guys who have come up with very sketchy

prosecutorial theories in the past. James Comey tried to bring charges against Martha Stewart that because she said she was innocent, she was propping up the stock price of her company, and because she owned stock in that company, her protestation of innocence was in itself a form of fraud. He was basically laughed out of the quartroom. What that is is James come a moron. No, but he figured, you know, let's go ahead hunting. Martha Stewart is famous and I

want to take it out. That's right, you can look that one up. I mean, comes guys scary. He's a scary individual. No, Pelosi is scary. These people that they have no they have no sense of shame in what they do. There's no honor or dignity that they are trying to protect. They are willing to go to the mat to do anything. I mean, Nancy Pelosi is saying she wants Trump locked up. This shows the most senior ranks of the Democratic Party don't just want to defeat Trump.

They want to destroy him and those around him. They are obsessed with making an example out of him. It's not merely enough that they can end the Trumpian nightmare, you see. They want to make sure it never comes back. No one else will ever try to do to them what Trump has done, which is to hold up the mirror to them and laugh in their smug faces. Osi saying that she wants the president to go to prison

after he's defeated. Is by the way, people who would point out, oh but Buck, what about lock her up with Hillary? Lock her up? Yeah, that was a political chant during the election. Has President Trump directed his Department of Justice to reopen the email investigation? No he has not. Could he, yes he could. One prosecutor and or one FBI director declining to bring charges does not erase the charges. He does not have the power of pardon, so it

is not the same thing. And Hillary did break the law clearly, repeatedly, obviously, and she was held to be above the law by the medium, by the Democratic Party. So lock her up wasn't a question of being mean to Hillary. It was pointing out the truth that we all knew was there, which is that she was never going to be locked up. She was never going to be charged because she was at Clinton, she was a Democrat,

and she was part of the machine. But on the other's side, when the Democrats are threatening to lock up Republicans, they actually do it. Scooter Libby wasn't someone that they were just chanting lock him up. They were sending him to prison for a few years for nothing, trying to get Karl Rove trying to get Cheney, Patrick Fitzgerald, a little slimy prosecutor doing whatever he could to just get a scalp justify his Special Council maneuvering. These Democrats, these leftists,

they think that they are righteous. They think they're doing a good thing when they lock somebody up, when they send them away, I mean Pelosi and Schumer. You know, they would cheer openly if somehow, say the Attorney General of the State of New York could lock up Ivanka or Donald Trump Junior. They're so spiteful, and this is what the president is up against every day. It's why when they complain about his tweets and always so mean, and why don't you see how mean he is? Ar

I say he's mean. Trump isn't the one who's locking up democrats. Trump hasn't sicked his Department of Justice on his political opponents or the irs like Obama on his political opponents. And then just Leo let people get their lives crossed, their life savings wiped out, their reputations ruined. You know, every time someone wants to tell me, you know, I don't like Trump's tweets, or I don't like his STYLEA say, why don't you tell that to General Flynn.

Where's the prominent Democrat? Where is the former member of the Obama administration who's in prison? And don't tell me, Oh, they didn't break the law, Yes they did. Hillary Clinton wants the secretary of State. She egregiously broke the law, and some of her top advisors, Cheryl Mills and others, they were assisting her in this process, destroying evidence, lying to investigators. All this was happening, no consequences. Why is

it only our side suffers consequences in these matters? This is all just Trump's arrangement syndrome playing out in real time. We see the Trump's arrangement syndrome they have in the way that they treat, for example, Paul Maniford solitary confinement at Rikers Island. I mean, these Democrats are going after Trump in bad faith because he is a threat to their power and also their sense of their own self worth. So whatever they can do to ruin him is justified.

Pelosi's part of that camp too, and she is rough. I don't know how these Democrats sleep at night. I really mean that. I don't know how they can live with themselves. I would never I would never be comfortable going after a Democrats family, Democrat politicians family members to send some kind of message that you know, we're gonna get you, We're going to score one for our team

by locking up your son or your daughter or your wife. Oh, you mean like what the Democrat state attorney general did in Virginia or I'm sorry, the federal prosecutor, not the state attorney general did in Virginia to Bob McDonald gonna throw his wife in the slammer for prosecutions, I mean

for a corruption. She wasn't even an elected official. Look at all the efforts to take down Republicans with just expansive and preposterous interpretations of criminal law, and just the last five six years, there's nothing you see like this from the other side. They went after Scott Walker with John doean Wisconsin, total headhunting, totally politicized, Chris Christie with Bridgegate. Bob McDonald did some shady stuff, but he shouldn't have

been facing eleven years in federal prison. They went after him in Virginia. They went after Rick Perry for firing somebody that he was allowed to fire in the state of Texas. They name after name Republican after Republican Ted Stevens. Federal prosecutors stacked the deck against him, hit exculpatory evidence, totally violated the most basic tenets of being an officer

of the court, being a lawyer. Where's the equivalent on the other side, where are the Democrats that have been unfairly targeted through through legal means that were and they were innocent. It just doesn't happen. They fight dirty. I don't know what else to say. They fight dirty, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, they fight with no sense of honor whatsoever. And that's why I'm glad that Pelosi will come out and say these things that she wants the President to get sent

to prison. Really she thinks that he should be in a cell for what because he got frustrated with the witch hunt against him and told his senior White House counsel, who he's supposed to be able to count on for confidentiality. By the way, they could have asserted executive privilege. They could have fought all this stuff. You know, he go fire that guy, he should have fired. I mean, the whole special counsel was a It was a hit job.

And he knew it, and now they want to take him down and send him to prison because he didn't like the hit job they created against him. We are fighting against a very dark, very evil side, my friends. They don't come at us, they don't come at Trump and those around him with any sense of dignity. They don't care what they have to do to win, and

unfortunately that means that we are wartime conservatives here. We are fighting against a political ideology that doesn't just seek to be in power, but seeks the destruction of those that stand the way of their power. Pelosi is just an example of it. So be prepared for this election is going to get ugly. It's going to get nasty. In the early stages, they're focused on each other. They don't really know what to do with this Democrat primary.

But as soon as they have a real candidate to rally behind, you will see a ferocity from the left that shocking even to those of us who have been around Antifa at their worst and heard the chance from various left wing protest groups cheering about how we need socialist revolution in this country, or yelling about racist murdering cops, or it's going to be worse than all of that.

That's a prediction I'm very confident in. Unfortunately for this country, got much more show coming your way, teams, stay with me. Mexico is going to either change its behavior about these caravans that are coming through Mexican territory. But it's a long way. It's a very long way from Honduras or Guatemala or El Salvador through Mexico to the US Mexico border.

This is not easy. It's not an easy thing, and there's a lot of opportunity for the Mexican government along the way to say sorry, you're not able to just transit our territory. Mexico has sovereignty, they have laws. Now, why hasn't the Mexican government done more up to this point to stop the inflow of illegals into this country across their border from Central America. Remember, these are not Mexicans were coming across because if they were, we could

quickly deport them. Because they come from Central America, they fall under different rules, and that's how they're exploiting the system. That's how we have now one hundred and thirty three thousand in the last month, a stunning number looking like it will be well over well over a million for the year. One million, seventy two thousand illegals. Wait a second, yeah, one million sevent two thousand illegals this year is the

twenty nineteen prediction. According to the Washington Examiner here, this year has seen six hundred and seventy six thousand, three hundred and fifteen apprehensions, which is up about one hundred percent over the same time from last year. Democrats were saying a couple of months ago, this isn't a crisis. Is a manufactured crisis? You remember that, a manufactured crisis. And now what do you see from all the major

news organizations. Are they reporting on the frauds, the fakes, the abuses of the system, people who are skipping our immigration lines, making a mockery of our immigration laws. Now, of course not. They report on how the beds are not soft enough, the pillows are not fluffy enough, the food is not tasty enough, that we are giving to illegals who are pouring into this country clearly and openly so that they can not have to go through our

immigration process. They are not asylum seekers. They are fraudulently using our asylum process. That's not the same thing. Just wanting to be in America does not qualify you for asylum. If they were just seeking safety from gang violence in Honduras, they might want to stay in a very large Spanish speaking nation to ourself called Mexico. But they don't want to stop in Mexico. They make a very long trek through Mexico to here. Why is that people want to

be in America. You want to get access to all the benefits courtesy of the taxpayer. He's holding the line for America, Buck Sexton. His back. Democrats Congress has been a disaster. They won't change, They won't do anything. They want free immigration, immigration to flour into our country. They don't care who it is, they don't care what kind of a record they have. It doesn't make any difference. They're not going to be changing anything. We go to them,

we say, let's fix the immigration laws. They just wanted to do badly. The worst it does, the happier they are. So that's the way it is that I guess that's the way it'll be till after the election. It's a disgrace because frankly, we could jop this problem so easy. If the Democrats in Congress. We're willing to make some changes, but they're not. And that's the way it is. They want to just write it out. They want to have a real bad time. They don't care about crime, they

don't care about drugs pouring into our country. They couldn't care less. It's all politics and travicious business. Is anything that Trump said there untrue? Nope, everything he said it is true. It's pretty obvious at this point, isn't it. There's nothing about the Trump position when it comes to Democrats in the border that is hard to grasp. They don't want this to be fixed. They do not believe it should be fixed because it's a problem that benefits them.

