Social Media Show Trial

matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, you're a great American Again? The Buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody. Great to have you here with me. Always a privilege and a pleasure. We've got a lot of stuff to talk about today, oh my, So let's start with like I said, Like I just said, we got Facebook, We've got the Cohen lawyer record seizure fallout. Our friend Andie McCarthy, the one

and only. He'll be joining us right in the middle of the show, talk about He's a former Southern District of New York assistant US attorney who is going to be talking to us about what the heck did the Southern District of New York do yesterday, So he's as good a guys are gonna find a talk about that. Um, we'll get into all the latest and then also later on the show, they're attacking a part of my youth,

the Breakfast Club. We'll discuss that the social justice warriors are going after it, and also a firm of action Harvard and Asian Americans. That'll be a topic you want to stay around for. So I'm I take a very different point. Producer Mike agrees with me on this one. I'm gonna assume Brandon agrees to be on this one just because they didn't ask him. So I'm gonna say the tide goes to the buck, Thank you, Brandon. But I think this whole Facebook thing is a social media

show trial. I really do. I'm I'm absolutely convinced that if Trump had not won the election, nobody would care. You would not have heard anything about Cambridge Analytica. Do not be hearing about the threat that social media platforms like Facebook pose for our democracy. And I think people are getting lost in all the all the little side stories and and side shows here with what's happening. Instead of keeping an eye and the fact that this is

just more liberal outrage Catharsis over Hillary's loss. Why the heck is the CEO of Facebook showing up to explain to members of the Senate how Facebook works, what it's background is. You know, don't they have Google? I mean, can't they figure this stuff out? It was incredible. If you saw some of the hearing, there was a lot of like show like Sean town I made that the people put the photos and they can send the messages

to the friends. What is this with the the digital photo and the face But there's no book, so it's really lots of different screens, not pages. I mean, these people in the Senate, they're representing you and me, my friends. They are not exactly sharp when it comes to the digital world. I gotta say it was pretty There was a lot of whoa, I thought you guys were up. These are the people who are writing like cybersecurity laws.

By the way, just remember that these are the people that are supposed to be protecting us from the best of the best hackers that China and Russia and you know, Iran and others can throw North Korea can throw our way. So you're telling me the photos are posted by the users, or where do we get these photos? Is there? Do we do? We call the d m V on a rotary phone. They have no idea what is going on, but they know that this is a moment to make

a whole bunch of speeches. And they also know that this is a story that has a much greater residence with particularly the media, but the public at large then it would otherwise, because this is called this is holding something to account for Hillary's loss other than Hillary. And I can't help but go down the list. Okay, so we've had Hillary loss, but because Comey. Remember that Comey came out and said that we found more emails right

before the Life. Hillary lost because Comy. Hillary lost because sexism. That's been a fun one. Hillary lost because Russia ran some incredible international scheme of subversion and mind manipulation. Uh and now Hillary lost because Russia did that. But also Facebook, Facebook should have done more. In fact that the ceo himself, I was out there talking about Mark Zuckerberg, who is my contemporary, unfortunately worth quite a bit more than me, got quite a bit of a bigger bank roll, which

makes me sad. But nonetheless he he said that he was there, and then he was being held accountable himself personally. It's clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well, and that goes for fake news, for foreign interference and elections and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility and that was a big mistake, and it was my mistake, and I'm sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and

I'm responsible for what happens here. Now we have to go through are all of our relationship with people and make sure that we're taking a broad enough view of our responsibility. It's not enough to just connect people. We have to make sure that those connections are positive. It's not enough to just give people a voice. We need to make sure that people aren't using it to harm other people or to spread misinformation. And it's not enough

to just give people control over their information. We need to make sure that the developers they share it with protect their information too. Now, put aside for a moment that this guy who I feel like definitely got his fair share of wedgies back in the day, Do you remember that that was a thing we're gonna talk about eighties movies later. Well, what's what do you call it? When somebody takes that, puts them in the headlock and and you know, like thank you a noogie? And wedgies?

Remember those that kind of no one ever talks about. I think right now you'd probably get you know, be it's some sort of code violation in schools or something. I allowed to do that anymore. Forget about code red. You're not even allowed to give people a wedgie anymore.

You're gonna get in, You're gonna get locked up. But anyway, a guy who he's kind of the quintessential super nerd, as in, he's a nerd who now is like a country unto himself, who's worth like eighty billion dollars or something for Africa, whatever it is on paper, it's tens it's tens of billions of dollars. But let's just put aside all that. Let's put aside all the razzle dazzle for a second. The fact that he didn't wear his hoodie. He wore a suit and tie like a respectable gentleman.

