No Collusion. No Obstruction. Total Vindication!

Sexton Show begins. The Special Counsel's reports states that his quote investigate did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. I am sure that all Americans share my concern about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Council report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our

election process. But thanks to the Special Council's thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign. Welcome to the Buck section Show, everybody. No collusion, no conspiracy. The report is out. I have been rummaging through it all day. It is a somewhat exhausting and frustrating procedure to get through as much of this as I have have. But we knew what the baseline,

fundamental foundational conclusions were, and none of that changes. The President of the United States did not, nor did anyone this is very important, Nor did anyone associated with his campaign work with or offer to work with the Russians to overturn or undermine the election results. None of them. It did not happen. This was a conspiracy theory without evidence.

This was an effort at a soft coup by deep state actors loyal to the permanent branch of government known as the federal bureaucracy and to Hillary as the Democrat candidate who repre presents the party that most affiliates with and is supported by the deep state elements of the federal government, the Democratic Party. And now we know that this was all a lie. We were put through two

years of hell as a country. Here this insane effort to create the president as traitor narrative will hopefully now finally come to an end. Although I have to say I don't even know if we can count on that.

I don't know if we can really say definitively that the president of the United States will no longer have to deal with those lies because the people who are currently supposed to be the guardians of our republic, the people who are supposed to be telling us the truth about what's happened here, the truth about their own reporting, don't think they did anything wrong. The press is patting themselves on the back in this whole situation. The press

seems to believe that they've managed this whole thing beautifully. Oh, just give them some more Pulitzers. That's what they do anywhere. They just give themselves awards talking about how wonderful they are. Now the president finally can look around and say, can you stop with the crazy No collusion, no conspiracy. The fundamental reason that the very underlying justification for this entire

investigation was wrong. The main media narrative for the last two years about how that they were any moment now. They kept putting people on TV Brannan and Clapper and this whole slew of so called national security experts, imbeciles, all of them on this saying that there was gonna be collusion. We were gonna find collusion wasn't true. This was a lot. There was no effort to conspire with the Russians. The Russians cooked up a social media disinformation

campaign on their own. The Russians hacked some emails, They did some stuff here and there. Obama knew about it and didn't really talk about it, didn't make a big deal of it because you know what, and you can't lose sight of this. They all assume that Hillary was gonna win anyway, because it wasn't that big a deal. It didn't really matter, and they knew it. But then when Hillary lost, they couldn't accept that reality, so they invented a new reality. Oh my gosh. The Russian interference

the election was just so powerful. The Russians were spreading some disinformation on the web. Who cares. Now we're told that this is meant to prevent the next round of you know, the next round of Russian interferency, Like this is nonsense. This was always about getting Trump. They're lying to you today. This was always about getting Trump. This wasn't about If it were Russian interference the election, you

could have just had a normal DOJ investigation. The reason for the Special Council was that they wanted to get Trump. The reason that this is a very important point, it's central to what we have to still find out. The reason that they did not tell the Trump campaign that George Papadopolis passed along a rumor to some guy at a bar in London. This was that's the beginning of

all this. This is crazy. But the reason they didn't tell the Trump campaign that that had happened, that this was going on and there were concerns about Russian penetration of the campaign, was that the people making these decisions in the federal government really believed, at least some of them did, that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, that Donald Trump was working with the Russians. Why do they believe that rumor mill just kind of heard it from

some other people. They should be so deeply ashamed of themselves. They profaned, I mean, all these senior FBI guys and djos, they profaned the offices and the authority that they have as part of this hyper partisan scheme to take down the president the United States. This is the biggest political scandal of my life. The media got it entirely wrong.

They approached it all from the wrong angle. It was the spying and the collusion between senior government officials, the media, and the Democrat Party that should have been the focus of this, not this make believe theory that the Trump administration worked with the Russian on this, which I've been telling this from the start. I'll never forget him. President Trump look me in the eyes and said it himself. It's a stupid plan. It doesn't even make any sense.

If the Russians were gonna do this, why would what would the Trump campaign bring to the party. Nothing, There's no reason. If the Russians wanted us so disinformation about Hillary, they can do exactly what they did, which is get access to information that makes Hillary look bad. But the

information doesn't even make her look that bad. All this is we're supposed to lose all sense of proportionality, all sense of judgment, an intellectual fairness, because you have to suspend all of that in order to come up with the most damaging narrative possible for Trump and that Hillary was robbed and they stole the election for Hillary. But ultimately they can't get around this. No conspiracy, it did

not exist. It was not there. Muller, who was sending dozens of guys look like a police platoon, like they were going in after see your Alqaida leadership. When they arrested Roger Stone. They locked Manaphoor up in solitary confinement for months on end after a no knock raid on his home early in the morning. They sent George Papadopolis to prison for a couple of weeks for lying about a total non issue. They didn't give anyone a pass,

knowing the benefit of the doubt. Muller and his people and wifsmen on the rest of the squad of angry Democrats were dead set on taking Trump down on this conspiracy issue with the Russians. And they couldn't do it because it wasn't there. And remember it's not that they couldn't prove it, my friends, they couldn't even mount a serious case to bring to court. They couldn't even come up with charges, and not just charges against Trump, charges

relating to collusion or conspiracy. Now I have to use these terms interchangeably. There were no conspiracy charges involving the Russians in the election with anyone in Trump's world. This is a very high bar that had to be cleared.

There was always the possibility. In fact, Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer, told me this that there were concerns, Well, what if some guy did pull a kind of Papadopolis like situation where he was freelancing and thought he'd be some kind of a hero and reached out to the Russians and said, how can I help you hack in and maybe gave them some proprietary information or something like that,

and that could have happened. But it didn't happen. It's not that we still asked the question maybe kind of sort of yes, no, maybe so about conspiracy with the Russians. It is definitively not the case that Trump or the campaign worked with the Russians. It did not happen. Attorney General Barr has said, after two years, this is where we are at. Plicklipped to the Special Council did not find any conspiracy to violate US law involving Russian linked

persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign. So that's the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants, and witness interviews, the Special Council confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the two sixteen presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded

in those efforts. Did not find. After all, this Muller wasn't just shaking the tree, he was cutting it down with a chainsaw, trying to get answer this. Here he went after everybody, ruined reputations through people in prison, set loose this team of over zealous prosecutors on anyone in Trump's world. No collusion, no conspiracy. There was no Trump cheating in the last election. It did not happen. And don't don't let them change the subject. This was the

central allegation. This was the central accusation leveled against the president, meant to undermine his entire presidency. They have been dragged through hell and back, based on lies concocted by left wing pro Hillary partisan Democrats, by a media apparatus that is corrupt beyond belief, that has no ethics in its journalistic approach, and that view themselves as activists, not as purveyors of objective truth. I don't care what they say. They know that they're they're trying to win for the

hashtag resistance against Trump. They know it. But now you have the other questions that remain. As I was reading through, there's really a report in two parts. There's the whole Russia collusion part of it, which I'll have some more thoughts on, but I just want to start with that's the single most important thing, the single thing that we cannot lose sight of, because that is what they told us was central to this entire case. But now you

have obstruction. Oh yes, Now now we turn into this more gray area, amorphous, and this is where the Democrats are going to try to launch their case for impeachment against the President United States. It's exactly what I said was going to happen yesterday. I've predicted this not surprising. I think a lot of folks who are paying attention to predicted this pretty accurately. But on the question of obstruction, I have very important, very specific thoughts on this. I

will come back to them right after this break. After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Council's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President

could amount to obstruction of the Special Council's investigation. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney Gentleman I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.

No obstruction of justice. Now, the media that got this wrong and the Democrats are saying, well, there's not exoneration either, but that's not the standard that our criminal justice system works under. This was a criminal investigation, although there was no underlying crime for the investigation, which I would argue and I think many others do as well, really largely invalidates this entire process. That this was all meant to be a get Trump operation from the start, which we

knew it was. We have been you and I have been correct on this from the very beginning. But then they figured, well, if we can't get him on the collusion, we'll get him on the obstruction. They didn't get him on that either. Now they're going to say, however, that there was ample evidence. It's just that there could not have been a prosecution of the president under obstruction because

of the way that Muller wrote up this report. And let me say this, for Muller to take the position that he will not take a position is dirty politics. That's all it is. This is dirty pool and everyone knows it. Muller and his whole team spent two years to basically give us nothing, nothing that we really care about with regard to Russian interferencing election. We already knew

about Russian interference election. Nothing with regard to the president or any of his top people involved with Russians in a way that makes us sit up and show legitimate concern about something that happened, because it didn't happen. And now on obstruct here's the very simple overview of what's really going on with obstruction. The President of the United States was the top or was the subject and the target of a witch hunt, and he did not like that.