What do they offer up as solutions? All you hear from them is criticism. What would be the bill that they would pass? What enforcement mechanism? That's always the place you have to go, the two areas of the immigration debate where you can always corner smarmie lives for those of you who want to know how you can always get them into a place they don't want to be.

If you're going to debate this stuff, which I can't say, I necessarily recommend you do, because there's a lot of the virtue signaling crazy left running around these days on immigration issues. But there are two places where you can usually get the one is on what is bad about illegal immigration? Ask a liberal what is bad about illegal immigration? And they might say, well, you know, people should obey the law, but that's not I mean, what's the downside

of it? Because if it's just people should obey the law, but there's no downside, if nothing bad happens as a result of illegal immigration, then why not just change the law and say that it's not illegal anymore? Right? What is bad about stealing? Buck? Well, you know, if I get a package send to me and somebody comes onto my porch and steals my package, I don't have the

thing that I paid for, and that's a problem for me. Right, it's not what is bad about stealing is not that the government says don't steal, So when people do it, they're not going along with the government says. There's a real reason for it. There's a loss, a downside, someone suffers,

something bad happens. So try to get a lib to explain to you what the downside of a legal immigration is, because they will reject the following that it is a violation of our sovereignty, That it is a cost when it comes to schools, emergency rooms, it's a burden on the taxpayer. Uh, That there are crime, there's crime associated with legal immigration. And even they say, well it's lesser, it's less crime than you'd see in the native population.

Well it should be zero, because they shouldn't be here in the first place. But all all the different things that you or I would point to you as to why legal immigration is a problematic thing, not to an illegal thing, they reject. So trying to get them to explain what's bad about illegal immigration, you'll notice that they can't do it because they've been so conditioned. They've been so brainwashed into thinking that, you know, they're doing the

jobs we won't do. They work harder than Americans, they're better than Americans. Illegal immigrants are doesn't matter what you know, what race, creed, or color you are. As an American. Illegal immigrants the Democrats believe, or at least say, are better than you are based on what who knows. They just say it a lot, and people who will repeat that feel like they're they're the good guys. They're doing

the right thing. They're signaling their virtue to everybody else or a nation of immigrants, the dumbest thing that people will say on this issue, but they say it all the time. So that's one area where you can get them. And the other is, okay, where do we have enforcement? And I know that this is one that I bring up on the show, but it's really worth digging into because if there's no downside for the illegal immigrant, right, the first question is essentially what's the downside to America

of illegal immigration? Liberals can't answer it. They don't have answers. They because they don't believe there's a downside. But also, how can we stop illegal immigration if there's no punishment for illegal immigrants, if there's no enforcement that we have the political will to follow through on, why would this

problem ever go away? How could anyone who's got a fourth grade reading level from Honduras prefer staying in Honduras and poverty to come into the United States where, at a minimum, the social programs and the welfare programs are going to be a lot better. Oh but buck, they can't access those, that's a lie, especially if they have a kid here. They can access them, but they can join a household with there are benefits that you know will be able to sustain them. If they go to

an emergency room, they have to be treated. They're a whole bunch of you know, they if they if they call police, I mean they're they're they're using this same roads that you're paying for. I mean, they're benefiting from being here. It's why people want to be here. They're not living in the shadows. By the way, They're getting jobs, they're buying things, they're living in houses. That this whole living in the shadows. There's another lie, another thing that

the media propped up for a long time. You'd have you'd have illegal immigrants who are doing interviews on the steps of the Congress and saying, you know, oh, I'm living in the shadows, and I'm sick of living the shadows. Like I'm pretty sure you're standing in the sunshine on the building, on the steps of the building where the laws are made that you're violating. Well, but I'm living in the shadows. Well that's a choice that has been made,

isn't it. But what enforcement mechanism is acceptable? What is a lot? What are we allowed to do. We can't arrest, we can't separate families, we can't arrest and detain, we can't find them, we're not allowed to rapidly deport them. We can't just send them back to their country of boards. We have to put them through a very long process, and they know that by the end of the process it's unlikely they'll be sent home anyway. If they don't like the way it's going, they can just not show

up for their hearing through the asylum process. So you ask them those two question and then you'll know. Okay, so you want Democrats on the left one open borders, but don't have the courage, the honesty, the decency to say so in public. They'd rather play this game of oh, no, no, we we just we just want to, you know, see how things go. We're not really we're not really sure that we want open borders. I'm quite sure. I'm quite

sure that they do. And we would be the only major industrialized country in the world, and really the only country in the world that I can think of, that has this problem that does not think that it's allowed to control who comes in and who does not. What do Democrats offer as a rebuttal to all of this, What do they say that is supposed to give us some sense of where they would go if they were in power. It's it's astonishing. And they blamed Trump for

all this too, and I want to go here. You had a jenk Uger from the Young Turks, the kind of digital COMI outfit online and Kenlee mckinanny and old buddy of mine who's the RNC spokes when they were on CNN with bro Cuomo, who was like, Yo, jenk do you even have you been taking your metrics? Yo? Using that wake gana. But they were on last night and they had an exchange. Producer Mike pulled it, please play it. Under Obama, we had less undocumented immigrants than

we do under Trump. Trump said, Oh, I'm gonna get tough, and I'm such a tough guy, and I'm gonna separate the families. I'm gonna put the kids in this place and the appearance of the moms and the other place. I'm so tough. And what do we have? We have more undocumented immigrants, not less. It's say a thirteen year record.

He's a miserable failure on this issue. So if they voted for him thinking he was gonna stop undocumented immigrants, he didn't even do that, and now we have an absolute disaster on our heads because he doesn't know how to address the core issue. Why are they coming in the first place. You just think if you punch him in the face, but they're gonna go away? Oh wow, you mean CNN wasn't giving equal time there when that guy's just blabbering on about this A few things. This

we need to call. I hear this from leftists all the time now that we need to deal with the root cause of why they want to come here. This is crazy. We're gonna fix every country that's in a crappy situation, that's poor, that has lawlessness, that has rampant crime all over the world, or else it's our fault if they all want to come here. I mean, which is it? Is America? According to the left two involved

in other countries business or not involved enough. It seems to shift not based on anything other than whatever's going to get them the most applause from the you know, Brooklyn and Santa Monica set whatever, whatever, We'll get them, the opportunity to bash Trump. That's what it will be. At any point in time. We're gonna We're gonna fix Central America. Central America has been in rough shape for decades.

But this is just a This is an unsious response, an unserious answer, because they can answer the other questions I ask you, which is who, what enforcement should we have, how should we stop people from coming here? And why is illegal immigration bad? No answers to this. None. They don't have any answers to this, and that's why they come up with this complete distraction of, Oh, we need to fix the reasons that people want to come here

in those other countries. That's never going to happen. America is going to be a better deal than staying in El Salvador for the next fifty years. I assure you probably the next five hundred. Okay, America is America. A lot of people want to come here. There's a there's a complicated immigration process that people have to go through to come here and live here legally, but not if you're from Central America. But on the point, the other aspect of that little debate, he aud there with Kaylee

and the commie immigration as Trump's fault. Now, let's unpack this for a moment. It was the Obama administration that first dealt with the issue of the unaccompanied minor surge, and there was no effort to deal with this. The word started to get out more and more the laws that these migrants are exploiting. They've been exploiting for years.

It's just the tidal wave was building, and now we're finally at the point where, because they have taken away the president's ability as commander in chief to make determinations about immigration policy, his hands are tied. Now, should the Congress have acted when we had a majority of the House this in it? Yeah, I think that's fair. Should there have been greater focus on this, absolutely? But judges prevent the Trump administration from doing it. Remember there was

going to be a DOCTA deal. There was going to be a deal with greater border security in new measures. But then they would they would extend out DOCCA, and then a judge came along and said, well, you know, you don't get to make that deal, President Trump, because you cannot undo what Obama, as commander in chief, chose to do. How is that supposed to work? How does one president have power the next president does not. Oh, this is what you get when you're dealing in liberal world.