Why is he doing this? Why is you know, let's look at the why for a moment. Lets let's take a step back, because this was the biggest story on Capitol Hill today. You know that it's this and it's the coin aftermath. Those are the two things that we'll dig into, both of those in a way you haven't heard anywhere else, and that will be I promise you it'll be worth your time today. Let's start with the why,

ask why? Um The Democrats as I as I was mentioning before, they wanted take this story and run with it because even without having to explicitly remind the viewer all the time about this, it's all about Hillary loss because of and you know, fill in the blank. Now, it's not so much that they love Hillary, as is that they want an excuse for why they're apparatus was unable to get someone elected against Trump, who they clearly think is some kind of you know, evil monster from

the deep. And then there's also Trump is illegitimate, right, anything that helped Trump win that was outside the boundaries of fair play. Further is the notion among the left and among Democrats that Trump is not really the president, which is what at the end of the day, Democrats belief, not my president. I remember the marches here in New York, not my president and not my you know, their march on the streets. And I was like, actually, actually, as

your president, you might not like him. He's the president. Barack Obama was my president for eight years. Wasn't my choice, but he was my president. It's called reality. I like to live in it, right, not my president. I remember all the marches. So now we look at this, we say, Okay, we know why the Democrats like this story, and I mean the Democrat politicians and also the general media apparatus. But I just want to focus for for a moment

here on because because Facebook is incredibly powerful. Look, I use Facebook every day. People are all people. Entire business huge businesses are built around using Facebook as a platform. It is a company that in many ways has more power over other companies than anything else on the planet, with the exceptions of Google and Amazon, which are probably right up there too. And you can make arguments as

to which one has the most. I mean, the power of life and death over huge companies is in the hands of these other companies like Amazon and Facebook and Google not so much. Twitter. Twitter is kind of the runt of the litter with this stuff. Twitter is like, for news people to spout off and and you know, compare who can be the wittiest or the nastiest depending on how you how you catch somebody on any given day. Why is Zuckerberg showing up in the horse hair? So

to speak? How many people even catch that reference? They don't teach kids anything in school anymore? Why is is Zuckerberg showing up and doing this whole maya culpa I always loved by. I've caught a couple of eggers that are like showing up for an apologia. I'm like, no, APOLOGI is not actually a a an apology. It's a defense of something. So he's apologizing. He's not doing an apologia. Like I said, I don't teach kids anything in school anymore.

But it doesn't make any sense. Really, you don't after I mean, it didn't really have to do this. Why is he doing it? Why? Why? Why? And when you look at the why, you understand that, first of all, he's not taking any Always be skeptical of someone who's saying I take all the blame when they face no consequences. Right, it reminds me of who I forget that, Like the counter terrorisms are pre nine eleven I went around in this whole thing about how you know he was the

first one that took blame for the US government. But I mean he didn't actually take any blame. No one really blame him for anything. It was just a way of grand standing, right, Oh, I take all the blame for the failure of nine eleven on my shoulders. Now you don't, dude, You're just grandstanding. Taking the blame is like I resign my commission. I no longer have a paycheck, and like, I know there's consequences here that's taken the blame.

Taking the blame is not when you're out of government, like, oh, I could have done more. It's like the equivalent of somebody who's like, oh, my biggest weakness is there in that job interview. My biggest weaknesses, you know what they are, Brandon, I take too much of a load on my shoulders. I shared the credit far too much. I've I've really got problems. My work ethic is just crazy. I got problems, right, Look at this, Mark, Mark Zucker, Oh, we should have

done more to police content. We should have done more. We should have done more. A couple of things pushing this one. This is what is demanded of him. Even someone like Mark Zuckerberg, who could retire to his private island and go inside the volcano layer and just work on like cybernetics for the future that will keep him living for the next ten thousand years, he could do that. He's got that kind of cash. Goals, by the way,

goals hashtag goals. Um. But he also wants to be liked by the people that are outraged by the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, and those people demand some kind of of sacrifice. Right those people are demanding Wait a second, Facebook was a problem here. Facebook is supposed Facebook was

supposed to be on their side. There's a particular resentment among the Democrat media, among the American left for a Silicon Valley platform, which they really take on as their own in their eyes, having been used in any way to bring about not just a Republican presidency, but the Trump presidency. They they want there to be retribution for this, and they want someone to make a public show of it. So that's one phase of this. But there's also some

other stuff. Why zuckerberr. Why is Zuckerberg saying this right now? Um? What is the purpose for Facebook? What is the purpose for the left, What does this mean about the way we get information going forward? About censorship of a a possible monopoly and the breakdown of these companies by government decision in the future if and when they don't submit themselves to regulations. The anti competitive aspect of a company like