And when you are an innocent person and law enforcement officials, for obvious reasons of politics, come after you and everyone around you, trying to ruin you, trying to destroy you, you tend to get upset. And when you are the leader of the free world, when you are the president the United States, the commander in chief, the head of the executive branch, and you have a country to run, and you know you haven't done anything wrong. You did not collude with the Russians, Your people did not collude

with the Russians. This was all a fairy tale, although a very damaging, very destructive one. Yes, you get mad, you say things like how do I make this end? Where do we go to make this thing stop? But the analysis I'm hearing today from people about how, oh, well, innocent people would never say this, or an innocent person whatever,

that is complete crap. Trump had to sit through after winning an election that is so improbable in terms of what the predictions were and what we were told the numbers were that it's almost hard to believe even at this point that he's the president United States. But Trump has had to spend two years with this just massive lie being used as the as the primary tool of opposition against his administration, and he's supposed to sit there silently.

The Mulla report goes through his public statements, his public pronouncements. You know here, you know all these different aspects of what the President has said about the investigation. It goes through in detail the firing of James Kobe. It talks about General Flynn and now security advisor. What happened all around this, And I mean, ultimately, what you have is the president lashing out because he was quartered by this deep state coup and had to fight his way out

of it. So I'm sorry, but I don't really care what Mueller thinks about how the President was taking the ambush that Mueller's buddy set up for the president. We'll be back in just a moment. More on then, we've got to dive deep into obstruction. Stay with me. He special counsel indicates that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left for Congress. Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to

leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not. I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. It is the prerogative of the attorney general make the decision, and Bill Barr made

the right decision here. But that the press is trying to call him, of course, a tool of Trump, a hack. Let me let me be very clear about this. There is nobody in the role of attorney general. It is not possible to find a human being to be the Attorney general at this time that the media and the Democrats would accept. If the Attorney General did not hand down an indictment of the press the United States, no one would be acceptable. Because Barr is gold standard level

ag material, has already been the attorney general. He's well respected in legal circles. No serious person thinks that Barr is unserious. But you're already seeing all these Democrats and different pundits going on TV. Oh Bars, you know, he's Trump's you could say, wingman. Remember I think I think a previous Attorney general referred to himself as as a

different president's wingman. Remember when that happened. But they're trying to undermine Bar even though the press conference that they were complaining about, the press conference that it was before the report came out. Meanwhile, the press conference was meant so that people could understand what's in the report and what they're being presented with and to give it some context. Those who were saying that there's spin. I kept hearing,

Oh there's spin, There's there's not spin. He's saying, this is what we're giving you. These are the findings. It was as as neutral and straightforward as a lawyer I think could possibly be on this. And that's what you know. Bar was in the in the role here of top lawyer for the country. And this idea that the Congress is the one who should make the decision, and that's what we came into with that sound bite. That's just insane. No one takes that position that that does not make

any sense. Why would the Congress be left with that role when that's not the role of congress. Congress doesn't doesn't have a prosecutorial does a prosecutorial function to play here?

And what are they really going to do. They're going to say that there wasn't even enough to bring obstruction charges and a note that also by the Special counsel's own admission, there are questions as to whether you really could even claim, but they're under any context, you can claim that some of the acts that Trump took were obstruction because of his constitutional authority. The president can fire the FBI director, he can do that. He has the right to do that for any reason or no reason.

So how are you going to claim that that's obstruction when he's allowed to There are other areas as well where I think the Muller team was stretching to the limited, to the limits of credulity in order to just leave open enough space for the Democrat media avalanche to just flow in and fill in the blanks with whatever they want to say about all of this. The decision was not to be left to Congress. It's not Congress's decision

to make. It was really Mueller's decision. And he wouldn't make it, and he wouldn't make it because it wasn't there. He didn't have it, but he didn't want to say that on obstruction. So what did he do created this whole Well, I don't know. Let's leave it for Attorney General bar and Rod Rosenstein, who I mean. Today, I was at the Hill. I was talking to a bunch of Democrats, but all this different stuff, and I was

hearing how well, you know Rosenstein. One of the Democrats that came on said Rosenstein should have refused himself, and I just practically, you know, choked on my tongue. Rosenstein. So now now Rosenstein is insufficient for the left. There was a time when the president removing or impeding Rosenstein was the DJ equivalent of like Pearl Harbor. It was the worst thing that any human being could possibly do. Now we're told that Rosenstein. Yeah, Rosen probably should have

accused himself. Actually, but Democrats were opposed to that the whole time and would have reacted with an insane level of you know, outrage if you would remove Rosenstein. I mean, that would have been a complete from their perspective, complete catastrophe, totally unacceptable, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And now they're saying, oh, maybe rosin should recuse them because

they didn't get the outcome they want. When they don't, when Democrats don't get the outcome they want in this process, what do they do? They say the people were the wrong people, they're Trumpers, they can't be trusted. They attack the integrity of people like Bill Barr, attack it just because they didn't get what they didn't get what they wanted here. But Barr has also been a thorn in the side of the media recently because he is very

good on his feet. There was a fantastic moment when Barr slapped down some reporters for a brief q and a after the press conference. That set the tone for everything today. But here's what happened when they asked Barr about whether he was protecting Trump. This is what they're saying. Play seven. I'm the general side of Democrats who have

questions in some of the process. Here, a Republican appointed judge on Tuesday said, you have created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned about these redactions to clear the president on obstruction. The president is fund raising off of your comments about spine, and here you have remarks that are quite generous to

the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions. So what do you say to people on full sides of the aisle, we're concerned that you are trying to protect the president. Actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs our record nice in the report that there was substantial evidence for that. So I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that I am being generous to the president. Is there is there another precedent for it? No? Okay,

so unprecedented as an accurate description, isn't it. I love that you went out of your way to, you know, be so nice to Trump by saying it was unprecedented. But he goes, is there a precedent? No, there's no precedent, so it's unprecedented. It's like, but this is what you're dealing with the media. They're like a bunch of little idiot children running around. They don't know anything. They don't even think through it. They're saying that I don't even

know who that reporter was. I can't tell by her voice whoever it is. She just knows, attack bar, attack bar. That's her job. Her job is to attack bars, not to get to the truth. It's not to find useful information.

It's do a little bit of grandstanding for your left wing producers back in the studio and for your left wing audience and whatever networks or whatever publications she represents, and attack Bar's credibility by saying he's protecting Trump by saying that this is an unprecedented situation, which is a completely objective and factual description of the situation. But see if objective and factual in any context benefits Trump, then

objective and factual information itself cannot be trusted. You see, this is the degree of craziness that the Democrats are living in. This is the degree of insanity that they have created for all of us to have to deal with. I find it just beyond words that anyone in the media could think that they have done a good job on this, that they have handled this whole thing well, there were so many people. There are best selling left wing authors who write books, who've written books recently titles

like proof of Collusion. This is whackadoo stuff, This is nuts, And the speculation in the media was all meant to add fuel to the fire right. This is what the media doesn't understand by running stories every night about like oh this, and having all these analysts that go on TV say, oh, I'm very sure there's gonna be collusion,

very sure there's gonna be collusion. No opposing voices on CNN, no serious doubt brought to bear, and they're reporting lots of fake news stories, lots of stories that have to be retracted. All of them are anti Trump, by the way, that's not a coincidence. And they think that that just constant drumbeat of undermining the president, suggesting that the President of the United States is a traitor that now they

can just walk away from that. Because the President was kind of angry about this whole situation and thought about firing Sank to comy re fired him or whatever was there was relentless speculation in the news media about the

president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion, and as the Special Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his

political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privileged claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses

necessary to complete his investigation. Not only, and this is what bar is telling, it's so important that the president not obstruct this investigation, didn't use bleach bit didn't destroy, you know, phones and servers with hammers or phones with hammers,

didn't try to erase thirty thousand emails. Not only did Trump not do that, the Trump team, the Trump White House, the President himself gave more than what was required in terms of sharing, waived executive privilege, said you can, and they could have very well said now we're going to claim executive privilege over the following things that would have been completely legitimate. But this was very open, very transparent. Bar didn't have to even share this report with anyone.

