New Rules For Whistle Blower Coup

up in the Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence mag no mistake, American. You're a great American. Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, welcome to the Buck sex to show everybody. Great to have you here with me on this fantastic Monday. I hope it's fantastic. I have a feeling that there will be some very very nasty political back and forth going on, that's for sure. That's

not a surprise. You have this fight over the whistleblower now extending into territory that I think is it couldn't be any more obvious that we are in an entirely partisan fight here. It has really nothing to do with the law. If anything, it's the Democrats undermining the rule of law and deciding that rules don't really matter when

power is at stake. And if Trump is the one who currently has power, anything you have to do to push him aside, anything you have to do to make sure he is no longer going to be president, is on its face, automatically justified. But there was one piece that hit over the weekend from the Federalist, And I've got to tell you, the Federalist has been doing some excellent work on this recently, and it had to do with the Inspector General report the whistle blower. And here's

what we know it is. It is now the case. It is now known that, as my friend Shawn Davis here writes, the Intel community secretly gutted the requirement of first hand knowledge when it comes to a whistleblower complaint. This is why last week I started to say that this was a hearsay complaint, which would also explain why

there were so many different factual errors in it. Right, the person didn't really hear the conversation, heard about a conversation that someone else heard about, or perhaps was on the call directly. We don't know, but it was not firsthand information. And this is why this little tidbit. For those that laugh, who think that the notion of a deep state is some kind of a joke, they would need to explain to me why this would have happened

in this way. Calling all the coincidence theorists out there not conspiracy theorists, because the conspiracy seems quite clear to me. Here's what Sean writes at the Federalist dot com. Between May twenty eighteen and August twenty nineteen, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct firsthand knowledge

of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct firsthand knowledge the alleged wrongdoing that

they are reporting. The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump's July twenty fifth phone call with the Ukrainian President and the complaint addressed to Congress or made public, eliminates the first hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge

of underlying evidence and only heard about wrongdoing from others. Really, does that even want to venture that that's just happenstance? How often do you think in recent years they have amended the form for whistleblowers? How often do you think in recent years they've changed for the purposes of the intelligence community, inspector general what classifies as a whistleblower. I'm willing to guess this is a rare occurrence. I'm willing to bet I'm willing to tell you that it is

a rare occurrence. So then we have to ask the question why, now, why did it happen in this way? Well, it's quite obvious, isn't it. There are people inside the federal bureaucracy. And we know this. We know this from Comey and struck in Page and Brennan and Clapper and McCabe and Yates. Remember Sally Yates refused to do her job as acting Attorney General while they were waiting to get a real Attorney General of Trump's choosing in the

role obstruct and resist. This is a rallying cry that we have seen from some of the top elements of the federal bureaucracy, and eventually we have to come to grips with the possibility that our bureaucratic overlords really do think that they and not the people we vote for, hold power under the constitution, that they would subvert the very system that they claim to be protecting. Did you see anything like this during the eight years of the

Obama administration? If I asked you for a single a solitary, senior level national security official who broke regulation and even broke law, as we see with Annie McCabe, the former FBI director, in order to do something damaging to President Obama,

do you think you could think of one? Oh? No. The only thing that perhaps comes close would be the comments of some of the senior officers around General Stan McCrystal during a time of war, by the way, when McCrystal was a very highly regarded theater commander and a rolling Stone journo recklessly and just shamelessly decided to print what was really just idle side chatter and gossip about how McCrystal thought that or that Obama didn't really know

anything about the military and didn't really know anything about national security. By the way, fact check he didn't, especially at that time. But that was considered a swipe, a slap at the commander in chief, and the crystal was relieved of duty. But there was no effort to subvert. There was there was no one coming forward leaking highly

sensitive stuff lying to inspector generals. And in this case, he is we see now changing the rules so that somebody could be weaponized as a quote whistleblower, all in order to embarrass this president. I go back to the Federalist here by Sean Davis. The internal properties of the newly revised Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form which the Intelligence Community Inspector General requires to be submitted of the under

the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act show. The document was uploaded on September twenty four, twenty nineteen, just days before the anti Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The complain alleges that Donald Trump broke the law, etc. Etc.

Previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and D and I until recently provided to potential whistle blowers, declared that any complaint must contain only firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing, and that complaints provide only hearsay, rumor or gossip would be rejected. Anyone want to take a guess

at whether that's a coincidence. Oh, they just happened to change this, because if the bureaucracy had internal hurdles to the weaponization of this whistleblower complaint against Trump, well that's a big problem, isn't it. The reason they went this route instead of just leaking to the press is that they like to create this narrative of, Oh, we're respecting the process. This is coming from within. Oh this is an expert, the New York Times claims on Ukraine, a

highly trained intelligence professional of some kind. Right, they're doing this is the Ford playbook, but instead of for a Supreme Court confirmation for a so called whistleblower complaint against the president of the United States. The circumstance here is obvious and it is shameful. We should look at this and understand exactly what has happened here. Democrats really were banking on using the Mulla Report as the blueprint for

Trump's impeachment. The problem with that is normal people look at it and say, if they can't even tell us what the offense is, If they can't even say the president broke the law here, but we can't charge the president,

how upset are we really supposed to be? And by the way, if they made that claim about the president breaking any specific law in the Mulla Report, they would have opened themselves up to the repudiation of sane or legal minds coming around and saying, ah, that's not even close to, never mind being provable, but even being chargeable. Luck with that. So instead they left it vague and open ended. Weissman, who really wrote the Muller Report, not Muller,

tried to hand it off to Congress. Congress dithered. Why did Congress dither for months after the Muller Report Because they were waiting to see what the public perception of this would be and how much their little lackeys in the media would be able to drum up and create this sense that, oh gosh, there needs to be impeachment of Trump to hold them accountable. Wasn't working. So they found this this whistleblower. My friends had help, had help

writing this, drafting, this strategizing around this. I'm sure Adam Schiff was involved in those conversations, and who knows how many high powered anti Trump left wing lawyers in the swamp in DC were also a part of it. They've been lying to you already. You know that the media has said things about this phone call that were not true, and they do not correct them. The media also pretends

with it's stupefying to see this. The stupidity that they project is stupefying in and of itself, that fifty thousand dollars a month for Hunter Biden while his dad is pointment on Ukraine policy that anyone who thinks that this is not just shady, it's one hundred percent shady, but cause for real investigation is crazy. No, no, no, I'm sorry. They don't get to set up endless investigations of anyone they want, of Trump and anyone around him, and shut

down any investigation of anyone they don't want. They have weaponized the law enforcement process for politics. That's been one of their primary avenues of obstructing and attacking Trump and those around him. Now that Trump says, you know what, I'm the commander in chief the Department of Justice works for me, and there's a completely legitimate predicate for looking

into Hunter Biden's actions in Ukraine. You know what the response of that is from the left, just gnashing of teeth and wailing in the streets and freaking out and screaming about treason in the betrayal of our democracy. Here's a new rule we should institute on the buck sex and show. Anytime you hear democrats say someone's betraying our democracy, it means they're using emotion in place of an argument and they have nothing else. It means they're weak and

they're cornered, and they're caught and they know it. But the whistleblower rules had to change, just like the rules about showing your taxes before you can be president or run for president a certain state. That has to change. The same people who change and break laws will turn around on the left, these democrats the same day and tell you how much they respect the law. They are shameless, like Adam Schiff who says this wasn't partisan, utterly without shame.

We are in a fight. This is a political war, make no mistake about it. They don't care about the process. They don't care about the Constitution. There's no willingness to engage in fair play. There's no decent conduct we can expect from the left. So strap in, put on a helmet and get ready for things to be rough. When I announced I was running, I said that I was we were in a battle for the soul of this nation.

I said, our core values are very Democracy was at risk, and I doubt whether anybody here today doubts that to be the case. Folks, we have a president who's violated his oath of office, a president has put at risk our national security. How Joe Biden, how in what way has the president done these things? You say you will notice this week the history onics will be truly epic. You will have Democrats saying things like Trump has betrayed his country, Trump has betrayed his oath of office, tent

amount to treason. Perhaps we'll say we'll hear that again, like we did from John Brennan a couple of years ago. Brennan, I should note, put it out a tweet over the weekend which was really an open call for another bureaucrat soft coup. Brennan said, more or less, Hey, just you know, there's no limits to how many whistleblowers can come forward. So he just wants people inside the bows of the bureaucracy to find information twisted in some way and try

to then take it to the Democrats in Congress. Oh, there we go, because they've already tried the leaks. They've done leaks to the press, just as General Flynn. They've done thee We'll commit felonies to stop Trump. They they've already gone that route. Not enough. Now they're trying to use the process and the whistleblower protections that they've changed in order to use them against Trump. Biden says he

has put our national security at risk. How I would like someone if if we had a real media, And we don't, because ninety percent of the news media are partisans. They are activists who are pretend to be journalists, and they do a great disservice to this country because most Americans rely on the news media to be an informed part of the electorate. Well, if the news media is willing to lie about all of these things and be difficult when we try to push them for where did

you get this idea? Why do you think that you're not biased? Oh, they get so huffy about it. It's very hard for most people who are trying to live their lives to chase down real information. If you're listening to this show, congrats you managed to chase down real information. But there are a lot of people out there who don't, and the media is incredibly dishonest. If they weren't so dishonest, they would ask someone like Joe Biden, how exactly has