This is what you get when you're dealing with the left. There are no principles. There's just different ways of allocating and distributing power to their side. The border is a mess, it's a disaster. It would be less of a disaster perhaps if Democrats had not been lying, I mean lying for six months now about caravans, all the caravans. I remember when the nation the game was, caravans will never make it to the southern border, they'll break up. It's

it's fearmongering. Remember going into the midterm election. Oh, the caravans were fearmongering. Now the caravans are showing up like every day. But it was it was the left was saying, was Fox News right wing fearmongering with the caravans. No, now it's you know, one hundred and fifty thousand or so a month that are showing up. It wasn't a crisis as recently as March, maybe April, they're saying, Oh, it's not really a crisis. Oh no, it's a crisis.

Facilities are overwhelmed. Processing can't can't take place the way it needs to. People are saying that, I mean, it might not have been a good idea to risk sending terrorist operatives across our southern border, you know, five or even ten years ago, because there's at least a law enforcement presence there, they might get caught. But now it's they're so overwhelmed they can't check. They don't know who's coming in, they don't know what's going on. All you'd

have you could sneak anybody into this country. I mean, you could sneak been lauding himself into America right now if all you did was give the cartels some cash and say, hey, I want my own I want to go make a run for it. I don't want to turn myself in. But the next time you hand in a foul or you know, you push the cartels, push a thousand people to surrender at one place along the border, and all of the border patrol agents have to get

taken off the line to deal with that. Make sure no one's sick, make sure no one's dehydrated, make sure make sure they bring them pillows and blankets and everything fast enough, because they're now being treated like the Red Cross. You could a mile or two from that crossing run anybody you want to cross the border. There's no way border patrol is going to be able to catch them or stop them. They just don't have the resources so effectively.

In bits and pieces. The border is wide open. You just have to pay the cartels the money they want. Any anybody would be able to sneak in the country right now. And what the Democrats are offer on this, You know Trump? Trump is evil, he's orange, He's bad. No solutions, know nothing. Oh, put more judges of the border. Make it more inviting for people to come here illegally, make it easier for them to abuse our system. That's the answer the Democrats give us. And then they say

Trump has done a terrible job. They won't help, They won't fix it. Judges tie Trump's hands. Democrats demogot the issue, won't give him the money for the wall, won't give him money for border security, won't pass laws to fix the loopholes. And it's Trump's fault. It must be nice to be so delusional. I don't know. Maybe being a Democrat would be fun. You don't have to live in reality.

I'll be right back. Days before Boston's Pride parade fills the city streets celebrating the LGBTQ community, another parade proposal is causing an uproar on social media. Not hateful people. We want to have a super happy fun time. John Hugo is the president of a group calling itself Super Happy Fun America. His goal to create a straight Pride parade.

We want people to be a weird yea that there are not only one side to things, and there little a lot of people who are uncomfortable with some of the things that are going on in our country and they're afraid to speak up. A straight Pride parade in Boston. Producer Mike, what is this just? Are they just trolling? Are these guys serious? It sounds serious. When I first saw the headline and watch the video, I thought they were trolling. But he sounds serious and he does have

some serious So his proposition is too. He wants to launch this and then he's leaving it open to it. He's like, listen, we want to do this because people need to be represented. And then next year we'd like to join the Gay Pride Parade and have it on the same day. So sound sincere hmm. I don't know if the Straight Pride Parade will be able to successfully be incorporated into the Gay Pride. That's a stretched and I told you during a break they tried to rope.

But so on their on their pamphlet or whatever they're using as their literature for this, they use the picture of Brad Pitt, and I just saw a little while ago Brad Pitt was like sent out a notice to them, like get my face off this. Don't want to be part of any part of this. That's such a random Brad Pitt. I mean, I suppose, I suppose you's a handsome fellow, but okay, whatever, Um, yeah, when's this? When's the Pride Parade? And well Europe in New York? I'm

in DC. Yeah, No, the ars actually was just I think this last weekend. It was very recent, and I think Boston's is coming up very soon, and they file they want to get this for August. Look, I used to I used to live right next to the street where the Pride Parade with walk in New York. And all I can tell you is, with the exception of like military or veterans parades, I'm just anti parade in general. I don't think they're fun. I think they're super loud.

I think they leave a huge mess. Yeah yeah, that's right, get off my lawn. I just don't like any parades basically, so, I hope you have enjoyed your trip to London. Mister President Boris didn't have time for you. All of London turned out unanimously to basically dropped their drawers and moon you. Plus on all prominent buildings in London, things designed to

embarrass or upset you were prominently projected display. I think it's very difficult with Trump, though, because he is an egomaniac and he sees all this as being about him. What's wrong with him? Where to begin? I mean, but I'm serious, I mean narcissistic personality disorder. But he clearly appears less capable of sustaining his own thoughts for longer than four to six seconds. I mean, I mean it

used to be he couldn't follow anyone else's conversation. Now he doesn't seem to be able to follow his own train of thought. There you go. That's the MSNBC version of Trump's visit to the UK. For the rest of us, we focus on if you want the pomp and circumstance of meeting with the royal family, there you could focus on Trump at least trying to advance the early stages of a trade deal with the UK specific trade deal,

Trump encouraging them that Brexit will be okay. Isn't it so funny of all these Americans who don't even really know anything about Brexit, who talks so much about democracy, that's all we have to defend our democracy in this country. Trump undermines our democracy. They love this concept of democracy and two people vote in a way they don't like, and then they don't believe in democracy so much anymore.

The Brexit vote was a plebiscite. The people came out, they made a determination with the future of the country. And yet the establishment, the bureaucracy, perhaps you didn't say, its own version of the deep state in the UK and the left are just trying to say, well, no, we're not going to do that. It's not going to happen. And Trump encouraging them to suggest that, you know, this is all It's all gonna be fine, You're gonna this

will work out for you. It's going to be great for you, is evidence of him being a bad guy. Why doesn't he get credit for supporting the will of the British people. Why isn't that something that is a headline that you'll ever see. Donald Trump supports Britain's desire for sovereignty. Donald Trump supports Britain's desire to have control over its own destiny as a nation. That's what I see happening here. But that's certainly not with these Lipsey

and Rachel Maddow started that out. I think she might have been broken by Trump too. I don't know that she is really going to be able to come back from this. She was a Russian collusion delusionist extraordinaire, really almost in a class by herself, and created this ratings juggernaut, at least by MSNBC standards, with the implicit promise to her audience that they would eventually be able to cover the destruction of the Trump presidency as brought about by

the Muller investigation. That was the underlying theme. That was what they That was what people that watched that show assumed they were going to get. Instead, what they got was, Oh, no, that's not going to happen at all. Turns out that's not the case. That's not the direction any of this is going in. How do you keep watching Rachel Maddow night after night if you're somebody in that audience who saw all of that. Never mind the whole well, you know, we have a page of Trump's tax return. I mean,

that was the whole thing. Was so embarrassing. But you know, MSNBC. I often I rip on CNN because I know CNN better because I spent a couple of years as a contributor there. But MSNBC is really no better. And the amount of hatred they have for this president, I mean the degree of the hatred, the depth of it. I've been speaking about how you know, Pelosi and the Democrats really want to see punishment against Trump and those around him. It's not enough to defeat them on the battle they

want them. They want them to lose. You know, if this was a boxing match, they don't just want to win by technical knockout. They want to see if they can do brain damage. I mean, they want to see if they can really hurt somebody. And that's the way they view their role in fighting against Trump and Trump is m and the media is right alongside for it. They cheer this stuff on. I mean the fact that Maniford is in solitary confinement at Riker's Island, a notorious

and frightening prison in New York City. Maniforts and solitary confinement. This is an old man who didn't report all of his income. Folks, come on solitary confinement. He's not an axe murderer. Where are all the you know, the the civil libertarians out there, Where all the leftists who are always saying, oh, we've got mass incarceration and a police state and this and then the other thing. Where are

all they do? They have no principles whatsoever. I look, I give credit where it's due, even when it's due to bad people, were people who are foolish or people who are mistaken. And you know, AOC at least is willing to say what the heck is going on with Maniford and solitary confinement. You know, solitary confinement is is

rough stuff. You know. I'm doing a Tucker Carlson's show tonight, and I found it so interesting, not just the monologue that he did last night on economic nationalism in the United States, but that he was willing to say, speaking of giving credit where it's due, he was willing to say that Elizabeth Warren's economic ideas should be taken seriously and a really sensible in many ways. Now, I don't think he meant all of them, and he did point out that she's an extremist on a whole bunch of