It could have been an entirely secret report. Obviously the politics of that would have been difficult, but it would be legal, would be within the guidelines, would be within this system. You know, we're always told, don't undermine the system, don't undermine our you know, our institutions. That's what they always say. But the president, attorney general, they received No there's no credit from the other side for this because it was never about this is this is what if

you get nothing else from what we've seen here. This was never about getting the truth. This was always about

getting Trump. This was always about revenge for Hillary's defeat in twenty sixteen and for the rejection of the elite leftist ideology that Hillary represents, and that in a post Obama America a lot of Democrats thought was the unbounded future of this country without without any real opposition, without any you know, it was going to be Hillary for eight years because their side had won, their belief their ideas had won. Turned out that was not the case,

and they could not handle it. I have more on the media reaction to this, and also my friend Sean Davis from the Federalists will be joining talk about what he sees. He's a guy who gets very deep in the weeds on this report and has been getting deep in the weeds on all MULA reporting, stretching back to

the very beginning of this whole fiasco. So we're gonna have a really interesting conversation with him, and then we've got later on the show some updates on where the Democrats are in the field, and I've got some thoughts on in the aftermath of the Notre Dame disaster for you, a lot of things. So we're gonna not just do this topic for the whole show, I promise, but we got more on this coming up. And they're having a good day I'm having a good day too. It was

called no collusion, no obstruction. There never was, by the way, and then never will be. And we do have to get to the bottom of these things. I will say, And this should never happen. I say this in front of my friends wounded warriors, and I just call them warriors because we just shook hands and they look great, they look so good, so beautiful. But I said in front of my friends, this should never happen to another president again, this hoax, This should never happen to another

president again. Thank you. And yet I worry that it will unless there's a real effort to get to the

bottom of this. I worry that the Democrats view this whole thing as, in some sense a limited victory for themselves, because while they didn't prove any of this, because it was all a lie, they did manage to slow down the administration, to use this as a tool of opposition, to grind away at the President and his allies with this mess, with this disaster of an investigation that, even though was unsuccessful in the end, really did punish the

administration because the process, as I always say, the process was the punishment they were hoping for. More. But they certainly got some degree of punishment out of this in this entire situation. But if we're looking for the media to have any honesty about this, we are going to

be looking for a very long time. This is just a collection of some of the things that you were hearing today from the so called guardians of our Republic, who just next weekend at the White House correspondence dinner, will be celebrating themselves a bunch of self deluding, self loving, self loathing nerds, all gathered together in one place. Play ten. That is the cardinal. You do not brief the White House on criminal investigations before that information is public, let

alone a criminal investigation into the present hitting. Yeah, sure, of course, even though the report says he's not exonerated choosing to do this press conference using the word spying, briefing the president's legal team on this, you know. And so the difference between bar and Jeff Sessions, I think is that he was going to be a truck lackey of the president. It turns out that this Attorney general is I don't know how many Senate Democrats thought that

they would say that they missed Jeff Session. I mean, they aren't even pretending anymore to try to follow the rules. That's the thing that's so disturbing. They just don't even care. By the way, occase you're wondering, what does collusion look like, it looks like the Attorney general briefing the Attorney general's lawyer's briefing the president before Congress of the public. I don't know if they're all just idiots and they don't

know what the process is. But notice how they complain and to the process is being violated, and then don't tell us in what way because they're just complaining. This is just whining. They don't even know. They're just unhappy because they're not getting the toy they want. They don't know and don't care that they don't deserve the toy, that it's not for them, that it's for someone else. Right,

they're little, screaming, whiney children. They don't know anything. I mean, the CNN eight person mega panel that was on that I saw a little bit of it. It was ridiculous. Not a single person up there had a word of not even pro Trump, just skepticism of the CNN claims about how all this looks so bad for the president looks bad for the president. Look, the whole thing looks terrible for CNN. The CNN should have to just start again from zero, from scratch and actually become a real

news organization. That's what should happen here. I have Sean Davis joining me in a couple of minutes and he's going to break more of this down. Team. We have so much more show, so stay right there. So one of the most important things that we should all take away from Muller Report day, I've got our friend Sean Davis, who has been digging deep into the details of this report all day to day as well as for the last two years when it comes to all things Russia collusion.

He's a guy who actually reads all the things that are released from Capitol Hill and looks at the footnotes and does research on them. So someone that we really do need to talk to here. Sean Davis is co founder of The Federalist. The Federalist dot com one of my favorite websites. Also a website that happened to get all this Russia stuff right for the last two years, which is which is nice. They got that going for them. Sean, thanks so much for making the time. Thanks for having me.

So what are the things today you see? You're like, Okay, this is new, Like I've already been telling folks. Obviously there's no collusion, no obstruction, there's no charges, we know all that stuff. What did you see in this report that you say, oh, that's really interesting and new. Well, I think the most interesting thing other than the fact that a team of dedicated anti Trump partisans had two years and twenty million dollars to dig up anything they

could on collusion and couldn't find any like that. To me, that's a pretty big deal. It's not like these people all went in with an open mind, you know, didn't really have strong feelings one way or about the other about Trump. The lead prosecutor on this was a Hillary's victory night party, which ended up being so sad. So these are all people with a really vested interest in the outcome, and even they couldn't find collusions. So that's

the most interesting thing to me personally assigned. From that, what was most interesting to me and the report is what was not included, which was any information whatsoever about the Hillary Clinton campaigns admitted collusion with Russians that helped cook up this entire conspiracy theory in the first place. And it's a weird thing given that Muller was ostensibly appointed to investigate Russian interference in our twenty sixteen elections.

So Christopher Steele has mentioned i think fourteen times in a four hundred forty eight page report, never once mentions that he was also working on behalf of a sanctioned Russian oligarch, was even lobbying on his behalf to a top DJ official while all this was going on, does not mention even the name of Fusion GPS, which, at the same time time it was working for Hillary and employing Christopher Steele, was also working on behalf of a

Russian holding company they had been charged with money laundering, invading US sanctions, namely Prevason, and that that company's top attorney, the woman who was in this infamous June ninth Trump Tower meeting that created so much hysteria, was the point person for the Clinton campaign firm that hired the spy who cooked all this stuff up in the first place.

So it's super weird to me that in a report this four hundred forty eight pages about Russian inclusion, we don't get a single mention of a pretty glaring example of Russian inclusion that happened during the entire campaign, And I think those emissions really tell the story of this

entire investigation from beginning to end. And as to the Muller decision, and I read through the sections and the report where they talk about how they came to the decision essentially to not decide, I found the whole thing deeply disingenuous. If what do they think was going to happen here, then how are we supposed to react to, Well, we just decided we're not going to decide, to let

someone else decide. Well, I think I have to quote musical and philosophical luminary Getty Lee, if you choose not to decide, you'd still have made a choice from Rush great band. Check it out. He clearly made a decision not to charge, not to indict, and he can dress up the decision with all the excuses he wants, which

he clearly does. But in reading the obstruction section of the report, I was really reminded of how much it resembled that embarrassing press conference that James Comey did in July of twenty sixteen over why he wasn't going to indict Hillary. So he goes up there and said she committed no crime, she did nothing wrong, We're not charging her with anything, and then proceeded to spend an hour dragging her through the mud in a way that made it impossible for her to ever defend herself and clear

her name. And I say this as someone who doesn't like Hillary and thinks she should have been charged. But the job of a prosecutor is to look at the facts and then to make one decision do I charge the person or not? And to not charge and then go and completely smear someone and drag them through the mud in an unofficial proceeding where they have no way of clearing their name. It's just unconscionable. And it's why

Democrats at that time we're calling for Komy's head. Now fast forward three years and you have Mueller doing the exact same thing to Trump in his report that Coomy did, and it shows just how irresponsible and abusive those two men are as prosecutors. It's no surprise that the BFFs and that Mueller was Komy's mentor. So I read through all that I was so nonplused by it, so unimpressed.

The whole thing read to me as little more than a pretext and a roadmap to impeachment that they knew they didn't have the juice to pull off an indictment, let alone in a conviction, so they left all these little breadcrumbs and asserted things like mean tweets is being a facial evidence of obstruction of justice. I found the whole thing absurd. Now Weissman's obviously an anti Trump Democrat.

