Political Games

That's eight four four nine hundred to eight to five the future of talk radio buck Sexton sixty six points lost on Friday, almost that Today we busted below that fifty day moving average. We're breaking all kinds of different technical levels. Quite a drop happening on Wall Street. A massive sell off is happening today. Moments ago we were down more than nine hundred points. What's going on with the mechanics of this machines gone wild? The S and

P five hundred lower by three point seven percent. This pretty much is about religion from central banks gone awry. They built it up opportunities to come when the market breaks, and the market just broke again. We haven't seen it breaking a long time. Look, we overshot to the upside as everybody was talking about, and this is clearly at least on a short term basis, and overshooting down. Welcome to the bucks extit show. Everybody time to panic the market?

What are we gonna do? I just wanted to play that for you, because all of a sudden we had a respite from Russia collusion memo Gates. We we had a resipite. We had a little bit of a pause, did we. I mean it was a shame that our four oh one k's we're getting slacks and those of you who actually are four enough to be among the I think what the percentage of Americans who owned stock other than their four one k is? Like, I might be way off on that one, Mike. Let me know

if I'm way off on that. I think Americans actually invest the stock market, but it has effects in the broader economy. And let me say this, We're about to move from the whole market discussion. By the way, I do not pretend to be a markets guy on radio. Don't worry. I just the Dow was down eleven seventy five today, which is the single biggest one day drop

in history. So everyone's like, Now, if this were to continue, if the sell off were a sign of a recession, or fears of inflation were to overtake the economy in bigger ways, just understand, it's it's the narrative about Russia Trump collusion. And this is why I want to play this for you right away. I think this is not gonna last that long. Yeah, there's markets go up, markets go down, right. I don't think this is necessarily the

beginning of anything really bad. But just know that I'm saying this to you my with my active powers such as they are. If we enter a rocky period here, of all of a sudden, a couple of months of bad jobs numbers, inflation starts creeping up beyond I think inflation they usually wanted about two. That's what the FED, which, as you all know, is like not really the government,

but in some ways more powerful than the government. Uh, the FED wants a two percent inflation rate because that's what growth, That's what they think is good for growth. So that's what they want the money supply to be. But if it gets worse than that, or if it starts to get like problematic for whatever reason, they're gonna blame it on Trump. That's the bottom. That's what I'm trying to say. And all of a sudden, all the Russia stuff is gonna be backburner because that's what they

have to go with. When they've got Trump getting it done, deregulating, economy going well, jobs, everything out, everything is cooking and rolling along. That's when you gotta here, Russia, Russia, Russia. But if things get a little rocky, and I don't even think and in the ast case scenario, I think Trump would be I think the policies the administration will be significantly helpful to whatever is going on. But you're just gonna see. I just want to prepare for that.

There'll be a whole Oh Trump, he doesn't have this financial acumen. He's not the dealmaker. They'll the storyline will change, which is just my way of illustrating for all of you. This is all a construct. Remember one of my one of my Buck Sexton Show first principles. The news cycle is a construct. It is made for you. It is curated,

it is pulled together. It is propagandized by an enormous multibillion dollar apparatus of people who are paid money to feed an audience in many cases whatever it wants to hear, but also in general just information and is competing with other outlets to that end. Right, that's that's what news is. News is not really anything more sophisticated than that. There's a lot of room for shenanigans, just in that pretty simple and straightforward mission statement. They had a big drop

in the dow today. All right, fine, I think everything's gonna be okay, but just note that they're gonna blame You'll see some stories blaming Trump tomorrow. If you look around some of the left wing sides, they'll go for it right away. A week ago they were saying Trump isn't responsible for the booming economy. Some will get a little ahead of their skis on this and go, oh trumps Trump is bad because of the economy, had a

couple of bad days. Look what the marketing. You know, the same people who were telling you, like a month ago, don't give Trump credit for the economy because of deregulation and tax cuts are now going to be saying, oh, Trump's response. So they have no credibility, no integrity. I just wanted you to hear it from me first here. Okay, now, let's get into what we do now. I gotta crack the knuckles and get ready to talk about national security stuff and all the things going on with the memo,

because there's a not here right there. The fallout from the memo has been its own series of debates and discussions. As I told you, the memo did not end any story. It is, in fact just an important phase, an important part of the much larger story here about what happened with the Trump administration, and the stakes are no longer and have not been for a while, just about whether

or not Donald Trump colluded. It is now very much simultaneously a story about whether or not the FBI, the d o J, the Hillary campaign, and the media colluded against Trump. And when you look on balance right now, there's a whole lot more information to suggest that the second thing is true than the first. In fact, there's really nothing on the first one. There's a whole lot of stuff on the second one, which is what we're

going to spend some time on today. But you had former senior CIA official Phil Mud whom I've I've I've met Phil before. Um, this is not a personal thing, this is a this is a my thoughts on his analysis thing. And I think his analysis at least on this issue is poor, beyond poor, beyond belief. Almost. It's as though he's saying what he thinks he needs to say to get paid a certain amount by CNN. That is how I feel about it. I'm and I'm going

to talk more about this other FBI guy. I would note, who's Mr. Oh, I have to resign on principle, and then he goes and gets a job at CNN right away? Oh what a shock? Oh who could know such a thing? Right? But we have to talk first about this point made by Mud because he is probably well, they have Clapper over there too. You'll notice all these former nonpartisan so they say, senior intelligence you know, directors and agency heads, they run over to these left wing works and become

attack dogs. Mm hmm. If we were to work back from this, don't we think it's also very likely that the Clappers, the Brennan's, the MUD's, Perhaps that we see now we're the same individuals with the same political and

partisan proclivities before. Doesn't that also make us think that perhaps after eight years of Obama and Hillary Secretary of State and everything, and the expectations of Hillary to become president, that some of these very powerful folks who were no longer in government, who are rabid partisans now that they're outside of government, and I just named them, right, Clapper, Brennan, et cetera. Don't we think it stands to reason that maybe they were just the same way but not public

about it when they were inside of government. Look at us putting two and two together here in the Freedom Hut, because that's how we roll. But a very important issue was raised by Mr Mud And as I said, it's not personal. I have nothing personally against Phil Mud. I'm sure he's a really nice, smart guy, but I don't like what he's been saying on CNN recently. So here is the statement President is talking about basically corruption at

the FBI today. But we opposed the leadership. The workforce is going to look at this and say this is an attack on our ability to conduct an investigation with integrity. There's hundreds of agents and analyis working on this investigation. It's not just Christopher Ray, the FBI director. So the FBI people, i'm gonna tell you, are ticked and they're gonna be saying I guarantee it. You think you can push us off this because you can try to intimidate

the director. You better think again, Mr President, You've been around for thirteen months. We've been around since nineteen o eight. I know how this game is gonna be played. We're gonna win. So what he's a senior, a former senior bureaucrat, and what he's and I say that as a as a junior nobody, former bureaucrat. But what he's saying is, from what I can hear and see, is he's outlining

the very deep state problem we're talking about. It is unacceptable for people inside the FBI or any any federal bureaucracy with specific and delineated powers and authority. It is unacceptable for them to play gotcha based on politics. And this is something that I think a lot of people have lost sight of recently. It is unacceptable for anyone in the intelligence community to say, I don't like what

Trump said about us, so I'm gonna get him. Maybe I'm gonna leak some stuff to the media that harms the administration, which is also a crime, by the way, but it is unethical to do that. You do your job. You're supposed to be civil servants serving the public and the public interest. This is not about egos at the FBI, at the CIA, at any place in the intelligence community.

And I think we've started to see the mask drop here a little bit because people that, whether they want to admit or or not, have some previous experience of this and understand that there are political games that are played inside the federal bureaucracy are coming out and saying, Yeah, that's right, FBI is gonna win this one. Oh, I'm sorry, what what does that mean? They're they're gonna win this one.

Shouldn't the FBI be doing justice? The FBI is a subsidiary of the Department of Justice, which by the way, works for the executive branch. We seem to have been convinced of something else recently by a media that wants to pretend now that the do J, the FBI, and all these different prosecutors and glorified lawyers they're in are above the government that actually gives them their authority. They are separate there like a super government, unto themselves, executive, legislative, judiciary.

They are part of the executive They are not a fourth branch of government. They seem to think that they are, and This is not new, and I'm singling out the statement from mud on CNN because it's the most recent one that I've seen. But you've got plenty of people saying, oh, if you pick a fight with the I C, the I C is gonna get you. The i C serves at the pleasure of the president. The i C is supposed to provide him with the best information they can.

The f behind the Department of Justice are supposed to help the president and the execution of laws. They are not there as a as a stop cap on. Oh we don't like his policies, hashtag resist. We're all quite aware of the fact that we are a few bad days away, perhaps who knows, from a military exchange with North Korea, which is a crazy regime that does have nukes.

We've got very serious problems in the world. The fact that you have now bureaucrats who have taken into their hands the authority given to them by it's not clear to me who. They've just taken it for them selves. They have usurped power that is not theirs to try and even the score with the president. You'll notice that the president isn't picking any fights with the rank and

file the FBI. The President isn't running around saying that he's going to, you know, raise the FBI building to the ground, that he's going to h eliminate all rivals from within the d o J. He's pushing back against the narrative that increasingly looks shaky. And I will say this, people, the d o J and FBI lied to you. They lied to you about how sensitive the information this memo was. Full stop. They didn't misunderstand this isn't a gray area.

They lied their butts off. And so now there's some people that are they're a little sore about the whole situation.