President Trump put at risk our national security? That's a bold claim, that's a major thing to say. Why get oh? Perhaps also it should be noted that the javelin anti tank missiles that were discussed briefly on that phone call that zelens President Zelenski said they were about to buy more of. The Obama administration was unwilling to sell those anti tank Javelin missiles to the Ukrainians. And we are told and have been for years, that it is Trump

who is the one who is in Putin's pocket. Really, Trump will do things that Obama was scared to do, explicitly because it would upset Putin. Right, Obama wouldn't do these things because Obama was scared that it would make the Russians mad. Trump will send these missiles, sell these missiles I'll probably give them a nice discount they buy in bulk to the Ukrainians. And you'll notice the narrative about Trump is Putin's puppet. They've never gone back to

revisit that. They've never said, hold on a second, maybe we should give more thought to this. So there we have it once again, the press. It was useful for a time. What they were saying was useful, and now what they're saying isn't so. Or rather, now what they would have to say about that issue isn't useful, so they move on to something else. It is stunning that Joe Biden is the Democrats leading candidate, and it should

show you this is what we're really dealing with. They like Biden so much just because, yeah, there's a little

bit of Obama nostalgia there. But Biden is clearly not a particularly sharp guy at all, but he is palatable enough to independent voters in centrist that they think maybe the Democrats can do what they always do and fool just enough of the elector to thinking that they're not a party of left wing socialist whackos, so that they'll have a presidency for at least four years and they can start to undo all of the things that President Trump has been doing that has made your life and

my life easier and better. Every American deserves to confront their accuser. So this is a cam as far as I'm concerned. I want to know who told the whistle blower about the phone call. I want to know why they changed the rules about whistleblower is not the hearsay rule has changed just a short period of time for the complaint was fouled. The sounds like a legal document. Who help him? Who helped this guy write it or this girl write it. We're not going to try the

president of the United States based on hearsay. Every American has the right to confront dereccuser, and yet the media is working very hard to make sure that no one really finds out very much at all about this person. Look at the zeal with which, for example, that des Moines registered reporter went after the old tweets of a private citizen who had become a short term public figure merely for the purposes of raising millions of dollars for a children's hospital. Look at how a journal and He's

not alone of this. A lot of other journals would have taken the same approach because they are spiteful, nasty, and in their minds underpaid and underappreciated people. But they need to go after every fact, every bit of information when it's useful to the narrative, when it's not. All of a sudden, you see a much more lackadaisical approach from the left wing media. Who is this whistleblower? Isn't

this so interesting? Does this person really expect to go back to the bowels of the bureaucracy and just have a normal paper shuffling, bureaucratic life. Of course not. In fact, we've already seen that there are public fundraising efforts on behalf of the whistleblower and for his legal defense. I said it as soon as this happened. I stand by it. I think it is very likely that I am correct.

We'll have to see the whistleblower's identity will become publicly known, and the whistleblower at that point will be treated as a hero of the resistance, will be given at least a six figure if not seven figure book advanced, probably six figures, but and will very possibly, if not just be a regular guest on seeing an an MSNBC become a contribute one of those networks, and you might say, well, what if the person's not that interesting, not that good at TV, doesn't have that much to say to that,

I would respond, look at all the people seeing an MSNBC already have on who are part of the resistance. Boring, repetitive, uninteresting, not knowledgeable. But they serve a purpose. And one of the purposes of media. Left wing media dominance is to show people that if you are useful to the narrative overall, you will be taken care of. You will get speaking engagements and book deals and contributor contact contracts, even if you're as lame and boring as Comey's little assistant who

I see on CNN all the time. Guys never sent anything worthwhile or interesting in his life on television, but CNN's got him there. Why because he was part of Comey squad. He's doing the defense. It's propped up as a defense of the FBI. No, it's a defense of James Comey. The FBI doesn't really need defending. I mean, we know that there's some bad apples there, but no one's worried about the kidnapping investigations that the Omaha Office

of the FBI is doing these days. We wish them well and we thank them for their service to all of us. Right, it's just the bureaucrats, the deep state, swamp folks in DC and the people at the top of the bureaucracy. That's where we have the questions, and that's where the left knows they can exert power, so they will defend those people in whatever way they can. But the whistleblower is now getting the Blasi Forward treatment. I had to be reminded of this recently by my friend.

Oh gosh, I don't even know who reminded me. It was someone on Twitter that you will call Blasi Forward at one point who was just being hailed as a feminist superhero by the mainstream media, but was making some very strange claims, like, for one, she needed a second

door put on her house because during renovations. You remember this, a second door put on her house during renovation, and that that need and this is now based on something that happened thirty years ago that she barely remembers, but that need for a second door on her house came from the fear of what she said Brett Kavanaugh did to her at a high school party thirty some od

years ago. We use the word credible a lot, and the media tries to conflate credible with true, which is not the same thing credible in the parlance that they use. It is just not obviously false and malicious. Still could

be false and malicious. But as I've been trying to tell you, you walk into a police station and say, hey, my cousin's been kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel, that's a credible and if you know some of the details and you've thought about it before, and you could make a credible claim, But then it could all be a hoax and be fake. To say that it's credible to start with is not a judgment on whether it is true.

It just means it's not clearly untrue. Well, blasi Ford's claim out having a second door and that that sparked these memories I find not credible, meaning that on its face it makes no sense. Blasi Ford's other claim in the media, you will recall, defended her on this thought that this was a place where they could make a stand.

Blasi Ford claimed that she did not like to fly, and therefore there was going to be a delay and whether she could actually get to Congress and testify about this during the hearing, and people said, no, sorry, that you got to show up. Now. We're not gonna let the Democrats just run with the media for as long as they want to completely poison the well before we can even have any kind of hearing here. And we were told, oh, but she's scared of flying, some of you,

some of you will remember this. I had, honestly, it had slipped my mind until it came up recently and then I realized, oh, my gosh, that's true. They did say that. And then it came out that Blasi Ford likes to fly all over the place for fancy vacations, ski vacations, beach vacations. So she's scared of flying and can't it to Congress because of that. But she's not scared of flying when it comes to going on fancy vacations. You see. This is where if the media were honest,

they would say, oh, wow, so she's a liar. But of course they didn't do that. What did they do? They said, well, yes, of course she's This must be part of the trauma that comes from thirty years of having to live with you know, Brett Kavanaugh's groping and attempted sexual assault that she can't remember key details of. And oh, by the way, based on what the career sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed her said after she gave her testimony, it wouldn't have even been You couldn't have

even made an arrest, meaning it was not credible. Her claims were not credible enough to even affect an arrest if there were a criminal statute that would come into play. They're doing the same thing with the whistleblower. That's why I'm going through all this now. Now we're hearing the whistleblowers life is in jeopardy. That's a lie. The whistleblower's life is in jeopard in the same way that anyone who is involved in American politics in a contentious ways

life is in jeopardy. Any one of us could be a target. Any one of us are under threat at any point in time for speaking out on contentious political issues. Trust me, I know we received death threats. They always act like, oh, it's only the anti Trump people that

have to be scared. Really, it's the nastiest stuff I've ever seen, is what liberals who want to restore civility in our discourse, will write to people who defend Trump and don't believe that these deep state machinations should be allowed to go on the nastiest stuff I have ever seen to date. But they've done what they did with Lazi Ford. Oh, this person's life is under threat because

you know what that also does. It creates more time for them to figure out what the public relations campaign will be when when the whistleblower comes forward, which will happen, whistle blower is going to come forward, and then they also will use that, They use that as a buffer. They use that as a way of slowing down any effort by the news media, who are happy to out people for any number of reasons, even if it's bad for national security. We've seen this before, and we've seen

the major newspapers New York Times, Washington Post. They'll they'll name people that really are going to be put in jeopardy if what the newspapers are writing is true, and

they just don't care. But by saying that the whistleblower's life is in danger, what they do is throw a brush back pitch at anyone who wants to try to get to the truth of what has happened here, because if they preemptively before the PR campaign with Schiff and Pelosi and you know, Stephanopolis and matt Ow and Cooper and all the rest before, that can all be put in place and put in motion for maximum political impact. If somebody were to say, figure out what's going on here?

