POTUS Rips Mr. Never Trumper

and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again. This is the Buck Sexton shows Analysts, I can speak for three hours without a phone call. Try doing that some time. It is book Sexton. No council yesterday makes that statement. He analyzed eleven instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really could make a decision. Do you agree with that interpretation?

I personally felt he could have reached the decision. In your view, he could have reached a conclusion. Right, he could have reached a conclusion. The opinion says you can at indict a president while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity. But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained, and I'm not going to argue about

those reasons. But when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the department, to reach that decision. Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this, and that was Congress. Well, I'm not sure what he was suggesting, but the Department of Justice doesn't use our power of an investigating crime as an adjunct to Congress. Welcome to

the buck Sexton Show. Most important takeaway from today about this whole post Muller press conference mess is what was just said there by Bar which you've heard me say many times before. I'm surprised there that he very well, he being Muller, could have and should have said whether

there was a crime committed. There's a difference between we believe a crime was committed here and therefore are bringing charges and what you know what Muller did, which was to just pretend like he couldn't even say that we think the law was broken. Why is it better for him? How is it more fair to the president to make this say, well, somebody else can decide whether the law was broken. Well, let's give it to Congress to decide with the law is broken. That's not That's not what

Mueller was set up to do. That wasn't the mandate. It wasn't run Democrat oppo research to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for two years and then we'll decide what we're going to do with it in time for the election. That's that was never the mandate. But Muller treats that like it is the mandate. Why Well, because he is part of the get Trump chorus. He is somebody that is opposed to this president and wants to finish off his presidency. He probably thinks he's righteous

in doing so. He thinks that this is helpful to the country. He's doing a great public service by wounding President Trump's chances of reelection, and he thinks this is

the right thing to do. Meanwhile, you and I sit here and say the president was put through this hell based on a lie, based on a conspiracy theory fabricated by angry Democrats sore losers who can handle the fact that there was a repudiation of their politics and a repudiation of their sense of their own importance in the twenty sixteen election, and that Queen Hillary was not going to reign overall, they couldn't process it and handle like

normal people. So what they do They had to come up with this an alternate reality and then try to voice that alternate reality and the rest of us. The President colluded with Russia. He did all this terrible stuff through such a bad bad man, and Mueller will let this thing go on and on and on, and his team, of his team of anti Trump Democrats came up with a perfect way to give maximum political benefit, which is what this was always about, maximum political benefit to the Democrats.

Make it so that the only way there can be a real final answer, a final decision on this is through the Congress, which the Democrats just happened to have a majority of votes in. Let me tell you this, I do not believe that mul Or would have deferred in this way of Republicans had a majority, because then he knows they would have never been an impeachment lingering

in the background. With all of this and the reasoning for Mueller not saying there was a criminal charge is he laid out or what was it ten or eleven? I think it was ten, but some people have been saying eleven recently, ten different instances where there could have

been obstruction. We were past the Russia collusion fairy tale, or at least in terms of charges against the president, but these ten possible obstruction if he hones in on one, and then we really look at that, and then there's the competing legal analyzes of whether or not that's truly obstruction, and the preponderance of the evidence or of the majority of people hearing it at least don't believe that it was obstruction, and then then that's case closed and it's

all over with. Much better to let this thing just linger, just like the Muller investigation itself was meant to linger. Go on. The processes, the punishment. Now the process it's gone from the Mueller probe itself to the process of the congressional should we or shouldn't we impeach him? This is all it is. It's it's narrative building, it's dirty politics. It's meant to harm this president and undermine the chances of his reelection. That's all this has been about from

day one. There is no good faith, there is no honesty or integrity in this from the Democrats. It's the whole thing is an utter disgrace. But we have to keep fighting because if we don't, they will. But I do want an answer. I want Muller on the stand. I want Democrats to have to defend Muller when he won't answer the question about why didn't you just say whether a crime was committed? Because if the answer is that even Mueller doesn't really know if a crime was committed,

then then there wasn't a crime. If a seasoned prosecutor who is in charge of the most politically explosive investigation certainly since the Clinton era and probably since Watergate, if that guy isn't sure there's a crime, then you're darned sure that nobody else out there could reasonably say that, yeah, there was a crime. But so he didn't say that left it open, Better leave it vague. We'll get more

political mileage out of it, more damaging to Trump. Gives all these people in the Democrats side and on the left all this leeway, all this room to run. Well, you know the president. We think he probably obstructed, but we got to talk more about this. Let's talk more about obstruction. It's just a giant propaganda fight. They know that, and that's what we're going to be waiting into. Anyway, Muller should have said crime or no, crime doesn't mean

that there had to be charges. He should have said it. He didn't because he is a dishonest anti Trump hack. And I will say it because it is true. Anny McCarthy's gonna join me to talk about this in a little bit. Plus, we've got a whole lot more stuff coming your way. Stay with me, now, Russian did not help me get elected. You know who got me elected. You know who got me elected. I got me elected. Russia didn't help me at all. Russia, if anything, I

think help the other side. What you want to ask is this, do you think the media helped Hillary Clinton get elected? She didn't make it. But you take a look at collusion between Hillary Clinton and the media, you take a look at collusion between Hillary Clinton and Russia. She had more to do in the campaign with Russia than I did. I had nothing to do. That's true.

Nobody ever seems to focus in on this This is one area where I keep asking the various libs that I have to debate on all the Russia collusion hoax nonsense, keep saying, you know, if foreign interference in the election is some terrible, unpardonable sin, then what do we make of Christopher Steele, a foreigner get paid by the campaign or by the DNC on behalf of Hillary's campaign to use foreign subsources Russians, to compile a dossier and then

run that dossier to the intelligence community and to the American press. Let's understand that that a standard that was set up by the media in all of this was that just the the meeting at Trump Tower, the possible acceptance of opposition research or opposition information OPO if it comes from a foreigner, that's illegal. They were saying, it's a it's a campaign finance violation. I mean, this is just they're just making this stuff up as they go along.

Never mind the fact that if as I as I've told you before, Let's say that in that meeting with Vezo Niitskaya and Maniford Jared Kushner U. Let's say that at that meeting, the vesilan Sky had provided information that Hillary Clinton was laundering millions of dollars from her ridiculous access, selling speeches through a Russian bank. Would would that have been?

Is that information that the Trump campaign should ignore? No, of course not that that would be information that very much should be a part of the discussion of who should be the next leader of the free world. It would be. It's incumbent on a campaign to look through the information they have, to take information about the opponent and try to capitalize on that. That's what the whole

game is. But they set up the standard we're just taking information from a foreigner was automatically some not just unethical behavior, but was criminal. That's what they're saying. It was criminal. And yet we know it is a matter of record. It is a matter of fact that they did this on the Hillary Clinton side, that they took information from foreigners, that they use that information to try to take down the Trump campaign and even passed it on to the FBI and made its way to the

intelligence community. Isn't that information? Isn't that a thing of value under their own? But see, the standards that they set up are all temporary. The narratives that they use in order to attack the president. Are you can't take them and and flip it around on the other side no matter what the facts are, because it's not about what's right and wrong, it's about what damages President Trump.

Let's keep this in mind. Is today there was a whole, oh, a whole flurry of freak out over Trump deleting a tweet. Here's here's what he tweeted out. Russia, Russia, Russia. That's all you heard at the beginning of this witch hunt hoax. And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was

a crime that didn't exist. So now the DEM's in their partner, the fake news media, say he fought back again this phony crime that didn't exist, this horrendous false accusation, and he shouldn't fight back, he should just sit back and take it. Could this be obstruction? No, Muller didn't find obstruction either, presidential harassment. Now. I think that everything that Trump is saying in this tweet, by the way,

is true. But what did they what did the press, the anti trumpers, the left, what they what they hone in on? Right away? Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected, he wrote. They're saying, oh, well, see, now he's admitting that Russia helped him to get elected. No, what he's saying is that he had nothing to do with the narrative that they have been pushing, which is that Russia helped him to get elected. Now, did Russia try to

help him? I'm sure? I mean, do I think that they use their social media accounts to advance Trump at the expensive Hillaryah, But it didn't matter the moment you put this into any kind of im text and add just a tiny bit of perspective to it, it is quite clear that there's no conceivable way that the minuscule Russian Facebook advisor or releasing information about Bernie Standers and Hillary Clinton. We already knew all this about Hillary more

or less. We already knew the fix was in against Bernie. Didn't didn't tell us. This wasn't some earth shattering revelation. This wasn't all of a sudden Oh my gosh, I loved Hillary before, but now that I found out about Bernie. Absolutely not, absolutely not. But they're saying, oh, he's admitting that Russia helped him to get elected, and that's why he deleted this. You know, the president's tweeting, I generally

find him using. He does open himself up though to some some problems sometimes, but look, there's always a risk, there was a risk in any communication of miscommunication or of missing the mark with what the point is that you're trying to make. And the President sometimes his tweets are spot on and they're fantastic and I really can't get enough of it. And yeah, times you see that this is a president who can be a little bit, a little bit of a loose cannon. Sometimes that's that's

a true thing. He can be a loose cannon. That is a reality. But the Russia collusion thing, it's still here. We are, after the Mueller probe finishes, after all the stuff that we've been through, you still have Democrats who, most of the Democratic Party, clings to this. They act like it's true. They are impervious to facts. They do not allow, they do not allow information that has contrad this narrative to seep into their minds and change their

thinking on anything. It's just still far too comfortable and far too comforting for Libs to believe that Donald Trump cheated and that that's how he won, and that we're not for Trump cheating. There would never have been a Donald Trump presidency. And you'll you cannot convince them otherwise, you cannot. We've got I know, I've been talking about bar and his very important comm that basically Mueller is full of it. Muller's full of it, and Mueller is not has not been a good guy in this process,

has shown us who he really is. And we should understand that all this stuff about how Mueller is like the last honest man in America was just propaganda that the Left was thrown out there because they really, they really wanted they wanted to believe it. They wanted as many people as possible to buy into it because it just would have given more power to whatever charge Mueller did go with. But because he didn't go with charges, in a sense, we've learned even more about his motives.