And you get people running around saying, oh, because some folks at the FBI are gonna get even you know, the FBI agent right now who's doing his work in in Nebraska or Arizona or Florida, who's trying to help somebody, you know, deal with the cartels in their area, or trying to track down white collar criminals who have stolen grandma's life savings or whatever, doesn't really care what people say about Jim Coley. This is all a lie. This is again part of my The media conjurors creates this

narrative and then force feeds it to you. And I'm not just speaking about this is somebody who's in the media. I've got lots of friends who are still inside the community, as it's called, real friends, not like hey, you know, like I met you once at a at a mixer for like the press and people that work for the d O J or whatever. I got close buddies in there. They're not all running around like, Oh, what are we

gonna do? Trump said mean things about us. What does it say about our federal prosecutors are federal law enforcement and intelligence folks that their feelings about the president are supposed to influence their work. I think that's absolutely appalling. And I also think that it's a pretty good description of the very deep state phenomenon that others are always mocking. Oh, there's no such thing as a deep state. Okay, Well,

it's an American deep state. It's different than the Turkish Darren Devlett, which I can tell you about another time, which is an actual superstate within this state that can override democratic elections and has many times throughout the twentieth century. I'm not saying that's what we have. Well, we've got something that's kind of like an American version of it, don't we That's what it feels like right now. So maybe it's the American deep state and we need to

root it out and deal with it. And as you can see, my friends, I am just getting started here, so stay with me. We'll be right back. Um. The only thing I fear from this memo because I think it's really been a huge dud. I think everybody knows what's kind of a dud. Some White House officials fear that the new Knats memo is a complete dud, and it's a big dud, a complete dud. This looks like it's a dud. This memo with regards to the Miller probe is a dud. The reviews are in, and Congressman

Noons is memo was a dud. Not how all these different left wing pundits. It's almost like they gotta an email that says, this is what you say about the memo. Make sure you use the word dud a lot. Memo is such a dud. Yet the FBI fought its release four months. Some of these exact same people that I just played for you with it's a dud. They were saying that it shouldn't be released because it was so sensitive.

That was a complete lies I've told you, and it really bothers someone one that we should not forget anytime soon. But it's it's a dud. Huh. Maybe you could say it's a dud in so far as it's not a lot of particularly new information, but it is confirmation ah what has been reported At any time. Some of us would say, well, hold on a second, looks like the dossier was used for fusion GPS. I remember a few months ago. Oh, that's ridiculous. It's a conspiracy there, conspiracy there. Well,

now we know it wasn't a conspiracy there. Now we know it is the truth. So it wasn't the most groundbreaking information to have ever been reported because we had heard that this was the case. I, as you know, predicted pretty much all of what was in the memo. But now we know it's Now we know it's true. So now we can move forward and hopefully when the idiot squad over at the ms v M, the MSNBC, MSNBC and CNN, when they try to say things like

who knows if the dossier, well now we know. Now, in fact, we we do know and the notion that the memos does is just just goes to show you how dishonest many of the people who have involved themselves in this debate, in this discussion really are. I would also note that there's a Democrat memo that's supposed to come out. Hold on a second, if the Republican memo was a quote dud, why would the Democrats even waste their time with their own memo. Here's a little prediction.

Some of those same people that you heard saying the Republican memos a dud are gonna come out and say the Democrat memo is a fly kick to the face of the Republican narrative the Democrat. The Democrat memo has body slammed the Republican I mean, you know, they're just just idiot, dishonest partisans all over the place. But I've got a breaking news for you actually on that Democrat memo literally just broke while we were on air. I will tell you what it is after this break, which

is coming up in one minute. I got a little excited there, I see I kept people up. Get people, let's see their pants. I just missed my clock there, folks. For a second. That's all that happened. But see now, now that I was going to give you the t I can't tell you exactly what happened. Let me just say this though. The Democrat memo is going to be no new factual information. It is just going to be a recitation of the talking points that are already being

used by all these different Democrats talking heads. It is going to be the manifestation of the media's concerted opposition to getting to the truth about the Carter Page surveillance and the FISA abuse and everything else that's happened here. What is the status of that memo? Ah, the Democrat memo that is to respond to the last week's I shall tell you about that one. Here we go this time after this break, he's holding the line for America.

Buck Sexton is back. They have damaged the relationship between our committee and the intelligence community. Uh. In the future, the intelligence community is going to be very worry about sharing information with us because they won't trust us to be responsible stewards of it, and sources of information are going to dry up. If you have a neighbor next door who's buying a lot of fertilizer, and it seems

odd because they don't have a yard. Are you gonna think twice before calling the FBI and your identity is going to be revealed? Because you really can't trust that this is going to be kept confidential anymore. The process presumed that the president nined states, who has a veto over this, would be a responsible person who would have the interests of the nation at heart. And of course that's not what we have here. That's House Member Adam Schiff,

who is a grotesque liar. So let's just start with that. The notion that the intelligence community may now feel weird about sharing information with Congress is irrelevant. The intelligence community is not some separate part of the government. Congress has oversight of what the intelligence community is doing. You know, the Left used to know this, now that they have many times in the past conveniently beat up on the CIA and all kinds of agencies and organizations because it

was politically convenient for Democrats to do so. Now all of a sudden, it's, oh, what are we gonna do. They're not going to share information tough. If Congress wants information from the intelligence community, Congress gets it. This is what some in the media don't seem to understand. There is no cutout. There is no and then they say, oh, well, if it's it's executive branch information, they don't have to

share it. Okay, Well, either Congress gets it or the president gets it and can release it through the processes in place. That's it. They're just we're just acting like they can't understand these pretty straightforward separation of power issues powers issues because this is part of the narrative. They're just hoping to confuse people and running with these storylines that they think sounds good but in reality are just crap.

They cannot withstand a minutes actual scrutiny. Lies. Shift is a liar not I have called them a used sham wile salesman, and I feel like sham wile salesman out there are getting a rough getting a raw deal, the used sham wild salesman. Because you know, at least that's a product with some you know, I don't. I don't know how good it is. I've never tried one. Is it good? Does it work? I don't know. It's like soaks up all the stuff, right, you know, better than

paper towel and way more fun. Um. I should probably get sham will as a sponsor. Now, we should figure out if that's a thing we could do that that'd be great, And I'd be a sham wile salesman. Hey, hey, it's a good product, I'll try it. Hey, But Shif isn't the only one out there who's running the propaganda campaign for the left, running interference for the left, and doesn't really care what the truth of any of this is.

You've got former c I a director, and this kind of hurts because you know, it's my old home, my old home agency. I took a lot of pride in the agency when I was there, and and I can tell you all the good news is most of a vast majority of the people that work in these places do it because they find the mission interesting and want

to serve their country. The usual answer is that they just want to serve their country also because they find this stuff interesting, though, I see, I'll tell you the truth. Other people are mission first, yeah, and the mission is important. They also think this stuff can be kind of cool and interesting though, and they want unusual career. I'm talking about the intelligence side now, and and there's that right, because if you want to if you just want to

steady federal government paycheck. You know, you go work at the Commerce department or something, right, I mean commerce departments not be like, hey, we're gonna put you in this place where if you drink the water, you're gonna get super sick, and there are people that are trying to find you and maybe kill you and cut your head off on you know a video that that usually doesn't happen with Commerce department. That that can happen unfortunately in

the you know, on the intelligence side of things. So you know, if you're just looking for a federal paycheck, you might go in some other directions. You know, FBI guys and gals pardon me, uh, you know they have to kick indoors and they got maniacs swinging meat cleavers at them, and that's and that happens, and you don't even read about the story, right, I mean, that's just another day in the FBI sometimes. So those are that you know, there's a separation here and what kind of

federal government service people want to do. But yeah, Brennan's out there and he's like he was Obama's chief counter terrorism advisor. I mean this he's a very obviously political guy,

and I wish people would stop with this. This is why they can't put me on air at places like CNN, because I'll just annihilate some of the very dishonest tropes they will trot out at at a convenient moment, like, for example, if someone's worked for the intelligence community for like twenty years, they're just a public servant, you know, an honorable public servant. These are the phrases that don't

even really mean anything. Trust me, you don't stop having opinions and ideas, and you don't give up vanity and and well ambition, maybe someone in the federal guverment. But if you don't give up vanity just because you happen to work as a civil servant, um, and you may very well have ideological motivations for what you are doing in a partisan sense, right. I mean I joined the CIA because I wanted to help fight against al Qaeda. That was why did I do a good job or not?

You know, maybe a discussion for another time. I did the best I could, But the point is that was why I joined. Certainly wasn't for the money. It certainly wasn't for the glory. Uh. But Brennan is held out to Oh he's not. This is a very very partisan guy, and he goes out there and says things like the following on the sun A Shows, Meet the Press. Well, there were things in that docier that made me wonder whether or not they would they were in fact accurate

and true. Uh, And I do think it was up to the FBI to see whether or not they could verify any of it. I think Jim Comey has said that it was contained selasious and unverified information. Just because it was unverified didn't mean it wasn't true. Do you remember everyone that or maybe I tweeted this the camera, if I said it on the show, or I tweeted this. But if it rings true, it is true. That's really the left approach to the entirety of the Trump administration.

That that was actually a perfect encapsulation of how the media treats Trump, how the media deals with Trump. If it rings true, it is true. Here you have the former CIA director who's getting pretty close to saying the same thing. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but just because it's unverified doesn't mean it wasn't true.

Oh well, let's deal with that for a second. Um, let me start with if we're going to start basing legal, legally binding processes like a Phis Accord and eliminating the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens through surveillance and intelligence

gathering processes based upon unverified information. Then my theorizing with you recently about how they could just open up fires a warrant on anyone for basically any reason, because all the takes is someone to show up and say, you know, so and so is talking to you know, so and so is talking to the Chinese about some espionage stuff or something you know you better get to and says

it no verification. They're gonna start, you know, think about the the implications of what this means for law enforcement folks. And I know we have a lot a lot of law enforcement that are listening to this show right now. And God bless and thank you for what you do.