I mean, and to be honest with you're like, I'm somebody who, if I poked around, could probably figure out. There's a reasonable chance. I should say I could figure out who this is. But I'm not going to do that because I don't want to start poking around inside the IC because then we know what the Democrats would do. They'd say, oh, there's violations of law going on here. They can break the law all the time, but other people can't. It's one of the big lessons you have

to take away from this. But they're going to pretend that if anyone does find out who this is and names the person, that it's a horrible threat, that it will scare away future whistleblowers and that this person's life is in danger. Oh this just like Blasi Ford was so traumatized she needed two doors and couldn't fly lies. Both of those were lies, but they acted like they

believe them. And that's one of the more egregious things that you will see our media doing on a regular basis, And it's pretending to be short term morons for the purposes of protecting a long term political narrative. Short term morons by, for example, not understanding what is so clear to anybody who pays attention to it, which is that the reality of the Clinton Foundation is that the Clinton Foundation had its donations drop off a cliff after Hillary

lost the election of twenty sixteen. The Clinton Global Initiative had to be shut down, and the Clinton Foundation overall is just a shadow of its former self. Is that because all these donors, including international donors, stopped caring about charity? Or is it because something else was going on there

and we all knew it. Oh, but the journals, they they're so busy doing investigative reporting on whether whether or not they can find someone who will say something bad about a prominent Republican from thirty years ago that can't be proven one way or the other, that they never stopped to ask questions about what is essentially the biggest front, the biggest slush fund for access Pedala and selling that

anyone has ever seen, which is the Clinton the Clinton Foundation. Oh, but now they want to tell us that we need to play fair and that Trump is doing all these terrible things, betraying our country, betraying a zote of office. I'd like some specifics please, and you know how we might get some specifics if the whistleblower comes forward. We all understand that right now. What's happening is the whistleblower is in discussions with Adam Shift and other Democrats. They

want their hearing, they want their Aha moment. You know you can't handle the truth Trump. They want all that, and they're going to find a way to try to get us to that and everything in the meantime about oh the safe field the whistle blower, and the whistle blower needs money for the legal defense and all this straight out. They're running the same playbook all over again. This is Russia collusion plus Blasi Ford equals Ukraine phone call,

hunter Biden stuff. Your Republican colleagues say, well, the call is the call. There's nothing here rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Why they're wrong and remains to be seen because it's not just what happens in the call. As part of the sequencing of events as well, you withdraw a couple hundred million dollars worth of assistance to a country, and then a couple of days later say, by the way, can you help me with my campaign?

In other words, there's a sequencing there. What is your message to the White House in terms of cooperation? To the White House? Speak the truth, honor your oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, Speak the truth, and let us work together to have this be a unifying experience, not of dividing one for our country. Don't make this any worse than it already is. Ah, so much to work with here, folks. Speaker Pelosi as shameless as shift, just a little bit less grotesque, right, but

very shameless. I love this. Uh, use this as an opportunity to unify the country. It's like she's running the Pelosi Inquisition. Confess your crimes and then we shall punish you, but it shall be good for your soul in the afterlife. Confess your crimes. Wait, but I didn't commit crimes? How dare you? You must confess? But this actually kind of reminds me of the what is it Monty Python? Right, and didn't they the whole inquisition thing back then? But yeah,

you have to confess. That's the only thing. Resistance to the resistance is automatically considered to be evidence of wrongdoing. Right, you are guilty because you resist. They tried this with Kavanaugh too, Remember that they once they couldn't win the argument on the facts, once it was clear that Christine blasi Ford was a little crazy and probably a liar, but definitely not telling the truth, especially what she knew

she was saying or not. And once it was clear they weren't gonna win that, then they started saying, oh, because Kavanaugh was angry at the accusations, that's how we know he's guilty. And as I've said to you, any male with any honor whatsoever, I don't care what society, you know, what country, what background, whatever, any male who was accused of sexual assault that he had nothing to do with and did not do, would be in that forum in that manner would be outraged. You know I would.

I would have gone, you know, the whole next level. I would have completely lost my mind. Remember Alpaccino, instead of a woman five with a man, I was ten years ago. I'd take a flame throw out at this place. Not a very good movie, by the way, It's really just that one line that everybody remembers. I can't even remember the plot of Scent of a Woman. It just was Alpaccino yelling, which is tens Unfortunately post The Godfather, that's most of his You gotta fight for every inch,

remember every given Sunday. It's just just yelling speeches. I could actually probably go into The Devil's Advocate, which I think is an underrated movie, I will say because it has Keanu So you guys have probably picked up on this. I'm a I'm a I'm a big Keyanu Reeves fan. I just think KEIANU Reeves is great. I really do. He's apparently a very cool, low key guy. He likes to do two gun drills in his spare time. He's actually quite good at them. You can see video of

him online. He really him. And Busy and Point Break is a top ten all time buddy cop movie. But I digress. All right, So Pelosi here back to Pelosi what she's saying. She says that it will be unifying if Trump just admits his wrongdoing, which is it's so disingenuous. Oh yeah, sure, the White House is just gonna say, you're right, we betrayed the Constitution. Let's all be friends. Now. These people are rabid with anti Trump patriot we know that.

But I also like the construction here of in other words, some of you will recall that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson with that woman who uh, I can't remera she's from the BBC, as you kept saying, but so so in other words, what you're saying so so in other words, so so what you really mean is so in other words, and he kept having to say, no, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying, I'm not saying the thing

that you are pretending that I'm saying. We had Adam Shift last week read off a fake transcript, right, a fake transcript in the Congress of what the Trump phone call was, so that people could use that SoundBite and know what the talking points are on the narrative. And then he said, oh, well, it's it's a it's a far short, it's a it's a parody understood, showing us

just how not self aware Adam Shift really is. And you had Nancy Pelosi now doing a similar routine with well, you know what, what what Trump did is, in other words, a quid pro quo. No it, quid pro quo is quite clear. You ask for a thing, or you do a thing, and a thing is done for you in return. I mean, this reminds me of the whole firing of Komy. There's really no feasible way that they could have said that Komby getting fired was illegal, was illicit, because Trump

can fire Komy for any reason or no reason. The president of the United States can make decisions based on foreign policy. He could withhold aid from Zelenski if he didn't like Zelenski's tie. That is his prerogative as the president running foreign policy. He is the head of the executive branch. Libs keep creating these little fantasy stories, and they always get past one thing. What is the violation

of law? What is the violation that Trump committed? They don't say it, and you know why, because they don't have it. This guy is should not be president, period. And when you say that, folks on Fox come after you. I remember the Tony's when he got up there and cursed a lot of you. Okay, well, you know this is Kabar, so it's not an FCC violation, but it is still a Sunday morning you choose to go that we are at We are at a moment in our lives in this country where this guy is like a gangster.

He's come along and he's said things done things we say over and over again, this is terrible. We're in a terrible situation. We're in a terrible situation, and this guy just keeps going on and on and on without being stopped. MM Stelton wants to know that the audience is shocked right now that m okay, oh there you have welcome back the box section show. You got de Niro there on CNN. I'd be curious to know what is the basis for for hearing DeNiro's political opinion about anything.

This is the classic. Oh, this is a famous guy who I'd be willing to bet hasn't hasn't read a book covered a cover about anything relating to politics or the world in probably a decade, maybe several. I'm just guessing, but I think that's fair. And he's on TV going a you know, bleep him, bleep him. I can't say what he says, obviously, you know, he's a little little bit a little bit out of order. You know, Denier, You're a little bit a little bit out of order.

I mean, this guy played a gangster in some reasonably good gangster Okay, I know a lot of you gonna say the best gangster movies of all time. Fine, but it's been a long time, all right. And you know, I think that mister Jinx would be upset at his owner going on TV and drop an F bombs to talk about Trump. But here's why I think this is this is a a moment that is illuminating. This tells

us something de Niro's view. The reason he's invited on CNN to spout in Puntafica, the reason that he's on the you know, the I'm sure they probably had some movie or something they were promoting, who cares, But the reason CNNA News, ostensibly a news program, Brad Stelter with reliable sources, they bring him on because of his blank him attitude about Trump, because that's what CNN thinks about Trump. They really don't like this guy. He is a threat.

He is a rebuke to things that they find very very important, and that's just simply unacceptable to them right, So they are okay with losing their minds about how terrible he is all the time. So I just you knows stunning stuff. Do we have, um? Do we have the little little throw down with with Tapper and and Jim Jordan? Here? Yeah, here we go, um play because Jim Jordan, you know the Sunday shows, everyone gets the

in the political world. They get there, they're talking points and they're they're marching orders than by watching these Sunday shows. Let's let's hear what Jim Jordan had to speaking of CNN, what he had to put up with at CNN plate too. According to the Acting Director of National Intelligence, the transcript is in alignment with the whistleblower complaint. We all see it. We all see it's a conversation. Zelinsky wants military aid and President Trump asks him to look into the bidens.

I can't believe that that's okay with you. He wants swamp in his country like the president is doing here? That what he said? What Tapper, who's the biggest, the biggest fraud in many ways in mainstream journalism, because he's mister oh, I just call call balls and strikes down the middle. He's a Democrat, operative and not a nice guy. Okay, So add all those things together is somebody who I have nothing good to say about. And notice how he jumps to is we'll talking military aid and and then

this other thing. Yeah, the way that it's asked for, the words used matter. Why do they think it's okay? Or why do they think rather that we won't notice that they keep rewriting what was said. Remember what we say here on the show, on the Bucks Accent Show. If what Trump has done or said is so bad, why do they have to lie about it? Why can't they just say what he said? Why can't we hear what really happened? And that's why Jake Tapper goes, oh, we see this. No, I don't agree with that. I

don't see this the way that he sees this. I don't agree that. It's just a clear help me out on this thing, asking a foreign head of state to have his legal people talk to your legal people about a completely legitimate line of inquiry that has already been the subject of some legal spotlight and some legal investigation. There's no law against this. They can keep saying, Oh, it's so terrible, it's so bad. There is no law

against is, no law is broken whatsoever. The campaign finance thing they try to allege is a joke because any action, any action taken by a foreign head of state that would be of benefit to a US president going into an election year could be considered a campaign contribution. So, you know, if if Trump gets the president of Mexico, if he gets I haven't even talked to you about

Monsieur Trudeau. Trudeau is having a very big problem recently because even more horrible racist things came out about him, unbelievable. It's Trudeau is just just a total He's a classic lib phony, hypocrite, fraud. But but the Libs love him. The Libs love him not as much anymore. But if Trump signed a deal with them, that would absolutely be benefit to his administration, would help. So is that a campaign contribution? How is how is information from a foreign

head of state going to be a campaign contribution? How do you even engage that? It's absurd? But these people say this, you know, smug, Oh my gosh, the smugness from Tapper could cloud an entire continent. You know, you've got Jim Jordan, and Jim Jordan did a pretty good job. I would have done a little better. I like Jim Jordan. I also think for the Sunday shows, maybe Jim should put on a jacket. I'm just gonna say it. I'm just gonna say it. But now we can continue with

this back and forth. So but I had to. I just had to jump in there because Tapper is rewriting what was said in the transcript. He's just like, well, it's clear that this is No, it's not clear that that's what happened. It's not clear that there was give us by the way the asking for an investigation could be. I talked to my attorney general, mister President Trump, and he says, this has already done, so you know this

is all over. That's what could have happened there. That's why there's no law against this, because you'd be completely limiting the president's ability to work in the realm of foreign policy. But continue with this, Uh, this nasty little exchange with Tapper, play it with you. Zelinsky brings up he wants to drain the swamp in his country like the president is doing here. The President says, do me a favor. Can you figure out what happened in twenty sixteen?