A bunch of the others, Uh what genie Ree actually just heard from someone today about how in the interactions with the Genie Ree, how nasty she was and how how you know, aggressive she was and in dealing with people who were interacting with special counsel. I thought that was an interesting side note of off camera. But is if someone says to you, Sean proved to me that Muller is an anti Trump partisan, what is you? What is your your short version case for that? Look at

the results? I mean, didn't demand, to my knowledge, didn't hire a single Republican. The person who he picked to be in charge U with a guy who was hoping to celebrate Hillary Clinton's victory at the Jabbt Center on that election night, and that didn't turn out too well. Genie reef Are going to sake was a Clinton Foundation lawyer before she got tapped to go over to the

Department of Justice. And it's impossible to read through this report, both the collusion section and the obstruction and not come away with the belief, having read between the lines and read the lines and read the footnotes, that this whole thing was designed and written to get Trump. And so you say, will prove that it was that he was

a partisan, that he's just going after Trump. The proof is in what he didn't put in there, which is nothing about the Hillary Clinton campaigns known admitted documented collusion with Russians. Christopher Steele, this foreign spy, by the way, who's hired on behalf of a campaign. I was told that was wrong. This is a guy who, in his own debunked and discredited dossiers said he had gotten information

directly from Kremlin officials. If that's not collusion or conspiracy to spread dirt on a political opponent to interfere with US democracy, then the turn has no meaning. So I've never aller did. This whole thing is absurd. I've never gotten an explanation for this. I'm wondering if any, if any lives have thrown something up in your way on this one. They keep saying, oh, well, the Trump Tower meeting, he should they should have called the FBI right away

and not even accepted the meeting. And I say, well, hold on a second. So someone says they have damaging information or political opponent because they're a foreigner, you're supposed to say, I can't even talk to you. Meanwhile, Hillary on behalf of Hillary Clinton, as we all know, there was the hiring of Christopher Steele, who's a foreigner, and the fact that he's British doesn't doesn't change the fact

that he's not an American citizen. He's a foreigner working on behalf of a campaign, but using Russian sources who are giving him the information. Like why is that? Okay, I've never gotten that explanation. Oh, they don't explain it. They just ignored and pretend to it will go away, similar to how Muller handled it. Maybe if you just pretend it never happened, you'll never have to explain it. But it's not just that Christopher Steele was a foreigner

working on behalf of the campaign. At the same time he was scheming with DOJ to get Trump affiliates spied on using false information. He was also working on behalf of a sanctioned Russian oligarch in Oleg Deripaska. He in fact kept on referring to him in his conversations with Bruce or at Jay is our favorite tycoon. This is a guy who was trying to set up interviews between dry Post and DJ as a pretext to get him into the United States since he couldn't get a visa

as a sanctioned of Russian oligard. So there is no explanation for the double standard. Instead, the liberals and left wingers and media just pretend that that never happened and hope that people will forget it. Ever did speaking to Sean Davis, co founder of The Federalist, You know, Sean, I had to do live coverage starting very early this morning and then all through into the afternoon on the Hill, so I missed, but it was seeing snippets here and

there and could see the monitors in the distance. CNN. Were you able to watch some of the CNN eight person meltdown panel today? And I'm just wondering if you could give us your your your view of how the lib media is reacting to the report today. Overall, I did not watch CNN today, one because I'm, like you know, all other three hundred and thirty million Americans, completely uninterested in what they have to say. And number two, I'm

not massochist. I did see people talking about it. I saw several journalists, Philip Bump at the Washington Post, Julia Aiaf wherever she is now, saying you know what, in reading this Mueller report, I can only conclude that the American press nailed it. Their journalism was so good that's amazing. They're they're in a different reality. I mean, these are people hanging around at Jamestown ready to gulps and kool aid, waiting for the spaceship to come down. They're completely delusional.

They have more in common with delusional cultists than they do with actual purveyors of fact and reason, and their entire behavior today has been a complete embarrassment, both to them personally and of their profession. The other part of this that really stuck out to be today was we really,

we know now beyond any any reasonable doubt. I think you could say that this whole FBI investigation at least according to the FBI, and according to the Department of Justice, was started because George Papadopoulos that this pretense that a guy who is peripherally kind of tied to a presidential campaign, who is mouthing off about something that was widely rumored to have happened, and people have known for a while that there was some hacking that had gone out, that

they would start this whole investigation, and then based on a Papadopoulos had said, I feel like it must go all the way to the top Seawan because otherwise, why didn't they tell the Trump campaign? You got a guy who's running on saying crazy stuff. We're worried the Russians are going to exploit him. Right, if it was a real counterintelligence investigation, they should have warned the campaign, But they used this as an excuse to pretend like Donald

Trump must be the one given the orders. That's exactly right, and we're going to eventually find out that this just this claim that nobody in Trump world was being investigated, that the entire thing didn't start until the FBI got wind of this conversation London. That's a total lie. They may have not started a particular investigation with a particular name on it until pop it off list conversation was transmitted.

But they were investigating Trump people long before then, and so I think it's important to step back and look at what was happening in twenty sixteen. They used this kind of nonsense. They used the dossier, They used innuendo as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign. That was the insurance policy. They then used the intelligence they collected, the information they collected from that campaign to cast down on the legitimacy of Trump's election. This was the execution

of the insurance policy. Then when they became when Trump became president, they used that information to force the recusal of Attorney General so they could again take things over and hold Trump hostage. That's what the whole Trump meeting about the dossier on January sixth was about. Was about making it impossible for Trump to take control of this agency from the people who were waiting on Hillary Clint

to take it over. And then finally, the Mueller investation was a pretext and under this justification of it being a counterintelligence program to eventually get rid of the president for obstruction. Okay, that's what happened. It's not even debatable anymore. The facts are clear. There was an attempted coup on the president. It failed. It failed twice, it failed prior to Comy's firing, and it failed with the Moeller investigation, and sadly, nobody on the left is ever going to

let it go. They will take it to their graves, believing that Trump was a Russian spy who stole the election from Hillary. Sean Davis of the Federalists, everybody follow him on Twitter and check out the Federalist dot com for his latest and all the other fund writers over their Sean actual work on this one, sir, Thanks for making the time always a pleasure. Thank you, Buck team. We'll be back with a whole lot more. CIA and

Intel agencies have become bastions of liberals. I see is the headline here on the Drudge Report Today World discussing all things Mueller and looking into what was the basis Not just for this investigation, but how did so many people get this so wrong? You got this piece here by Bill Bill Gertz with a subtitle of the former CIA analyst says agency's dominated by liberals. He could be talking about me, folks, but he's not but you all know I have been saying this for a long long time.

John Gentry, however, the guy who's named in this piece, he spent twelve years as a CIA analyst, criticized former senior intelligence leaders, including SI director Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former DEPUTYCI director Mike Morell, along with former analyst Paul Polar, for breaking decades long prohibitions of publicly airing their liberal politics in attacking Trump. I gotta tell you it's it's more than that. Though. It's more

than just these guys. There is now an institutional bias. I'm telling you this. I have many friends still on the inside they know this too. There is an institutional bias in the federal government toward the left. The federal government donations for federal government employees in the last election, I think it was over ninety percent went to Hillary Clinton.

So when you think about this in terms of votes, if you have massive institutions, which the federal bureaucracies are, with a tremendous number of people as well as a whole lot of power and sway because they're the ones who are implementing government authority day to day, especially at

places like DJ and FBI. If nine out of ten overall, now I don't think it's not an at ten of the FBI, but if nine out of ten across the federal government are little Hillary Bots, that is really meaningful, and that's really troubling because it means that there is a similar bias at work in the federal bureaucracy and especially in the federal National Security apparatus as you would see on a college campus where nine out of ten professors are super liberal. So I do think that this

is a much bigger problem. And one of the reasons that you see this happening is that to get a job at a place like the CIA, to get a job at the place like the DJ the FBI, you tend to have to have advanced degrees and degrees that

come from institutions that already lean very left. And so this is the prophecy coming true of if the campuses are overrun with leftist professors and leftist group think, the people that are coming out of them, especially those who have spent additional time through their advanced degree programs, getting a master's in international relations, getting a master's in journalism, or getting as you know, these kinds of things. I

guess usually you don't. Some people get masters in journalist And look at Ben Rhodes, Obama's National Security Propaganda director for the for his White House, he was a creative writing major. So some people do have some some funky degrees. But the era of Trump has only has exposed this. It's been around for much longer than that. I mean, I can tell you that the only people in the CIA whoever whine about the Hatch Act are a bunch

of whiney liberals. People who are more conservative leaning in the federal bureaucracy are much less quick to point to kind of petty rules about politicization, because, for one, we're just not We're just by nature, and conservatives are not a bunch of little whiny tattle tales. You know, being a whiny tattle tale is very much a characteristic of the progressive left. He said, is he tweeted this get him in trouble? That They love to do that. You know,

that's dared to blaycat, that's get this person fired. They love that. That's just that's just culturally and psychologically, the profile of a leftist tends to line up with somebody who's a whiney loser and probably an in cell. But yeah, that's right. They also are the ones that always complain about Hatch Act and politicization because they know that they dominate these institutions and they'll never be held to account

for it. They'll never be told that they're overly political and what they're pushing or what they're doing in the office because they've got the conservative so outnumber. So the State Department, for example, is just overrun with leftists, just chuck full of leftists. And you should know this because it's not just a problem for Trump, It's gonna be a problem going forward for a long time. We need ideological balance in the federal bureaucracy, the same way we

need ideological balance on college campuses. And that's going to have to be an active process, and the first step is awareness of what's going on. I'm just wondering what it would take for there to be some soul searching from the media. I mean, I honestly am just just curious at this point. What would have to happen for the media to finally admit that they got this whole thing wrong. I mean, you had, you had the MSNBC

panels melting down. Today. You had Nicole Wallace going after bar saying that he made excuse after excuse for all this stuff, that they're that he's Mueller's man. I mean, they're maligning the current Attorney general specifically because the Attorney General refuses to go along with what they've done here, which is a deep state coup to undermine and destroy a presidency. I mean, it's it's completely and utterly unacceptable, and yet they think that they've done a good job.