But if all of a sudden, law enforcement could just you know, kick I mean, I did say this is kind of like the intelligence version of squatting, right if law enforcement all of a sudden is showing up and just kicking indoors because somebody doesn't like you and they said that you know, you're running a meth lab in your kitchen and they don't do any due diligence or fact checking, and they come, you know, running in through your living room with a bear cat and start you know,

throwing flash bangs everywhere, and little Foo Foo, the kitty cat is getting all scared and you're freaked out. That's not okay, we don't want that. But there has to be some verification beyond just what somebody says. A major part of that is also who is the person saying it,

what are their motivations. I mean, this is actually all intelligence analysis, one at one, by the way, which is why I find all these stories so interesting and why I hope you find it worthwhile to have a former intelligence analyst talking to you and working with you on all these issues here on this show me. But by the way, Brennan said, uh, Docier, which is just her

amount Brennan. When Brennan was at the When Brennan was at the agency, it was when one of it was when you had the whole And don't you know, you can say this is a nothing burger, but I don't care because it made me annoyed. Brendan was at the CIA, and that was when the federal government was in the whole Uh, it's not. It's not. Um, what's the gosh I'm isis it's Isle, right, and you're President Obama eisl Oh, it's oh, we gotta dobleisl And everyone's like, what the

heck is this isl crap? Just say isis the Islamic state of rock and Syria. Well you'll notice it's all gone away all of a sudden. We don't have to say ISCEL anymore. This is just Obama and some of his top people like, we're we're smart, We're gonna like Eisol. There's no basis in reality for this whatsoever makes no sense. I know people say, oh, sham in Arabic was closer to levant where America. We can call it what we want to call it. It's the Islamic It was the

Islamic state of Irackan Syria. All right. But you know, so Brandon was at the eight, it was at the agency. He's director when we're saying ISCEL all the time, and now he's running around saying, uh, doucier o the doocey it just say dos see a buddy. I know this is a little thing and I'm nitpicking here, but whatever the point is, I don't like it. And his notion that just because it's unverified doesn't mean it's not true.

That's so misleading in so many ways, because, as I was saying to you, this isn't just information that they wanted to run to ground and check. They took action based on unverified information. And I'm here to tell you that a lot of raw intel is crap. A lot

of it. Raw intel means the information that just comes into the various sources of information that we have out there in law enforcement, the intelligence community, and a lot of you again going to law enforcement world, Yeah, does every source who comes to you and says, yeah, you know I so and so's uh, you know, running a running a chop shop on the other side of town,

You're just like, oh, let's get the swat team. I mean, usually you're gonna write, I mean, you guys know, you're gonna do a little checking because if if not, you're gonna show up, but with a squat team thinking you're breaking up a meth lab or a chop shop, and it's gonna be like Luigi's pizzeria, and you're gonna terrify a bunch of people for no reason. And you can find out that the guy who called he was actually

Luigi's competition, Mario. Right. So the point here is they have to check the information because if you take action on unverified information, think about what that opens us up to. Most s raw intel is crap. Any of you who have worked in the government military, you know this, right, there's some clown to walk in somewhere to a government building, lucker. You know, yes, uh Osama bin Laden is hiding under

my bed. I would like a million dollars please. And you know, technically you may have to report up a chain of command that there's a guy who says Osama's hiding under his bed at home and he wants a million dollars. But if you were to have sealed Team six repel from helicopters at this guy's home looking for Osama under the bed, people are gonna be like, mm hmm, that's probably a for a whole bunch of reasons, a

bad idea. But notice again the dishonesty from one of the formerly most senior bureaucrats in the whole intelligence community. Just because it's unverified doesn't mean it isn't true. Well, that's not the point. You can't take action on it until it is verified, and therefore you know that it is true, because if you take action based on unverified information, you pollute and distort and degrade the entire process, whether

it's law enforcement, fies, a warrants, intelligence collection. They keep talking about undermining institutions. My friends, I can't tell you this is you want to you want to undermine institutions. Convince the American people that you can open up and all encompassing like communications fis a warrant on them based on what some dude said to some dude that nobody ever checked. That's pretty big deal. Oh, the media, it's but it's a dud, you see, it's a dud. Yeah. Yeah,

the whole thing is a dud. M. I haven't even gotten into the State Department side of this yet. By the way, we're gonna have some fun with that one. Oh yes, I enjoy taking swipes at the State Department. That's gonna happen. Uh. We'll also take some of your calls eight four four nine buck eight four to eight to five. We have much more show. I'm gonna have

Sarah just to give you. I'm gonna say that and not tell you no, no no, I'm gonna tell you we have Sarah Carter joining for a deep dive on all this in the second part of the next hour, also going to talk to you a little bit, just a little thoughts on the super Bowl and nachos, and Justin timber Lake will get there. That's third hour, Uh make fun of Hillary. Third hour. That's gonna be great. And

then end of the show. I actually have some really uh serious but heartfelt and worthwhile stuff to talk to you about, not about me, but about just wisdom that I saw somewhere online and wanted to share with you, and I think you'll particular today. I would hope that all of you get a chance to either stick around until the end of the show or at least download this podcast and listen to the uh well, hopefully the whole show, but certally the end of the show, because

I think we'll find it really, really worthwhile. And with that we'll run into a quick break. Alright to we've got some lines. Let let's get to it. Patrick in Wabash, Indiana, what's up, Patrick, Yes, I wanted to know what you think about nobody's taking this serious enough. Why isn't this dossier false? Dossier? And the uranium one deal. Why isn't

it subversion and treason? Fel and Julius Rosenberg have nothing on Hillary and Obama administration all finding off on this uranium one and the uranium goes to our enemy Russia and now be selling to Iran and UH North Korea. Okay, Patrick, hold on, let's slow down a little bit, and I appreciate your passion. A few things here to keep in mind.

One is that on um the Rosenberg's stealing nuclear secrets and and and giving them to our mortal enemies, the Soviet Union at the time is that's a very specific thing, and it actually does fall under the category of espionage. I believe they were the last people executed in this country for espionage, if memory serves UH. Others have all gotten life sentences, the worst of the worst. I've gotten

life sentences. Um, when you're you're talking, you talked about a bunch of things here, the uranium uranium one issue. I do think that there will be some of hearings and and investigation into that going on going on with the Trump administration. I do believe they'll be looking into it more. I think the DJ has already mentioned something about that, but on those issues, for example, the Hillary paid a play scheme with the Clinton Foundation, there's a

lot of gray area. Look, the Clintons are shady, and the Clintons both have backgrounds in the law, so they now that doesn't mean that Bill didn't break all kinds of laws, because he clearly did, and doesn't mean it Hillary didn't break all kinds of laws. She clearly did. But they generally tried to use the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund, but to do it in such a way they would always at least have a defense whereby they're not selling influence, they're selling charity, They're they're helping

the world. So it becomes difficult to get to a place where you could bring a specific prosecution against the Clinton Foundation unless you're going to try unless you can prove quid pro quo corruption, which is a very important term in this because that's the standard, right meaning what

for what. So, for example, if I gave the Clintons a check for the Clinton Foundation for a million dollars, and then six months later, my secretary, which I don't have, nor do I have the kind of money to give them a check, I'm just saying theoretically, six months later, my assistant, my secretary, calls them and say says, so Buck wants a meeting because he represents a conglomerate that needs a state department license to do business in Kazakhstan or something that maybe you can get me on a

quid pro quo. But because it goes into a a charity instead of directly into my pockets, there's an additional layer. And that's the kind of evil genius of what the Clintons did. They polluted charity, but they created a slush fund that that was a branding mechanism for them that supported their lifestyle that flew them all over the world. But they can always use a veil of protection of

the charity to keep them out of legal jeopardy. And I know that's a lot of I'm throwing a lot at you, Patrick, but I'm trying to just take your your whole thought processes here and then on the on the issue of treason, and UH treason is a very specific charge. People use it as a thing to say about people they don't like, and government treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So if you're gonna talk about illegal uh an actual prosecution of someone for treason.

You'd have to show them giving aid and comfort to the enemy on the uranium. On the uranium issue, they're not exporting the uranium, which is true. So that's something else that I think you have to keep in mind here. I mean, I'm as appalled by the Clinton Foundation as anybody out there, but I also want to keep keep it into in the realm of what is provable and what is realistic. I think corruption is provable. I think

treason is going way too far. Um. We got to talk about the State Department though, was this a whole other area of propaganda against Trump? Will get there. He's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the buck never stops. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, our two is upon us. And I got some breaking news for you, which I think I was going to break for you before, but I held it a little longer because I got distracted.

But here's what we got. The House Committee, the U. S. House of Representatives committ has voted to approve the release of the Democrat response to a contentious Republican memo alleging FBI bias. That's the headline on Reuter's here, So a memo to respond to the memo. That's what we've got here. You'll notice that this brings up a whole bunch of

interesting little side plots, doesn't it. First of all, if the memo was a dud, as we discussed in the last hour, which is not true, but which a lot of Democrats in their media allies are saying, what's the need for a response memo if it's a dud. Remember they didn't say it's just not true, although they said that too. They're saying it's a dud. Why I respond to a dug? Oh? Maybe it actually was important and they're just lying to their base and trying to downplay this.