We've learned even more about who he is and what he's trying to do here, which is that this was all this was all men as a handoff to the Congress for impeachment. It's not Mueller's job, it's not his prerogative. And you know, you have these these partisan players that were at the top of the US law enforce in pure oxy for a long time, Kobe and Mueller, and these are not people that should have had the powers

they did. They should not be trusted, They should not be treated like these paragons are virtue because they're partisans, Folks. Andy McCarthy's up next. Why didn't he investigate Struck and Paige at McCabe and called me and all the lies and brand him and the lives. Why didn't comb me come clean? Why didn't Colly come clean and say the things that he knows are fact? Why didn't Muller investigate combing his best friend? President fighting back here, folks, doesn't

like to take this stuff lying down? What should we make of you know, the aftermath after Muller's press conference, and now we're waiting for this IG report. Andy McCarthy's with us now, Andy, great to have you, obviously, Andy's from National Review and Fox News. What did you meet? I really want to ask you this yesterday, but we got you today. This press conference that Muller put on there,

What the heck was that? Well? I think Buck that he was probably unhappy with the way that he was criticized after the report came out for not deciding the one thing that he was even arguably needed to decide. I don't think there should have been a special counsel at all, But even if you if you think there should have been one, by the time he got the case, this is mainly an impeachment investigation. I think collusion went

by the boards pretty quick. So the one thing he was arguably needed for is to decide whether the president obstructed justice, and he didn't decide it. So he got a lot of criticism for that, I think rightly so, and he's not happy about it. So he's out there trying to number one, explain himself. But number two, Buck, I think this was always an impeachment investigation, and I think his parting shot going out the door was to try to make it clear that that was the way

he saw it. What do you make of bars comments that there was nothing stopping Muller from saying, yeah, no laws were broken here, But the DJ guidance is that we can't bring charges. That's been my take on this all along. But am I missing something? No, you're absolutely right. The prosecutor's job, there's two levels that we need to

talk about this. The prosecutor who's assigned to the case, and then there's the supervision and the special counsel regulations buck are designed to make the relationship between the special counsel and the Attorney General pretty much the analogous to any relationship between an assistant US Attorney and the US

Attorney or his supervisor in a US Attorney's office. So what happens is the line prosecutor who is investigating the case comes to a conclusion about whether there's enough evidence to charge or not, and then you bring that to your supervisor, who number one decides yes or no, I agree with you about whether there's enough evidence to charge, and number two, whether there are any institutional or policy

reasons who are not going forward. And that's not to say that those can't be flagged by the line prosecutor. But the line prosecutor's job is to decide do we have a case or not? And if the Justice Department as an institution at that point, if you have a case, so you think you have a case, wants to jump in and say yes, but we have these policies that don't enable us to bring the case, then that's the

Justice Department's call. But there was no reason either why Muller couldn't or shouldn't have made the bottom line call. And the claim that you couldn't evaluate the sufficiency of the sidence because there was this guidance against indicting a sitting president is absurd, I would point out to people, and I have been trying to point out to people. Notice the guidance buck doesn't say that the president can

never be indicted. It simply says that a sitting president can't be indicted, which means at some point he can be charged. So somebody has to decide that. And what Mueller seems to be saying is it shouldn't be the guy who just spent two years investigating it. What is supposed to happen when when Trump is out of office? Are we supposed to have another two year investigation at that point where the prosecutor who's actually going to make

the decision that he's charged. To me, I mean, that's absurd. So you don't even think and I mean this is again I've taken this position for days here on the show, but it's not even really a good It seems to me like Muller's not operating in good faith here. That's he's playing politics, and his whole justification for why he wouldn't make the call doesn't hold up. Yeah, well, I think Buck, that's not only exactly true, it's obvious if

you look at the record of what happened here. Let me make two points because they're a little bit schemy, but but I think it's important to understand in my view, this is what happened here. Number one, the reliance on The best you can say from Maller is that the reliance on the Office of Legal Counsel guidance that a sitting president may not be indicted is something he settled on at the last minute, long after he decided not to decide. And the reason we know that is Muller

doesn't contend that Barr was wrong. When Barr said that on March fifth, which is two and a half weeks before he delivers the final report, Muller was emphatic that the Office of Legal Counsel guidance was not his reason for not making the decision, and when Barr asked him, then, well, what is your reasoning, he said that their staff was still formulating the reasoning. So I think the best interpretation here from Muller's point of view is that they're backwards reasoning.

They basically are results oriented. They had already decided not to decide, and they were trying to come up with a reason, and at the time that he first talked to Bar, the OLC guidance was not the reason they wanted to rely on. But by the time they did the report, it turned out to be the reason because they couldn't come up with anything else. More Over, and this goes a little bit deeper into it, what's the reason for not deciding? And this is what I think

people should focus on. If Muller had come to Bar and said, I think we have a prosecutable obstruction case, what would have happened? There would have been a brawl inside the Justice Department about what the proper standards for evaluating obstruction are. Because Barr and Mueller clearly do not agree on this. I mean, that's that's clear from not only we've seen Bar's reasoning on this in that memo

that came out before he was confirmed. We've seen Mueller's reasoning in the report, and we've heard Barr say that he disagreed with Mueller and Rosenstong apparently also disagreed with

Muller on what obstruction law is. So if they had come to the Justice Department, they come to Bar and said, we think we have an indictable case, what would have happened is that would have gotten bolloxed up in the Justice Department and they would have had a big brawl over whether over you know, what the correct standard was. What Mueller wanted, I think was to get this evidence

to Congress. So what he did instead of provoking a big fight that would have settled this at the Justice Department level, is he said, I've decided not to decide. So what I'm gonna do is I'll give you the evidence on one side of the question, and then I'll give you the evidence on the other side of the question. I'm not going to exonerate him, wink wink. That means I might I think there may be a case here,

but I won't decide. And that way he didn't provoke a fight over what are the impeachment standards in the Justice Department. In fact, when Barr decided this when he on his own, because Muller abdicated. When Barr decided there was no obstruction case, he didn't desturb Mueller's legal framework. He said that he was deciding this assuming even though he didn't agree with it, that Mueller was right on

the law. But because prosecutors always have to prove corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't think on the facts that no matter what the legal standard was, you wouldn't be able to prove intent beyond a reasonable debt.

But what Mueller accomplished your book was he end ran what would otherwise have been a big fight in the Justice Department over obstruction and got his evidence to Congress under circumstances where he now tells Congress, gee, you know, I would have charged them, or I might very well have charged them, except there was this OLC guidance. But wink wink. In this system, the way it works is the Congress is the only body that can deal with

a sitting president. A federal prosecutor can't do that. So let me give you my two hundred pages of obstruction evidence. And by the way, I think there may be celonies in here. And isn't it the case though, that that's not his job. That's you know, for people who want to tell me that Muller's such a great guy. If he's making that decision, he's going well beyond his brief. Yes, well, here's the problem there, Buck, he was not given one

hat to wear. You know, he should have been. He's a special castle, so he's supposed to be a subordinate federal prosecutor in the Justice Department chain of command, but at any given time, he alternatively wears the hats of counterintelligence investigator. Because this whole investigation took under the place since there was no crime to predigate a criminal investigation, it took place under the guise of counterintelligence, right, which allowed them to look for a crime without having to

have one when they started out. So he's part counterintelligence investigator, he's part counseled to a congressional impeachment committee, which is what I think he ultimately wanted to be, And he's part federal prosecutor. And he switches from one hat to the next depending on what he needs to accomplish at any given moment. Andy McCarthy, everybody check him out on