I mean, I you know, I can't imagine what's going on. I can't imagine what's happening in the minds of anybody who works in any of these newsrooms. Anyone who who is a journal out there and didn't actually go along with this whole Russia collusion thing. They must think that they're peers, that the other people that are involved in this whole process, that the other journalists that they've been

working with have completely lost their minds. And now, I don't know if there's a lot of people that fall in this category. I do know there are some. However, I do know there are some individuals for whom this whole Russia collision. In fact, one of the more entertaining things that I've seen is that you have Glenn Greenwald, who was a very far left guy, but he's been running around saying that this is crazy. He's been running around saying that the journalists should be ashamed of what

they have done here, ashamed of it. And he's right. At least he's taking the perspective of what really matters in this profession. And it's a profession that we are told and often reminded by the journalists themselves, has real

implications for American society, right. I mean, we're told that the journals are the the firefighters, so to speak, of our democracy, and yet when we ask for accountability from them, when we start to say, hold on a second, is there some way that you know, we could at least come to some accountability on this, they say, whoa, WHOA, hold on a second, you know, accountability. That's just crazy, that's just we can't have accountability for what's happened here.

But how can they demand so much respect? How can they demand so much in the way of public acclaim and then not be held to account for what they've done, not have people say that this was so damaging and it's not just a function of damaging politically. I mean, you know, this is a presidency that was unfairly and unjustly forced to fight for its life for the last two years. And now that we're we're being told that

there was no collusion. Now we're being told that we aren't allowed to give the president any slack in fighting back. It's it's the pushing back against the lies that's the problem, you see. I mean, this is straight out of the

Soviet playbook. This is a stunning, a stunning departure from the way that all this is supposed to work, right, I mean, just the fact that Muller took the presumption of innocence and eradicated that all along with it, with the way the investigation was conducted, and the way they're going after people prosecutions along the way. This indictment drops, that indictment drops. All this meant to muddy the waters

around Trump. But then when all said and done, it at the end of the day, when it's finally time to stand up and do the right thing and be clear about the declination decision, which means that the declining of bringing charges that's all he has to do. He won't do it won't do it. I mean, others have been pointing out today. I think this is a very important observation that with Muller, it's clear when you read this report that they were desperate, I mean desperate to

do everything they could to take down Trump. I mean, this was the anti Trump dream team that was assembled of people that were ideologically, personally, professionally invested in the destruction of this presidency, in the destruction of President Trump at all those around him, and even with that right against him, they weren't able to do it. And now they're saying, oh, but I mean, I can't believe some

of stuff. Maggie Haberman from the New York Times saw saying, well, he didn't fire Mueller, but he but he tried to fire Muller. Well, no, if he tried to fire Muller, he would have fired Mueller because he has that constitutional prerogative first of all, and he also could just fire him.

There's there's no real you know. This is why when you when you get into the corruption component of this, or the corrupt intent component, which is necessary for the obstruction charge to be leveled and to stick in a court, the president is the opposite of an obstructor. In this case, the president shared so much information that he did not have to share, and the press still clings to the narrative.

They cling to this this transparent lie that first of all, they were on the right side of this, or they knew what was going on all along and they somehow now or vindicate. I mean, the press's claims of vindication surrounding are just just just completely bonkers. I think the media will never really recover from what's happened here. I think the media will never really be in a position to look any American that was paying attention to what they've done in the last two years and say, oh, yeah,

that's right, we know what we're doing here. We were honest. I mean, I think they do know what they're doing. What they're doing is acting as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party in the left, and this was their moment. I mean, you have to keep you have to keep in mind that an entire I was gonna say, an entire generation of journalists, really the boomer journalists. Now all the people that are you know, fifties, sixties and their seventies, I guess are boomers in their fifties, but you know

that that range of journalists. So they're at the at the pinnacle those who are still working, Uh, they're at the pinnacle of you know, the pyramid over at CNN and five I mean not not Fox, at CNN and MSNBC, in all these places. And they've grown up with this. The greatest thing that journalism ever did was destroy Richard Nixon and get him to resign. You know, that's the greatest thing that's ever happened in the history of journalism.

And they clearly saw this. And it's almost like they took out the playbook from Watergate and tried to replay it piece by piece. They had former Watergate people that were coming on TV trying to always compare this to Watergate. This was supposed to be their Watergate moment, the destruction of a Republican presidency at the hands of the press, the crowning achievement. And you have to keep in mind that now for those Democrat boomer journalists, they have been

deprived of two things. Many of them feel like they've been deprived of two things that are essential essential for them to feel like their careers have really reached their peak and worthwhile one is the coronation of Hillary Clinton, who is the ultimate you know, feminist, glass ceiling breaking left wing democrat made into the president, right, that was what was going to happen. So they were deprived of Hillary's coronation, and they're also now deprived of their Watergate moment.

So they're very angry and very bitter, and this is going to translate into some horrifically nasty bias that will be the defining, defining characteristic of the media I think going into the twenty election when it comes to Trump. I mean, the stuff that they're going to say about

this president. The only good thing is this. You know, they've said so much that wasn't true, and they've gone to such a crazy, such extreme lengths to try and defame and destroy this president that most people who don't have Trump's arrangement syndrome, most people who aren't overcome with emotion at the thought of Trump winning perhaps a second term, you know, emotion in a bad way, like they have

to cry and scream at the sky. Those people recognize that they say this stuff about Trump all the time, it's not true. It doesn't it just doesn't matter. They have been crying wolf every day for over two years. I mean, you just become numb to it after a while. Everything Trump does is a crisis. Everything Trump says is in atrocity. You know, he's literally worse than a Hitler. This has become it's it's incapable. Actually, I mean, you can't it's impossible to parody this because it's so absurd.

You can't out absurd the view that the Democrat main stream has propagated about the President of the the United States, and that there's just there's not even a recognition of that from the press today. I mean that they're they're pretending like, oh, yeah, we've got it right all along. Is completely wacko, but that is what we are dealing with here. I mean, I have been watching everything that's going on in the you know, the different meatia outlets

that I can see. I mean I was. I was on Fox to Night with Brett Barret, which was obviously fun. Sorry I didn't have more time for a team, but they snuck me in at the end. Believe it or not. I'm able to run out sometimes do a hit and come back and do radio. So how do I do that? Ninja moves? But I definitely have some ninja radio, TV moves.

I have to pull out, but I did manage to get in there and throw my two cents on the table about what today really means and here's what we just you have to you have to just hold this tight, you know, keep this up against your bosom at night when you're thinking about I mean, do we all have bosoms? Or is that just a lady thing out? I think we all have a bosom, John, do we all have a bosom? Doesn't everyone have a bosom? Right? Yeah? But bosom is is it? Bosoms? Yeah? Bosom, buddy, exactly. Cling

to your your bosom this truth. There was no collusion. Obstruction is a stretch and a fantasy for the left. And ultimately justice has prevailed. The cost has been high, and it has not been without downside, but justice ultimately has prevailed here. The president has won after all the stuff they've thrown on him, after the Mueller and the angry Democrats and the deep state stuff, who all the stuff that they tried so much, so often, and I just it's it's amazing in a sense, it's amazing that

Trump has been able to withstand all of this. I don't I don't know if he didn't. If he wasn't Trump, I think he would have. This would have cracked another person. They wanted to lock him up. They wanted to lock up Don Junior. Whatever happened to those stories. I kept hearing about how Donald Trump Junior lied under oath. Media was repeating this all the time, all the rumors, they're gonna lock up Don Junior. Oh, they didn't bring any

charges against Don Junior. In fact, it makes it's made clear in the report itself that Don Junior, you know, there's no charges to bring because he didn't break the law. Is anyone gonna give him an apology and even gonna apologize to Donald Trump Junior? I don't think so, because this served the Left's purpose was to smear the president's son. They wanted to ensnare his family. I mean, nothing was sacred. Nothing was sacred to the Democrats in this process, other

than power and their lust for it. We'll be right back. There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen. This time that was President Obama three weeks before the twenty sixteen election. This is just I know,

we've been talking a lot about the report. Look, it's Mother Report Day, it's a big thing. And next hour we got some other stuff coming your way. So don't don't think I'm gonna talk to you about the Notre Dame Cathedral. I have some thoughts on that. Also. I want to do a little in memorium for a teacher of mine who just passed away, and you know that will obviously not be about the Mulla Report, and something

on the measles outbreaks across the country. So we have other topics that are slated for you coming up here shortly. But I just want to say that one part of this discussion that seems to always get lost is that the whole notion of the Russian interference having an effect, like being something that we need to be concerned about

is just completely absurd, absolutely absurd. Meaning Okay, yeah, we can investigate Russian interference and tell the Russians to knock it off, but that any sentient being would take the position that Russia buying. Maybe I'm spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars on Facebook ads. I mean, a US presidential election is a massive, multi billion dollar media fight that involves hundreds of millions of people in this country who have, you know, the views in many cases, that

they've been thinking about or developing for decades. And they're saturated with all these different all the messaging from our culture, from our political acts, from our news and information services that are out there, and you think that some Russian bots here and there may make any appreciable difference in this.