If it's a dud, there's no need for you to release your own. I would also note that their memo is I believe, ten pages. Okay, what are they going to write for ten pages? Here is my guests, and my prediction of the Democrat memo is that it will have no additional information, nothing that comes from the realm of declassified or anything like that. It will just be ten pages of Democrat misdirection and talking points to downplay, undermine, and try to quickly move past the Republican memo. So

that's what I think we're gonna have there. That is my expectation for that said, yeah, let's release it. Release the memo, right, release the memo, Go for it. I don't I don't much see any reason not to have a release. We'll be joined by Sarah Carter by the way, later in the hour to talk about all this stuff, the Fies, the fis a memo, Fies abuse memo, everything that's going on in this world. Because Sarah's on the front lines breaking stories on this and dealing with it

all the time. So yeah, yeah, the memo will be released. The memo is going to be released. I think it's going to the White House now. Some are saying that Trump might block it. I no reason for Trump to

block it. I can't imagine. Now if the Democrats get this memo through, if they are in fact able to get this thing released, then we can expect that if my prediction about it is true that it has no new information, that it is just a screed, it is an editorial posing as national security information to set straight some aspect of this debate, then that will show us that once again Democrats were either exaggerating, were lying. When

it came to national security information, they were lying. There was no national security information that was sensitive, that was problematic in its release in the Republican memo. That was a lie. Now they're saying that it was a or they were saying immediately that the Republican Memo was a dud. I guess we can call it the Shift memo. You know, America is about to get shift. Um that is likely to have nothing of substance, and that they can't come

up with any substance. I'm predicting here, but I I have very high confidence in this one. I wish there was a way I could legally place a bet in Vegas on this one. Um. That will just go to show you that all of their oh there's a lack of context, is a lack of context. This is their

opportunity to show us the context. This is the opportunity to show us what the context is for, or that what the lack of context is for the Republican memo, because that's what they were always saying, right, And that's what something the FBI said to it'll omit it omitted information. Oh, I don't think so. Well, we'll see we'll see if I'm wrong. I'm willing to bet. I think a lot of you would be with me here, and I bet

that I'm right on this one. So that's one part of a Democrat memo now is going through the same process. You know, what is it? What's the deal for? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Right, isn't that? But is that like old old nursery wrong stuff? Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. That's an old phrase, old old time phrase there from Buck And that's true. If you're for transparency, then you're for transparency. That's This

is pretty straightforward. This is not overly complicated. Democrats want to release their own memo, fine, go forth, it's not going to change anything. In fact, I think you'll just see that they're repeating what they already have on this. They're repeating what they've already been saying. Let's get onto

some new information. Though. There's another interesting part of this whole fis abuse scandal, surveillance of card he Page and Papadopolis and how this ties into Trump and how the media is trying to use this two under mind and in fact end this administration. What is the new information that we have on this. Well, here's Katherine Herrick from

Fox News. Last month, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, along with another senior Senate Republican, Lindsey Graham, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department asking for an investigation of the former British by Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier, on the basis that they said there was evidence that he had lined to the FBI about his contact with the media and the distribution of

the dossier. And the document is a new allegation by the senators that Clinton associates also fed information to steal and it reads, in part, it is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporary contemporaneously feeding Mr steele allegations raises

additional concerns about his credibility. Oh wait a second, So, considering Clinton was a Secretary of State, which means that she was the boss of the State Department for a while, boss lady of the State Department, and she would have had ties to very senior people in the State Department. As a result of that, the State Department leans left. To begin with, I've told you that in the past, and I'm reiterating it here today. What the heck is

this all about? Now we're being told that there were folks who were Clinton acolytes disciples, I mean, Clinton cronies in State. Because remember, if you're the assistant deputy assistant secretary of whatever at the State Department, you know, deputy under assistant under assistant secretary, you stay around after Hillary moves on to whatever. I mean, you stay around in

your State Department job most likely. Oh and by the way, how would you leave or how would you get elevated from your deputy under assistant assistant secretary job at State if Hillary becomes president. So you have quite a vested interest in a Hillary presidency because she would be immensely powerful.

She'd be in a position to either elevate you within the State Department bureaucracy or get you one of those really lucrative consulting gigs for former government employees that tend to go the way of the swamp dwellers, if you will, the d C insiders, right, get some fat contract to advise people and basically just have lunch and do Google searches. I would know what. I have friends who have worked for these places on K Street. You know that's what happens.

So if you want to get one of those gigs and all of a sudden triple or quadruple your government salary, you know you want Hillary to win. And so what we're being told here is that Christopher Steele was also giving information. I'm sorry that Clinton associates were also giving information to the Christopher Steel at the time. So people within the State Department, if you're acocracy, we're in fact,

uh telling Christopher Steel stuff. Oh and by the way, it sounds like my information might have gone the other way too. Here's former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Newland. When he was doing this other work and became concerned the dossier. The dossier he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was this is not in our purview.

This needs to go to the FBI. If there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation, that's for something for the FBI to investigate. So hold on

a second, which is it here? Because if you have Clinton cronies at the State Department giving Steel information and then Steele running that to the FBI, do you also have Steel getting his information however he gets it, and then going back to the State Department to meet with member state departments, a huge organization, meet with other people,

and say, oh, this is the information I've got. I mean, this is circle circular reporting in the worst possible way, which is a cardinal sin in intelligence and analysis work. You don't take one source and then pretend it's three sources. In fact, if you were writing a high school report on yeah, you know Liechtenstein and or is it Stein and you really just use the encyclopedia, but you wrote like five books about, you know, my glorious travel in Liechtenstein,

You've made up sources. That's bad, right, that's actually some people would fail you for that. Others would just take points off. But you're not supposed to do that. You're not supposed to fake the sources that you have or pretend that one source is really several sources. In intelligence work, you can imagine quite the same quite the same issue. Right If if I come up to you and I tell you that it was m lawns under my bed, you may say, well, you know, Buck's had a long day,

maybe he's at out of it. If I say I've got five different people, all of whom can confirm that Osaman Lawdon's hiding under my bed, you might say to me, ohoa, that seems I mean, who are the who are these people? When in reality they're just four people that I told that, and they're like, yeah, I guess Buck's telling the truth. Now it's five people, all independently corroborating that. You know, that's where Osama's hiding. Yeah, that's right. You know he's

still running around somewhere. Um, that's that's one way of looking at this problem. Meaning that's what I think happened. Here. You have Steel running around trying to wage a one man campaign to stop Trump from becoming president. And mind he's also a foreigner. I know that we think of you know, the Brits are like our cousins across the ocean. But he's not an American, not a lot of vote,

not not really a part of our political process. And given the fury and fervor over all the Russian machinations of all kinds about our election, and it's all foreign influence in election. Christopher Steel is for an influence in the election, folks. I don't want the Brits or the British government or any other government trying to determine what goes on here anymore than I want the Russian government

trying to determine what goes on over here. You know, the Swedes are great, I don't want them picking our next president. In fact, I think that the Swedes would be just as bad at picking our next president as a whole bunch of other countries that are way less economically well off in Sweden. So that's just something else

to keep in mind. I find this, this whole notion of the State Department now being an additional avenue for information that is anti Trump, very troubling and completely believable. By the way I I've had, I've had many many friends at State from over the years when I lived in d C. I had a lot of State Department friends and spent a lot of time around people the State Department. And it's a the best way to think about the State Department and people I know I'm gonna get,

you know, an angry email or two. Here, someone like Buck, I work for State and like, I'm awesome. I'm like, I love America. What are you doing? I know you're out, I get it, But I'm talking about in the aggregate right in general, and the prototypical State Department guy or gal is an urban dwelling Democrat who thinks that Bernie Sanders would have been a great option. Okay, that's you

get a lot of that at the State Department. Uh. You know, they speak foreign languages from their study abroad programs from predominantly like second tier private colleges, and they think that, you know, people should listen to them more because of that. So you get a lot of that at State. And that means you're gonna have a whole bunch of folks that are, let's just say, not part of the MAGA movement. So if they were in some way involved here in the Steel dossier, I would it

would not surprise me in the least. And no matter what, And now, I just I just want to know was it a one way information flow or two way? Was Steel briefing State with anti Trump stuff? Was State briefing Steel with anti Trump stuff? Or was it both ways? Right? That's what we need to figure out now, but it seems quite clear that we have, um we have some

some additional digging to do. To that point about digging, we have investigative journalist Sarah Carter joining us here in just a few minutes, so we will get into quite a bit of that. I would note that there are some reports today about what's going on with Syria and Rock, including US troops pulling out of a rock. Someone remind me tomorrow. I'll get it. We'll do a buck brief some national security work on what's going on over there

and what we're gonna do. And it looks like we might be withdrawing from Syria and large numbers or not large numbers, but a large percentage might be withdrawing from Iraq. What that all means, and what's going on with the Assad regime, what we can expect there. That's not something we're gonna hit today, but I just want to keep that in the background of what we're talking about on

the show. And also I'm hoping to do a little bit of a deep dive and a history three of MS thirteen, specifically as we get going here on the immigration debate, and we talked about enforcement priorities and sanctuary cities. I think we should all have a baseline understanding and background history on ms there Tomorrow, Salvat Trout show m S their teen and what the gang has, what it's been all about, what it does and how big it

is and everything else. So I think that's despite what MSNBC said last week about how no one knows I m S thirteen except for Fox News viewers or whatever. You know. I guess over at MSNBC, knowledge is not power. You see much better. You know you want? You want a lot of ignorance. All right, we're gonna roll into a quick break. We'll be right back. Yea. The actual political motivation and beginning of this was on the Republican side. It was then switched over where there was democratic funding.

It really goes to the credit ability, but that is an issue that the judge and issuing the fires of warrant takes into consideration. So Dick Durbin is still run around with that. You know, all the dossier stuff started with the Republicans. Like, no, come on, Dick Durbin. I'm gonna say you're better than that, but that's not true either, But come on, man, come on, you know, tell tell the truth at least? Why not? Yeah, we only go around once in this world. Why not tell the truth

for a change. Another thing I meant to get to you before, and we're gonna have Sarah Carter joining us here shortly, and then we'll also get into in the next hour a little bit of Super Bowl reaction, Hillary Clinton blaming misogyny and saying and saying that climate change is misogynistic. Get ready for that. It's a real thing, everybody, next hour. And at the end of the hour, I have some some thoughts, some some wisdom from well of

particularly important and heartfelt place for all of you. That's I'm just sharing with you. It's not from me, but it's something that I saw. I think you'll all appreciate. And that's at the end of the next year. I hope you can stay through for that. I saw this guy or I saw this editorial why I Am leaving the FBI, And I've noticed a trend here former And look,

I was early on this one, right. It used to be what do you mean you're you're leaving You're leaving the intelligence community and you're going to be in media. And like, now all these guys want to be in media, right I was. Let's be honest, you know, Clapper and Brandon and Prete Burrah on all these guys. You're welcome, You're welcome. I was a trend setter here. I was early on. I've I've been doing this for seven years. I was early. Now everyone wants to get in on

this game. Right. All these guys are working government. They're like, oh, I was in all that, being under Assistant Secretary for for logistics of making sure potato chips were adequately stocked in the in the break room, you know. And they're all now on run around over at MSNBC and whatnot. But this guy writes this piece of the for the New York Times, why I Am leaving the FBI, and it has a lot of like self congratulatory stuff. You know.