National Review. Also you will see him on Fox News. Andy, great stuff, and not just because I agree with everything you said, and we've agreed with each other on this one. Thanks so much. We sure have. Thanks Buck, Yeah, thanks Eddie. Yeah, man, I didn't even go to law school. And I'm saying all this stuff isn't that funny, but it's true. It's

when you reason these things through. You see, I mean, Muller as smaller as a hack, very clear why he made these decisions, why he's done what he has done. And you know, people just need to come around to the reality of this and stop. We need to stop living in some fantasy where you know, Saint Muller would he would never Oh, I see, Muller would never do something to besmirched the office of the Special Council. Please, just like Comey was a saint until he wasn't. There

were no charges none. If you look at if you look at Bill Clinton, that very nice gentleman who has been so much on my side, as you know, his special prosecutor, it was guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, so many guilty with me. There was no guilty. Comparing the Trump and Clinton Special Council situations or you know, independent prosecutor, dependent Council, all the stuff that basically the same thing, right,

Comparing them is problematic for a lot of reasons. One of them is that Bill Clinton was very much guilty, and ken Starr said in his report that Bill Clinton was guilty of breaking laws. And it is as stretch at best to think that charges could have been brought against President Trump under a very expansive and I would offer to you very flimsy understanding of obstruction and obstruction

is a bit like conspiracy, Isn't that interesting? They looked at conspiracy with the Russians to hack into the or you know, to mess with the election, and they looked at obstruction in terms of the investigation of that. Those are two of the most malleable statutes at the federal government that federal agencies have at their disposal. They can come up with some very novel interpretations to get people

on either conspiracy or on obstruction. And often if you ask a skilled prosecutor, they'll say, well, what's what's conspiracy or what's obstruction? It's kind of whatever the prosecutor says it is. And even in that environment, even with that being true, they have not been able to come up with President Trump broke the law. And the one place where they seem to think they've got the strongest case is on telling Don McGann to fire, to fire you know,

UM personnel over DJ and that didn't happen. So now you're now it's attempted obstruction. But if the president wanted to fire somebody, he could just fire them. So what was he just venting? And he was talking to an advisor? And can you even obstruct an investigation of something that's a fraud? You know, is that something that you can even do? These are all the questions that are that still remain, And yet what they offer to us is, oh, the president's so guilty they have to impeach them. We'll

get an appeachment a little bit. But Bill Clinton, this was as as clear and egregious of a violator, or I shouldn't say egregious. This is as clear a violation as you're gonna find, you know, lying under oath about something that we now know. And he even admits a lot under oath about just thought that he could play these weird definition games to get around it's not going

to I wasn't going to cut the mustard. But Trump also was going on offense a bit here because he realizes that this is now just a battle of narrative. This has turned into a political fight it's not really a legal fight anymore. It's really about politics involved here. And Trump said, look, Muller's a conflicted guy. You know, Muller's somebody who should never have been trusted in this role, should never have been put in this position. Placlap eight.

He wanted the FBI job and he didn't get it, and the next day he was picked a special counsel. So you tell somebody I'm sorry, you can't have the job, and then after you say that, he's gonna make a ruling on you. It doesn't work that way. Plus we had a business dispute. Plus his relationship with Tomy was extraordinary. You know, he's saying that this is a guy who's opposed to him, it's a guy who doesn't like him.

And I think there's a lot to you know, a lot to suggest that Komy doesn't like him, Mueller doesn't like him. You know, these are guys who are part of the establishment. These are guys who are part of what you'd consider the permanent class, the permanent bureaucracy in DC. And they have very high opinions of themselves. I think

they're really important, and they're big players in history. And they both Komey and Muller have inserted themselves pretending to be these nonpartisan Oh it's just about doing what's right public servants, but they've inserted themselves in very political ways in this whole process. So, you know, I think the President's on solid ground when he's making making this case. But I also want to point out that the president I'm not going to get much in the immigration today.

The President's promising a major an nowtment having to do with the border. He's saying that something big is in the works for the border. Play clip seven. This is a big league statement, but that we are going to do something very dramatic on the border. Democrats will not give us laws. They will not change laws, they will not meet, they will not do anything. They want to have open borders, they want to have prime they want to have drugs. Boring it. We have brought something to

the light of the people. They see now it's a national emergency and most people agree. The Democrats agree to, but they won't give us the legislation you need to fix them. No place in the world has what we have in terms of ridiculous immigration laws. So I will be making a major statement. I would say, my biggest statement on the border, probably today or tomorrow's promising major statement, maybe his biggest statement. It's a guy who's saying, build

the wall, Build the wall. Big statement coming up on the border. I don't know what it is. I'm going to call some of my White House sources and see if I can get a little bit of a you know, a little bit of an inside track to it. But President saying big things coming, So we'll have to wait and see on that one. But you know what else might be coming. Impeachment. We will discuss that coming up

here in a moment. Nothing is off the table, but we do want to make such a compelling case, such an iron cloud cast case, that even the Republican Senate, which at the time seems to be not an objective jury, will be convinced of the path that we have to take as a country. I still think this goes back to democratic talking points. So what they want, and this is what the truth is. Their impeachment to their base is like the wall is to our base. This is

their fundraising thing. And the truth is this is a made up, false problem in crisis, but our wall is a real crisis. I'm glad that Brad Parscal who's running the Trump re election re election effort, out of that part of the end that this is not like the wall for the base, because the base really wants the wall. That's people like me are saying, Hey, we were promised a wall, but let's let's dig in a bit more into this impeachment issue. I don't want to get diverted

to a wall. You know, we haven't talked about immigration much on the show. Hasn't gotten better, folks, Still a crisis. Just I'm just reminding everyone still has not been not handled, not settled by the administration. But we have to deal with impeachment right now. Nancy Pelosi says, nothing is off

the table. We want to make an ironclad case. Do they really expect does any Democrat expect us to believe that they believe they'll be able to make a more compelling case about Trump's shortcomings and the reasons for Trump being a peach than what Muller has already done. And we know Muller's a partisan. We know Muller hates Trump. He showed us this. There can be no surprise anymore about this. But Pelosi's not sure she wants to tell everybody. I think they're going to do it. They're going to

impeach the president. I think they're going to do it. I don't think that they can help themselves. This isn't a normal presidency for them. This is a moment where they think that everything that the Democrats, everything the left believes and holds dear and sacred, if they really hold anything sacred, they think that that is threatened by Trump. And given that mindset, it's just I think very unlikely that they'd be able to pass the opportunity to impeach him.

And they're going to do it just so they can say they did it. They think it's going to be useful tactically against the president in his reelection campaign. And there's there's a big part of this that is Catharsis for them. You know, this is they're working out their issues here. There's a sense of a vindication and validation that will come from an impeachment of the president. And that's why when when she says, you know, Republicans are going to be convinced of the path you have a day,

I mean, that's this is so disingenuous. Nancy knows whether she's slowing down a few steps or not. Nancy knows Republicans are never in a million years, based on all the information we have right now, going to go along with voting against, voting to impeache Trump in the House and then certainly to remove him in the sentence. She knows that's not going to happen. Justin Amash aside, you know that guy always always kind of struck me as

a smarmy grandstander. Anyway, he cares a lot about about FISA, right, He's he's been a big Oh I'm mister libertarian. I worry about spying. No spying on Americans. What about the spying on Carter Page, Amash, you got any thoughts on that? What about the spying on George Papadopoulos. The not yet has proved, Well, there was spying on General Flynn. It's just that we believe that was probably the at least the theories that that was incidental because he was speaking

to the Russian ambassador. But you know, there was surveillance obviously, That's how they got that leaked conversation that they had the conversational League in the first place. But I don't see Amash raising any alarms, but any of that, and mister libertarian man seems to me that's something that he skips right past. I give Rand Paul credit at least for saying that we do need to look in it.

You know, Rand Paul has always been somebody that he doesn't have the political skills needed to win the presidency, never mind I think, to run the country. But his ideas in general appeal to me because I think he comes from this place, this really rarefied place in politics, this this very and it feels like it's evaporating with every passing year. He comes to this place of you know what, I don't want to tell you what to do all the time. I don't want to make you

do lots of things you don't want to do. I don't want the government in charge of every aspect of your life. And I like that. I find that comforting. I don't believe Rand Paul wants to be a benevolent dictator in some capacity. I think a lot of Democrats and even some Republicans kind of do if they had their ability, if they had the ability to do so.

But but Rand has been all over the FISA issue, which there's no way we're going to come out of this Inspector General report from the DOJ and all the Russia collusion origin stuff. There's no way we come away from this without realizing the FISA was abused, because it was abused, and then understanding that that means there has to be some changes so that it cannot be used for spying purposes, for political spying purposes again in the future.

Here's here's a Rampaul had a real libertarian Rand Paul versus amash A. I think opt opportunistic libertarian. Here's a Rampaulsey by thirteen. I think the President has the ability to do it by executive order. He could say to the FBI that from now on, our policy is that the FBI has to go to get a court order or a warrant in a public court to search this database for an Americans information. Now it's different for foreigners. We spawn foreigners all the time and there's a lower standard.