I mean, this is what I've said to people recently, is you know, this is like if I walked up to a billionaire and I gave a billionaire a dollar bill on the street, it would be a true statement for me to say I've made that billionaire richer, and I could walk around saying I've enriched this billionaire. He is a wealthier man because of me, folks. That's right,

I've made this billionaire even wealthier. And I'd sound like a lunatic, right, I'd sound like a crazy person because no one, no one would think for a moment that the one dollar I gave this person who has a billion of them makes any difference in any way, shape or form. That's essentially what Russia did here with their whole interference in the election. They did some Facebook ad buys,

they release some information about Hillary and Bernie. I mean, Hillary was looking at Federal Espionage Act charges, for Heaven's sake, and she did it. I mean, she was guilty, and they you know, if you weren't done with Hillary over that, trust me, you weren't going to be done with Hillary because the DNC. We already knew the DNC was in the tank for Hillary. People were openly talking about it. So you know, you can never prove this one way or the other. And that's why the Left clings to it,

the whole Russian interference the election. But any person who's being reasonable, reasonable and rational would have to say that this is silly. I mean, it's it's been absurd from the beginning. It's not even a good plot to try and steal the election. Today I got very tired because I had to do I think I did like six hours of different live coverage, interviews at the Hill, I did Fox and Friends this morning obviously three hour show, and I did Brett Bear Show, it's been a very

you know, day of a lot of media stuff. And I said, I stumbled on my words at the hill, and I said that it's a bad strategy stragedy. And I think, you know, it's almost like mixing strategy and tragedy. And that's what the Russia collusion narrative was to begin. It's a bad strategedy because it's just a strategic tragedy. It makes no sense. It's it's a terribly stupid thing to do. You're gonna put yourself in a position where And this was how did I know that they're from

day one? How did I know this Russia collusion thing was a fairytale's nonsense because it never made any sense. It never held up. Even if you believe the president was evil in a trader, which obviously I don't, it's not even a good plot. So that's how I knew, and I was right, and the rest of the media

was wrong. After eight hundred years, we were the steward of this iconic representation of Western civilization and Catholicism Christendom, and of all years, twenty nineteen, at the height of our sophistication and technology, we were found wanting and we didn't protect this icon, and we don't build them anymore. There's great churches and cathedrals that go up all over the world, but they're in Poland, they're in Cairo, they're in the Ivory Coast, They're in Brazil, they're in India.

It's almost as if the places that are less affluent, without the technology of Western Europe and the United States are like we used to be. They still believe in transcendence, they still believe in something other than this world. And so it's going to be very hard in our society to ever built a cathedral, get much less to repair them,

because we don't believe in what they represented. There's Victor Davis Hansen, I think, making some really astute points about why the Notre Dame fire was so emotional for so many people. Yes, it's, as I said, the day of it was like watching some of the great masterpieces in one of the great museums of the world, whether it's the Ufizzi Gallery or the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louver,

watching them just burn in real time. But also, why is it that whenever you talk about the truly incredible and beautiful structures of Western civilization. You are really pulling from centuries past. Why is it the case that we don't make something like a Notre Dame cathedral anymore? Why don't we have that same desire? We certainly we have better technology than we ever have before. We are we are more capable in building, we are more capable in

marshaling resources. Yeah. I can't think of a time time in this country. I can't speak for all other countries, but I can't think of a time when there was something underway, a construction in a way that was that was truly timeless and beautiful, and that was meant to be, you know, for all time, a structure that was a house of worship, a house of God. You just don't see that happening the same way. And I think it's

worth asking the question why that is. Why is it that when you go to Europe, for example, and you say I want to see the great cathedrals of Europe, you're generally looking at things that have been around, or I mean almost entirely. I think you could argue have been around for centuries, but you're not going to find anything that was built ten years ago and that is

truly awe inspiring and amazing. We have technological marvels now, we have engineering marvels, but our technology is not being used for that transcendence, for that desire to connect this world with the next world. I think that, in fact, our technological prowess has started to intrude on that part of the mind and really that part of the of the soul that seeks more in our day to day life, that would that would like there to be manifestations of

the eternal here in this world. We just don't. We don't have that, at least I don't see it in society. I don't see this around us. You know. One thing. I live in a part of DC where there's a there's a very beautiful Catholic church nearby, but it's quite old, and all of the particularly beautiful churches that I know of are quite old, and they've been around for a long time. And it's not like we've just recently, or rather, it's not like we've forgotten how to build stone structures.

It's not. People might tell me, oh, buck, but there's so much expense involved with this, and well, we're so much wealthier than we used to be as a society as well. I mean the French government is so much wealthier than it was at the time of the construction of something like a Notre Dame cathedral. Where is that impulse, that desire to make something that is truly spectacular so that people feel an elevation of the spirit when they

walk in. All of the most incredible structures, All the most incredible things that you see in Western in the countries that we think of as Western civilization, are very old. You know. When I say incredible, I mean those that inspire a belief that there's something, a touch of the divine in them. Yeah, I know, you could say back. But then the modern marvels, which I think is the name of a show on Discovery or History Channel, the marvels we've created. Look at the you know, the empire,

state building and skyscrapers. But those are engineering marvels. They're not built to create a feeling in people who enter them or who see them that this world is not the only world, and that there can be something else beyond just steel and load bearing walls and functionality. I mean, I think we've become, esthetically in the West, prisoners of a kind of functionality. I think we're I think we

are obsessed with a convenience. Not just the convenience of the phones that we carry around in our hands all the time now that completely run our lives, but the convenience of you know, the elevators that go super fast and the doorways that are are large enough to meet all the fire code needs. I mean, this is what we do all the time, and functionality certainly has its place. I'm not saying that we should try to build, you know, the pyramids all over again. That would probably be a

waste of time and resources. Right There's there's one of the reasons that we so revere ancient structures and buildings. It's because of how incredible it was that they were built in that time. And when you think about eight hundred years ago Notre Dame, you're you're involved in that building project. This is before this is before the printing press. I mean, this is before way before them discovery of electricity.

Although I guess, in a kind of dark irony, it was I believe in electrical fire that took down the roof and the main spire of Notre Dame Cathedral. I think it was just a minor renovation glitch where some there was some electrical spark, and that was all that it took. I'm reminded also of how in the In the fountain Head, which is a book I know people have I'm not not going to get too into iron Rand. I know people have very very strong feelings on her

and her work and both both directions. But there is this slamming of the of the the poor esthetics and the illumination of you know, true genius in architecture. And I think that we now have forgotten that there is this part of us that sees buildings and structures as more than just a place to put things and do things. That they can be artwork and in and of themselves, and they also can be portals to the divine for many of us. And I know you've had, those of

you who are listening, you've had this feeling. You've walked in I mean, I've walked into Notre Dame. I've walked into some of the other great cathedrals in France and some of the churches in the great churches and cathedrals and basilicas and mausoleums of Italy. I remember walking into the Church of Saint Francis of Assizi in ASSISI, and there's something of a transportational effect you feel and supported into another era, into another realm when you walk into

that church. And we just don't have that anymore. And I don't mean to beat up on the small neighborhood church that obviously doesn't have the incredible resources to make stained glass windows and all. I'm not saying that at all. I do think that we spend a lot of money now and a lot of religious structures in this country seem to be much more concerned with making sure that there's ample parking and air conditioning, and less concerned with is this a place that the very the physical reality

of it has its own aspirational intent. It's a fancy way of saying I do think that we end up going to a lot of things that look like a costco in this country, but really it's supposed to be a house of worship. I understand the prayers and the relationship with God or the most important thing. And you lift up your your voice and praise of God through song, and that matters more than you know, whether you hit the right notes or not, even doesn't matter. What matters

is what's in your heart. I understand all of that, and I'm not I'm not trying to get too deep into the theological side of it. I just mean from it an architectural and esthetic side. I think Victor Davis Hansen makes a very important point that we could use more of that aspiration to what is so beautiful that it's a reminder that there must be a God. And that's what the great cathedrals of Europe do, That's what the great works of Christian art throughout the centuries, that's

what they that's what they really do. This is why when you go see the Piata, for example, Michelangelo's Piata, which I've seen in real life, you see it and you're a little awe struck for a moment. That's the purpose of it. It's supposed to be so beautiful that it is more than just the skill of the sculpture.