I thought we all cared about what happened in the twenty sixteen elections. And after Zelinsky says this important sentence, in addition to that investigation, I want to do all investigations in an open and candid way. Only then does the President bring up Biden. And my guess is, if you ask the American people when they look at what happened with Joe Biden's son, I don't know. I don't I don't know that what happened with Joe Biden's son.

He got paid fifty thousand dollars Jake thousand dollars a month for several years now, and the ukraining prosecutors said there's no evidence of wrongdoing. Come on the vice press. Thousand dollars a month. This is Kapper playing the more on because he's caught. Well, what, I there's nothing in fifty thousand dollars I was on it. Oh do you mean that the appearance of corruption that is very obvious. There could be grounds for investigation. Oh no, I'm sorry.

What the Libs will then tell us is the only bad prosecutor is the one that Joe Biden was brag about getting fired through an explicit quid pro quo about funding for the loan guarantees for the Ukrainians. The only bad prosecutor Ukraine is apparently this guy Shoken, who we've been told, oh, the whole West wanted him gone. If this is all narrative creation, what's the What are we even talking to here? A bunch of EU bureaucrats and a number of journalists who all just parrot each other.

We don't know, but oh, okay, the prosecutor said there's nothing there. These are the same people who when the Department of Justice looks at their looks at this complaint dismissible or complaint and says, sorry, nothing there. Or when Bill Barr says sorry, we're not prosecuting the president based on this nonsense Mulla report that doesn't even recommend prosecution,

they say that's illegitimate. Oh but the word of some prosecutor that none of them could even name off the top of their heads, that's sacro sank Tapper, really, do you know how investigations start? They start with a story that makes sense about the possibility of wrongdoing based on some facts or allegations at hand. That's how they start. If Tapper really thinks that Hunter Biden getting fifty thousand dollars a month from a company that is desperate to

curry favor with the United States government. If that isn't not at least worthy of looking into for the possibility of a quid pro quo. What if Hunter Biden told his dad, Hey, get this guy fired or else the money gets turned off for me. I don't know if that happened, but it certainly seems plausible. And the only way we would know is if there's investigation, because we definitely know they weren't paying Hunter Biden fifty k a month because he's so smart and knows so much about

Ukrainian natural gas and was so useful. We know that for sure. But Tapper z, oh, what's wrong with that? I don't see any I don't see anything wrong with that, you know, And he could tell he's getting and he's just ready to just come back with a salvel here, nasty Tapper, keep playing it. The Vice president's son gets paid fifty dollars a month and gets hired by a company.

If you have an industry he has no experience in, and oh that's fine, And all you folks in the president didn't because oh, no problem here go try telling Nat taking that message to the American people, you want to propose the law. It's only fifty thousand in a year.

And when they see the Vice president's son getting paid fifty thousand a month in the field and an industry he has no experience in, I kind of want when one hunter Biden didn't those board meetings so and he just looked at his phone, check out the sports he's getting paid fifty thousand. And then when the company that's paying him that money is under investigation, guess what, Daddy

comes running to the rescue the Vice president. I stags, not what halfire, sir, that process, sir, that's not what happened. Tapper doesn't know what happened. It doesn't know. I wonder if Tapper has an easy and ready answer for the fact that Choken, now in sworn court affidavits in Ukraine, has said, and this has just come out in the last week, he was fired for looking at Barisma that

he was investigating it. It wasn't over with. I just love how the whole premise here that the Libs are running with is that this thing was totally on the up and up Ukraine, which is a wildly corrupt country. Oh, but in this situation, there's nothing to see. It was all handled by the book. They think we're all morons.

Of course, there's a lot to look at it. And I would note when taperstagel if you let a propose a law, he's not saying that that the fifty thousand a month is not on It is not immediately illegal, it is grounds for investigation in a corruption probe. That's what Trump was referring to. Obliquely, I might add, by the end of the conversation, the possibility of are you know, can you look into this? Can you whatever? They could have come back to Trump the next day and said, hey,

we don't have anything on this. We've already looked at this. Sorry, and Trump you know that. But this is just a conversation about what the president would like to get answers on Let's see this is notice how that they just keep they obscure and defly. Then oh, if you want to propose a law that makes these are the same idiots.

I mean, CNN is part of the whole emoluments clause delusion, where you will hear I've read articles in New York I mean the Washington Post will put stuff forward that says more or less, well, you know, because a bunch of foreign diplomats eat at the Trump Hotel, you know,

that's a violation of the emoluments clause. Really, they think the emoluments clause is to say that someone who owns a part or controlling interest in an entity where it's open to the public and people can buy things, that's that's an unlawful acceptance of gifts under the minds, I mean,

are they morons? Do they really believe? I mean, the same people who will tell you that a diplomat going into Trump Hotel and having a cheeseburger apparently owns US foreign policy and controls Trump thought nothing of Bill Clinton giving a speech in Russia while his wife was Secretary of State in which he accepted five hundred thousand dollars. You know, if someone gives you a dollar for the

soda machine, they're trying to be nice. If someone gives you a million dollars quote for your advice because your dad is the most important politician in the world to their company, that's a bribe. Reasonable people, intelligent people can think this stuff through. But you know, not people in the mainstream media who they look, they're going They're going to the barricades on this one. They know this is really important. They have to win this fight in the

public's eye. Or what are they gonna do an Oh, then they're gonna present another They lost on the Muller impeachment. They couldn't get enough there. Now they've come up with this, they're gonna do a third one. I mean, I do think at some point even the Libs realize how crazy that would see them, although maybe not. To me, this reminds me of Watergate. We just don't have file cabinets anymore.

In Watergate, they dispatch people to break in and get information, and in the course of it broke the law and then there was a cover up. In this case, the fact that this president is asking for dirt from a foreign leader for an ongoing political race which endangers the

security of our country, It to me is the same thing. Look, I think there's some things that are above politics, and one of them is that, like everyone in Congress, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, no one is above the law, and that includes the president.

Sounds like you're suggesting that in a Booker administration, the child of a president or vice president, it would not be okay for them to be joining foreign boards while the president or vice president is conducting foreign policy as required by the law. I'm hearing you incorrectly or hearing

you correctly. Look, I'm watching what's going on with the Trump family right now and Trump properties, and I just find that deeply offensive to just any kind of independent sense of what's honorable, ethical, not to mention, in consistence with the monuments clause. I just do not think that that children of presidents of vice presidents during an administration should be out there doing that. But this any implications right now, any whatsoever. Look, Joe Biden is a statesman.

He is truly an honorable man. Blah blah blah, propaganda point I wanted to get to here. Yeah, we don't

have to hear anybody Cory Booker, Sorry about that. The point I have to get to here is, notice how what Cory Booker says, if you were to take him seriously, which I think would be your first mistake, or rather, if you were to take him at his word and think that he's being honest with this whole with this situation, if you listen to Corey Booker, which you would find very quickly is that you would have presidents and anyone who runs for right, It couldn't be just the president, right,

it would have to be secretary of State. It would have to be other people in the government. If you any elected officials, senior elected official. If you have children, they can't work in the private sector anymore. They'd have to be government stooges. They'd have to be government bureaucrats. If what if what Cory Booker says is true, and that the Trump children conducting their business around the world, right, Donald Trump Junior, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, although she's actually

in government a White House advisor. If what Cory Booker says, if we take that seriously, it would mean that if you were a developer or if you were a businessman, if you would, you would have to sell all of your businesses and all of your properties. Nothing could continue. Think about this rationally for a moment the whole you know, even at with federal gifts, I think there's a thirty thirty dollar limit. You know, you have to report any gift over thirty dollars, And there's a reason for that.