But for an American, it's extraordinary that our own intelligence community that's supposed to spawn foreigners was spying on the Trump campaign. So this shouldn't happen either to President Trump but to any future president of either. This is such a profoundly important point he makes that there was spying on a presidential campaign, and we need to not accept that there's nothing okay about this. You know, we're we're lectured by Democrats and leftists about how, oh, Russian interference

in the election. What about the deep state interference in the election, which is real, unlike the Russian interference, which was minimal from the Russian side. When I say minimal, I mean of minimal impact. Oh no, we could argue about this all day long. We all know it didn't do anything. It didn't change anything. It was it was really essentially the equivalent of like a Russian prank. I'm not saying it was funny, but there's no serious argument that this changed the ut in the election. But the

Trump team had nothing to do with it. We all know that now. But on the other side of things, there was foreign interference in the election. Christopher Steele's a foreigner. Christopher Steele used Russian therefore for in subsources and pass that information to contacts in the media to run a smear campaign, but also brought the dacier made its way into the government apparatus itself, and federal spy agencies or federal agencies with the ability to spy. In the case

of the FBI, they used it. This is the big, the big fear, and this is why I think you see Komey and so many of these once incredibly sanctimonious. That's why we call him sanctatomy. Incredibly sanctimonious officials. Some of them have toned it down a little bit because I think that they realized that they're going to have some splaining to do. They're going to have to sit down and answer questions in front of the American people about why would you use OPO research for a spy

a secret spying court and think that that's okay. You know, the real scandal in all this, I mean we've been told, oh, the Russian you know, the Russians and this and that. The real scandal on this is that the Trump campaign was spied on under false pretenses. We were lied to about that. We were actually told that anybody who believed they were spied on, and this was a year a year after the election, and who believe it there was

spying was crazy and lying. And then it turned out there was spying where they said that it was justified. We're gonna find out very soon. This is going to come out of the Inspector General report this month. I believe that there was spying and it wasn't just to find What do we do then, we want to talk about undermining our institutions and protecting the sanctity of our democracy.

What do we do when we find out, as we will, that the fires A court and the FBI, the DOJ were used as a partisan weapon in a presidential election? How do we handle that? You are the ones who will invent and define the next generation of air warfare, and you are the ones who will secure American victory all the time, victory to dominate the future, America must rule the skies. And that is what your time at

this great academy has been all about. Preparing you to do whatever it takes to learn to adapt and to win, win, win, win so much you're going to get so tired of winning. But not really, not really, we never get tired of winning doing, not tired of winning yet. President Trump, he was speaking at the Air Force Academy. And you know one one aspect of this presidency that is I believe intentionally underreported on and skipped over by the psychotically hostile press.

I mean, they really do have a problem. I mean, they hate this president in a way that is that is unnatural, unhealthy. It's not just about politics. It's much deeper than that. And trumped arrangement syndrome is a is a real and I would argue, and I'm sure you could get some professionals to weigh in on this an identifiable phenomenon. It is far too powerful in the minds

of some people. You know, I know about some of the different mental illnesses that are out there, and a lot of it is based on the sense of exaggerated threat or And this is how people get anxiety and people get OCD. You know, they worry aboh this is this might have happened, or that might have happened. You know, somebody will think that I would they're driving a car and they they ran somebody over, but they just didn't know they ran somebody over. I mean, this is this

is the way liberals think about Trump. They must know at some level that their lives are going to be fine, nothing is really going to happen. That's but Trump is destroying the world and ruining the country and undermining our republic. And they take all that stuff as some kind of personal affront, but putting that, casting that aside for a moment, Trump is very well liked. And maybe it's just because most of the military folks that I know tend to

be conserved anyway. But it's very well like with the military and is certainly deeply, deeply respectful of the military. And I think that the Trump really does hold people that serve this country in incredibly high esteem, which which we would want for any commander in chief. And I think that that's that that tends to have been the case historically. But this brings me to the controversy around the USS John McCain, all right, which is a navy ship that people were saying as of what was it

as of yesterday that the John McCain. I want to make sure I get some of these details right for you here. It's it's pretty remarkable that they covered up the name of the John. The initial story was that they covered up the you know, the the John McCain name on the ship with a tarp and they gave the sailors on this naval vessel the day off because when Trump was in Japan, it was it was docked in Japan, there was a sensitivity to Trump seeing this at all. I mean, I just I never believed this.

I never thought that this was a real thing. I never thought that this was what happened. It was so interested to see many, including many conservatives, who were usually, if not favorable toward Trump, at least not infected with Trump derangement syndrome. Right. I mean, usually there are people that would give him some kind of benefit of the doubt. But here's what they say. Officers were told to keep USS John McCain from Trump's view during Japan visit. CBS

News has confirmed this. CBS News Senior Nation Security correspondent David Martin reports that a US Indo Pacific Command official wrote an email to Navy and Air Force officials before mister Trump's arrival and included instructions for the proper landing areas for helicopters and preparations for the USS Wasp, the ship on which the President was to speak. The official then issued a third instruction, the USS John McCain needs

to be out of sight. According to the email, which was first obtained by the Wall Street Journal and then

other news outlets confirmed its existence. The Washington Post is Josh Dawzy tweeted that administration official confirms the story request was made to make sure mccainship wasn't visible, but aid say Trump wasn't involved in the request, but it was meant to prevent any potential ire from POTUS from the president United States and the Journal reporter that when a Navy commander expressed surprise at the instruction, the US in No Pacific Command official answered, first, I heard of it

as first. I heard of it as well, and the officials said he would talk to the White House Military Office to get more information. Trump has said he was not informed about anything having to do with the Navy ship USS. John McCain, during his visits to Japan, noticed, Now, this is a This is a manufactured controversy, entirely manufactured.

There is nothing to indicate whatsoever. We have zero evidence of any kind, and zero indicators that President Trump himself was asking for this, that President Trump wanted this to be covered up. So then why is it Trump's fault? Why is it oh, because someone else assumed that he would be And look, it would be a very petty thing. There's no question about it. You know, if Trump were to make a scene about this or to be angry

about it. It's very petty, but you can't blame him for what somebody else thought might be going on in Trump's head. This is yet again another version, another manifestation, a symptom of the Trump's arrangement syndrome that has become such a powerful force in American politics. It's not it's not the president's fault that somebody thought that he's going to be hypersensitive about this, and yet there was all this trashing of the president around it, as though this

was a request that he made. Well, he didn't make the request. No one says otherwise. Yet it's just it really is just maddening. And you know, there's so many areas where I think you could have a you could have very legitimate criticism, very legitimate criticism of this president. There are things that he has not delivered on yet. Look, I think he's doing a very good job, but there are areas with any president. You know, I'm not here,

not here to worship a politician. We're here to push forward agenda and try to find the truth and understand what's happening in the world around us. But what they left keeps doing is coming up with fake reasons fake news to hate Trump, and then they wonder why we take everything all their criticisms with a grain of salt. Well, maybe it's because they are not to be trusted on this.

Maybe they have shown us quite clearly that Donald Trump is someone who they cannot object never mind objectively cover. They can't cover him without showing venom. I'm just showing hatred, bile. Trump likes the military. There if there are some things I'm quite sure of. He takes the trade deal with China very seriously. He loves his family. He doesn't like CNN, but he really respects the military. Jerry, there's never been anything people say, oh Buck, but what about when he

criticized this veteran of that veteran. Yeah, he has beefs with individuals. Does anyone really think that somebody who serves them in the military, who becomes a political opponent of someone else's is beyond is beyond being attacked? Now, I wouldn't have attacked some of the people that serve the way that Trump has. You know, he looked. Trump fights dirtier than I would. But he's the president and I'm not. And there's probably a pretty good reason for that. But

he does respect our military. I mean this is just also from the Air Force Academy graduation yesterday, just to hear the President talking about this play twenty one to the nearly one thousand kiddets who I have agreed to shake every single hand. They gave me a choice, hey said, sir, you don't have to shake any hands. Some people do that. Those are the smart ones too. Out of you. You can shake one hand to the one person top of

the class. You could shake ten fifty or one hundred, and you could also stay for a thousand, and I'm staying for a thousand. Okay, it's your commander in chief. Everybody staying in shake a thousand Air Force graduates hands. Just remember that because the press doesn't want to talk

about it. There's this fascinating lawsuit that has been filed in New York City on privilege theory or the end result of privilege theory, which ties into white privilege, and on one of these ideas that has exploded in popularity on the left. I saw some interesting statistics yesterday and a researcher had gone through and looked for things like

using lexis nexus. So it just pulls up all the different times that it appears in news publications and in the media, and looked up usage of terms like white supremacy, white privilege, unconscious bias, and what you find is that these are terms that all of a sudden explode in popularity. And in the last few years there have been a number of these where this might have existed before, but

all of a sudden. The left asides that it's it's almost a campaign just to use the word or use the phrase enough that it becomes seared into our minds, that there's this thing called white privilege, for example. But this is the This is a specific lawsuit in New York City against the New York City Department of Education.