other intersectional, voke social justice left movements. But when she talks about how corporations are in this country mercenary in a way that we never could have imagined even forty or fifty years ago, corporations will, well, one, they will incorporate if they can, They'll offshore, they'll offshore their funds, I'll try to evade taxes. They'll send jobs overseas. They'll do all of these things, and yet they do get benefit from being American companies. It depends if they incorporate

here or not. That obviously changes this. But they can go to American courts for redress. They benefit from the American university system in their hiring processes. They bet you know, there's you know, and you start to see that we can create this story to this story about how if you just set up things the way that conservatives have been saying for a long time, everything will be fine. But we're nowhere near that. Right. This is kind of the it's it's a version of the what do we

do with China? Oh, we can't have tariffs because we're about free trade. Okay, well we don't have free trade with China. So now what you know, what do we do about the gutting of a lot of these especially rural communities, rust belt states, when they're losing jobs and they're losing social cohesion And oh, it's not it's not our problem. They you just move the companies that abandon them to set up elsewhere, set up overseas that only have a loyalty to their stock, to their stockholders. Does

that that's something we can at least talk about. Oh no, Buck, of course, we're free market. We're free market. Well you look at a lot of the free marketeer talk and you start to see that their free market when it benefits them. But they like regulation, they like government help and intervention sometimes as well. The Tuckers at least opening

up that conversation. And I'll be on with Tucker tonight at eight oh five Eastern if you get a chance to catch it or catch it on the replay and team I'll be back with you in just a moment. It disproportionately attacks women who don't have the private means to afford an abortion, and it's sort of like saying, you know, I support the troops, but I don't want to pay for pay them. That's that's the analogy here.

Seth Malton apparently not very bright. I know he's got a bunch of fancy schools in his resume, and he served the military. That doesn't mean that he's smart on political issues. And to compare taxpayer funding for abortion to I support the troops, but I won't pay them. Wow, a stunning thing for him to say, A studying the

grotesque framing of the issue. But let's understand that, as I have told you, you cannot be a Democrat in good standing and not be fully onboard with endorsed by in bed with Planned Parenthood, the single constituency on the left that you have no chance of achieving higher office if you offend, if you are considered even to be insufficiently devoted to supporting. It's not enough merely to be okay with them. You have to you have to celebrate

Planned Parenthood on the left. You have to suggest that Planned Parenthood is one of the great American organizations saving women's lives, taking a lot of babies lives, but saving women's lives day in and day out, unnecessary and irreplaceable women's liberation tool. One of the more appalling inversions of reality I've ever seen. Now, why is this getting so much attention today? Well, not just because of Moulton, but also your favorite Democrat contender right now. I don't know

if he's your favorite or not. I'm just saying that for some reason, Joe Biden. Joe Biden had said initially that he did not he did not support the repeal of the High Amendment, and now he's had to walk that back. So all of a sudden, you have an opportunity for Democrats to jump jump in front of him and say that they are more devoted to the planned parenthood abortion on demand agenda, They're more devoted to the

hard left in this country than Joe Biden is. Now there's some who are going to dig back into his past and see that Joe Biden. You know they're gonna keep calling it evolution. I mean, Joe Biden is just a classic politician. He's a slimy, demagoguery obsessed politician. He says whatever he has to say to please the most people whenever he says it. He has no moral core, He has no real beliefs other than a pursuit of Bidenism,

but Biden had said that he supported the High Amendment. Now, just by way of quick review, the High Amendment says that you cannot have taxpayer funded abortion, you cannot have taxper found the abortion. And then Biden said that he thought that the guy was asking that the Mexico City Rule, the so called Mexico City Rule, which says that US foreign aid to foreign countries cannot be the places that

provide cannot be the organizations that provide abortion services. So Biden says he wants to Now, now they've tried to clean this up a little bit for him. He says that he wants to end the Mexico City Rule, but still backs the High Amendment. But he said, quote that would change if avenues for women to access their protected rights under Roe v. Wade are closed. You know, there's so much about Roe v. Wade that is that is wrong. There's so much about it that you can look at

it and really feel a sense of revulsion. First just the regime of abortion that it brought into it brought into being. And and but if I can and this is something you know, I talked about that on a regular basis, and the tens of millions of babies that have been aborted. I mean, it's horrifying. It's a stain on the moral conscience, on the soul really of this country that will take who knows how to finally come

to grips with. But just put aside, if we can, for the purpose of our discussion, the moral dimension of Roe v. Wade for a second, and just look at the legal component of it. People say things like a women's a woman's right to choose under the Constitution. This is a stupid thing to say for anybody who understands the English language and the rule of law for what it is. I know that Roe v. Wade created this right, but we all know that this is a fiction. I mean,

this is this is made up. There is no right to abortion the Constitution. There never was a right to abortion the Constitution. This is purely judicial fiat. And that you have so many people that run around speaking about row as though it isn't judicial fiat just goes to show you that they're willing to support any amount of violence to the law, never mind violence to unborn babies, any amount of violence to the law, to the concept of the law as having meaning not just being able

to be changed on a whim. They can do that with anything. If they can do this with row, they can do it with whatever they want. There is no constitution, there is no rule of law. It's just whatever the powers that be determined for you at any point in time.

Reminds me in a sense of the Soviet constitution. Soviet Constitution and a lot of great stuff, a lot of protections, a lot of rights wasn't real, wasn't enforced, was no separation or powers in the government, were no mechanisms for government accountability, didn't have the civil society, didn't have the the the kind of people at the time who could have even supported a true democracy. I mean, so this

is this is what we're faced with now. Though people that will say things like, you know, the the constitutional right to an abortion, as if Jefferson and Madison and the founders were like, you know, what we really have to do. We have to write in here that there's going to be a protection of ending pregnancies and killing babies inside the womb. We really want to make sure that that's written with make sure that we get that out there with these quill pens on this parchment. I

don't think so. I don't think so. But Biden is you're going to see this time and again someone who they're going to have to keep as they're gonna say that he evolved in his past, and they're gonna say and you're gonna see him evolving in the present as well. The media is completely backing this guy. Not all the media,

but the mainstream media. They think he's their guy. And you know what, as much as they're all saying it's because he's a return to the Obama era, I also think that for a lot of the mainstream media, Biden is the next best thing to a Hillary presidency for them.

He represents the old Democrat power establishment. And if you're CNN or you're any of the left wing outlets, newspapers, the legacy outlets, not the new ones they like Bernie Sanders, but the legacy outlets, the New York Times, Washington Post, they're all they're all all in for Biden because they view right now Biden is the most likely choice that could be Trump. I think that they're wrong in that,

but that's where they are. As a result of this, though, there'll be a lot of rewriting and excusing of everything that Biden does, they will come up just which is they've always done with them. By the way, you know, they've created this character of Joe Biden, a kind of like lovable goofy uncle, which I don't think is reflect even if it is reflective of reality. They wouldn't do this for anybody else. They wouldn't say, oh, sure, he

didn't mean that to be offensive. He was just saying here, here, here's a perfect example. Here's all listen Camarata at CNN. I don't know what this strikes me as someone who talks like this. She's over at CNN and she's a very serious broadcast play Clappa, don't you go to the experts, to the expert's website and lift some of their terminology and put it into your play like no, you you you you cite where you get your information from otherwise citations.

That's what got them into trouble in the first place. I hear you. I mean, don't you just go to the experts? Come on, I kind of sound like Alison Camarada. Guys, let's be honest about this. Don't you go to the experts and lift their terminology? Yeah, that's called plagiarism. That's that's cute though that you don't know that as a journalist, but yeah, that's you don't just steal their words without without citing it. They're gonna do this for Joe though.

They're gonna make fools of themselves to prop this guy up um, and they're gonna find ways to seem like they are more woke and more left wing and more progressive than Biden is in terms of the other candidates.