One of the greatest honors of my life was walking across the stage at FBI Academy and receiving my special Agent path from the director Robert Mueller. Oh, big surprise, Mueller, you know. And then he goes on and on and he starts to say, you know that this is all it's also partisan. What are we to make that of the recent allegations of political bias at the FBI, particularly those involving two employees who is cringeworthy texts continue to

threaten the agency's reputation. Uh, these political attacks on the bureau must stop. If those critics of the agency blah blahla and he goes on right, so that this is why he's he's leaving the FBI because the political criticism is saying, right, who wants to guess what we find out next about this guy who left the FBI? Who wants to who wants they can guess did he go? You know? Is he gonna go lead a quiet life somewhere just you know, volunteering in his off time and

trying to build a small business. Oh he's a CNN analyst. Now, Oh what a shock, what a So he's leaving the FBI because of political pressure and he's running right over to CNN right away. M hmm. Is it really the political pressure at the FBI that's bothering him or is it the capitalizing here? Is is it the best option for him to try and ride this wave into a contributorship gig somewhere. I want to let the guy know, look, go to see it. You know, you'll be there for

a year. You'll be on TV sometimes, but you know, they're still not going to give you a show, buddy. They only give shows to people that are really inside the inside the cool kids table, you know. So go have fun over there for a little bit. But at the end of the day, yet another voice saying that Trump is basically Hitler, not adding the conversation. It's not helpful and pretending that you're above politics and that's why you left the FBI so you can go be an

a list at CNN. Is comical. It is comical. We got Sarah Carter joinings here in a few minutes. She's, like I said, front lines of this issue with the memo and everything else. So she's also good friend of mine. Stay with it. Other shows just talk at you in the Freedom Mud. We have a mission. We fight for the truth in a team effort, and Buck is back

with our next play. Alright, alright, So the memo continues to be top of the news cycle, a lot of back and forth over the weekend after the meto dropped on Friday. We have a lady with us right now who has been at the center of the storm on this for quite some time because she's actually chasing down the truth and getting facts out there so that we know what's real and what's not. With all this, we

have Sarah Carter on the line. She's an investigative journalist and also a Fox News contributor and an old pal of mind. Sarah, thank you for making the time. Oh it's great, but it's great to be with you. All right. So first in the memo aftermath, a lot of things coming up now and as I suspected, that was just an important day, kind of a major data point in the story. But by no means the end of any

of these stories. Tell me a bit about this criminal referral with Christopher Steele and UH and Grasslely in Congress,

what's going on with that? I think this is probably the biggest development in the case of the fight subbut case as well as the dotier on January for its basically, Senator Grassley and Senator Linda Graham referred to the Justice Department Christopher Steele for a criminal investigation, and basically that was based on information that they had obtained from the FBI when they looked at Christopher Steele's own testimony in the London courts and others and compared that to FBI

information that they had received. And today they actually released a heavily redacted criminal referral that if you pick through the criminal referral, you see that they accused him of blatantly lying to the FBI. Further, you see that there were other people involved in what appears to be a second dossier. Now I've spoken to my sources, and those those sources have said that the second dossier was information said by Chris By actually by Hillary Clinton's allies, her friends,

to Christopher Stile. And there was someone in particular at the State Department that was also feeding information to Christopher Steele that he then used in his dossier, which was used to obtain the Pytho warrant. So this is a very circular, very in and I'm sorry for the noise of the background and outdoors, but this is a This this shows how very incestuous they say it was between Chris Christopher Stile, Hillary Clinton, and others involved in putting

together this DOFFI don't worry, Sarah. We assume that if you're outside, it's because you've got a dead drop going with one of your sources and you're about to get another another bombshell out there, so we excuse any any at all. Envia noise is fun. But tell me a bit about where where the Democrat memo stands in all this. I'm seeing that the the House may vote on it. I'm well, I mean, tell me what you're hearing from

your sources about why should or should this not come out. Look, every source I've spoken to says, let the Democrat memo come out. Let them come out with their ten page rebuttal I spoke to others who said that it's lappable on its face. I don't know if that's true. I have not had a chance to look at that. The Democrats want to put their point of view out there.

They you know, they have stated over and over again over the last few days that the new nest memo is not accurate, is that it doesn't tell the whole story, and they want to release their own. But remember they have to go through the same process, but the exact same process that the Republicans went through, and that means that their NEMO, their memo, needs to be thoroughly vetted,

and it has not been vetted yet. It is in the process of being vetted and apparently as soon as that is done, they will vote to pass so that the Democratic Memo can go forward and become public as well. And I think it's important. I think it's important that we see both sides of this and understand where a representative shift is coming from and what he is going to do to can be to contend with the new NIMMO.

But I tell you this, I've spoken to a number of sources who had direct access to the McCabe testimony, and they said he would specifically asked about the Steel dossier and whether or not the fight the application could have been obtained without it. And according to the sources that I've spoken with, McCabe was very explicit that he would not have been able to obtain the fight to warrant. The FBI would not have been able to obtain it

without the dossier. What can you tell us, Sarah and everyone we're speaking to Sarah Carter check out her latest because she's the one who's been dropping bombshells on this

story now for over a year. Sarah a no h Sarah and then a Carter dot Com is where she posts her pieces, as well as in various outlets across the country, Sarah, there's this talking point we heard a lot of in the twenty four or forty eight hours after the memo drop that well, they already were doing surveillance on Page before the the dossier came into effect, and or they were doing surveillance on Papadopoulos before the dossier came into effect. Do we have any are people

just saying that without being able to prove it? Do we have any information on that? What? What can you tell us about that? That the notion that pre dossier there was already FBI surveillance of people tied to Trump. You know, I don't think everybody has all the facts in place. I did speak to Carter Page myself. I did ask him direct questions, particularly about information that came out with his meeting with the Russians, um very brief meeting that he said he had he uh adamantly denies.

He said he was never paid by the Russians to give any advice, that when he did offer his advice, it was based mostly on his own fability as a professor to to to to try to teach them, uh and and kind of direct economic policies and things of that nature. As far as what he was teaching at n y U at the time. I think was really

fascinating here is that Paige and Papadopulis. Remember the story on George Papadospelis didn't even come out until much later, actually, the last this past December, when that story and that revelation came about, And that never had been a point of contention and never had been brought out in any

news stories prior to the dossier. The dossier, in fact, was the main reason that the FBI, according to all the sources I've spoken with, got the fight a warrant to continue surveilling carter Page before that, according to carter Page and according to others, he was more of a witness for the FBI. And I have talked to FBI sources who said that they had approached carter Page after the meeting and really just wanted to utilize carter Page

in their investigation of the Russians. Well, that's a critical Sarah. I mean, this is a critical point because if he was working and I've seen this too from some people tied into all this and the investigation, if carter Page was assisting the FBI in any way in advance of the Fiser warrant. Then they can't turn around. They being people that are running with this story as a means of getting at the Trump administration, they can't run around and say, oh, but he was already the he was

already on the FBI's radar before the Fiser warrant. Because if he's on the radar because he's helping them, that does not count. And that's exactly it. That's exactly the point, and that's the point that I think a lot of people have been trying to make her. What was the rule Carter Page played in the FBI's investigation, And if he was a witness as that is, as it has been told by sources that I've spoken with, then it makes him very different than being the target which he

later became when the Dartier came about. And remember the Darcier's Christopher Steel put together was said in bits and pieces to the FBI. So we know and we have heard that the first time they went in for the five to application they were denied, and it was the second time when they had more information. Apparently the dossier, along with Michael Isakof's story in Yahoo Knews that the FISA was actually accepted, and they went through with their

surveillance of carter page. Sarah, can we keep you, can we keep you through the break for one second, just to to ask you about the State Department angle on this in a second. Absolutely, guys, we're talking to Sarah Carter. You should be following her on social media for not already, follow her on Twitter and Facebook. Her website is s A R A A A Carter dot com Sarah A. Carter dot com and you see her on Fox News all the time. We're gonna be back in just a

moment with more from Sarah. Stay with me, all right, Welcome back everyone. We've got Sarah Carter on the line talking to her about the latest in Memo gate. I guess we don't really have a better term for yet, Russia Gate. We just add gate onto anything of news interest these days, it seems. But Sarah, thanks for staying through the break with us. This is a this is

a big addition to this story. We don't often hear a lot of new and recently with the memo and now this, there's some there's some pieces that are getting added into the puzzle here that are are meaningful and that advanced our understanding of what really happened when it

comes to Russia Trump collusion. Tell me about how the State Department all of a sudden plays in this well, I think this is the most fascinating heart book of the entire saga here that all of a sudden, now the State Department is involved in this memo and in and actually in the dossier itself that Christopher Steele was

putting together. In the referral, the criminal referral that Chuck Grassley along with Lindsay Graham gave to the d o J, they specifically state, specifically state that sources within the State Department were feeding information to Christopher Steele, who then used that information in his dossier, which he fed to the FBI. Those sources were friends of the Clintons. That's very important

because that changes pretty much everything. Although they said that Christopher Steele got information from the Russians, this was an added piece of information that Christopher Steele was held from the FBI, and that's why the referral was made. He did not inform the FBI that he was being fed information from people that were closely aligned with the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now you go to the memo and you

say to yourself. Union specifically pointed out that Bruce Or in his four page memo that Bruce Or had told the FBI that Christopher Steele was intent on not seeing President Trump elected. So now take a step back. He is not just a former intelligence analyst collecting information that he found surprising and stunning. He had a former intelligence officer from the from Britain who was collecting information to harm President Trump. And this is why people are saying,

we need to look into this. We need to see if our bife of courts and if our intelligence tools were weaponized to go after a candidate. Was this being used by the political opponent, by Hillary Clinton's campaign, members of her camp, friends of hers to basically spread disinformation about President Trump in his campaign? I mean, this is incredible, Sarah.