There's a principle at work there too. No one really thinks that you're going to do an official, an official act in violation of ethics and law for twenty bucks, the same way that nobody should really think reasonably than any one, any one group individual going into a Trump hotel to either stay the night or get some food is going to have any influence on foreign policy. This is crazy, This is nuts. But this is what they say. They're actually telling you this. They really believe, you know,

they cannot see the difference. And this is where you really this is where the disparity and justice disparity law at the LIPS comes together. They think that a foreign diplomat walking into Trump Tower and buying buying a burrito bull is similar ish to Bill Clinton getting a check for half a million dollars while his wife is Secretary of State from a state back bank in a very important, powerful country. Oh but they think the second one is

just fine. You're elected president. Would you allow this son or daughter of your vice president serve on the board of a whale company outside this country? Probably not. But I think that the problem that we've got again with this issue is that it's a distraction from the fact that Look, as far as I'm concerned, leave Joe Biden alone.

Just leave him alone on this issue of what this president has done that has been about corrupting America's democracy, being in cahoots with a foreign leader to yet again try and manipulate the election of the president of the

United States. Yeah, judgment, though, I'm not going to be distracted by what this president is trying to play, which is a game because he knows that he is actually probably looking at an indictment and is trying to then distract from the realities of his behaviors that have been in violation of our moral or ethical and probably our legal rules and morals. That's just embarrassing. It's just embarrassing.

I mean, I don't know what Maamala Harris thinks she is saying there, but as somebody who's listened to that sound about a couple of times, it's it's it's astounding, you know, I just sort of, yeah, you know, Trump and democracy, and you know, Joe Biden's like he's he's real cool, but like Trump isn't. And I'm not going to get distracted. What what is she even saying? But it shows us they're not trying to show us what's

really going on. But it does show us what was really going on because she just she is just trying to stay on message, which is Trump bad, Biden good. And that is the message, Trump bad, Biden good. That's the Democrats, whatever they have to say. She's asked about whether or not somebody could serve on a foreign board, and they're leaving out some very important details. It's not just a foreign board of a company. Look, there's some

judgment involved here in these matters. You look at this with with federal with federal judges and the Supreme Court, recusal. Recusal is usually a judgment call, right, But in this instance, it is incredibly poor judgment. And that's at a minimum for Hunter Biden when his dad is the point man on policy for a country that desperately needs us help to sit on a board. As I've said, there are almost there are one hundred and ninety five countries in

the world. Joe Biden was put in charge of Obama's Ukraine policy and like a month or two later, Hunter Biden's asked to be on this board. Oh, that's a coincidence. So it's not just on a foreign board, it's on a board in a country, at a company full of corruption, at a company that we know is involved in all kinds of shady dealing. So it's even more. It's even more than they say, But the way that they it's

all about how they frame it. It's all about what they're trying to do to make people think that if you're up on this stuff, if you're up on the facts, if you understand what's going on, then then you think

that Trump is bad and corrupt. And they're just hoping that we don't do our own homework on this, that they're hoping that people will just take what they're being force fed by the left wing media, which then brings me to of all the people that you could think of in the world, and I really mean this, of all the people in the entire world, who should never ever think that they're in a position to start telling the rest of us how foreign policy has been sold

by the Trump administration to the highest bidder. Who would be and I mean this, who would be the worst person on planet Earth to do that? Who would be the person that you would look to and say, wow, no self arness whatsoever. Well, here's a hint. She's back play two three. But of course we all know that she has just announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry into the President on the basis of evidence that he betrayed his oath of office to uphold the constitution and

protect and defend our country. He has turned American diplomacy into a cheap extortion racket. He has denigrated, and, let's be honest, stabbed in the back the career foreign service officers who serve bravely and selflessly no matter the politics of the administration that they are working under, and now they are caught in the crossfire. I was proud to serve with foreign service officers and civil servants at the State Department, and I know firsthand that they deserve the

support and gratitude of all Americans. Wow, a cheap extortion racket. Hillary Clinton says, she who was running a charity as a global front for donations to the Bill and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton private jet fund fifty million dollars. They had to disclose a fifty million dollars spent by the Clinton Foundation on private jet travel. Who do you think was on those jets? Folks? Oh, that's right, that's that's

good work. If you can get it, take a lot of money from foreign governments and foreign foreign actors and then make sure that you get to fly over the world private and they pay for it. That's nice, isn't it. Never mind, think about all the expenses that were picked up, all the all the hotel bills and all the perks, as if the Clintons weren't rich enough. So when we say, oh, it went to a charity, yeah, but you know they

were on the board of the charity. They were running the charity, and the charity is gonna pay for their lifestyle and their brand. It was all a brand enhancement tool too. And the second she wasn't going to be president, about half of the donations just disappear almost overnight. So strange how people just didn't care about charity as much in twenty seventeen as they did in twenty sixteen. And

they did that. They pulled the Tapper maneuver at CNN when I was there in twenty sixteen, I'd say, guys that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund right for buying access. We understand that for at least the belief that one is buying access in favor with the Clinton's it's who. No, it's not. I don't understand. What are you talking about. Easier to play dumb than have to defend the indefensible. That's what they were doing. And now

we know. But then for Hillary Clinton, she of I was running the State Department when Benghazi happened, when we lost our first US ambassador killed in the field since the Vietnam War, when a did not come for hours and hours and hours, as are men and women in the CIA and the State Department were pinned down in danger of being overrun. Where was Hilly? What happened that night? What did Obama know? When did he know it? Oh, we'll never find out. Executive privilege. Where are the calls

for transparency on that one? Oh, but we know what they really cared about. We know what really mattered to Obama and to Hillary Clinton at that time. That the media not call it a terrorist attack, that the media pretend that maybe there was something else going on. Just just delay it. You can't delay the finding forever, but just make it seem like there's some questions. Maybe it

was about a video. You see a video that led some people to do something on the anniversary of nine to eleven in Benghazi would look pretty bad for Obama's reelection effort, right, mister bin Laden is dead. In general, motors is alive. The big slogan for Obama's reelection would wouldn't have been a good look for four brave Americans to be killed doing their jobs in a dangerous country,

A country made more dangerous. I would note the Obama Hillary Samantha Power foreign policy decision to overthrow that government, and a lot of dictators took note of what happened to Kadafi. After we said, hey, we don't want we don't want violence and mayhem. When Kadafi puts down this uprising, well then it flipped the other way, and all of a sudden, the violence and mayhem was directed at everybody around Kadafi, including Kadafi who was unspeakably violated on video

and in the street. Yeah, I think Kim Jong un and others took note of that. I'm gonna tell you right now. I think the Assad regime was like, yeah, we're not gonna go We're not gonna go down this. We don't care what we have to do, We'll do anything. That was the the brilliance of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy on display. What did we get out of that involvement in the toppling of a Libyan dictator? What do we get there? Oh, that's right, there were open air slave

markets operating on the shores of Tripoli. Ice Is set up a franchise there that at one point was one of the most active outside of Syria and Iraq. Anywhere is libyas I'm thriving multi confessional democracy where everyone's respecting human rights, And what were we doing there? Exactly? No one the press really seems to ask any of these questions because they don't care. They'd rather pretend that Hillary Clinton is not the most venal, the most corrupt, self

dealing politician. Oh, the only one who comes close as her husband, I was gonna say, of her generation, but laughable levels of corruption, never prosecuted nothing, No one ever did anything. I wouldn't I thoroughly believe based on everything we know about the Komey's FBI in twenty sixteen, when you had the CEO of Overstock dot Com come out and say that he was approached by the FBI and that they shut down an investigation from the very top, that looked like it was going to prove that Hillary

would more or less accept bags of cash. Yeah, they find a way to make it seem like, oh, this is just for this is just for building schools, and you know in Botswana or something, right, they have some Clinton Foundation excuse for it, but no bags of cash for Hillary that that would have happened. The FBI shut it down. Now Hillary Clinton is out there and she's getting media attention and they're propping her up as a voice of a voice of probity, a voice of ethics.

And they don't understand why we think that they're so full of it. They're crazy. Why the media has completely corrupt and inept and not to be trusted. This is beyond parody. Hillary Clinton out there saying that Trump has created a cheap extortion racket out of our foreign policy.

When that Hillary Clinton elevated. Hillary Clinton elevated selling US foreign policy to the highest bidder, to an art form, and was never held to account for because she was going to be the next the first female president, a Democrat, a progressive, a leftist with the highest level connections imaginable, and an entire Democrat media apparatus in love with the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She knew she was untouchable, so they set up this operation which made them fabulously wealthy.