And one of the ways to do that is to just be as extreme on the issue of abortion as possible, be out of the be out of step with the eighty percent of Americans who opposed their trimester abortion, for example, and say things like, if you if you don't think the taxpayer, if you don't think that the government should be in a position to take money from its citizens under threat of force, use that money, use that money to directly pay for abortion services, and to create this

whole perception, create this narrative that this is helping minority women in particular. One of the most grim and sad statistics that I know of in this country is that in recent years in New York City, in my hometown, there have been more Black babies aboarded than born. That's horrific. Democrats should have to explain themselves on that one and not get away with talking points and nonsense rhetoric. Would it be fair to say that La has a homeless problem,

probably the worst than the country stable. Everyone's like, no one's really doing anything about it, No one cares. What do you see a lot of mental health issues? Does two blocks here? You have a whole probably thirty thousands of people that live outside just in the small area of skid Row. I see people suffering out here, you know what I mean. I don't see him get a whole lot of hell. I think the mayor makes a lot of promises that I haven't seen him do a

whole lot. You could just walk down to me block him downtown La. You could smell it. I mean, the smell is lingering all through the streets, not just so that it comes to crime. You see the drugs that are involved as well. It's a problem that you've led fester literally for years, and now it's you know, full blown pandemics and like certain you know, homeless slums. It seems like it is getting worse. No, it definitely is getting worse. I don't think Garcetti's doing his job as

a mayor of the City of Los Angeles. I definitely don't what is causing this spike in homelessness in a number of major American cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco leading the pack. No one seems to have any particularly clear answers. You would think that at a time of such low unemployment. And I know that these numbers are

all very imperfect, they're snapshots. People argue as whether they're even all that useful these days, but you would think that we would have a declining homeless population given how will things according to the various metrics we use unemployment and the stock market as an indicator of broader economic health. I'm not suggesting that everybody that's homeless has got some stock account, but this is not the time when you

would expect this to be happening. You know, there's some that are saying this is a function of housing prices being too high, but that's that's determined by the market. Over the last year, according to La Times, though officials have spent six hundred million dollars to build homes and shelters and provide services. They have housed a record number of homeless people, yet numbers released over this week's show

that homelessness is up twelve percent. Why because even as we house people, more people are becoming homeless, often for the first time. I just would like to know what exactly is causing this spike. I'd like to know what the reality is here of this surge in homelessness and how it could be dealt with. Putting rent control, which seems to be what the Los Angeles Times is pushing for here, that can't be it. Rent control creates housing scarcity.

This has happened in Oregon recently, where you just have fewer and fewer new developments going up because there is a cost to creating new housing and if that cost is not worthwhile, people will not lay out the capital as well as take the risk of those capital outlays to build new housing. So what's the point why would they do that? Rent control exists in New York City and it really just creates this privileged class of people that happen to have non market determined rent that they

have to pay every month. But for most of us, at a place like New York City, you just are paying more and more because there's grading housing scarcity because of it. So I really asked this question is why isn't anyone asking about what's causing the spike in homelessness? Why isn't anyone trying to address the root cause here or even you know, figure out what the root cause is forget about addressing it. I see no one with

any answers here. I just see, Yeah, there's a lot more homeless, a lot of drugs, a lot of needles, a lot of poop on the streets La San fran and other cities run by Democrats. Not a good look, not a good sign. Do you mind if he testifies? Still before you said he didn't care. He made such a fool out of himself the last time. She because what people don't report is the letter he had to do to straighten out his testimony, because his testimony is wrong.

But Nancy Pelosi equal her nervous Nancy, Nancy Pelosi doesn't talk about it. Nancy Pelosi's a disaster. Okay, she's a disaster, and let her do what she wants. You know what, I think they're in big trouble. He's right about Muller testifying. This is obvious if Democrats believe that Muller testifying would be an opportunity to do nothing but bash Trump, to undermine this presidency. They would have he would have already testified, he'd have his own show on CNN by now. But

they know they are savvy enough, they're smart enough. It hurts me to say that, but they're smart enough, some of them to know that Muller under cross examination would be a problem. Muller getting asked questions about why he would decide to not decide. There have been investigations like this before of presidents and they came to conclusions about who engage in criminal conduct, including the president the United States. Ken Starr said that Bill Clinton broke the law, mimitted crimes.

Muller decided not to decide, And as I've said, this was a strategic decision. It was because he did not want that to be adjudicated. Did not want the specific crime alleged to be something that people could fight back against. Keep it amorphous, keep it open, so that every time you have a lib go on TV to say, well, we must impeach the president because of all the different crimes, you say, well, okay, which one, Oh, there are so many I can't even count. Give me one crime you

want to prosecute obstruction? Okay, which obstruction? Obstruction? How Ah? The one they tend to go for is Don McGann, White House counsel. Trump says, go fire Muller. He's within his constitutional rights to fire Muller. Point one, he is not obstructing an investigation that was wrongfully conceived and not actually finding any crimes that he engaged in to begin with. That's two. And he didn't even drucked because he never

got the guy fired. That's three. Boom boom boom. Nobody could really think that that would stand up in any court. But if Mueller said that's what it was, then we could hone in on it. So instead he left it open. This was a tactic. This was a decision made to give the Democrats the leeway to make this just a political fight. It's not really illegal fight anymore. It's not about criminality. It's about the narrative. Just like all along

it was about the narrative. With Russia collusion, Did they ever think they were really going to find criminal conduct that involved the president conspiring with the Russian? Said? No, of course not. They must have known Muller certainly knew very early on that there would be no finding of

collusion when all was saddened one. He must have must have known that absolutely, But sure enough he extended investigation so that he could ensnare people in Trump's for a bit and create this impeachment roadmap, which is exactly what we have seen. But Muller tested he must testify. Any member of Congress who does not say that he thinks Mueller or she He or she that Mueller should testify

is a hack. Of course he should. They've threatened to arrest Attorney General bar if he does not, if he does not show up just for the show trial they want to do against the Attorney general. Right, They've They've threatened to arrest him. But Mueller gets to just drop the mic and walk out on his terms. I don't think so. I hope Trump is correct when he says that the Democrats are in big trouble. But they tend

to defy. They tend to defy the logic of normal people. Somehow, the Democrats can count upon millions and millions of supporters who will vote for them, no matter how crazy their idea is, number how insane the processes that they support. But I do think there are some concerns over the Steel docier that the Libs aren't going to be able to just sweep aside. Member of Christopher Steele is going to be is going to be testifying for the Congress, and this is not going to look good for their side.

If here's how I think this plays out. Steel testifies, We get him to explain just how much he was an Essentially, he was just a political operative. He was just a paid hack. He's a hired gun to write nasty stuff about the president for political reasons, and then he takes that to the FBI, and like a bunch of idiots, the FBI just believes him he's a foreign intelligence operative. They don't think that they should have considered whether his intent was to influence as well as to inform.

They just took this stuff and said, yeah, that seems good. You talked to a bunch of Russia, dude, they told you this, Let's work up a FISA warrant based on it. The drsh The drsh. He certainly knows this is a problem. He knows this doesn't look good for their sideplates in raw intelligence like that should never be the basis for a FISA warrant that intrudes on the rights of American citizens privacy. We need to have more than that, and we need to have complete candor from anybody who signs

a FISA warrant. They have to tell the court, Look, we have this, We're not sure how valid it is. They clearly intended to mislead the court into thinking they had a credible source that was enough to justify intruding on the privacy of an American citizen. Does anyone believe that in good faith they tried to tell the fies A court what the holes were in their analysis that in good faith they tried to explain that they did not have a full picture of what was true and

what was not not. They slid it through. They got it through. They knew they could, and they did. Just like how for a long time, and very few people even knew this. Law enforcement used to be able to, with a lesser standard than a true court court order, get emails that were older than ninety days. Those were considered less protected. They could have just gotten your emails with essentially a written investigated request. I forget what the specifics were, but they didn't have to go to a court.

They didn't have to get a subpoena for your emails. They just pull them if if they're older than ninety days. That has since been changed, but that was ridiculous. Some law enforcement people liked it. The fires are courts at rubber Stamp, you bring to the fires a court. The idea is that the Fiser court is for stopping spies and stopping terrorists. Who doesn't want to stop spies and terrorists?

Before this, nobody had ever really thought, or at least we the public did not know if it had happened, that anyone would use the eyes a court as a tool to spy on political opposition in this country. That is what happened. Now we have to figure out how egregious that abuse was, who was involved in it. I still want to know about the unmasking, by the way, I have not forgotten about that. There's more even than just the abuse of FISA that we should be focused

on here. There's also the unmasking requests that were unprecedented in number and frequency from those folks. And we keep seeing a very we keep seeing the repeat of this. We keep seeing this pattern from Democrats and their little deep state allies that, oh, we can't release the information. I thought this was all about transparency. The White House was then able to say, oh, waited on national security, we can't tell you anything about what our campaign did

and who we talked to about Russia. That that wasn't going to fly. That wasn't acceptable. So why now are we told that we should just sit back and whatever fairy tale the Left feels like sharing with us, whatever storyline they want to trot out about how the Fiser chord operator or did not operate properly, we're supposed to move past that and believe them, this is going to look very bad, folks. The information that has blacked out

of the Fiser requests that we've seen so far. If that were compelling, we would already know it would have leaked. Somebody would have said, hey, they had some really they had some real derague stuff and derogatory stuff in there. Instead, what I think it most likely has to do it is just sources that they tried to pad into the Fiser request and then in a desperate attempt to make sure that it didn't look like it was really just all about the Steel dossier, to get those FISS up

and operational. They redacted that information. Oh, those are really important sources. I don't think anybody believes that those sources are going to be under threat or in jeopardy. But they'll pretend anything to keep it secret, anything to keep it out of the public view. Because once we have all the facts, then what do the libs do. Well,

they'll probably just you know, when they steal dossier. It's finally clear that Christopher Steele was an anti Trump hack who abused well, who got the FBI to abuse defies a process to try to change the outcome of a presidential election. That's the real foreign interference in the election.