If if what you're telling me, if what you're telling me is is born out with sourcing and reporting, now, it would mean that there could have been When you say State Department, I think this is an important You know, first of all, the State Department is a very I know, I knew a lot of people at State. State is a left of center at a minimum organization. Overall, Yes, there are former ground pounding, awesome patriotic Marines that also go and work at the State Department. But it's mostly

people that got master's degrees from Johns. Hopkins and Columbia's CPUs school, and and they are very left of center. So that's the overall ethos. But even putting aside whether it was just some bureaucrats Sarah who wanted to get even with Trump or just didn't like Trump. And we know there's been a lot oh the anti Trump sentiment

coming out of Foggy Bottom for a while. It could be senior appointees, or it could have been senior appointees of the Obama administration at State, people that had worked very closely with Hillary Clinton, which you Secretary of State. It could be those people passing information to Christopher Steele, Christopher Steele presenting that to the FBI, And this would be a whole another channel for OPO research in essence getting handed to the FBI as though it was actual intelligence.

I mean, that's stunning. It is stunning, And I mean I'm reading directly right now from the Criminal Referral where they state explicitly it is troubly enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr Steel's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility. There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his

dostier efforts, which on which bears on his credibility. This is so important because this opens up a whole new chapter. As you said, but in this dossier, and in Christopher Steel's involvement with the dossier, and without this dossier, it appears they would have never been able to gain a fight the warrant to conduct this investigation of Carter Page. Sarah, We've been told now for a few days because as a main part of the Democrat rebuttal, that there's other

information than the dossier. I just want to know, are you hearing from from your sources, from people in the boat way who could affect change on this, that they're going to try and get that information out there too, Because I think that the one of the biggest hits the d o J took here was the pretense that this was national security sensitive information that we couldn't know about.

I mean that four page memo was important, but there was nothing that was endangering any sources, any methods, and that they pretended that was the case is really harmful to their credibility. Are we gonna be able to get more information you think out of them? I mean, if there's other stuff, can we find out what that other stuff is for the Fies Award or no? Well you

would think so. I mean, there's been so many leaks, and the one leak that we haven't seen, the major League that is supposed to prove some type of Russia collusion with Trump, is that particular leak we still haven't seen that. There has been no evidence to prove that as of yet. Now, if there is other evidence that they used for the fight of warrant, I would like to know what that was too, because I think that's essentially important. And maybe the ten page memo by the

Democrats we'll explain that. But so far we haven't heard anything in that realm. There's been no leaks which we were expecting to contradict the new Nest memo on that part. So either they're holding it close hold or they just don't have it. Sarah, when can we expect your next piece? And I know it'll be up on Sarah E. Carter dot com. But two, can you tell us when to expect it and maybe a little bit of what to

expect or are we still working on that? Well, we have a piece coming out today which is a story I've been working on which deals with the referral and the possible people involved in the Clinton campaign who were feeding the British spy his information. Alright, everybody Sarah Carter look for on Fox News, follower on social media and check out her latest piece out today. Sarah, great work is always. Thank you so much for joining us. Hey, thank you, bet you too. Um, alright, seems so yeah,

there you have it. You know it looks Sarah has been such a warrior for the truth on this whole issue. And let me tell you, I've known Sarah for years. I go back with Sarah at Lee six or seven years working with her back in the old real News days and the Blaze, and she was a colleague of mine at the Blaze for a while. And you know, it's it's a lot harder to do the job when the deep state and the establishment are against you and

not feeding you information. And you know, it's it's a very different thing, right For a lot of these so called national secure eddie analysts and reporters, particularly reporters at the major papers, they're literally just they're they're spoon fed information, sometimes classified information that the Democrat establishment wants out there, and then they get to act like, oh, we're in trepid reporters. Sarah's finding stuff that people don't want her

to find out. So she's doing really, really great work and I just wouldn't know that. I'm still stunned with all this. There's so many people running around acting like, yeah, you know, so what if they turn on a finds a warrant based on what we would call rument in the intelligence community rumor intelligence, which is just a funny way of saying not intelligence. You can just have somebody, I mean, think about this. Someone could get a referral

to the FBI started on me. So yeah, you know, you know, my my, my cousin, My cousin knows this. This guy named Commy Bear, and he says that Bucky is trying to run some special you know, Russia collusion effort. And you convince some of the FBI and and and they can go to find as a quarters, I mean it's crazy. See right, look at what is the basis

for all this? How can we take seriously any safeguards when what's been exposed thus far is that you can just if the FBI wants to believe you, or some people I shouldn't say the FBI, some people at the FBI, the d o J want to believe you. They just make up all your stuff. You know, your phones, your emails, and you're an American citizen, don't have to identify a crime that you're committing. It's crazy. Are we got a big hour three coming up? Team? Uh? Eight four, eight

to five. We're gonna end the show with some life philosophy that I think you'll find very useful, um and very compelling, and we'll be back with that much more. Stay with me other shows just talk at you in the Freedom Hud. We have a mission. We fight for the truth in a team effort and bucks back with

our next play. When people are insecure and anxious, they often um defend against their own feelings by rejecting others, and that often happens with minorities, It happens with ethnic ethnicities, races, religions, and it also happens with respect to women. Um So, any of you who have read my my book about what happened, noo that I think that misogyny and sexism was part of that campaign. Old fashioned sexism, uh and a refusal to accept the equality of women. What happened

was sexism. There you get Hillary. Look, I'm willing to drop the whole Hillary conversation if we don't have to hear from Hillary anymore. But she's not dropping it. So I'm not dropping it right. I'm not gonna give Hillary the last word, last word, because my ears are paying the price for Hillaries presidence in the public sphere. But you'll notice the same thing from her as you'll always hear, right, You'll hear from her that you know it's about sexism.

I would note that it's a little bit galling for some of us to hear from Hillary Clinton that she lost because of sexism in part, she said, in part to be fair to the words, she is, but you know, she lost in part because of sexism. When, as we would say in the media business, or I think in any business, I just this is the one I know the best. Her unique selling proposition, so to speak, as a candidate was that she was gonna be the first

woman president. Right, Her campaign was I'm with her. It wasn't vote for me based on the merits, right, it was it was she's the first woman president in the making new sexism. It's like, no, you know, if if you would run a really compelling female candidate, she would win. But Hillary is just not a compelling female candidate, as we all know. She also has some other sexism based

advice to share with all of us. For women, they will bear the brunt of looking for the food, looking for the firewood, looking for the place to migrate to where your crops are no longer uh growing, they're burning up in the intense heat that we're now seeing reported across UH North Africa, into the Middle East and into India. So yes, women once again will be the primary um primarily burdened with the problems of climate change. Let me just reiterate here what's being said there in this recent

Hillary speech. She's saying that climate change disproportionately affects women. Climate change is sexist. Can you I want you to let that settle in a little bit there. That's right, glory and putting aside for a moment whether or not climate change is something to be can certained about. It's real, everybody. Climate change is real. It's just always been real. It has always been real. It is insignificant to your life and mind. It will be insignificant to our great great

great great grandchildren's lives. And we are naturally decarbonizing as a human race. That has been occurring naturally via market and technological forces for over a century now, for really a hundred and fifty years. And I can take you through that progression one day if you want, But it is as clear as clear can be. And yet you have the fearmongering, and you have Hillary who is trying to capitalize on climate change as an issue of sexism.

This was almost our current president, folks, you would have been treated to one Hillary speech after another, but I broke the glass ceiling. But it was unfair. You know, you don't know which way you're going with Hillary. You just know that it's going to be self serving and dishonest. And I have to note that not only you got Hillary telling you that climate change is sexist, which I don't even know how you could get makeup dumber stuff

than this. At this point, like they're actually getting beyond my creative capabilities here for mockery. It is getting hard to mock some of Hillary's self aggrandizement and self pity. She does those two things simultaneously. She's amazing and should be president. Oh woe is me? It's so sad. I'm a woman. They wouldn't let me be president, right, It's it's a pretty astonishing combination. But it's very real with Hillary.

But I would not that, you know, her whole sexism is going to affect women things seems more than men, which by the men men need look, you know, without getting into the sexist and debate, men need food and and dry land and would for fires as well. I don't know why women are going to be the ones who are disproportionately affected by this. I do not understand anyway. There there was also a piece of the Weekend And you can't make this stuff up, folks. I mean, this

is going beyond parody. This was printed in the New York Times. No children because of climate change? Some people are considering it. This is what the piece says. Add this to the list of decisions affected by climate change? Should I have children? It is not an easy time for people to whold to feel hopeful, with the effects of global warming no longer theoretical projections becoming more dire,

and governmental action lagging. And while few, if any studies have examined how large a climate change a role climate change plays and people's childbearing decisions, it loomed large in interviews with more than a dozen people ages eighteen to forty three. Uh, okay, twelve people. It's not exactly a a fantastic indicator of anything, right, I mean do they

sit down and ask twelve people? Oh even if you if you ask twelve people in you know, Red Hook, Brooklyn what they think about climate change, then you're gonna get a very different answer than if you ask people from uh, you know, the Midwest. In this case, I think they're asking people in Hyderabad in India. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. I mean you could ask people. Twelve people is not enough? Is not enough to get a sense of anything. Um, but this is crazy, folks, This

is craziness. I mean when I say crazy, I don't mean like, oh it's crazy, I mean actually disconnected from reality. Need help, like need to seek some form of assistance and therapy to cope with the anxieties of day to day life. I promise you, folks, your kids and my kids are not gonna be having wars in some mad Max like dystopia where they're, you know, trying to knock each other off of homemade dinghies or something. I mean, that's not That's not the way they is gonna go.