Facebook calling for regulations. Oh, there's actually a lot going on here that affects That affects a company that, as you know, is one of the is changing the way we interact with not just each other, but the way we interact with everything on a day to day basis, including national political conversation. I mean, you can't even have a discussion now about a media outlet without well, what's

our Facebook strategy? So but I will break down all these different layers and levels about why this matters not just a Facebook, but to all of us. But I'm gonna need a little mo thomas ours, So stay with me and I'll be right back. I don't think you

have a monopoly. It certainly doesn't feel like that to me. Okay, So one way to regulate a companies through competition through government regulation, given what's happened here, while we should let your self regulate, well, Senator, my position is not that there should be no regulation. I think the Internet is increasing. I think the real question as the Internet becomes more important in people's lives is what is the right regulation,

not whether there should be. You, as a company, welcome regulation. I think if it's the right regulation, then you think, look at that, a company that basically begging for the Congress to rights and regulations for them. I mean he's not actually begging, but he's he's keeping that door wide open. Yes, the right regulation. Sure, and you let us see really quickly pivot away from the whole notion of a monopoly

and anti competitive practices. Isn't it fascinating, my friends, that right now you've had this media outrage, I mean, hair on fire. Oh my gosh, there are coming for us about a possible merger between Tribune and Sinclair because of all the oh my gosh, it's gonna have the stranglehold on local local news media. And there are people that are trying to oppose that based on the based on the possibility of oh my gosh, a a right of center viewpoint having more than one national level TV outlet?

What a what a what a crazy mad Max world that would be um Meanwhile, Facebook does not have any real competition. To say it does is not true. And yet you're not hear anybody say we should break up Facebook if they're looking. And there's a whole other discussion we how to here abou whether monopoly is even possible

in the absence of government regulation. There people say, really, the only way monopoly is possible if the government enforces a monopoly, and that's a there's a whole other discussion here that eventually there's always a way within the market too. No one can actually corner the market unless the government is complicit in that. And that's what I think Facebook wants to do because the company doesn't have any competition.

And whether you think companies should be broken up or not based on size, importance and reach in a certain sector. If there is such a thing as a company that you know is too big, you know, too big to stand forget too big to fail, I think Facebook falls into the category. So they're trying to get ahead of this year by one creating a sense of political goodwill among Democrats and the Congress that you know that they're trying to build political capital here. Yes, yes, we're sorry

about the Russia stuff. Oh yes, we're so so sorry about that. I mean I was picturing, like, does Mark Zuckerberg pull a Scrooge McDuck and go back to a giant vault just full of gold coins and just swimming them great cartoon ducktails was awesome. So and I don't know, but I mean he actually could if you wanted to. That's a whole separate discussion. The point here is just they're trying to get ahead of the possible breakup of Facebook under monopoly concerns and regulation, as you know, is

inherently anti competitive. Because the regulatory caught the burden of regulation, he is much heavier on smaller and emerging companies. So you see what Mark Zuckerberg is doing here is actually I give him credit. And the guy, you know, depending especially on whose version you believe, he's he's willing to uh, he's willing to shank people as they say whatn't necessary. He's willing to take people out of the corporate, corporate, competitive world around him. That's how he ended up being CEO.

So but the the guy understands and I'm sure all of his advisers and his he's got the highest priced lawyers than legal advice on the planet understands that he goes there, he does a whole maya culpa thing, he gets some some uh supportive press, and he goes before the Congress, and it's basically saying, yeah, I regulators because once the once the government starts regulating them one, if you're if you're already regulating them, it's a lot harder

to get the whole momentum going to actually break up a company. Right, you can say, no, they're all they're all banging the regulation and they're playing ball with what you know, the federal government demands of them. And then also if they weren't a monopoly before, they're gonna be one now because with the regulatory with the regulatory costs of say having to monitor and edit and censor content alone, that's gonna be an enormous burden, enormous challenge going forward.