No one ever has an answer for me. If it is a big problem for foreigners to involve themselves in our election, how is Christopher Steele being paid by the DNC to run oppo research through our intelligence community and to rely on Russian sources who may very well have been engaged in disinformation and handing that to Steele. How is that not for interference in our election. I've never gotten an explanation for that. People just go a Trump Orange, Trump bad. They never can tell me. I think it's

because there's no real answer for it. It is foreign interference in our election. There's no way around it. It's too obvious, it's too clear. Even CNN's Phil Mud recognizes that the Steele dossier. I mean, he's one of the kind of dead enders over there at CNN that has believed along that Russia collusion was this huge, big deal that the Trump was in trouble and Trump is basically a trader. Here's CNN, one of CNN's collusion dead enders, on what the Steel dossier defense is going to sound like.

Play clip nine. This is significant, This will be a car wreck. Look, this isn't about the Muller investigation per se. It's about the origins of the investigation and how the Department of Justice and Attorney General Barris talked about this repeatedly, his suspicions about how the Department of Justice originated the investigation. Obviously, one of the documents was Christopher Steele, former intelligence operative, the information he uncovered about Donald Trump from Russian operatives.

Let me give you how this game ends. Christopher Steele shows up in front of the Partment of Justice and I'm guessing doesn't have terrific answers for the quality of the information in that Steel Dosier. I'm telling you, well, if this is not gonna go well, I will tell you he's corrected. Is not going to go well for the Dems, for the left, for the hashtag resistance. It is not. It's not gonna look good for them. They've

got some big problems to deal with here. So I'm looking forward to this testimony happening because when they find out that that this guy was more or less that christoer Steel was probably just speaking to some Russians that were friends of friends or people that he'd just heard something from someone about rumors. He'd collected rumors into a document rumor some of which have already been proven to be untrue. And he handed rumors that he could have pulled off the Internet for all we know to the

FBI and the dj and the Obama appointee imbecile. At those institutions, we're like, yeah, this seems this seems credible. Yeah, Donald Trump, Golden showers, Russian prostitutes videotaped, Sure, that seems legit. Again, this is like with so many things with Democrats. I don't know if they're just deeply cynical or really stupid, but those are the options that were left with here.

Who could have believed this thing in Dacier, this long standing campaign that the Russians knew that there would be this just bolt of lightning president presidential campaign, that Donald Trump was gonna wage and that it was going to be serious, and they just happen to put their chips on the right. This is insane. This makes no sense whatsoever, And people who believe it are either delusional or not very smart. Now he's got to find out which one it is. I think we'll know a lot more. We

hear from Steel. They are gathered here on Freedom's Altar, on these shores, on these bluffs, on this day, seventy five years ago, ten thousand men show their blood, and thousands sacrifice their lives for their brothers, for their countries, and for the survival of liberty. Today we remember those who fell, and we honor all who fought right here

in Normandy. They won back this ground for civilization. To more than one hundred and seventy veterans of the Second World War who join us today, you are among the very greatest Americans who will ever live. You are the pride of our nation, You are the glory of our republic, and We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. President Trump giving an excellent speech today on the seventy five D Day commemoration the celebration of Heroes from our

Commander in Chief. You know today I just the closest thing that I can get to a visual representation would happened that day. I think it's true for many of us, those of us who were not there, and fewer and

fewer of those who are there are left. As we know, is the opening sequence from saving Private Ryan, which is one of the most powerful sequences of warfare I think in any movie ever made, and it is a you watch it now, I've seen it dozens of times, but you watch it back again and try to really think about what that would have been like at that time, the stakes of having the fate of the free world on the shoulders of those men, that is what was

going on there. Who knows what the world would have looked like, what the future would have been had it not been guided by the initial beach had established. And then the victory of the Americans and Allied forces over the Nazis, which was possible because of what happened there

at D Day. Now, President Trump, I think today was in his in his most presidential mode, because he does have a tremendous respect for it, and I think a real, real deep love for the United States military, and the words today and the way that he delivered them are indicative of that feeling. And more to the point, I think that he showed the kind of respect and an honor that those men who gave their lives and who fought that day deserve. This now seventy five years later,

play clip two. They were husbands who said goodbye to their young brides and took their duty as their fate. They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons and daughters because they had a job to do, and with God as their witness, they were going to get it done. They came wave after wave, without question, without hesitation, and without complaint. More powerful than the strength of American

arms was the strength of American hearts. These men ran through the fires of hell, moved by a force no weapon could destroy, the fierce patriotism of a free, proud, and sovereign people. I've often thought that of all the wars to have fought in, it would be it would be a tremendous honor to have thought of the Second

World War. It would have been perhaps more hellish than any other ward have fought in the First World War, just based on the style of trench warfare, and but to have been a part of that Normandy landing which

could have been a complete disaster. I think back to Winston Churchill's effort to open up a second front at Gallipoli, and from Churchill's perspective, at least dithering of the first Lord of or rather the lords of the Admiralty of the people that were making the calls for the British Navy, and what was supposed to open up a second front and stop the wholesale slaughter on the Western Front in the First World War turned into a complete debacle, one

that would haunt Churchill for many many years to come, and well into his prime ministership. During the Second World War. You look at what happened on d Day and now we know how this ends, we know what we know that the good guys won. But that day, if you had been in a Higgins boat, you had perhaps gotten sea sick bullets flying over your head. You're not even able to fire back that in those initials, and then all approach you have artillery rounds, landing, barbed wire or

another obstacles placed in front of you. Men, some of whom you become very close to on your right, on your left, receiving horrible wounds, dying screaming out for you to help them, you knowing that perhaps your best way to help them is to get to those Nazi gun positions and take them out, hoping that one round that's all it takes, doesn't hit you in a lethal spot, and the last thing you'll ever feel, last thing you'll

ever see, is that beach of Normandy. It's a remarkable day, and it really does bring together I think the American people in remembrance of what was one of our most courageous moments as a nation. I think that President Trump again did a service to the memories of those who fought and died with what he said, play seventeen men who sit behind me, and to the boys who rest in the field before me, your example will never ever

grow old. The blood that they spilled, the tears that they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that they made did not just win a battle. It did not just win a war. Those who fought here won a future for our nation. They won the survival of our civilization, and they showed us the way to love, cherish, and defend our way of life for many centuries to come. Today, as we stand together upon this sacred earth, we pledged

that our nation will forever be strong and united. We will forever be together, Our people will forever be bold, our hearts will forever be loyal, and our children and their children will forever and always be free. May God bless our great veterans. May God bless our allies, May God bless the heroes of d Day. And may God bless America. Thank you, Thank you. Then hard to feel anything but a swelling of pride in your chest. Is an American or any of our allives here in President

Trump speech today. But there is an alternative, alternative narrative out there that I wanted to address. I won't sully the words of the President just then with getting into it right now, but stay with me, because on the other side of this break you are hearing now a revisionist history that it was really the Soviets who defeated the Nazis. Let's pull that apart when we return Soviet's kick Nazi as in World War Two, Europeans go all out.

Russians celebrate like nobody else, huge parades, fireworks, the whole nine yards. Americans don't really go all that crazy, which is well crazy considering that we think we are the ultimate Nazi ass kickers. Sure we helped and sort of a bunch of other countries like France and the UK, but I wouldn't go as far as to say we won wessure as how think we did, though the USSR did most of the dirty work. But you might not know that because it's barely mentioned in any textbooks. So

forget what you learned in school. Let's be you here. This was getting a lot of attention today how Russia saved the world from Nazism, which really how the Soviet Union saved the world from Nazis. And that's the the title of it, and that's the story that a lot of leftists that you're hearing from now. There there's some degree of look, there's some degree of truth in the in this storyline that that the Soviets, I mean, there's

if you're talking about just brute force and numbers of casualties. Yes, it is the case that the Soviet Union took on the brunt of the Nazi war machine. That is that is very real, that is true, um, But it is not the case that there was any moral clarity shown by the by the Soviets in this process. It is not that we were on a similar moral ground to the Soviets when this all happened. Because a part of the history that you cannot skip over is the Molotov

Ribbon trop packed back in nineteen thirty nine. Wherefore, a period of what was it now almost two years uh the Nazis and the Soviet Union cut up Europe into sphears of influence, essentially divided up the carcass of Europe between them, agreed not to fight each other. And it was only because the Nazis turned on the USSR that then there was this massive Eastern front that opened up Nazi germanly. Germany decided on its own on the twenty second of June nineteen forty one to go after the

Soviets with Operation Barbarossa. Now Stalin people said that Stalin knew that there was a possibility of invasion, but it seemed so counter counterintuitive and so counterproductive that you can imagine the Soviets just refused to believe that the Germans would repeat the mistake of Napoleon and try a land war in Russia heading into winter. You know, it's you're not going to finish off Russia in a period of a few months. Wasn't going to happen. The Soviet Union.