There are three employees who are are all white, although their names are Lois Herrera, Jay Murray, and Laura phi ju um I. Maybe Lois Herrera's maiden name isn't Herrera, but that strikes me as usually if your name is Harrare,

you're Hispanic. But they're apparently white or whatever. And they have sued the City of New York because they claim that they were demoted dramatically and replaced by non white employees who had lesser qualifications for the post and that this is not something that occurred in a vacuum, That there's a lot of rhetoric and a lot of teachings and theorizing and all this stuff that they're subjected to in the New York City Department of Education, which I

imagine is kind of like a time work back into the Soviet Union in terms of its bureaucracy and the assaults on truth that I'm sure are a regular part of what goes on there. But they say they had people replaced them with lesser qualifications, and they would would hear things from their supervisors like, quote, white people had to white employees had to take a step back and yield to colleagues of color and recognize that values of

white culture are supremacist end quote. M. There's so much there isn't there That we usually think of the efforts at at a kind of racial equity balancing. We think of affirmative action, right, We think of fairness through race as as it's practice with different legal mechanisms, as being well, we're going to advance some people. And now I have been and always and always will be. I mean, I think affirmative action is ethically and legally wrong. I do not agree with it. I do not believe in it.

And everyone who hears me say that on Lefell of course, because you would. Yeah, that's right. I'm white and everything everything has been handed to me. I've never had to work hard. My white privilege has just coasted me through everything. You know, and the people that I know who have had a really tough time in life, and I know, struggle with addiction and homelessness and who are white. You know,

they just didn't capitalize enough on their white privilege. I guess you know that most of the desperately poor in this country are white. In fact, doesn't seem to matter that that's their fault. I guess the left says, because they didn't really maximize that white privilege. You know, they didn't. They didn't turn in that white privilege card to get

all the goodies that come with it. I mean, this is an offensive but now very widespread and really powerful social theory that's foisted, that has been foisted on the American people. And if you don't, as a white person, if you push back, oh, of course, of course you do. You don't want to admit your privilege. This, this is a stupid idea. It's unethical to judge people based upon their skin color any context as unethical. But what you have now is not just some people get an advantage

because of their non whiteness. But that's not a privilege, you see, that's just fair when you get something and you're not white. And this is explicitly what happens on college campuses, and you know you are. There have even been points systems, now they got rid of that. There have been quotas, Oh they got rid of that. Acts that's too obvious. But non white students, for example, we'll get into a school with lower grades, lower SATs, and we all know what's going on, and people pretend, oh,

we can't figure this out. No, we know what's going on. But that's not privilege, that's just fair. Huh. It's a very convenient way of describing a process by which some people are given privileges over others. But as I look at this situation, the department education which you have, are

people who are demoted, you know. And this is a logical extension of this white privileged theory, meaning that if you think that some people should be advanced in order to balance out the white privilege that their peers enjoy. Then you should also probably you should also prepare yourself for the possibility that some people who enjoy white privilege must be pulled back, must suffer a bit, their careers must suffer. They must be paid less than they've been,

They've become a customer getting paid. They must be removed from the prestigious position or the more advanced position that they have. I mean, because you gotta make room. You gotta make room for those without the white privilege. Well, in New York this is now being fought, and I'm hoping, although I'm very skeptical that this will be the case, I'm hoping that this will be a successful a successful case.

You cannot have this. You cannot have a well functioning, honest, strong, espree to core organization that's going to demote people in order to play kate this theory of well, some people have had it easy because of their skin color, and other people have had it had it hard because of

skin color. Okay, how much harder? What's enough? Why? You know, if they really believe this, meaning, if the left is on board with this thinking, why not make why not say that everyone at a heart you know that Harvard needs to just go non white, No more white students at Harvard. You got to balance it out. There's been so much oppression, it's been so racist for so long. People would laugh and say, oh, Buck, that's such a dumb idea. Okay, but why is it a dumb idea?

Why shouldn't there be more drama. Why shouldn't we have these more dramatic gestures, you know, why shouldn't we do things that incur obvious costs to individuals who have quote white privilege. I mean I reject. I think white privilege is not a thing. I do not think it is. It is a real it is a real concept worthy of certainly any government action, because what is it really saying that when you have a majority, Well, a majority in any culture is going to be treated in some

capacity like the majority. But you can't mandate through law a change in that cultural reality. And you certainly shouldn't mandate through law changes in hiring, in college, you know, college admissions and all these things, because there's some amorphous there's some amorphous notion of this is more fair the government acting in ways that is that is unconstitutional, that is unfair, that is violation of the Equal Protection Clause. That's not going to make things better. It's only going

to make things worse. Teaching the whole generation coming up now through school that there is this thing called white privilege, and then not really ever addressing well, what would that mean if it were true? What are we supposed to do about that? Is just a recipe for a lot of victimology thinking and also opens the door to a lot of resentment. Let's be honest resentment on all sides.

I mean, if you tell someone that that the individual sitting across from them has a lot of unearned a lot of unearned advantages, the persons sitting there, especially if they feel like they've had a they've had a tough go in life, is going to not think very highly of the individual with the unearned advantages. And at the person who is being told that he or she has these unearned advantages, looks across the table and says, well,

hold on a second, you who does you? The person who does not enjoy white privilege in this situation, as a matter of law, have privileges that I do not have. Qualify for programs, qualify for admissions, but but I'm the one with privilege. Is this tears at the fabric of the social fabric of this country. And it really does also undermine the rule of law. You know, where are they're all equal in the odds of law or not.

There is only one kind of still mandated legal racial discrimination that exists in this country, and it is punishing those who quote have white privilege. That is the only legitimate or rather legal discrimination that is still in the books. There's no other discrimination. Non white people do not get discriminated against, but white people because and you say, Buck, why do all these liberals, why do all these leftists who are many of whom the majority of whom are white,

why do they go along with this? Oh? Because it is so useful for their power structure. They benefit from this. The identity politics that the left has embraced is a base of power and a base of votes. And it's a very simple proposition for any guilt guilt ridden white liberal to embrace, which is just become one. Become one of the people that says this stuff, believes this stuff, promotes this stuff, and you're not part of the problem anymore.

You cleanse yourself of your white privilege sins by agreeing that white privilege needs to be confronted, and you have to do nothing beyond that. This is like from the al Gore school of just you know, make a lot of money by scaring a lot of people over climate change, don't make any changes to your own life about climate change. And you've done your part. And if you just go see the al Gore movie about climate change, you know, and say that you believe in climate change, you've done

your part. It's cheap virtue the left so effectively in many ways, but it's a it's a recurring theme in all left wing politics in this country. It appeals to individual vanity. I'm such a good person. I'm such a thoughtful, care and considered person. So that's why I believe that taxes should be higher. Oh wow, that's but do you pay higher taxes? Do you send the government more money? Do you want to set an example? No? No No, no, no, of course not. You just support in the macro sense,

in a theoretical way. You support, you know, taking dramatic action to back climate change. You're not going to take it yourself, but you support the idea of you know, do you confront white privilege? Well, you know a lot of rich Libs still belong to you know, private clubs that are not very interracially diverse. They send their kids to schools that are overwhelmingly white, they send their kids to universities that are overwhelmingly white. But but but they

confront their white privilege. You see, they say that, and that's all they have to do. Must be nice to go through life such a self satisfied fraud. How will you protect Row v. Wade. We need a federal law to take every principle that's in the Supreme Court decision and just make it federal law. Let's give women all across this country preaching the wealth gap between white families

and black families, reparations or not. So I support the reparations bill that's in the House to start a commission. So we kept to look at all of the options fifteen billion dollars put into the historically black colleges and university. Speaking of frauds, racial frauds in particular, Elizabeth Warren comes to mind folk haunts herself, and I'm so I'm so happy that the President does not back down, say, oh, Pokahonas,

it's racist. No, it's not racist's making fun of it's not making fun of Pokehonas I do prefer sometimes the folk hauntess to play on words, but we can call our pocahonas too. Two issues here that she tackles. Let's start first with the the reparation. The reparations component of this. Nobody really believes I think, I mean, I could be wrong here. No one who knows anything about how government programs work and the history of any of any effort like this in this country. No one really thinks that

that will change it. Again, the fifty billion dollars to historically black colleges, what's that going to do? Is the is the are the historically black colleges right now? Do they not have large enough endowments for good professors and

good text with the answers? No. By the way, historically black colleges have a particularly high graduation rate for African American students for four years and also in life, African American students from historically black colleges do very well relative to similarly situated colleges and universities in terms of earning

power and career potential. And what do you know, there's there's no issue of affirmative action, right so this we've seen this experiment play out the university California system where they got rid of racial preferences in schools, and all it meant was that there were fewer black and Latino

students at the very very very elite schools. But the graduation rate at some of the more middle tier but still very good California schools went up because you can't just force people into a program they're not prepared for. So there was a greater match of sALS in preparation, which meant greater success in getting through four years of college, which you'd think is a good thing. But no, the libs,

they like the band aid approach. They like that let's just give people the fancy degree that they didn't really earn on their academic merits. But you know, white privilege needs to be confronted. Don't even get me started with

Asian privilege. Is their Asian privilege? Who knows it's worse to be Asian applying to elite schools, especially a place like well, now they got rid of racial preferences, but some of these, you know, schools like Stanford, some of these very elite universities, you do not want to be. You do not want to be an Asian American that's the worst category. That's the worst category to be in.