It's supposed to be so beautiful that you think to yourself, there is something more here than just you know, feeding ourselves tang alive as long as we can, if we're lucky, maybe getting to reproduce and then just turning into dust. There's something more than that. And whether it's a building or a painting or a sculpture that can have that effect. I think that that's something that needs to be celebrated. I think that there's something that we need a restoration

of that. I mean, I'm here at Washington, DC, and you can tell the architectural sense in DC is meant to evoke Western civilization stretching back to ancient Greece and the kind of grandeur of the federal government and the seat of the government here. And this is all very intentional the way that you know, whether my just talking about the monuments, talking about many of the government buildings themselves.

You know, there's a lot of columns, there's a lot of this kind of neo classical architectural decision decision making. And that's not just because they thought it looked cool. It's because they're trying to show us something. It's a reminder of what our roots are, what our heritage is as a as a as a civilization really does stretch all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome and the Judeo Christian roots of all of what we see now throughout all what we have seen throughout Europe and

in the New World too. So I know, I don't usually talking about architecture and the philosophy of architecture. But there is something about that is the near destruction of Notre Dame. That's a reminder that we could build things that are more beautiful. And I don't think that that's a superficial thing. I think that we should try to bring back that divine aspiration in the buildings that we construct. All of us have had those teachers in life, I

would guess. I would wager that had a profound impact on more than just your ability to learn in that subject, but the way that you thought about maybe an entire field, or maybe how you thought about yourself, ways that you grew as a person as a result of that teacher bringing the best out of you, seeing skills and ability that perhaps others quickly overlooked. I always remember a man at Saint David's, the private Catholic school that I went to growing up in New York City, named Bill Ryan.

William Ryan, and my older brother. I think my little brother had him as a teacher as well, but Bill Ryan just had He created this whole world of learning and history and stories. This was in the in the fourth grade. He loved baseball and he loved the Bible. He would tell anecdotes from a history and then intersperse it with talking about sports teams. He would sling starbursts around the room to people with reckless abandoned Sometimes just because he was in a good mood, he would throw

you a starburst. Or if you got a tough questioned right, he would just reach into this little cupboard and throw you a starburst. I was always partial to the red starburst, but also the lemon starburst was pretty good. I would even eat the pink ones, even though I wasn't a particularly a fan of them. But Bill Ryan also read

the Lord of the Rings trilogy to us. He would verset the Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings, and in doing so got us all used to understanding story as a necessary part of history and of our learning. And he was just in a credible guy. Played classical music constantly in the background when he wasn't giving a lecture.

If we just had classroom study time, he would put on Tchaikovsky, he would put on Prokofiev, Mozar, Beethoven, and just you never forget that kind of an experience at a very young age, when he created this whole this atmosphere of a love of history and an understanding of why you need to know the stories that come before you.

And there's just something in the way that he would talk about whether it was ancient Greece or ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, with a lot of ancient history, so medieval history. And it was obviously at a fourth grade level, so we weren't going that deep into the subject matter. But he instilled did appreciation in me and I know in

many of my classmates that stays with us to this day. Well, there's another teacher very much like that that I had in high school, although he had quite a different and more I think you could say serious, austere approach maybe, but it was a truly brilliant guy and was a very dedicated, very dedicated instructor of young men. And his name was John Connolly. He was a teacher at Regis High School for fifty two years. Okay, he taught at my high school for fifty two that's five two years,

which is astonishing. He received a lot of awards from the school for this. But you know John Connolly, who wore a fedora and a kind of trench coat all the time as he come into the school. Was a man of a tremendous learning and tremendous ability and talent, and really expected everybody to show up ready to go

all the time. He was a big fan of the pop quiz, but also somebody who every time he would lecture, you got the sense from him that he never had enough time because the subject matter was something that if he could, he would spend the rest of the day talking to you about it and making you learn more about it. And you know, he had his funny his funny moments. He used to claim that whenever he handed out our exams or tests back to us, that all of a sudden he learned this new word would you get?

And which was what'd you get? Because everyone wants to know what somebody else got that was sitting next to them, But would you get? And he told his fair share of I think what you'd call relatively corny jokes, but he did so in a very very serious tone. I think he had a handful of advanced degrees, including a history and it was the first person who ever taught me economics. But anyway, John Connelly has passed away, and I just think it's remarkable that he taught it at

Regi's High School for fifty two years. And I just got word of this from my little brother yesterday. But he's up there in the in the pantheon of great instructors that I have had, there are a number that that really stick out. I meant and Bill Ryan to at the beginning, from Saint David's, John Connolly from Regis High School, Professor Hadley Archy's from Amherst College. These individuals really mattered in my life and the lives of many

other people. And in the case of each one of those teachers, I could tell you folks who have studied with them who have gone on to very prominent roles in all different walks of life, public sector, private sector. So it really matters. And so while I'm one that occasionally gives a bit of pushback on the oh, no one works as hard as teachers, and you know the teachers unions and all that stuff, I'm somebody who also deeply appreciates truly great teachers. And John Connolly at Regis

High School was one of them. So I just wanted to give him a short tribute here on the air because I had him for at least two of my four years in high school, so he was somebody who spent a lot of time with and studied with him. I think I had three courses with him over the years, maybe two courses, but fifty two years teaching the same high school. It's pretty remarkable, asn't in folks. I know that he would say Deo at Patria, and God bless John and his family. We'll be back in a moment.

Measles are making a comeback. This is something that should really concern everyone. This is a disease that had been in America largely almost entirely eradicated because there's a very very effective vaccine against it. There have been a number of pretty high profile cases in the last few weeks of measles outbreaks across the country affecting hundreds of people. And this is raising a lot of questions, one that I think we don't ever get to talk about, and

there's no interest, it seemed to me. And addressing the following proposition, we have a number of people who are showing up every day at our southern border who come from countries and when I say a number of talking thousands a day, about one hundred thousand a month who come from countries where they do not have the same vaccination of vaccination protocols that we do. At what point are we allowed to say that this poses a health

risk to the broader US population. Now, for anyone who says that this is unfair, it's unseemly to talk about illegal aliens in this way, I would just point out that they're already forced at the border, meaning our border patrol has to segregate the population of illegal aliens coming

in by infectious or communicable disease. There are people who are separated out because they have had different forms of influenza, there are people that have lice and scabies, and you know, you start to break this down, and in particularly, I believe in McAllen, Texas, they've had these facilities for a while where they put people who have a serious or infectious disease. That is a real health concern. I think

that's legitimate public discourse. And the government's unwillingness to even say that this is a concern, or rather the media and the Democrat Party pretending that this is rooted in something other than a concern for public safety and public health just shows you the length of the dishonesty that they're willing to go to here. Measles is not something

to mess around with. And I see that there's a story about an airlines that's the Israeli Airline airline stewardess who came down not long ago with measles and now has been an a coma for ten days and cannot breathe because she needs a rest. I mean she cannot breathe out a respirator. So the MMR vaccine, which is a measles momson rubella, is ninety seven percent effective one dose alone. That's for two doses one dose is ninety three percent effective. And a lot of people now are

deciding that they're not going to get these vaccinations. You know, they've been three hundred and twenty nine confirmed cases of measles in Brooklyn and Queens just since October, and these tend to be in the ultra Orthodox Jewish community in the New York City area. New York has declared a

public health emergency as a result of this. So it's not I'm not saying that it's just from our southern border, but these outbreaks of measles show us that we have to be concerned about public health issues that involve vaccinations, and large numbers of unvaccinated individuals coming across at the southern border is a legitimate public health concern. I mean, the government can or the media can pretend that there's nothing to see here and that nobody should should care

about this or give it a second thought. But I'm telling you it will be much worse if, in fact we reach some kind of a pandemic stage, whether it's a form of influenza that's incredibly lethal, which has happened in the past, Folks, this is not just wanton scaremongering. In the twentieth century and the Spanish influenza epidemic killed millions of people around the world, A normal flu season kills many, many, many thousands, tens of thousands of people

around the world. So it's not unfair to think about

these things. And I just I worry about the trust that the American people will be able to have in their government if it comes to pass that we have had a lot of Americans put in jeopardy and might even start losing people because the government was unwilling, for reasons of political correctness, to say that a massive number of vaccinated people coming across the southern border, among other ways that unvaccinated people come into this country is a

public health risk and needs to be understood as such. Government's supposed to protect our security and safety first and foremost, and that includes at the southern border. We'll be right back, seeing Bud. It's time for roll ball team. It's been quite a day to day. I must say, I am looking forward to getting to the weekend here pretty soon. As my friend Reggie aka Redd says at the Hill,

Thursday is really just Friday, Junior. So tomorrow I'm hoping we're going to be able to have a little bit of a deep breath moment after this whole Muller report, bombshell situation, all that stuff, and just chill and enjoy the weekend a little bit. I mean, you have to take yourself out of all this stuff ultimately. And maybe this doesn't benefit me because I do a talk radio show mostly about politics, but ultimately none of this really

will affect your life all that much. So I can tell you that you can take some comfort in knowing that the fact that the deep state coup was an obvious effort to undermine the election. They weren't successful, and at the end of the day. We all got our own problems to focus on. So that's the happy side of things. I suppose Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton is where you need to go if you want to get in on this role call action. All right, let's

get to it, Jonathan, Right, keep up the good fight. Buck. I'm an African American. I have personally changed careers under Trump to get into an industry and made twenty thousand more per year under the current president. Can't argue with dollar signs, well, one cannot. Like a man personally, Results are results. I'm not sure why anyone would believe a Russian spy would want American economy at the best level in forty years. Lunacy logic will always rule the week.