So the storyline that the that the Soviets were the ones that really really defeated the Nazis, it is true that they were very helpful in this process. And when you when you look at and this is what I do think that kids need to be taught in school. You look at the numbers in terms of troops on the Eastern Front versus the Western Front, it is not even close. I mean the Eastern Front, the Soviets and the Nazis fighting each other was orders of magnitude larger

than which you had on the Western Front. That is, that is a fact, But it is not because the Soviets had any moral or ethical problem to speak of with the Nazis. And in fact, the complete and utter disregard for life shown by the Soviets was in many ways similar to the depravity of the Nazis state. I mean the Soviets. If you have not seen it. I do recommend Enemy at the Gates, which is a movie

about out Stalingrad. Some of you are probably also telling me that I that the one or you would recommend hardcore history by Dan Carlin on Stalingrad, and I would agree with that. I mean, the Battle of Stalingrad is a is an incredible story and did involve millions of soldiers and really was the turning point in the war

against against the Nazis. Now, no one, no one can really do the counterfactuals about what would have happened if the if the Nazis had not turned on the Soviets, you know, would would the American war machine eventually have overcome with with our allies overcome whatever the Nazis had

Quite possible. I know a lot of you who are amateur World War two historians are probably shouting out, well, but this and that, and it's one of the most fascinating periods in history because it really was truly a battle for civilization. It was a battle for human liberty and dignity and and heasic freedom, the basic freedom of all mankind. The Soviets were not on the right side

of that, because they were pro freedom. The only reason the Soviets had to fight the Nazis was because the Nazis wanted to fight the Soviets, because the the viciousness and meglomania of the Third Reich could not abide a power like the Soviet Union on their borders. They just absolutely refused to think that there was a future in

which they could live peaceably alongside the Soviets. So you know, when you when you hear people now talking about that, you know, and especially to say it today, Look, there's a degree of trolling here. There are people that just want to upset those of us who are taking the day to commemorate the incredible missions on D Day and what was done on you know, Juno and Gold and Omaha,

these other these other beaches Utah. We look at this and think about how it was in many ways not just a landing on the beach that brought about the end of the Second World War, but it was really in some ways those first steps on that beach, where was the beginning of a progression of American global leadership, a kind of pox Americana that yes, would not go

without disruption. And it's not like we didn't have the Soviet Union squaring off against us for decades, but we were not truly the global power until we took the reins in the Second World War and beat fascism and defeated the fascists. In this time, when there's this rise of socialism in America, there's also this revisionism that creeps up a little bit about how, well, if we're going to talk about D Day, we should really talk about how the Soviet Union, which is still the ultimate example

of socialism and practice. I know libs love to say, oh, what about Denmark? You know, they don't want to say what about Venezuela? What about Denmark? And I just say to that, Okay, what about the squaring off of the United States and the Soviet Union in the twentieth century one one way of life embracing capitalism and one being the embodiment of the workers revolution and socialism, And how did that all work out? Are we really supposed to

skip past that? Ah? Yes? And we're also supposed to skip past the atrocities of the Soviet Union and how the Soviets in the final months of the Second World War engaged in all kinds of terrible war crimes and what would now be considered human rights of uses. I think the Soviets would have thought that was a quaint term and then locked hundreds of millions of people in

the prison of Stalin's lunacy. Hundreds of millions of people had to suffer behind the the Iron curtain because of what happened, well because of the end of the Second World War, which was great that we defeated fascism and Nazi Germany. But without America there there would have been no end to that long dark night. It was America

that provided some respite to the world. If if the Soviets, let's just say, had had on their own been able to defeat the Nazis and taken all of Europe, the world would be a very different place now, and I'm not sure would be much better than it would have been if the Nazis had been in charge. Remember, the Soviets liquidated many, many millions of their own people, starved their own people. There's a horrific anti semitism in the Soviet Union Stalin's purges. Nobody was really safe from them.

On a pure level of comparing morality, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were really not far apart at all.

But we now have some leftists in this country and certainly in Europe and in Russia who will want to say that it was some kind of honorable decision for the Soviets to fight against the Nazis, when the reality is the Soviets were buddies with the Nazis, and the Nazis just turned on their allies and forced and forced a fight that would not have occurred, forced us to be forced rather the Nazis, or though the Soviets to fight back, when they would have been quite happy, quite

happy sitting back and allowing the Nazi war machine to batter Britain into submission. And you know, there were U boats off the coast of the United States. It's not like the Nazis weren't looking to take us down too. A lot of stuff to keep in mind here we talk about the Soviet Union team, they were not the good guys. Even if they beat the bad guys, We'll be right back. I finished my last episode of the HBO miniseries Chernobyl last night. I had one left, and

I have to tell you the last episode. It finishes very strongly. It finishes as well as any show could have, and it's fascinating. It's incredible. It's a masterpiece. It's a masterpiece as a as a mini series, and what it shows you is in such a clear The writing is excellent, the way that they take you through it. It's one of these times when they have an opportunity to teach you the basics of a nuclear reactor. How many of

us really know how a nuclear reactor works? I think very few, and they really walk you through some parts, but they do it in a way that it's not condescending or cheesy at all. But you learn something as you're watching this, and more than anything else, you learn what it would have been like to live in a totalitarian state where you're loyalty to the state as defined by this state on a win right. The state determines what is loyalty whenever it wants and however it wants.

That is the single mode important aspect of your existence in the Soviet Union. You have no rights, you have no worth. You are only an object, a possession of the state. Even though the Soviet state claimed to represent all of the people, it didn't represent any individual. It just represented the people as a general term. But as much as there's a lot that you take from the story of Chernobyl and the Soviet Union, that is of

course a refutation of Stadism and shows that socialism. Yeah there, Look, they're nuclear reactors. Were crappier than they would have been because they were cheap, and they're cheap because they didn't have the money to spend. They know the money to

spend because they're socialists. But this producer Craig Mazin who got into it with my friend dwanon Gino on Twitter when he said it was a failure of humans whose loyalty to a broken governing party overruled their sense of decency in rationality, and he said to Dan, you're the old man with the cane. You just worship a different man's portrait. That's just that's that's utterly ridiculous. But here's

the problem. Even even if a liberal knows the history, even if a lib knows what happened to the Silviet Union, knows what happened at the end the Chernobyl incident, they

can still take the wrong lessons from it. And you see this time and again whenever libs are confronted with the realities of socialism, when they're confronted with what it really has meant for a dictatorship of the proletariat, so to speak, which is a fiction, but a fiction used to oppress people onto the boot heel of a massive government apparatus in places like the Soviet Union, like North Korea, China, China.

When they do this, though, when they look back at the history, they don't take the proper lessons from it. So even when we can get them to focus on something where they should think, hold on, why was a silver Union so failed? What was it about the Soviet Union that suppressed and broke the spirit of so many millions of people, and that enslaved its own citizens to a system only really concerned with perpetuating itself and avoiding embarrassment.