And then just so this reparations, this is just Elizaeth Warren trying to build a greater enthusiasm in the minority community. First off, isn't that this bill is going nowhere. No one's even clear on what should happen or what it should do. And ultimately, you know, the government's money is

your money. So whenever they decide, whenever the Left is saying, well, we're just going to redistribute a bunch of money to people, that's coming from the American people, that's money appropriated from taxpayers, taken from you by force, and then given to people to do other things with. And that's how we should do that. Oh, then our federal law that's going to reinforce Roe v. Wade. That is never going to happen.

And she knows that's never gonna happen unless they try to pull an Obamacare maneuver where by the slimmest majority when they have a supermajority, they just forced the other side to to just just stomach whatever it is that they want to jam down our throats. Um maybe they maybe that'd go that direction. But this is this is unserious stuff from Luzeth Warren. But she's an unserious candidate at this point. In my mind, she's shown us who she really is, and I think that she's uh, it's

it's always it's always been about her. I think her ego is apparent with these little crusades she goes. You know, her husband. They're making close to a million dollars a year between the two of them, but she's all about class warfare. Come on, give me a break. She's not running around doing community organizing for thirty thousand dollars a

year on the South side of Chicago, right. She's gone to a lead institutions, gotten paid very well, and now she wants to tell everybody else about how they need to pay higher taxes and let her determine what they can do with their money. I don't think so, e Dubbs. I think E Warren is toast in this primary. Say retweeted a misleadingly edited video of Nancy Pelosi, edited to highlighting exaggerated stuttering. Another fake video is also circling circulating online.

It's been slowed down to make Pelosi per incoherent ill, perhaps drunk. The video is fake. It's manipulated. Numerous audio and video experts and fact checking organizations have confirmed that, But that video in particular has been viewed by millions of people on Facebook, and in fact, it's still up

on Facebook, even though Facebook knows it's fake. They've added comments from independent fact checkers to inform people who watch it and have made it less cominent, but it is still up there, and YouTube took it down, but it's still up on Twitter. They're not even commenting about it. The CDN commentariat no longer even really pretends to be

about the First Amendment. I mean, they view themselves as a kind of priesthood of truth, the journalism clergy, if you will, though a lot of them would reject the notion of being in any kind of religious organization. But they think of themselves as a cast, as an elite ordained to bring us the information we need to be informed citizens. And beyond that, our opinions, our little gripes with how they present things, that's all irrelevant to them.

The video in questionnaire has to do with Nancy Pelosi, and it all comes from the same press conference, and I haven't I can't say that I've seen all of the videos. But in one case, I saw a video that was not slowed down. It was not. I mean when they say things like edited, and they did this with the Center for Medical Progress, they kept saying heavily edited, heavily edited. Yeah, because they took twelve hours or whatever

it was. I forget how many hours. Don't quote me on that, but you know, hours and hours of undercover video and edited it down so they actually had something that people could watch and see and know what's going on. All news broadcasts that you see are in some way or another edited. They've got commercial breaks, they run pre roll packages that every piece of writing you see goes through an editor to edit. Something is not, in and of itself any admission of dishonesty. But notice how they

do that. Oh it's been edited. Edited video of Nancy Pelosi. Edited video of Nancy Pelosi. I mean, she looks like a clown at any speed. The thing she says we don't have about dishonest and dumb. The things that she says are an embarrassment no matter what you do with

the editing process. But here you have a prominent, wildly overpaid, famous for reasons that are beyond my comprehension journalist and Anderson Cooper who is saying that Facebook should take it upon itself to police truth, and he skips right over the fact that this is well within the boundaries of what you could consider satire. And just because you taken you an edited videw should we ban everything The Daily Show? Ever?

Did libs love The Daily Show? You know? The Daily Show used to do sit down with people and interview them, and they thought they're in a normal interview, but then they would add in questions that weren't asked during the interview, cut things, and the whole point was to make a mockery of and make the person, if they were a conservative in particular, look stupid, all post edited, all out of context, and the whole thing. They thought that was hilarious.

Now they might say, well, buck, that's satire, that's comedy, Okay, this Pelosi thing is satire. Comedy. They think Facebook should take it down? Why should Facebook take it down? Not threatening anyone, it's not breaking any laws. But this is a window and this is a journalist, This is somebody who makes a living in the trafficking of information. Well because at CNN, the trafficking of fake news. But this

is what they do they have. They have no defense whatsoever of the First Amendment comes to mind for these people, these these uh pampered multi millionaires, not just at CNN, it's some of these other places too. But they all they care about is that the ideas they don't like are suppressed. All they care about is that the other side loses, and they're a part of sticking it to them. That this would mean that Facebook is now responsible for

deciding what is even just in good taste content. If Facebook is left with deciding what's in good taste, I mean, I would just say that they should probably ban CNN altogether, because CNN is a joke. As I've been telling you, CNN International is an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment to this country. It is anti American propaganda that is being blasted all over the world, and the people who are a part of it, and those who work for it should be ashamed.

Of course they're not, but they should be. But no one's saying, oh, Facebook needs to takedown seeing an international Facebook needs to because this where does that end? And they're so upset about you know, they're so upset about Nancy Pelosi looking so foolish and dumb because Nancy Pelosi is getting old and she's missing a step or two. And she did stutter a lot in that press conference. I saw it. She did have a you know, doesn't

seem that shark. And this the people who say, well, but you know, you can't say that about her, or you're not a psychiatrist or you're not a medical doctor. Yeah. I hear about how Trump is going to be removed by the twenty fifth MM and all the time from people that now say that Nancy Pelosi's you know that

that's beyond the pale. Remember when Hillary just passed out and flopped in the back of a van and people try to cover it up during the election, and then we were told, oh, that's terrible and you can admit, Oh okay, But but Trump is crazy, they say, is actually crazy. These people have absolutely no ethics whatsoever, no decency, no honor. Speaking of no decency or honor, Hillary also jumped in on this bandwagon, slamming Facebook, saying that they

should have removed this place seventeen. The big social media platforms know their systems are being manipulated by foreign and domestic actors to sew division, promote extremism and spread misinformation, But they won't get serious about cleaning up their platforms unless consumers demanded. And we saw why it's so important just last week when Facebook refused to take down a fake video of Nancy Pelosi. It wasn't even a close call.

The video is sexist trash, and YouTube took it down, but Facebook kept it up sexist trash, so it should be taken down. Who's going to make those determinations about what constitutes sexist trash. Who's going to make the determination about what is just mean spirited and shouldn't be out there in the marketplace of ideas. The left likes to censor because the left must control. They do not trust individual agency and human freedom. They do not trust it.

They think there must be a governing body that determines everything about what you can do, about what freedoms you have, what you can think, what you can say. They want control of all of it. They want maximum control, whatever that means. I prefer to live in a world and in a country where people get to make decisions about themselves to the maximum extent possible. I take the opposite point of view, but slant Facebook because they won't remove

an embarrassing video of Nancy Pelosi. What guideline did it violate? She says, it's obviously fake because they slowed it down a little bit. It's it's obviously fake. It's not fake. It's a real video of Nancy Pelosi. And even if it were fake, you know, if they were to photoshop and image of you know, a chicken over Nancy Pelosi's face, is that something that needs to be taken down? The left says yes, you know why, because they can't stand mockery.

They can't stand it. He really gets to them because they're so used to having cultural dominance. At anytime, a Democrat, a Leftist really feels like they're the butt of a joke. We realize they have no sense of humor either. They think they're the funny ones, but they actually don't have any sense of humor about themselves. Well, I think if it becomes law, it'll be very difficult producer, or rather doubt we will. Many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we'll have to heed

their wishes in that regard. Right now, we're watching it very carefully. I think it's also likely to be challenged in the courts and that could delay it, and we're being careful and cautious about it. But if it becomes law, I don't see how it's practical for us to continue to shoot there. Disney CEO Bob iger on An on the abortion bill there in Georgia. This is just something that we've become accustomed to as conservatives that I don't

think we should have to be accustomed to anymore. I am sick of all of us just assuming, oh, corporate America is going to lash out at the right and never lash out at the left. I mean, Disney is supposed to be a great American company. It's a huge company, controls a tremendous amount of contents, bought up all kinds of stuff recently, I know. But if it's a great American company, shouldn't it represent the American people and their wishes, or at least shouldn't it be respectful of the American

people in their wishes? Not half of the American people. And when you're talking about some of these abortion extremists, it's much much much less than half. You know, the the true left, I mean, the the planned parenthood version of what the law should be when it comes to abortion is supported really by only about fifteen to twenty percent of the country. It's the hard left view of things. It is the ideologically rigid progressive approach, and and it's

very doctrinaire. It's very based in a leftist orthodoxy. But why is it just the assumption that Bob Eiger is going to threaten the state of Georgia for doing what it's completely within its rights to do, passing a state law, and say that they're going to take business away. So they're going to punish people that are going to work on different sets and you know, as cameramen and craftsmen and key grip and all these things that you do

at these at these film places. I can't even think of all the jobs you're going to punish them because you have a bunch of progressive ideologues, not just in your audience, but clearly in the company. You know. That's where this that's where the rubber really meets the road on all of this, is that the c suite at so many major corporations is full of people who are left wing ideologues and they don't have any problem inflicting their beliefs on other people and punishing people who don't

agree with them. And I mean I remember, for example, being told, look, I'll even tell you where it was. It was at CNN. I remember being told by a CNN executive who was involved in the hiring of people at CNN that he would would not only oppose, but do everything in his power to sync the chances of anyone who was going to work at CNN on air who was not in favor of gay rite. Now, whatever you think about gay marriage and all the rest of it, just think about that for a moment, though you And

that was years ago. That was before um what was it before? And it was right after oberg fell the decision screen court decision. But he's like, if you you cannot, this guy was like, you will not be able to work there. He will do everything he can to stop you.