Oh buck, No, it's just that. Yeah. The speeches were in part in response to all the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation stuff. Right, Oh, look at all the great charity. Let's pay them a half a million dollars for a speech. The charity was affront that allowed for the laundering of money to the Clintons under the guise of, oh, we just really need to hear their speaking. Their global leadership, as evidenced by the Clinton Foundation is so important. Here's

a check for four hundred grand Hillary. Here's a check for three hundred and fifty grand Hillary. Here's a check for like one hundred and fifty grand, Chelsea. Which I wouldn't listen to Chelsea about how to open up a lemonade stand. I really wouldn't. But I'm an honest fellow one I know the dishonest when I see them. And this week she delivered a powerful speech at the United Nations Climate Actions Summit that should be required viewing for

every lawmaker. She spoke for so many in her own generation when she condemned world leader's lack of urgency and responding to climate change by saying, you have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Now I know, she engendered a backlash from the climate change deniers, from the anti anything coalition that takes on those who stand up and speak out and actually live in an evidence

based world instead of a fact free world. So she did engender this backlash, which only made her message more significant, more important for every one of us to pay attention to. What a delusional, pandering liar Democrats. The whole, the whole show is over now right. They had this sixteen year

old girl. Just the whole point of having her as the messenger was so that conservatives would say, why are you trotting out a sixteen year old who knows nothing about science, who knows nothing about the world or economies, or law or even politics, and have her lecture. And I mean she looked like she was deeply emotionally upset when she was talking about this climate change issue. So they're exploiting the fear of a sixteen year old girl. And the Hillary response you get here, I know or

I'm almost done with Hillary. You know. The Hillary response is to say that this was the evident in space versus the non evidence space. Really, why not have a scientist make this case and speaking for her generation. I was one sixteen, and let me tell you this. I thought climate change when I was sixteen was garbage because I like history and I remember things, and I know what has been said about this cyclically stretching back for a hundred years. Oh, this is gonna happen. Oh that's

gonna happen. We're gonna run out of food, We're gonna have overpopulation, we're gonna have an ice age, we're gonna have a overheating because of climate champ because of a global warming, and now it's climate change. I just, oh, if you was look at this and you understand this is nuts, it's insane. But all the inspiration that Hillary Clinton is talking about, she's Hillary is a woman who says she will say whatever she has to say for maximum personal benefit at any point in time. It does

not matter how dishonest it is. It does not matter what she said the day before or what she'll say the day after. So in that sense, she is almost it's the perfect left wing politician, because it is all a charade to get to power. It's all just play acting. It's all just meant for public consumption so that you can create the perception you need to put yourself into power.

That's what Hillary says. That's what Hillary does, That's who she is, flat out and now here we are being told by her that every lawmaker should listen to Gretteth Thunberg. I would just say every lawmaker should be in a position to say, I'm sorry, I don't listen to speeches by people who are unqualified on the subject matter by virtue of age and knowledge. I do not. I do not think that that's normal. I do not think that

that's healthy. And I still think it's amazing that there are some libs to this day who claim that when someone like me points out, you might as well ask her about the FED rate, which I said on Fox News, and I stand behind one hundred percent that I'm right. You might as well ask about the fact it doesn't know. She can have an opinion, but she doesn't know anything, So why does it matter. Why do we have to hear from her? Oh, that's right, because she's a victim.

She's a victim by the fact, by the mere reality of her age and the fact that she's advancing a contentious, a contentious political agenda and is really a mobile human shield for a left wing agenda. That's what's going on. That's what they were doing, and Hillary just tries to capitalize on that too. One thing, We are lucky, folks, If nothing else, Donald Trump spared us from Hillary Clinton as president, and we should be forever thankful for that.

I am forever thankful to Trump for at least that one thing. Some of the stuff that they would talking about impeaching him from before, trying to cover up to be paid to cover up his sex with Stormy Daniels, or being moved to James Comey, which told amost everybody wants to be I always got to Famili was like trying al Capone for tax evasion, but now we got him for extortion and being an accessory I believe to murder, I mean, let's be clear, Yeah, murdered by the Russians

of Ukrainians. We forget what the context is. The Russians, his friend Putin, are invading a peaceful democratic country. Congress voted to give weapons to that country to defend itself against an attack. He was withholding those until he got threatened, even by Lindsey Graham that was too much even for him. But what he was saying, basically, he was delaying the self defense weapons that Ukraine needed. This is perfect, a

perfect example of what I'm talking about here. There you have former Democrat Representative Barney Frank on the Bill mar Show who is making the claim that Donald Trump is guilty of murder because of a foreign policy decision that the Democrats say that they don't like. If that is not the dumbest thing you have heard in a very long time, I would like to know what is especially considering that, as he said there, okay, the Ukrainians are supposed to get the Congress approved of the funding for

the Ukrainians to get weapons. His claim, Barney Frank's claim here is that because Trump put a pause on some of those weapons or or was you know, involved in a delay of the delivery of those weapons, that the truth here is that that is somehow similar to being

involved in a murder. Well, hold on a second. The Democrat administration of Barack Obama, as we discussed earlier in the show, refuse to send lethal aid, including those very same, those very same Javelin anti tank missiles, because seriously, what the Russians gave. The Russians created this separatist this separatist movement, and funded and trained it and sent spetsnaz in to

pretend that they were Ukrainians. They did all the stuff in East Ukraine, in the Dunbass region, and the armor that the Russians were able to bring was of a level of sophistication that they could overrun. It's really turned into in some places in Ukraine. It's similar to trench warfare. You have these these battle lines drawn up, and having armor in those near those trenches is obviously an enormous advantage if you don't have the kind of weapons that

can take out an advanced Russian tank. But the Obama administration would not give the Ukrainian I spoke to Obama's former director for Ukraine at the NSC and he told me straight up, Yeah, we would not give them Javelin anti tank missiles. Sorry, wouldn't give them sniper rifles either, because in this trench style warfare in Eastern Ukraine, distance, distance, marksmanship, lethality over a long distance became very very important. So

we weren't sending them sniper rifles. We weren't sending them javelin anti tank missiles. Trump changed that, but if there was a temporary pause in that, or even the possibility of a pause, Democrats like Barney Franks say they've got him on murder. This is insane. These people are nuts that this is not this is stuff that should be laughed at. Instead, you got everyone ooh, yeah, We've got Trump on murder. He's like al Capona and we're just getting him on tax evasion, but we really get him

on murder. It's a very very stupid point or sorry, and accessory to murder. If we're going to use his see I will, I will use their their words. Still crazy, still insane, and accessory to murder, though, what a whacko, a total and utter wacko. But they're going forward with this impeachment. And I'm seeing now that you know, I've thought all along that impeachment was going to happen. I'm seeing now that there's a a report about Adam Schiff

saying that this will happen. This was on the Associated Press, that this could happen by the end of the year, that they and this makes sense to me. The truth about the politics of impeachment for the president, No one really knows. No one can really tell you whether or not the president being impeached would be more of an issue for the backlash or more damaging to the president. Right, So it is it a benefit to Democrats? Is it a benefit to the GOP if Trump is impeached and

not in roof from office? No one really knows. A lot of people will pretend to know. I believe very strongly that if Trump is impeached, his base will rally to him. But remember this is going to be a likely a very narrowly decided election in the vote totals, So it's not whether whether the base generally speaking, I think this is fair to say, it's not so much whether the base will come out in support of Trump because of impeachment. They're going to come out regardless. The other.

The other issue, the bigger issue, is whether people that are in the middle, that are persuadable, that are independent, that could vote either way, will view impeachment positively or negatively. Well, they think, oh man, Trump was impeached, he must be bad. I got to vote for the Democrat, or they think this really is the witch hunt that Trump has been talking about all along. There really is this psychotic hatred of this president. Look, I'm gonna tell you this too.

If it wasn't for nine to eleven, and there was a delay period in there, if you had had Bush in office for another year or two, I'm telling you they would have moved to impeach him too. There was a lot of talk toward the end of the Bush administration about how Bush was a war criminal, how Cheney should be brought up on official war criminal charges. There media was starting to run with that and that There were also people suggesting that Bush had a fascistic and

hilarian political plan for America. You know, we're he's going to use the threat of radical Islam in order to know I'm not. It was not as mainstream as the Trump is his Hitler stuff, which is completely mainstream on the left, that Trump is a fascist and he's the worst, the worst president in history. The most powerful, most revered Democrats in politics and in the media will say things like that about Donald Trump. But this is just they

can't handle not being in power. Remember, Bush also wasn't a legitimate president to them. Bush stole the election right, Bush fee gore Florida the recount, and then HBO made a movie which completely misrepresented what really happened in Florida in terms of what side was really pushing for what in the courts, and you know, they were doing everything they could to make sure that there would just be

a vote total. Never once was there a vote total in Florida by any recount that would have had al Gore win, and yet they act like it was stolen

from him. These are people who are Unfortunately, the Democrats and the Left have tied their politics so closely to their sense of identity and their sense of self worth that disagreeing with the money on any of this is in their minds an assault on who they are as people, which is why also they get so upset about climate change, because that's the area of public policy that I think the Left now has most associated with virtue and has touched all the fear and irrational sectors of their brains.

That's where we are speaking, which I've got more for you on the climate change I want to talk to you about. I mean, we're obviously going to get into impeachment a lot in the months ahead, so I don't want to overdo that in any one given day, but I will be back with you here to talk climate change in just a moment. The United States currently accounts for about fifteen percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. China accounts for roughly thirty percent of greenhouse gas emissions. How

do we even if we get to net zero? How do you get China, India and the other countries to be good? China is doing a lot. Yes they're still building a bunch of qualified power plans, Yes they are, but they are now moving plants away from the cities there that the Communist Party wants to stay in power in China, and they listen to the public when the public says, I can't breathe the air Sheshyping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents. I just I have to know he has to he is, I mean,

Mike Bloomberg. He this is a it's important for us. I always remember this. It's you can be smart in one area on one thing and be a bit of a dumbass and others. And Bloomberg, who's a self made billionaire many many tens of times over, clearly has a mind for business and his story in that regard is pretty amazing. But he also is a guy who thinks you shouldn't be able to drink big sodas and that if you ban guns enough New York City, you're going

to stop violence. And he's just wrong. He just doesn't alway's talking about. And here you have him saying that Jijinping is not a dictator. Hm. Maybe explain that to the protesters in a Hong Kong there, Mike Bloomberg, maybe give a little more thought to what really goes on in China if you speak out against speak out against the regime in any way, never mind the terrible conditions in prisons and how people are executed. And it's just China is a mafia accricy okay, it is a mafia

state and the head mafia don is Jijin Ping. We should never forget that. But the point about climate change here is one that Bloomberg doesn't have an answer to, and that is, even if what we say we should do as a country, even if we achieve that, it wouldn't be nearly enough because America is only fifteen percent of global emissions and the big spike in global emissions

is coming from China and India. Never mind the fact that the third world, well I'll get to the third world in a moment, but we can continue now with Mike Bloomberg making a jackass of himself. Sheshyping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents or he's not going to survive. But he's not a dictator. No,

he has to he has a constituency to answer too. Dictators, my friend, all have constituencies in the sense that they can't just kill absolutely everybody, right, They can't just use force. They have to be able to have some form of government. They have to have some way of keeping the lights on. You know this. But this is like saying, well, Mussolini wasn't a fascist. You know, the trains ran on time

and the lights were on. Not very clever stuff from mayor Bloomberg, who I will say it was a good mayor. I know, people get mad at me when I say it. I give credit where it's due. He was he was a good mayor. But here's the other part of this that I think is so interesting. It turns out that plane emissions, which aren't a This is what people would would criticize me for bringing this up. Who are climate

change freaks? The climate change supermaniacs because they would decide that well, they would tell you that it's a small percentage overall that air travel, small percentage overall of emissions.