And that's just the one other piece of this discussion I want to have you before we move on to Cohen lawyer seizure of records and also serio response is he's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton is back. Well, Mr Zuckerberger, I will say there are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship. There have been numerous instances

with Facebook. In May of sixteen, Gizmodo reported that Facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news, including stories about cepac, including stories about Mitt Romney, including stories about the lowest learner i r S scandal, including

stories about Glenn Beck. In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick fil A Appreciation Day page, has blocked a post of Fox News Reporter, has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silks page with one point two million Facebook followers after determining their content and brand were quote unsafe to the community. To a great many Americans, that

appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Ted Cruise, taking the CEO of Facebook to task on the issue of censorship. Which is what I was trying The word I was trying to get out before I was so rudely cut off by the hard break that is built into our system here of the radio show. Um. Sometimes I think that's the first that that's happened in a a while where I was just so next I'm gonna tell you, oh,

and we're out of time. But censorship is the big issue and the content management component of what's going on with Facebook. This is huge. This this goes towards the way that you're gonna be getting information, uh, in the years to come, for decades to come. Is it a platform or a publisher? The question we need to ask about Facebook right Is Facebook in any way endorsing or

verifying the information that's put up by individuals? Are they going to separate out what is considered a news or a pub is shing u story from what it's just somebody saying stuff on their own page. I mean, how are they going to break this down? That's a huge set of problems they're taking on here, and they're doing it in part in response not to the censorship concerned the politicization concerns of conservatives, but because of the Russia

Facebook stock puppet account fiasco right with the election. If Hillary hadn't lost the election, none of these discussions would be happening right now. Just remember that that conservatives have been saying for a while now, for years Hey, why is it that this person's content seems to get shared a lot more than mine and I actually have a

much bigger following and much more engaged audience. Why am I banned or even shadow band as a conservative when, as we know, that doesn't happen either side, And I just would would note that on the on the censorship concern. If this weren't just happy to conservatives, I'm pretty sure we would hear about some very upset liberals, some some progressives, and some left wing news sites that would be raising these problems and concerns. But we don't. We only hear

about it really from right wing conservative sites. Do we think right wing is pejorative? I was thinking about that today. I was talking to somebody. We're describing a project we're working on. We're trying to come up with different taglines, and said, well, right, I think right wing has become it's it's not in vogue right now. But I feel like right wings should be fine to say we see it. I say left wing, all that was wrong with the

right wing? All right wing? I don't know. I like, I don't like to let the other side manage the terms of debating discussions. So I say things like right wing. Alright, So, but back to what's going on with Facebook here. Uh, they clearly have been playing games with this. There's no question in my mind that the people writing the algorithms and and you see this even with some of the open policies about well what's uh, you know, anything that links to a site that sells guns or anything that

you know. They they have taken political stands openly in the past, but I think there's a much more pernicious and a much more problematic practice of using the algorithm to shape discussion for political ends that's gonna benefit liberals at the expense of conservatives. That's what I think. I have spoken to people who say it's happen to them. I believe them. Uh. And there have been too many cases that have been publicized, and they all point the

same direction. And the direction is that liberals view Facebook as a platform that they can and should dominate the same way they do Snapchat and Twitter and other other social media spaces. And they're getting help. And now, once you start putting out there that Zuckerberg and his team at Facebook are supposed to be monitoring the intent, you were really asking them and Congress, I think is asking them to take an active hand in the curation of

what you're seeing every day. And it's not just going to be set by some neutral algorithm that's like you like this will show you that you like you like Republican stuff, We're gonna show you things associated with with the Republican Party. That's what we've all been led to believe is going on with this. But I think there's

it's many layers more complicated than that. You know, let's understand if Russians, if we're supposed to believe that a bunch of Russians operating in some office space in in St. Petersburg, we're able to in any way influence the election using Facebook. Just think what the people running Facebook can do. And keep in mind when I say can do, I really mean it as in not just the technical capability, but they're allowed to. It is a private service. They set

their own turn of service. Nobody reads them. I mean, you could be giving away your first born to them every time you click on the terms of service. But we were all just like Gerbils that want to hit that little lever and get the little little treat, you know, hit hit the pedal, hit the lever, Yeah, terms of service,

sure or whatever. I mean, it's like on my iPhone every time they change the terms of service, it could say you need to walk around in a chicken suit and tell everybody that you are the worst for the next week, and I would click yes, because I didn't read it. I'm just clicking whatever they wanted the terms of service. So this is something we need to watch. This is something that will be increasingly important going forward.