They went after Brendon Ike from Mozilla for his previous support Years ago, Brandon Ike of Mozilla, the CEO and founder of Mozilla, was chased out of his corporate position by other people at his company and by the media because he was supporting in California traditional marriage the same at the exact same time that Barack Obama was running

as a traditional marriage candidate. But the left always makes exceptions for people on their side who are doing the head fake, or who are a trojan horse, or who who abandoned the position. As soon as they're in power, they're okay with that. In fact, they like that, They courage that, that kind of dissembling, that kind of intellectual dishonesty. You know, I'm gonna say this until I get into power, they're gonna do something else. But we have to, we

have to fight back against this. This should not be something what Bob Eiger is saying here is that Disney takes a political position as a company against conservatives, and this should not be okay. This should not be something that goes without pushback and without organized dare I say, resistance. This is also just culturally on the left. They they're

very comfortable doing this. They're very comfortable making examples of people for political reasons that have nothing to do with the company's business, that have nothing to do with you know, whether or not someone is going to be a good customer of theirs, just like the left will boycott. It is known. It is known throughout the media industry that leftists can say all kinds of crazy stuff and they'll still get blue chip, very uh you know, very wealthy sponsors.

They'll they'll get the Coke, Mercedes, McDonald's, etc. But on the right, oh, you're all you're always put on notice. You know, if you if you step out of line, if you say something that's a little too conservative, if you you know, if you if you don't dance to the tune that the leftists tell you too, you may find yourself getting all your sponsors pulled. In fact, you

might find yourself getting your bank account uh pulled. You know, they may say, sorry, you know, we're gonna give you your money back or whatever, but you can't do use our banking services. They obviously will go after people for the platform, for the platforms they use as well. They want they want they want speech police for the left, or the left wants to be the speech police on Facebook, on YouTube, on Twitter. They know how powerful these things are.

For those of you that say, oh buck those platforms, isn't it over blown? No, the future generations, the cable news environment is going to go away as we know it. They'll still be shows and I mean maybe the networks will still exist, but you're gonna be watching it digitally. You're gonna be watching an ala carte, and increasingly the

major social platforms are going to be determining. They already are largely determining the news cycle, but they're going to be almost entirely deciding what people see as tremendous power in it. And the left wants to use that power to censor. They want to use that power to push ideas that they not only think are correct, but those who don't hold those ideas aren't worth listening to. They

are to be silenced, they are to be silenced. And it's it's a constant frustration for me that we just, you know, in half the country roughly speaking as Republican or conservative, and we don't We don't try to even the score. We don't try to hold them to account. We let them get away with this crowd, with this nonsense of politicizing corporate America, politicizing sports. It's always a one way street. We just take it, We take the abuse. I don't know what it will require for us to

decide that enough is enough. You know, maybe we do have to fight fire with fire. Maybe some really painful boycotts of some companies is the only way to get them to stop this stuff. I mean, you want to know how biased they are about things like abortion. I mean, the media is the praetorian guard of abortion for nine months of a pregnancy and even after the pregnancy, on demand for any reason or no reason. The media is you know, boomers in the media, who unfortunately control the

news media. The boomer generation of liberals in the media are the abortion radicals more so than any other generation. And these boomer abortion radicals do not want, especially in the waning years of their careers, to have a country that, by its actions and by the laws that it passes and by the polls that are taken, repudiates abortion as a women's rights issue and treats it as a life issue.

And that's how you have someone like, for example, Alison Cama, Allison Camarada over at CNN, who makes a look just a little slip here, a little slip, but it tells you a lot, doesn't it play eighteen issue. Lots of families do have to make that decision based on the single characteristic of finding out that their children that their fetus has a severe abnormality. Oh oh gosh, I said, children, I'm in fetus. Now she had it right the first time. Fetus is a child. That's what it is. Fetus is

a child. But they know they have to control the language. They know they have to use words that obscure what's really happening. They cannot discuss openly, clearly, honestly what these abortion procedures involve. And they know that they're they're paymasters, I mean, the people that determine who in the mainstream media is going to get these big fat paychecks and be important and be famous. They're all pro they're all pro choice. They're all pro choice, a whole lot of them.

So that's why Camarada, how to catch yourself there right away. But it's time. It's time we fight back, my friends. We don't sit around and just let them abuse us for our beliefs anymore, because that's what they're gonna keep doing unless we put a stop to it. I guess because it's summertime and I'm gonna be spending more time outside. I've been a little more uh what's the word consistent

about trying to be active. You know, you do't wanna be that guy who's running around like, yeah, if my bellet, it's huge game, my bellet at the beach, you're want to be that or maybe you do want to be that guy. You'd probably make friends with all sorts of folks, you know, wants to rub the bellet for a good look. Glad, but trying to trying to get the belly shrinking a

little bit. And so I've been working out more and doing more active things for the last well last couple of months, except for when I was traveling and I got to say one thing that that's really come to me. Maybe this is a function of getting old, but I feel like my I have to get myself used. Idea of just playing hurt so to speak, right, you know, when you're when you're playing sports. I used to play

organized sports back in the day. That sounds like a nerdy way of saying it, but I played basketball and soccer and tennis pretty much anything without a helmet because my head. You laugh, but it's true. My head was too big for the helmets and they'd always try to jam my head into a helmet that was too small, and it gave me. If you've ever had that happen to give you a terrible headache, that's kind of like having a shoe on. That's way too tight, you your

foot will cramp. You know, same thing with a helmet that's too tight, your head will just you'll get a really vicious headache from it. So I played non helmet sports, which a lot of you are like laughing at me right now, and you should. You should laugh at me. Buck's poofy hair prevented him from ever playing football or lacrosse or ice hockey. But you know, you have to play hurt, right Like I I my senior year, broke my fifth metatarsal bone in my foot, which is very common.

It's a stress fracture. You don't have to do anything to it, it'll just break. And I didn't know that, and I played an entire season of soccer with a broken bone in my foot, which later on when a doctor X rated, it was like that is insane. How'd you do that? And I was like, well, by the way, I do not recommend it, because then you have pain in your foot and you know, I limp a little bit and it's not good. You want to get your

fifth metatarsal fixed if you break it. But you get used to having to play hurt, just in life in general and trying to avoid injury. I find now that I have the discipline and the knowledge to do what I need to do physically to keep myself feeling healthy and active. But now it sounds like I'm I'm almost doing an advertisement for a retirement home to keep myself feeling healthy and active. But playing hurt man, it's such a big part of it, you know, just avoid bad

injury too. I saw recently that are my old colleague from The Blaze, Matt Walsh. He was tweeting out about how he ruptured his achilles tendon. I don't know what to do to of what I am. That is a fear that I have. I've thought about getting back into doing wind sprints because intermittent intermittent training and wind sprints or interval training rather not intermittent training, it's intermittent fasting.

But interval training with wind sprints I have found in the past is among the most especially when you add inclines into it. So you go at very high speed at a steep incline, and then you'd go at a more resting rate run and then you keep switching back and forth. One of the most effective things for I found for weight loss and just overall health. But I feel like I'm old enough now, or if I just try to do some wind sprints, I might rupture my achilles tendon. You know, So I Mark, what's the worst

injury you've ever had from sports? Birth? Birth? Yeah, when I was born. That's not that's not an injury from sports. Dude, back on your I had a friend who did that, who ruptured as achilles really yeah, and I was involved in the in the race. It was hilarious, makes a pop noise from what I understand it. Really, man, he wasn't he wasn't right for like a year. Yeah, yeah, I want to see. This is a thing like I'm at this point now where you know, I used to be able to play her, but now I just don't

want to get hurt. I sound so whimpy right now, but it's true. You know, I'll do some like weights and things like that. I used to take like an Olympic bar and throw it around and you're all rare, And now I'm like, maybe I'll just use the five pounders, you know, just yeay, like get a little get the heart pumping. I gotta get. I gotta get back into beast mode. Beast mode for buck. None of this whimp

mode stuff. But I'm trying so those of you who have, if you have team and exercise routine that has worked fantastically for you and you care to share it, I will tell you this. Whoever sends me the best exercise and meal plan routine at Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton, we'll get a shout out on the show. How about that.