It's like five percent I think overall. Okay, well, it's getting bigger all the time, and it's estimated that within a couple of decades I'm sorry, two point five percent of global of global emissions, but it should be by twenty fifty based on how much this was just a study publish with a weekend, based on how much plane travel is increasing, by twenty fifty, it could be twenty five percent of all CO two emissions. A quarter of all CO two emissions will be plane will be from planes.

Let me tell you right now, you do not want to be on a solar powered plane. Okay, that's not going to happen. It's nowhere near that. Airframes in particular, you look at Boeing and the problems that it's going through. Airframes are very difficult to adjust and change, even relatively

minor adjustments to airframes. That's why the planes really planes that are newer, you know, the Supermax is an example of this, are re upt versions of older air frames with just better avionics electronics, and it's the moment you start messing with the actual structure of it, you throw off a lot of things. And in a similar way, if you change the basic fuel source for planes, you're gonna have all kinds of other stuff that you're gonna have to adjust for and get involved with the electronics,

the avionics. It's just not a straightforward thing to switch out. It's not easy to do. Does anyone think that there's gonna be less air travel in China and India in the decades ahead? In fact, I think the fastest growing air travel market in the world is the internal Chinese travel market. More and more people in China want to fly to other Becaustrona's very big places fly to other places in China for travel, to see family, to explore,

and that's not going to change. So we have yet another place where the problem is going to get much bigger. First of I don't think CEO two emission is a problem, but the numbers that we're seeing. We keep assuming that we have these static realities of CO two emissions, that the numbers as they are now are going to continue to be the numbers in five years. This is why I keeps saying that no one can see the future.

Technology is going to change, consumer behavior is going to change, habits will change, and that's why when they start doing these projections out to twenty fifty, they just this is nonsense. It's nonsense. They they have no idea what the technology usage will be. And if anything, the developing world as

it gets more developed, well this isn't that complicated. But as there's more economic activity and more consumption and just more prosperity, oh my gosh, all across the Third World, there'll be more people in cars, more people flying planes. And even if we are reducing our CO two footprint, which I think is unnecessary and self defeating and stupid, in those countries, just based on the fact that there'll be so much greater activity, there will be more and

more CO two put up in the air. You know, even if you have some of the if some Third world countries get to twenty percent of twenty percent of their grid, or let's say fifty percent of their grid is all renewable based, eighty percent of their grid is renewable based, whatever numbers you want to use, there's gonna be some percentage of it that is not And even in creating renewable energy. A lot of the time you actually spew off a lot of CO two. You know,

see see how much energy? How much CO two is expended in the creation of those solar panels that people put on the rules all the time. You start to look at that analysis and you change your mind a lot of this stuff. Oh and then there's this other

piece in Time magazine about lifestyle changes. I thought this was fantastic because one of the problems that you have these climate change activists keep running into is that they really like to have their global conferences, their climate change conferences, in incredibly fancy locales where everyone pretty much arrives on a private jet, certainly by air travel of some kind, but a lot of private jets, and you have the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and others who will fly in

their private jet to be at a conference where the real takeaway is everybody else needs to fly less in jets of any kind and drive less and use less and consume less. Think about it this way, energy consumption itself is going to be It creates the emission of CO two in our current system, and that means for products, so things that you buy. You know, if you buy a laptop computer, the energy and the resource mining and everything that went into that is going to be expelling

CO two. It's just not possible. This is really just a fight against human prosperity as a as a religious belief and an excuse to assert total control. The reason this Time Magazine piece is out and the reason that it says that individual habits should not be considered a disqualify. Essentially, hey, we want to fly on our private jets, so like, let's all just agree that what one person does doesn't matter. It's about collective action. Is they're trying to get rid

of the hypocrisy that has always dogged this movement. Hypocrisy is one of the big weakness, is one of the big weak areas of the climate change alarmist because the most you know, the al Gores and the Dicaprios and the you know, the people that are the biggest evangelists for climate change catastrophe make no attempt whatsoever in their own lives to change things, make no attempt to modify their own behavior. They only want to modify your behavior.

And if they do modify individual behavior, it's virtue signaling you know they've got. They'll have eight hummers in a garage in Los Angeles, but you'll see them taking photos of themselves in front of the Tesla like they're, oh, I'm doing my part. It's ridiculous. We see this for what it is. Man the left, they get so touchy about climate change, they just lose their minds on I don't know how it's possible that so many people could

be so utterly brainwashed, but they are. The way I see this is that we've got a big structural problem in this country, and that is we've got a government that works great, fabulously for the wealthy and the well connected. It works great for giant corporations, it's just not working for much of anyone else. When we stand together, we can accomplish extraordinary things and it gets back them with

Mandela said, think big, not small. What can we do an example, I came here to a Hampshire four years ago. I talked about raising the minimum wage to fifteen bucks an hour, and everybody told me I was crazy, too radical an idea. Well, the American people workers have stood up and now we have seven states in the US House of Representatives that have already voted to raise the minimum wage the fifteen bucks an hour. I would just like to know why we have not raised the minimum

wage to five hundred bucks an hour. That's way more than fifteen. The fat cats, the millionaires, the billionaires, they can afford to paint, but they don't want to do it. In fact, I don't like to be mean about millionaires because I Bernie Sanders am also a millionaire, a socialist millionaire with three houses. So it's really billionaires would have

bad guys, oh, my friends. The class warfare that you will see from Democrats, which it never seems to dawn upon Democrats that they are simultaneously the party of class warfare and the party of the coastal super ultra wealthy elites in media and entertainment, Wall Street, super wealthy libs all over the place. The wealthiest enclaves in the country are LIB dominated. But somehow it makes Democrats feel good

to talk about how bad rich people are. And the very rich Democrats who listen to this, including some who are saying it themselves, they feel that because they adhere to an ideology, that they support an ideology of radical redistribution of wealth via government, although not for themselves. They don't want their money, you know, they want fancy accounts, and they want to fight this at every turn. But for everybody else, they want the radical redistribution of wealth.

With that in mind and that in play, they think that they get a dispensation. They think that they are immune to this stuff. Right, it's only the it's the bad Republican millionaires that we have to worry about, you know, Sanders, they're time at minimum wage. And I find the minimum wage discussion very frustrating because it's quite clear that minimum wage does not do what people who are proponents of

it says it will do. But I also know that at every poll you see people like a higher minimum wage. It does appeal to an emotional, not an economic, an

emotional sense of fairness. Meanwhile, somehow, despite minimum wage laws, I've worked many jobs in my life where I made less than minimum wage, including worked for no wage and under the guise of an internship or whatever, junior counselor at a camp of all these things where you're doing labor, you're doing real work, but you're not getting paid for it. And I think that it's a very important economic lesson

for everyone to do a job. Before you decide what your job should be in life, you should have done a job or you get paid money and you see what you are getting paid and how hard you work, and that would really affect where you want to go with your future career. I believe that. But minimum wage that Bernie Sanders document in Raising a fifty, I think it's about hit in New York City. Actually fifteen dollars an hour? Is that right? Producer? Mark? Does that sound

right to you? I think minimum wage is going to be increased here to fifteen dollars an hour. So it already was, oh, it already was okay, Yeah, So I mean everybody can get excited about, you know that the cost of all the food that they're eating all the time going up, or restaurant's just going out of business. It's going to be one. It's going to be one

or the other. Minimum wage is a very mixed bag, expect when you raise the minimum wage, what you do is exactly what microeconomists would tell you you do, which is you squeeze the balloon and in some places it gets you know, gets thicker, and in some places there's less air, in some places there's more. In some places

there's less air. Some people will make more money, other people will get fired, other people will have their hours cut back because a business has to deal with prices that are market based, and a business has to deal with costs and inputs and outputs that are beyond just what the business dictates. Look I would love it if the Bucks Exton Show was making fifty million dollars a year. I would give producer Mark a big raise. I'd give

myself an enormous race. But that's not what happens. There are external forces that tell you what you can make, what you can spend, and what the reality of your businesses and what the bottom line may be. And if you ignore those you do so much your peril. And minimum wage is just a government mandate that ignores those things. But we should all be prepared for more of this. This is the Democrat message, just as it was under Obama. Really is not we want to make the economy function.