Stay strong, keep them high, Jonathan. All right, well, Jonathan, thank you so much. Man. I appreciate it great to have you listening to the show, and I'm glad that you have been able to capitalize on the strong economy and move forward in your career. Some very very important stuff to be sure, Jeremy. I like how you said the government isn't there to ensure your failures. Life isn't fair and government cannot change that. My dad used to say all the time, but equal does not always mean fair,

and fair does not always mean equal. There's a lot of Trump paters that are going to need new prescriptions for their Trump de arrangement syndrome because they're going to have a big flare up today. Keep up the good work, shields high, Jeremy. Yeah, government is not supposed to take away all of your pain. In fact, a good government protects your rights and limits the pain it inflicts on you as a result. One of the reasons why we have a government based on the protection of rights and

the restraint of power. Right we are trying to restrain the government's ability to intrude on your lives is that it's usually not for openly malevolent purposes that a government take certain actions. Governments always have an explanation for why they're doing a certain thing, and usually it's to help the very people that can be negatively affected by it. Right the government is or to help other people at the expense of one group. Governments think that they're doing

the right thing, that's why they do it. It is not usually the case that they understand that what they're doing is destructive and wrong, and they do it anyway. They always have an explanation for it. That's why we have rights, and that's why we have a system of limited government in place. Brian from Alabama, Good day, Buck.

The Green New Deal, No one is bringing up the fact that if all the industries that would be devastated by eliminating cows, the big mac or whopper is going to be a turkey burgher and restaurants in general, many are beef central. Then there are the ranchers, and also no milk or cheese, a central ingredient of pizza and Italian cooking. Then why just cows are no other animals flatulent? I know my dog farts. It's a true fact. And whereas peta on getting rid of cows, not a peep

from those liberals. Yeah, Brian, the Green New Deal is absurd. It's absurd. It's not that I think that it's not great, or that there's some parts of it I disagree with. It is a preposterous document. The ideas that it contains are ridiculous, meaning worthy of ridicule, not things that should have to be taken seriously. But unfortunately, because the Left has embrace climate change as this kind of insane religion. We have to take it seriously because they want to

make us do these things. They want to make our lives more difficult with all these different programs that they would put in place. Remember, just like I said before, all under the rubric of making our lives better. They don't think they're making our lives bad. They don't think that they're creating a more difficult situation for us. They think that they're helping us with the Green New Deal. They think that things are going to be better because of the Green New Deal. So that's why we have

those limitations on government in place. Joshua, all right, Buck, thanks for coming out to talk tank in Fort Wayne last weekend. I thought i'd give you a hand, and you'll be forced to talk about Mayor Pete more and more in the coming months. His only real accomplishments as a mayor are his smart roads, and that are actually quite dumb. He turned the two lane one roads in and out of downtown into one lane road to accommodate bike traffic. Now commutes have doubled in time. The residents

of Indiana are known as hoosiers. Indianian is a mouthful, and Indian isn't quite appropriate either Oh good, good point. My family has been here since eighteen o three, and even we don't know where the name comes from. It's either a slurring of who's here, which you could call out if someone sensed outside your camp, or who's ear, which would be asked after picking up a body part after frontier tavern brawls. WHOA, that's pretty intense, hoosiers. I

did not. This is what usually political pundits will say, Oh the Granite State, or oh the Hoosiers from Indiana, Granite State from New Hampshire. People say this stuff because it's a little bit of trivia that makes it seem like you have some as a political person I'm talking about now, some connection to this state that you just flew into for the interview or to cover the primary or whatever. But yes, you're right, Indiana Nansen's is not a not a thing, not an easy thing to say.

Let's see here we have next up, Sean. It writes a question for you. If a pregnant woman has a few drinks before driving herself to abortion clinic and gets in an accident, the baby dies before it can be aborted, is the mother charged with murder? I believe if someone hid her car and baby dies, they would be charged with murder. What's up with that? Well, Sean, Uh, that's wait. If a pregnant woman has a few drinks, gets in an accident, the baby dies, the mother charged with murder,

that's a good question. I don't. I don't believe she would be. But there are cases where a third party, not the mother, kills a woman or and the baby inside her, and they do charge it as a double murder. So I don't. I don't know. It might be up to the discretion of the prosecutor. I'm not sure how this this case, this theoretical that you have developed for me to muse over her, how this would be handled. I really don't know. Andre's my man andres Hotty Buck.

I appreciate your insight and recommendations. The books you know go right to my Amazon wish list. Movies I check them out. That brings me to Unplanned I saw it. It's a very touching, emotional watch. I can't comprehend how people find the killing of babies just something that's done. It's a traumatic experience women may or may not talk about, but as a fella, it tugs at my mind and heart. Sad stuff, Shield's Eye andres I need to see I planned.

I haven't yet. I'm sure it's a very emotionally, you know, difficult to watch, and that's maybe one reason why I haven't gotten around to it quite yet. But I will see it. Richard, Hey, Buck, you really should consider setting up a fact checker site in the future. In the judgment of the truthfulness of statements. The fact checkers could issue something like one to five buck slaps based on how bad the lie is. Each slap could have a name. For example, five could be five could be the nuclear

buck slap. I kind of like it, Richard, I just don't have the time right now to set up a website specifically devoted to knocking down all the lies that are out there. Bill, forget Fortnite. If you do, try a new video game, check out Tom Clancy's The Division two, played out on the streets of a Washington, DC and ruins after the collapse of the government following a terrorist attack on the us PS. Keep up the great work well, Bill, That sounds cool. I have not played video games in

a very long time. The only video game I allow myself to play in recent years has been Chess, on, I have a chess program on my phone because I do enjoy chess. Mark right, Buck love the show. Need to set you straight on English language usage. The word is cacophony, not okay, wait what cacophany? Not cacafany. It's a kaka, not caca. Thank you, thank you for the correction, my friend. Alrighty. Next up here in our inbox, which remember facebook dot com slash buck sexon. That's the way

to do it. We got Jeffrey who writes, hey, Buck, greetings from Post Falls, Idaho, home of Buck Knives. So the last couple of days you talked about Bernie the socialist Sanders as a Cudley grandpa. Just wondering where you ever came up with the idea on Earth that the old wrinkley curmudgeon from Vermont was Cudley. I'd rather hug a porcupine or cuddle with a king Cobra. I'd disowned my grandpa if he was anything like the burn Do. The Freedom had a huge favor. Never referred to Bernie

as Cuddley. Love you, Buckman, shields high and keep up the good fight, my beloved brother. You are the best. Jeff Well, Jeff you're the best and you're my beloved brother, So thank you so much for writing in. And I agree with you on the Bernie thing. I'm just saying that's the way they try to they try to position him. You know. The positioning the media created for Joe Biden was that he was kind of the wild, loose cannon uncle that just shows up and says crazy things sometimes,

but you gotta love him anyway. And then turned out that Joe Biden's actually a weird hair sniffer and a definitely a bizarre guy who makes people uncomfortable. And with Bernie Sanders, you know, they're trying to say that he's the Cudley old grandpa. But yeah, he's the cull old grandpa who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, all right, So he's a commie Cudley grandpa. And I don't think he's anywhere near as as nice and as affable as he is presented to be. I just think that that's a

construct of the media. Remember what we've seen on display from this whole Russia collusion mess is still the power of the need of the media to come up with a constructing idea and then make it a reality through just repetition and the practices of propaganda. All right, we got through today, team. It has been a wild ride. No collusion, no obstruction, a president exonerated. The fight's not over,

my friends. We have a lot more ahead of us, and we know the twenty twenty election is already looming. But at least tomorrow it's Friday. Hopefully we'll get to just kick back, relax, let the good times roll a bit. I will talk to you then, Shields high,