I assure you that is not the truth. And yet here we are um the quote that they used, by the way, in this piece. When The New York Times tweeted this out, the quote was quote, I don't want to give birth to a kid wondering if it's going to live in some kind of mad Max dystopia. End quote. Now this is where I get into a more serious

frame of mind for a second. Here, I spoke to you last week about the left war on life and on the unborn, as as as serious an issue as there exists for me, but in a in an even broader sense, the left adopts this nihilistic, almost earth worship position. And it's not new right if you go back in the past, scientists, Thomas Malthus, for those who are wondering about when you could even look up mouthis thought, we're gonna run out of food and it's more complicated than that.

He was a social scientist and wrote extensively, but the basic idea was human population is ressing at x, food production progresses at why we are going to have starvation that affects a large portion of the of the global population. Well, mouth, this was wrong, totally totally wrong. Why because he could not foresee technological advances, just like the climate change folks.

As we sit here and liquefied natural gas is soon to overtake oil and coal as the primary fossil fuels, which is much cleaner in terms of carbon burning than those two and very abundant. Uh, they can't predict technological innovation either. But there is at the root of liberalism and leftism a kind of nihilistic atheism that, you know, we need to prevent more life from happening. We need to stop. We are the last of life. And it's also a solop sism. It's it's a an obsession with

the self. Our children are not going to all drown because of climate change. We should all be having as many kids as we choose to. We should go forth and multiply my friends. As you well know that the New York Times would print something so dumb, so insane, and that Hillary Clinton has her own version of it tells us a lot about where the Democrats are only no, no, no, no, no, no,

thank god, oh my god, my god. Yes, have two different reactions till the Philadelphia Eagles, which, as I understand it, Philadelphia locals say Eagles right. There's some way that they say it that I don't. Yeah, you're Mike's a super Eagles fan, So how do they it Eagles right? They have a weird the Philly accent. They have a weird way of saying it right. Or am I wrong here? You say Eagles? Okay, you're blowing up my spot right now.

I my college roommate is a Philly born and raised, super Philly fan of all sports, and he would always say that if you're on like maybe it's the South side of Philly or the there's like a it Eagles. You know. It's kind of like you go to Baltimore. People sound like people sound, but there's some people who've got a super funky Baltimore accent. You could tell me there's nothing in Philadelphia. Come on, absolutely, we get the yo and there yo Eagles, all right, Yo Eagles. Maybe

that's been a little more like Rocky Balboa. Then alright, fine, anyway, point here being the Eagles one, as you all know, and that's great. I watched the I watched the Super Bowl. In that montage, we need a montage, the opening montage there we had Kobe Bryant, who was from Philadelphia, one of the greatest basketball players of all time. He was on Instagram freaking out and that sort of and I think he's with family, right, you could hear kids there

or something. He was, yeah, yeah, with his wife and child. Wife and child. So you know, that's exactly we like to see people. It's a great story. Happy for the Eagles, half of the city of Philadelphia. In fact, I almost moved to Philadelphia some years ago to go to business school. It's a whole other story for another time. But the the Eagles one, and that's great. But then in the other part you may have been like, what is this

noise I'm hearing? That was one of the riots that was going on, or maybe you could call it, if you wanted to be a little bit more generous, a Ruckus celebration. But they did flip a car over. I saw that they looted a store yelling everything is free, and I just don't understand. I don't get it, and

I'm not picking. Look, this is also where it is legitimate and necessary to say this is one percent or less than one percent of overall Eagles fans, the whole country outside of New England, based on the social media proclivities that were shared for the Super Bowl, the whole country outside of outside of New England, and actually Montana, believe it or not, I saw on Twitter Montana was overall going for the Patriots. But people are rooting for them, and I know this is a very small group, and

I'm just happy for Philadelphia. It's great. They're gonna have a lot of fun now, big parade. Last night they were partying. I watched the whole thing. I thought it was a great game. Some people were complaining there wasn't enough defense. I think that a football game that ends up nine three after four quarters is like the worst

possible thing, So there are some amazing catches. I thought it was great, so I enjoyed watching and I watched it with Ms Molly and my two brothers and one of my brother's girlfriends, and we ate a lot of nachos, which I will tell you nachos are good for all three meals. The next day. You can, in fact, reheat nachos in the microwave the next day for any meal, and they taste pretty much just as good as they did the day before, and they work for any meal.

In that regard, nachos are like the bacon of the chip world. They are utility players. You can get your nachos going for anything you need. But you know, there's the Kobe Bryant celebration versus the celebration we saw on the streets. And look, it's Kobe's just a you know, he's a native Philadelphian um and so he gets very excited. Or the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl before. That's a great story and and people should have fun

with it and celebrate. Now. I love it here. We're all like, wow, it was a great game last night. But onto the riot side of it. I'm not gonna spend much time on this because come on, it's not that not that many people that were doing this, although there were like tens of thousands taking to the streets. I did see that, But there's a difference. You're taken to the street and cheering and lipping cars over and stealing from a seven eleven or a CBS or whatever

that was in the videos that people saw there. But I would just note that this is by no means limited to the Super Bowl two Eagles fans too, although I do believe there is actually a courtroom in the Eagles stadium in the basement to adjudicate. Yes, Mike, Mike, we got a Super Eagles fan here in studio everybody, so they they are ready, They're ready to deal with

whatever comes their way with Eagles fans. But the truth of the whole situation with rioting or the postgame celebrations that extend beyond what I think is uh is necessary and reasonable, is that I've seen it elsewhere too. When I was at a little tiny Amherst College, which is right down the street from the University of Massachusetts. You mass Amherst, which always and I don't get into this stuff, this this pettiness, but people always do the whole you know,

did you go to did you go to Amherst? I went to Amherst, And you say, well, if you went to Amherst College, you don't pronounce the age. But if you go to Amherst, you mass or you mask Amherst. There's a different way of people saying it. I know this is all very this is all school rivalry stuff. I don't go there. I don't get into it. But you mass had like fifteen or twenty thousand students, so

that was a pretty big school. And when the Patriots would win or when they would lose, depending on the game, sometimes they would have to bring in like riot police basically with tear gas to break up whatever was going on in the streets, which when you're in central Massachusetts, not in any city you're you're bound to notice when all of a sudden there's there's like tear gas or pepper spray being deployed in large, large quantities at a

college gathering. So this is by no means new. This is not something that we have not seen elsewhere and before. And the Washington Post actually did an analysis of this quote. Why do ends feel so strongly about their teams. We're social creatures. We have a need to belong said Daniel Juan, a psychology professor at Murray State University. People often split themselves into categories based on occupation, ethnicity, gender, or other factors.

That sense of belonging belonging can often be beneficial. In studies on college students, Juan has found that fans who identify strongly with a team are often less likely to feel lonely or alienated and have higher self esteem. But then they go what happens in fans brains after a win or loss. Because of that strong identification. For ardent fans, the team becomes an extension of the fan, and that

can have profound effects on people's psychology and even physiology. Yeah, so there's that, and then they go one more step here, So where does the urge for violence come from? Most agree the mob mentality has a lot to do with it, and study after study psychologists have shown people often behave differently in big crowds. Yeah, so thanks Washington Post for telling us all what we already know. People can act

like idiots in big crowds. And the best study of this is actually Gustave Le bon l E and then b o n The Crowd, a study of the popular mind, and it's it is a a philosophical and I guess somewhat scientifical. It's really just based on philosophy, but it's a philosophy philosophy, philosophical deep dive into the um. It's a philosophical deep dive into why a crowd acts the way that it does and how it how it functions, why it thinks in the manner that it does, and

everything else. So if you're looking for a version of and this is from a hundred hundred gosh, I forget how many years Gustave le Bon is nineteenth century, I think I forget one exactly. Um, But the truth is that Gustav le Bon is the best version of this that I've ever read. So that will explain why people flip cars over and light things on fire after sporting events. And maybe another time we'll do a deep dive into the mob mentality. But congrats to the Congrats to the Eagles.

I'm very happy for them. First time ever, right, first time they've ever won. Which it's interesting because they've been a good franchise for a long time. I remember, you know, Eagles have been competitors, you know they've done well. As a by family Giants fan, so I was forced to be. There was no question. It was like you're going to be raised Roman Catholic, you're also going to be a Giants fan. Um. The Eagles have a certain you know, the other side feeling for me, but I'm very happy

for them. Nonetheless, I'm very happy that Eagles came away with the w and it was a great game. The worst part of the whole thing was the halftime show. I don't care what anybody says, that guy justin Timberlake is talented, but his music does not match his overall talent. You know, I'm glad that there's somebody that can provide the soundtrack for exotic dancers for the foreseeable future. But that's about the most you can expect from timber Lakes music,

in my opinion. And with that, we will go into some other thoughts on the side of the breaks the next segment after this one. It's gonna be a little sad, but also inspiring and I think really worthwhile. I'll need you to stay with me until the end of the show to get into it, and I will also tell you that won't be an easy one for me to do. It's nothing about me. It's stories and advice from some others. But it really stuck with me and I've read through

It's not long. I've read through it a number of times, and I think there's tremendous wisdom in it, and uh, I may get a little choked up during it, so I just would advise that that may happen. I am sometimes a bit sentimental or dare I even say, I am sensitive to certain things, and I think you'll understand why in the next segment. Like I said, nothing that this has nothing to do with me or or my life. It's it's the lives of others that I can draw

some real wisdom from. And I think it's a powerful segment. So I hope you will stay through for it, and I won't get into more detail than that. But before that, I wanted to have a little bit of fun with you, which is why I figured we could address the question that feels very apropos for the Freedom Hunt, just out of curiosity. I really it wasn't rolling, because I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, but I was. I was chumming

the waters with this one a little bit. I on Sunday during the I think it was during the super Bowl, actually, I asked or I was right before the Super Bowl. I asked the following question on Twitter. Can a movie be placed in the action genre if it takes place in a pre Gunpowder era. Now this is not to say that a movie or the question is not can a movie have or or not have action if it

is pre Gunpowder? But I just meant in terms of the genre, which is something that's come up on this show, for example, action is it's a kind of arbitrary genre, but you know, you know when you see it. And those of you like me who spent way too much of your childhood literally wandering around movie rental stores, it was great. Man. I used to just wander around sound and check out all the different empty boxes of VHS tapes and see what was there. I used to love it.