We want to make the economy bigger and better and healthier across the board, which will help people the most. The matches from Democrats is some people are doing better than you, and because they're doing better than you, you're not doing as well as you should. And therefore the answer is not, how do you make it easier for everyone to be prosperous, to have more take home pay, more money in the bank, more economic security. Though economic

security is really philosophically speaking, it's a fiction. I mean, who knows a financial security, I should say, is a fiction. I mean, you never know what's going to happen. That's really no such thing as true financial security. But this is going to be very effective, these stories that they tell, just as it was back when Obama's running for re election in twenty twelve and Mitt Romney the vulture capitalist. Oh my gosh, Mitt Romney, he wants to steal Grandma's healthcare.

He wants to give people cancer just so he can light his cigars with thousand dollars bills. I don't think Mitt want to do any I don't think it's a cigar smoker, for one, so we could start there. In fact, I'm quite sure. I feel like if someone tried to put a little mulcha flavored something in mits latte, he'd be like, WHOA, settle down, it's not a crazy party anyway. I think that the class warfare rhetoric is gonna get he's gonna be overwhelming, and it's going to be something

that the Democrats are really banking on. It'll be Trump is awful, yea, Socialism that's the shorthand for what the twenty twenty election will be turned into by Democrats. Trump is awful, but yea will take money away from you and give it to other people. And once we've done that, everything will be better, even though all of history shows us that this is going to make us less wealthy and just enlarge the bureaucracy and hurt productivity and not

do the things that say it's going to do. But issue with socialism, folks, is that Democrats just don't understand why it fails, or they refuse to believe that it fails for any reason other than a lack of will to do it the right way. It's not that that socialism is inherently, deeply wrong and flawed. It does not

work and it is not right. But Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others will be promising you that if you only give them the authority to the power to enact it the way they want to act, it'll all be better. The show ain't over yet, folks. Keeping it real, it's

time for roll call. Team buck at iHeartRadio dot com if you want to send us email for the roll call, if you want to do it on Facebook, Facebook dot com slash buck Sex and remember everybody, we are now going up with the podcast every day by three Eastern. You can listen on iTunes on iHeartRadio anywhere where you listen to podcasts, we will be there. Please do listen to Buck Sex and show tell people. Spread the word not just that the show is as a podcast, but

that we are out now in time for drivetime. Anyone who wants to can listen to this show as their daily news deep dive. You can listen in the afternoon lunchtime on the West coast, but certainly in the afternoon and for your drive home. And the more that we see those those numbers we're already seeing it. The more we see those numbers spike on the podcast, the more cool stuff we can do here and the good guys win essentially. So do what you can to help us

out with this. It is much appreciated. Please do spread the word post to your on Facebook page, you send a text message with the iTunes link that I will put up on Twitter today send a text message with that to a friend of yours who you think should get some good information finally from the world of news, and we thank you very much for all you're doing so far to help us get the word out. All right, Paul Rights Hey, Buck Hope Ball as well. I have

three questions and a funny aside. While listening to your show over the weekend, I kept hearing quid pro quo. I must have heard it a dozen times until I finally just said out loud, quid pro quid bro cuomo, quidbro cuomo, and crack myself up. Maybe you can run with that, maybe I can thank you, Paul. My serious questions are this, given that Democrats are moving toward impeachment, what do you think it's possible likely there will be Democrat defectors who will vote against I don't think no.

I don't think Paul, that there will. I think the Democrats always move in lockstep. I think they will hear again, I do not. I would not expect, and I don't think you should expect that there will be any kind of Democrat defection from impeachment. They're gonna They're gonna all vote for it. I really think they will just look at Obamacare. Man, not a single, not a single Republican vote.

Democrats all just jump jumping on board the train. And then he writes, Secondly, if said impeachment proceedings do start up, do you think that the hearings will overshadow the Democratic primary debate coverage? And if that does overshadow the coverage, is it possible that Biden regains his lead over other candidates? Love the show, Love the hair shields high, love the email, Paul, thank you you do I think that the No, I

don't think that will overshecks. Remember, the debates only happen. Sometimes. The hearings will feed into a lot of the Democrat primary. The whole impeachment inquiry will be leveraged shamelessly by all the Democrats running, and they'll be talking about all the time. So I think they would view them as the Democrat The left will view the Democrat primary and the impeachment inquiry as complementary efforts. That's what I think is going

to happen. And I tend to be right, as you know, because you listen to this show and then overshadow, Yeah, overshadowing. I don't really think that's the case and Biden. Look, I don't know how many more times I can say that I don't think that. I don't think the Biden's gonna win, but he's still at the top of the pack, so I don't think he's gonna win the nomination. But I could be wrong. Let's see, Brian Buck it's looking more and more like your original prediction may hold true.

Hillary's ego can't hold back from taking another run at the presidency. Come in and rescue the Democratic Party. Lol. I've always enjoyed CBS Sunday Morning as most of their stories are usually feel good stories, they get your mind thinking in other arenas, and usually bipartisan. During the last few years they've become more obvious in their pro socialist agenda. Well, they teat up Hillary and Chelsea nicely with a full interview to day. Give me your thoughts if you still

think this may happen. PS. Have you ever seen did you ever end up watching Searching for Sugar Man? I have not yet seen Searching for Sugar Man, so I should just get that out of the way right now. I would like to watch it. Never gotten around to it, although these days with the writing and other things, I've got going on. It's very hard to spend a full two hours to in a movie watching a movie. As for whether, no, I don't think. Here's the only way that I could teach that I could see Hillary. I

was gonna say, Chelsea, but that's not for a few years. Oh, they're gonna try to run her. They're gonna try to run her for Senate first. They're gonna try to run else Clinton for New York State Senate or rather for a New York State Senate seat. They're gonna try that. I'm very confident they're gonna get that a go, but it's not going to be for a little bit. How would Hillary hello, how would Hillary all of a sudden be back in the mix and running for a president,

maybe even being the Democrat candidate, Democrat nominee. It would have to be because there's some implosion of the Democrat primary and you have no more you know, Biden falls away, and then you just have a really fractured Democrat Party and maybe if they got some kind of a break in the impeachment against Trump, that they found something they could use more. I don't know, but I'm saying it would have to be a an outlier type of event, something that nobody could foresee. And I think that's I

think it's very I think it's very unlikely. Let's see we have here, Elton. Enjoy your show, especially the podcast that's now available in the late afternoon. Whoo, keep up the great work and tell producer Mark Hey, thumbs up. Producer Mark, you get thumbs up, buddy, good job. I'm glad all these things happen. We got the Pluto TV show starting, we get the earlier show, the podcast at earlier. When you come on board, I'm just noticing. I'm noticing

there's a lot of team buck love for producer Mark. Well, it is all me. Well, there you go, so that the team figures you do the talking, I do everything else. That's right, Elton rights. Your show is like an island in a sea of lib Democrat propaganda. My wife is a yellow dog Democrat, which I've learned to accept after thirty three years of marriage. Look forward to your Pluto

TV show soon again. Thank you for insights and extensive research into the day's events, Your faithful listener, Elton in Birmingham, all right, appreciate that. Let's see what we got here. Next one is John. He writes, Okay, okay, kid bashing that's just fine with me. But kitten bashing that's just too much. How could you, sir? Okay, of course that was not kid bashing in the least quite the contrary. You nailed it. Another case of the left's favorite tactic, victimology.

Same deal as David Hogg or Blase fraud instead of Blasi Ford. Same thing as Omar and AOC. And if this expert Greta wants to claim she's entitled to address the world body and be listened to, she's clearly claiming adult status. All right, thank you for writing and I appreciate it. Ted Right Buck, I love your show and truly think you are the next Rush. That Cats segment, however, upset me. Mark's disrespect for Team Buck Cat fans is abhorrent.

His statement was to use his own word disgusting. Well used to hear Trump soundbites all the time, like China and you're a horrible person. Maybe cat hating Mark that finesse. Oh man, They're they're saying that because producer John does drops and you have to do other things during the show. I don't know, I don't know. Producer Mark, they're calling you out. I just don't have the time to do drops anymore, I admit it. There we go. Well, and I did not say anything mean about the people who

like cats. I just said mean things about cats. I love all members of team Buck. There we go. That's that's a man who's hoping to keep the lights on in the Freedom Hunt for a few more years at least. Good stuff, Thank heavens. All right, Ted, thanks for writing in Benny rights. I'm fed up as you and Bongino say, new rules now apply. I don't care if it looks petty. I don't care if it looks vindictive. I don't want to hear as Republicans were above that. We're in charge

of the Senate. How about backing up our president. I want investigations opened and hundreds of subpoenas issued for everything from every lie told under oath to Congress, to both collusion hoaxes, diffusion GPS, to Flynn and Trump leaks, etc. If it's okay for Dems and Muller to wield the power of Congress, then by God, the Republicans better wake up and return fire politically speaking, Shield's high, Benny, all right, Benny,

you're fired up there, my friend. Thank you so much. Please, everybody, do subscribe on iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts. The show's out every day, three Eastern as you know, so we want to be your drive time choice across the country for the day's politics and events. We will talk to you tomorrow. Shield's High