We'll make this almost a little a little contest. But did you know, and don't give me one of the things we were like, you're gonna eat seven hundred calories a day and you're gonna work out for six hours a day. I got a life, I got things I gotta do. Keep it, keep it realistic, all right for those of you, and don't send me photos of your abs. For all I know there's like amateur and even some professional weightlifters who listen to this show. All right, you

don't need to make the radio host feel bad. I don't need to see your six pack, but do share your meal plan and your workout tricks. I'll take all that stuff because I don't want to rupture my achilles. We'll be right back. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll. Call Facebook dot com slash Buck Sex in. That is how we get the roll call action going. Very easy. Just go there, send a message. I love when people say,

is this where we send the role call message? And I'll read that on air of course, of course it is where we send the roll call message. Dale is first up, Buck, What do you think the odds are that Muller's stunt yesterday was the result of negotiations between himself and Nadler as a way to avoid testifying. He essentially gave Nadler and the leftist what they wanted while avoiding being grilled by the Republicans. You know, Dale, I

give you points for creative outside the box thinking. I would just say that there's the reason I think that did not happen is that it is too much risk for too little gain for Muller. There's no reason for him to put himself in a position where something like that could come out and be a big problem for him. But I can't to borrow from Muller. If I could conclusively prove that you were wrong, I would say so. I am merely saying I don't think that happened, But

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying it. I'm not saying it did not saying it didn't. You know, I do want to don't. So that's what I got for you on that, my friend, TJ. Right Buck, I'm kind of glad to hear you're leaving Rising, especially on days like today when Jamal fills in for Crystal. While the two of them may be of the same political bent, at least Crystal is mostly respectful of guests, especially pro life guests. Unlike the way Jamal treated Jeanie this morning despicable.

At least let her talk. I've never heard more interruptions. He's got a lot to learn about hosting. T J. Yeah, I look, I called Jeanie afterwards to apologize for the way she was treated on and I did try and you know, bring the temperature down at that table a little bit. Although it's a very hard thing to get a co host to not be so riled up, I've something that I've learned. It's just because then all of a sudden, you become the problem too, and you can

make it much much worse. So unless you're just gonna bail on the segment, Yeah, TJ, I'm not going to disagree with you, but it was I have very rarely had to call someone to apologize for the way they were treated in my presence and the head of the March for Life. She was not given the respect that she was due as a guest, and I tried, and unfortunately it wasn't enough to make that happen. So yeah, I'm it's time to go for me, TJ from the Hill. So that's where it is. I am moving on and focusing,

quite honestly, just focusing on this radio show. I have some other projects that are around the radio show that I'll be able to announce very soon, really exciting, very cool stuff. We're going to be jumping Team BA. We're gonna be jumping into the digital world. So that's that's the biggest preview I can give you right now. But we're going to jump in it. That doesn't change anything on radio. I'm just saying, think video, think podcasting, think

things like that, all right, Benjamin, Right Buck. I enjoy your television and movie reviews. It saves me from wasting time and being disappointed when a show ends up being liberal trash propaganda. My wife and I both appreciate it. Shields high well, Benjamin' I'm so happy to provide that additional service, my friend. Thank you. Sometimes people say to me, you're not a movie critic, Well are you criticizing movies on you? Well, you know, I just talk about things.

I try to share worthwhile, interesting, entertaining information. I mean, that's that is what I try to manage. That is what I try to do here on the show. So that's my mandate, that is my mission. And if that means that I can also Oh man, I was trying to watch it wasn't deep Water Rising yesterday, which is a Let me see if I can pull this up real quick. Um, I think it's called is it deep Water Rising or what is it? Uh? No, deep Water Horizon? Oh,

I can't remember what this is? What this is called? Um? It had man, It's it's about a it's a movie. I'm actually finding this in real time movie. But a giant squid from the ninth attacking a cruise ship. Yep, here we go. It's called deep Rising. There we go deep It's funny. We're just talking about my show rising deep Rising? Wait? Is that it? Um? I think this is right? It is? It is? It is terrible. It

is terrible. Um, it's a really really bad movie. So I would not go about watching that any anytime soon. I would I think that you'll be very very happy if you skip that one. But I did think it was kind of funny that, you know, when when I was watching it, you see people who back in the day, they whenever they're firing an automatic weapon, they would shoot from the waist and kind of move the weapon back and forth, like side to side, as though that was

going to make the bullets go faster. There's a lot of that in in Deep Rising. Um. Yeah, such such a yep famkagens And this is the movie such nineteen ninety eight, Such a bad movie, not not worth anyone's time. I was amazed at how cheesy and garbage it was. All right. Next up is Jeremy Buck with companies like Uber and Open Table rating their customers. Is this not a precursor to China's social rating system we've been hearing about shields high Jeremy, Well, Jeremy, I don't think it's

a precursor to that. I think that you know, you look at how much of your life is already determined by your record and by you know, your driving record influences how much you pay for insurance, your academic record where you go to school, what jobs you get, your employment record, your criminal record. These are all This is all data about humans. That about humans, that affects what we can do and what our options and opportunities are.

So that's already happening. What China has is are you supportive of the state and doing what the state wants? And that's different than Uber in my mind at least, that's different than Uber saying this person is polite and friendly and shows up when they say they're going to show up for pickup stuff like that. Laurel all rights, Hey, Buck, I thought you were reading an ad for podcasts or joking when you started about encouraging social credit through Uber Dude. Seriously,

that is ripe for abuse, if I'm not mistaken. Wow, another person who compares this to China, you are against this. China started this nonsense. The problem we have in society isn't that people are rude, is that we force everyone to be positive, resulting an outburst when our internal emotional state gets out of hand. No one wants to be angry, mean, or rude. Empathy and compassion or how you change the society, not more punishment for things that we perceive as wrong.

Watch the Black Mirror episode episode nosedive, and remember we're all human. I don't know, Laurel, I'm gonna agree to disagree with you on this one. I think that people engage in a business trends. I mean, should we not have Yelp reviews for businesses? Is that, big brother? Or is that? I like to know if a place where I'm going to conduct business has a reputation of being dishonest,

doing bad work, overcharging people. So if that's true for businesses, why can't it be true for your interactions with a business. I don't understand, in fact, what is a credit score other than a compilation of your trustworthiness in paying your debts and looking at the level of debt you maintain.

So this is already out there, I don't so I don't agree that this is the Chinese social credit system, which is far more invasive and intrusive and has to do with state mandated policy and the support of state mandated policy. So and then also it helps you for dating apps and stuff. I should probably read. There's a couple of good books out right now about the Chinese

social credit system, and maybe I'll dig into those. Wow, a lot a lot of people, A lot of people got really thought the Uber conversation yesterday, the whole inbox is full of this stuff. Book. You talked about ranking people on niceness or nastiness. Does this sound a lot like the Chinese social ranking system? No, guys, it's not ranking you as a person in general for your niceness or nastiness. It's a it's not a totalitarian surveillance state

that's assessing. It's when you ask for an Uber ride pickup? Are are you at the place you're supposed to be? And are you a reasonable person in that in that interaction? I don't know why. Oh man, Well, it's a good idea and thought. I think that if libs are a high percentage of restaurants to have, how would that work? If you're a conservative, you get a bad ranking from them. But I mean this is true of anything. I mean,

any ranking system. You can get someone who wants to, you know, mess with you or mess up what's going on. So I disagree, folks, I know a lot of you are are you going right to the China thing here? China? Michelle right? Buck M good to hear your show. Thank you, Michelle, I appreciate that very much. Next up here we have Valerie who writes movie talkers. They covered your social behavior idea in the Fox series The Orville. By the way,

you have an enjoyable program. Well, thank you so much, Valerie. I appreciate that. We hope the program is very much enjoyable. That I'd already say, Valerie, I think maybe that was the one that Alan Rights hey Buck enjoyed seeing you on the Hill. But it's for the best that you can pursue your convictions without compromise. You'll be leaving the swamp and going back to NYC or maybe even coming out to La Alan TBD, my friend TBD. But I am leaving the Hill Fae show. So that is now

out there and people know it. All that hasn't up been aficial. It'll be officially announced on Monday. Those you listen to the radio show, you get a little sneak prev because you're like my family. Debra Rights, I love it. Dems are focused on getting Trump. They cannot even run a good campaign based on that. Yes, Debra, they're not really running a campaign at all. They're just running a

kind of emotional smear effort. I mean, they're just they're they've completely lost themselves in Trump hatred that knows no limitations or rationality, and they think you and I are the crazy ones. That's what's so interesting about at least to me. So what do we have tomorrow Friday? Oh that's right, man, it's gonna be a little freestyle Friday. You know. Let me know on the comments today, folks, if you want us to bring back action movie quote Friday.

It's been a long time. I feel like some of you really enjoyed that we'd open the phone lines for it. Let me know, Facebook, dot com, slashbuck Sexton or anything else you think you want for Friday shows. I want to you know, I want to make sure that you guys are getting what you want on the Friday. So send me those thoughts and we'll be talking tomorrow, same time, same place. Team. You know how we roll, you know how we keep it real, shields high,