The Soviet system was plagued by an insecurity that can only come from the deep seated knowledge that it was illegitimate. It was the illegitimacy of the Soviet system that made them so insecure in it in the first place. But even the producer of a show about the Soviet Union and its failings takes the wrong lessons. It's not about Trump, It's not about our side. It wasn't a failure of conservatism. It was a failure of the left. Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a Team Buck party

don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Time for roll call Facebook dot com slashbox Sexton on that roll call. Goodness, very exciting tomorrow. Someone told me today that I seem very at peace with the world. That may be true because tomorrow is my last day at the Hill. So yeah, last day at the hill, at least on Hill TV. I may be doing some future projects, some writing for them,

stuff like that. We shall see. But as of next week, I will go back to being a melter of snowflakes, a crusher of libs, an annihilator of commies, and no longer be under any professional obligation to take a a polite, a polite stance in my analysis day to day, which I'm really I'm really looking forward to. It's been. It's gonna be Buck Unleased starting Monday. Everybody, well, it always is on radio, so it's not gonna It's not like

this show changes. But anywhere else you see me, I don't have to I don't have to worry about it. I do appreciate the folks I worked with at the Hill. My co host, Crystal Ball is a is a lovely human being, very very kind and uh we got along very well. But it's time for it's time for Buck to let the let the right wing rip, Let it go, Let that little right wing bird fly, Let it fly, Buck, let it fly? Wayne, Hey, Wayne, I got it? Wait? No, hey, wait right? Not Hey Wayne, I got that wrong again,

didn't I that's the Nirvana song. It's still even though I had said it wrong in the air before, I just realized, I think it is it. No, it is, Hey, Wayne, I got a new complaint. Or hey, wait, I got a new complaint. I keep getting it wrong, Wayne says. New York State legislature does it again, bands the d clawing of cats because it is a cruel, heartless procedure conclusion to do such butchery on a creature, do it in the womb or at the time of birth. New

York should have no problem with pre natal clawing. You know, I guess New York is. I don't know much about d clawing cats. I'm not a cat person, so I can't speak to what that is like or what goes on with that. But yeah, I don't know I see your point though, about how they're not concerned about fetus rights, but they are concerned about cat Paul rights. She reminds me there was a I think it was a Stephen King move, a short story made into a movie Cats

Paul a long time ago. They used to They used to play it on this channel in New York w pi X, which ran all these old eighties movie deep into the nineties. It was very scary. I remember watching as a kid being very scared. There's a little like dwarf that sucks the breath out of children or something. It was not cool. Brian, right, it's Buck very excited for new beginnings for you with your departure from Rising.

While I could not catch the show all the time, I really enjoyed your interviews with poignant questions with people you both agree with and ones you are diametrically opposed to. You fulfilled your contract and did a great job keeping it civil with many uncivil people. If they didn't before, the leftists certainly now recognize you as a force to be recognized with, and he made some great contacts and

relationships with powerful people. Now the gloves are back off, and Team Buck will certainly appreciate having a renewed and refreshed Buck who is not subject to working four am to nine pm, excited for your new projects. Hope you're getting out of DC and are able to get home to NYC and close to family for the summer. Being a swamp creature in the summer can be tiring. All the best, my friend, Shields high Brian, Well, Brian, you might get the best Facebook Note of the Day award,

my friend. Thank you so much for that. I really do appreciate it. I like your perspective on this. I think that's true. I've I did get to I did get to interview a lot of libs and deal with a lot of libs that never would have come on a straight up conservative show. So that was an interesting experience. And I really got a particular window into the lib mind in dealing with libs day out and day out on set. So it was an experience for sure. But I'm just I'm I gotta be all Buck all the time.

I gotta be one percent, pure, unadulterated Buck, and that's what I am on radio, and now that's what it's going to be just twenty four seven. There will be no the Buck will never stop. Oh yeah, that should come back, Max Rights, Hey Buck, I'm in Boston. I didn't get to hear Roll Call last night because the station replaced your last hour with some fluffy podcast. Man's that's that's annoying. Sorry, yeah, I gotta yeah, it happens.

I can't do anything about that, Sean writes, party on Buck, Dems are wanting to give themselves yet another pay raise to the tune of forty five hundred dollars. When are we going to give the power of congressional pay raises to the states that elected them and stop this insanity? Shouldn't this be under the review and approval of those responsible for putting them into office? Well, Sean, I see what you're saying, and I'm feeling your flow on this one,

my friend. But we got bigger We got bigger fish to fry than a pay raise for Democrats in the Congress. You know that's what they're gonna do, just like they exempted themselves from true Obamacare when that first came out. Kristen, Hey Buck, I love your radio show and really enjoyed watching you on Rising. Oh wow, Horizon fan, they exist now that you've decided to leave. Maybe you can approach Fox Nation and get a show there or anything to

get you more exposure. I'm all four. Thank you so much, Kristen. I can tell you that there is something in the works that should be signed soon that will be additional way for you to experience the Freedom Hunt, and a good one and a cool one, and I think a lot of you will be psyched about it. We have this summer, we are hitting the afterburner and we're going to do some really cool stuff. And this is not a like, oh, I'm going to get to the History

Show like one day. I will, probably when I'm retired. But this is happening, happening. This is already in the final contract phase. Radio show is going to stay, of course, but it's going to be in addition to the radio show, there will be well, I can say this, there will be a video component, a professional, legit video video component of this show, and a platform upon which any of you can vary easily without any issues. Check out the video side of this thing. So that's going to be

fan fantastic, my friends. I'm excited about it. When I have more details, I will tell you about them. Timothy Ryan Shield's high Buck. Regarding your comments on the Royal family, both Prince William and Harry have served in the military. Harry served multiple tours in Afghanistan. Okay, that's very good for them, but I don't know what that has to

do about the Royal family. Per Se, Soldier, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you, the hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere in march.

With you, in company with our brave allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi chranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. This is a quote Timothy sent me for the anniversary of D Day, which of course is today. John Shields High real news fan. Well, John,

that means you are original Saturday Squad. If you want to up your egg making game, you have to learn how to crack the egg one handed directly in the skillet. When I was younger, I worked at a bakery would have to use ten pounds of eggs. For a recipe, you have to use both hands and egg in each I still use the one hand method, but only do one egg at a time. Also add some fresh avocado and salsa. Then if you'd like some shredded cheese. This is my post swim meal came Bear lives all right, John,

thanks for the egg tit. I appreciate it, my friend. I haven't been making eggs for myself as much lately, so I gotta work on it. Nadine Buck listen to podcasts here at work, and I'm a bit behind hearing more about you going buck wild than getting into things that allow your talents to shine. So very excited for you and looking forward to what you have coming for the rest of us. Long time listener, and very much appreciate your insight, wisdom beyond your years, and ability to

laugh at yourself. Hope you'll come back to us in New York, Nadine, very very likely, and thank you so much for reaching out to me here and listening to me on podcast. And we're going to really push the podcast and get that going even bigger. Brock writes, the podcast has American now from three years ago. FYI, well, Brock, tell me where that is, because that should not be the case if they're saying American now on the podcast,

because that's not the name of the show. It hasn't been the name of the show in a long time. Let's see here. Ken writes, Hey, Buck, now that your guy Jeff Sessions is out, what is your assessment of him, even though he's one of the first to get on the Trump train see a boy scout? Or is he providing cover for Muller when he recused himself? You know, Ken, Now, I think the Jeff Sessions is a good guy, and I just think that he wasn't I think he's an

honorable guy and a loyal guy. I think that he wasn't prepared for the political street fight that he entered by being such a right in the center of the Trump administrations Maelstrom with the Democrats assaulting them from all sides. So I just think that Jeff was in a tough spot. I disagree with his decision to recuse himself, but I can I know why he made that decision. He thought it was the ethical thing. I do not think Jeff Sessions is somebody who was intentionally selling out. I just

think that he, you know, he thought that. He's kind of like Tirian Lanister from Game of Thrones toward the final seasons when he wants to give people the benefit of the doubt and hopes that they're honorable and finds out that they're not. You know, that's kind of the Jeff sessions that we had and we needed early season Game of Thrones, Tirian where he's a cynical little soob and understands that the other side fights dirty and if you want to stay alive, you better fight dirty too.

You know, that's the mentality we needed. Let's see here, Kevin right, it's hey buck. I'm sure we have a lot of thoughts about the Frenchian third Way, but one of the critical points that I think too many people meant is that it is based on a straw man of David French. The polite and non confrontational conservative squish does exist, but it is not David French. David has sued more universities over speech codes than anyone else and

has never wavered him being pro life. We can and debate how to be assertive, confident, and a conservative movement going forward, but skewing this fictional David French is completely destructive and we'll leave a more divided and weaker right. I don't believe moving forward requires recriminations of our own side, the broad American right, and this certainly agrees goes for both anti Frenchians and never Trumpers. Well, Kevin, I don't, I think you would have to agree. I am not

somebody who parodies or unfairly pillories David French. I've had him on this show many times. I've always shown all due respect to David and think that he is a good guy and a smart guy. I have no problem with David whatsoever. As a per I disagree with some of his approach, and I think that he has gotten he got the Russia collusion thing. I think that he's gotten that very very wrong, and that's been frustrating. But that's a far cry from He's not on our team

and he's not somebody that I respect. So just let me start with that. I don't I'm not somebody who sits here. I don't call him, you know, a French Republican or something. I mean, I think that he's tried very hard to be a voice for the movement. I think that he's largely succeeded. That's said, I think that sarab Amari has a point, and I maybe we need to get into this a bit more, perhaps tomorrow on

the Freestyle Friday Show. But I appreciate you writing in and thank you for your astute observations of the situation. All right, team, that's gonna be it for today in the Hut. Looking forward to talking you tomorrow. Shields High