It was a great thing. My mom would let me do it while she was getting groceries. You know. My older brother and I could go wander into the little video store next door. Talk about a business that doesn't really exist anymore. Their video rental stores everywhere when I was an early teenager, and then Blockbuster kind of took over. But action was a genre. What I say to people though, is Westerns can have a lot of action, but Westerns

are their own genre. So all those Clint Eastwood movies that people call in during action movie quote Friday and say hey, and they gave me a quote from it. I don't think that's really action. I think it's a Western. It can have action in it, but that's not the same as falling in the genre of action. And with pre Gunpowder, I know that seems like a somewhat arbitrary separation, But in the pre Gunpowder era, I think you could make a case that some of the great movies are

historical epics or are historical drama, you know. But but then there's some crossover into other into other genres too. And I knew I asked this question and from the team and from others I was going to get I was going to get a bit of a pile on, and I did. I did. So. The question is can a movie be placed in the action genre if it takes place in a pre Gunpowder era, and a lot of your like, yes, it can, buck And that is

what came across here. The big the big ones that I have to agree are the ones that generally speaking, get me thinking, yeah, those are action movies, they're not really historical epics. Are movies like Gladiator and Braveheart. Braveheart is probably all in my favorite movie of all time, and I've mentioned before that Braveheart was the name, the nickname, not of William Wallace, who for some one day I'll

do a whole show on the real William Wallace. Not a whole show, but a segment, probably a shield hie, actually on the whole on the real William Wallace. Oh, and that's where I also would note, sorry, there's no Shields High today. We took a week off to do a little additional research. It'll be up and running next week, and so your next shield High installment will be next Monday.

The research team of Buck needed to take a couple of days off and actually watch the Super Bowl with Ms Molly and his brothers and not have his headphones

on while he's audio editing a history podcast. But back to this question about action, I usually think of Gladiator and uh and Braveheart when I think of can you have an action movie that is pre gunpowder, so there's no guns, no firing of any weapons that aren't you know, bows and arrows and crossbows, and a lot of you pointed out right away, Hold on a second, what is three hundred if not an action movie? And I think

you got it on that one. I don't think you can make a case that three hundred is anything other than an action movie. I do see here on Twitter that Hector wrote THET Warrior, which I just that really, I found that fascinating because it's a It was a disaster at the box office. It has Antonio Benderis, but it's based on the Michael Crichton Eaters of the Dead, and it has an interesting kind of history based plot.

It's a guy from the apposite Caliphate of Baghdad makes his way to Viking territory and there are there's kind of a pre I don't know what you say, a pre Bronze Age people that essentially eat people, their cannibals up there. It's kind of an interesting out there plot. But that movie did terribly the box office. I actually owned it on DVD. I think it's because it was one of those DVDs when I was in college you could buy for like five bucks or something in the

in the store and one of those bins. So I actually owned it in college and watched it a fair amount. But your your answers here, I cannot begin to uh push back against this. You guys were all correct when you add in Brave Heart Gladiator three hundred and and many others that aren't even coming to mind right away. The answer is that, yes, in fact, you can. The team Team Buck established it beyond any dispute. You can't have an action movie without the usage of any gunpowder weapons.

So the question was answered, and thank you very much for that. Um, I have some wisdom to share with you, not for me, from well, from some kids actually and a doctor who's passing it along. I think you'll really find this worth your time, So stay with me through

the break and Hay teemed to close out the show. Today, I have something a little different in mind than roll Call, and it came to me in one of those moments over the weekend where I realized I was looking at my phone and paying attention to the political disputes going on in the aftermath of the Trump memo and not focusing as much on MS Molly, And also later in the weekend for Super Bowl Sunday time I was spending with my two brothers, I was all caught up in

the back and forth of the memo and not focused on my life for a few moments, and it reminded me of this thread that I saw on Twitter. So I'm now going to use social media as a way of telling us all not to spend too much time on social media. But I do think that the message contained within is is very powerful. It's also quite a bit sad when you think about it, but I well

it it's stuck with me. Very few things in this current era of constant news stimulation and engagement, very few things that are not bombshell stories, tend to stick with me for a few days, and uh, this is this is one of them. So here is the story. Um, and let me just first say that this is about This is about palliative care for pediatric pediatric patients. So

these are children who have terminal diseases. Palliative in fact, it comes from the Latin paliarre, which is to cloak or to hide, because palliative care is about dealing with the pain and the minimizing the suffering. Essentially, you make someone as comfortable as you can for as long as you can, but there is really no hope or effort to treat the underlying disease. So you can imagine the

moment you're talking about terminal pediatric palliative care. This is this is tough stuff, but there's a lot of wisdom that can come from the thoughts of children who have been faced with so much so early on in life. And this was put together by a doctor Alistair mac o Pine is his name, and he put this together on Twitter. He is himself a pediatrician, so he treats children who have terminal illnesses. And here's what he wrote.

For an assignment. I asked some of my terminal pediatric palliative care patients what they had enjoyed in life and what gave it meaning. Kids can be so wise, you know. Here are some of their responses. First, none said they wished they'd watched more TV. None said that they should have spent more time on Facebook. None said that they enjoyed fighting with others, and none enjoyed the hospital. Many of them mentioned their pets quote, I love Rufus, His

funny bark makes me laugh. I love when Jinny snuggles up to me at night in Purrs. I was happiest riding Jake on the beach. Many mentioned their parents, often expressing worry or concern. I hope mum will be okay. She seems sad. Dad mustn't worry. He'll see me again soon. God will take care of my mom and dad when I am gone. All of the pediatric palliative care patients said they loved ice cream, which I can totally relate to. I just bought some ice cream myself yesterday. Miss Molly

even called me out. She said, you're getting two pints of ice cream for the house. I said, yes, indeed, I am. But all of these kids loved ice cream, and I totally understand. I totally agree back to what they had to say here. All of them loved books or being told stories, especially by their parents. Harry Potter made me feel brave. I love stories in space. I want to be a great detective. Mm hmm. Excuse me, a great detective like Sherlock Holmes when I'm better. Mm hmm.

The doctor writes here, folks read to your kids. They love it, the doctors. Stories are profound. Stories are really important, whether they are fictional or true. They allow us to put our own lives into context and to inspire us. And when you really think about it, religion, for most of you listening, Christianity is storytelling. It is based on stories. The Bible is a book of stories. That's an addition

to someone who will probably say now bucket. The Bible is universal and deadless truth, but it is still storytelling. You are being told stories, so they can clearly have

a tremendous impact on our lives. And I will always remember my parents coming home from a meeting with the headmaster of Regius High School where I went to school, which was a really exceptional place, and the headmaster, who it was a lifelong educator in a jesuit, was a big proponent of whenever possible, eat dinner with your children, do not have the TV on. That's not to say don't watch the Super Bowl with your kids and eat

wings once a year. It's just to say, whenever possible dinner as a family, without the television or any distractions on, talk to each other and be with each other. He thought, this Jesuit educator, that that had a profound impact on their academic ability, their ability to socialized, particularly with adults.

And so it was um not just a question of what's important in life, but also what is helpful in life and reading to your kids, reading stories of all the teachers that I had growing up, I have to say I think that the the one teacher who made a point. His name was Bill Ryan, He was my fourth grade homeroom teacher. He he read to us from the Hammed and then The Lord of the Rings. And it's funny because we did a lot of other stuff

that year. I remember him reading to us. He would just say, okay, everybody, you know, he would he would turn the light down just a little bit because the light of the sun was always blasting into the classroom, so he would just give us a little bit of of quiet time and everybody would just sit with their hands on the desk, or you could even put your head down on your hands on the desk if you wanted to, and he would read to the class. It was one of the most powerful things that any teacher

I ever had did. But back to the wisdom of Dr Alistair Mackael Pine, or i should say the wisdom of the the terminal palliative patients in his care. So they all love being told stories. Here's what else they said. Quote. Many wish they had spent less time worrying about what others thought of them and valued people who just treated them normally. My real friends didn't excuse me, um, my real friends didn't care when my hair fell out or m hm. Jane came to visit after the surgery and

didn't even notice the scar. Many of them, uh loved swimming and the beach. I made big sand castles. Being in the sea with the waves was so exciting. My eyes didn't even hurt. Almost all of them valued kindness above most other virtues. My granny is so kind to me. She always She always makes me smile. Johnny gave me half his sandwich when I didn't eat mine. That was nice. I like it when the kind nurse is here. She's gentle and it doesn't hurt as much. Almost all of

them loved people who made them laugh. That magician is so silly. His pants fell down and I couldn't stop laughing. My daddy pulls funny faces, which I just love. The boy in the next bed farted, The doc writes here laughter relieves pain. Also, kids love their toys and they're superheroes. My Princess Sophia Doll is my favorite. I love Batman, the doc writes. All the boys love Batman, and I love cuddling with my Teddy. Finally, they all valued. They

all valued time with their family. Nothing was more important. Mom and Dad are the best. My sister always hugs me tight, No one loves me like Mummy loves me. And Dr mac Opine then writes take home message, be kind, read more books, spend time with your family, crack jokes, go to the beach, hug your dog, Tell that special person you love them. These are the things these kids wish they could have done more. The rest is details. Oh eat more ice cream too, Dr Alistair macle pine, Well,

I'll say this, the doc is right. These kids are right. Shield Hie