And I don't know if the answer is to form a more conservative friendly platform or just to try and and fight for a fair shake on this one, because people say, well another social media network, all right, Well what's gonna have? Facebook has a two billion person head start folks who wants to try to play the game of catching up to them. I mean, somebody will eventually, but I think we're a long way away from that. And in the meantime, they have so much influence on

what we were thinking and what we were seeing. Keep in mind, it's not just and this is no knowing a matter from the publishing standpoint and how it works with companies and businesses. I mean, I know I have friends who are building whole businesses just on using Facebook to sell their products. That's how they target but that's how they find them. It's competing with the old advertising model,

right so, and it's really taking over advertising. But you also have to keep in mind that the way that Facebook chooses to police content on the side also it's it's not just like, oh, i'm you know, I'm buck, I'm posting things and I want my friend Bob to

see my thoughts here. The sites that do well on the Facebook platform monetize better, and so the Facebook can decide that you're going to see a lot of stuff from BuzzFeed, for example, And also BuzzFeed will be able to monetize its content much better via face this book. Then say a conservative contender could then you know, right wing crazies dot com, could you know whatever? And you'll never know about that. You just won't see their content.

You'll see BuzzFeed content in your feed. So this is getting into the tech realm. And I think ultimately that those are the important takeaways from all this. And also this is a big social media show trial. Yeah, you're giving away your data to them. You should already know that. We should all know that, we should be aware any safeguards that they put in place are not for are

not really for your benefit. Okay, they're they're gonna monetize, they're gonna find it what to use the data you give them and all this, Oh my gosh, do you realize what Cambridge Analytic was doing. It's just another version of oh why did Hillary lose? So that's that's Those are my thoughts on Facebook. You got anything else you want to add into the mix, though, You've got some spice that you want to throw into the cauldron. Eight four four eight five eight four four nine Buck producer

Mike loves getting phone calls. It is true. He will chat with you and chat with you, and you know he likes when you call and you have limericks to share if you have, if you have a high coup in mind, he will listen to it. So light up that I know he's looking at me. I'm gonna get I'm gonna get a code read later. But light up that board and well we're gonna come back. We'll talk about the Cohen fallout obviously, and then also just some follow up on what's gonna happen I think with Syria

and a whole bunch of other stuff. Stay with me. They were that back in with Obama eliminated, they're declared No, it's a very very loyally insertion of a word. They're declared chemical weapons program. Well, it's a good thing that work was in there, because they clearly did not eliminate serious chemical weapons program, because they are still using it to kill men, women and children. So now we look

to what we should do about it. If anything, it seems to me that there's something of a bipartisan consensus right now that we have to act in response to this attack in Syrias I was saying to you yesterday. Um, keep in mind a half million people have been killed in this civil war in ways that are brutal, beyond beyond comprehension. I mean, just all kinds of terrible things have been happening in this country for years and years, and we have this line that we draw on the

sand on the usage of chemical weapons. And I understand there's a good reason for that online, Um, but we should all be very clear that our response to this attack. If Trump and I'm seeing now Macrawn and and and on others are united in this notion, you know, we have to do something about this in response to Assad's chemic weapons attack east of Damascus in Syria. We should all understand that it is a gesture. It is not going to change any tactical reality. It's not going to

change to anything going on in this battlefield space. They can still drop barrel bombs which are just basically crude i e. D. S dropped from the sky from helicopters in particular, uh, packed with shrapnel, massive explosion, kill as many people as possible. Um, that's what they've been doing for years. So they're they're still gonna be slaughtering civilians. This. We're not saying stop killing innocent people, or we're gonna keep hitting you. We're saying, don't use come with the weapons.

And you you take this too, you know, you take this to the level of Okay, well, what are we really saying. And what we're saying is we're not gonna do anything about the murderer of innocent civilians by the Assad regime in Syria unless it's with chemical weapons. That's what we're saying. I just think we should all be quite clear on that. Um. You don't usually hear it put in those terms, but that is that is the truth.

That is the reality as to what it will do. UM. As I mentioned to you yesterday, the airfields when we hit them the last time, almost exactly a year ago. By the way, it's feeling very cyclical. Um when we hit them a year ago, the airfields are back up and running quite soon after. It was a a pin prick strike you could say, didn't do didn't do anything to change anything, just showed, okay, we'll enforce this red line.

And I'm not saying that has no merit. I'm not saying forget about that, because it was certainly critical of the Obama aministration for refusing to enforce the red years ago. But keep in mind that might have been able to actually change some of the realities we've seen play out in Syria once the Red Line was not in force. So then it was just open season for USAW to

do whatever the heck you wanted. And the Iranians were in there and the Russians, and it was I mean, the Russians just had a campaign of extermination going on in Aleppo against civilians. People forget about this now, I didn't.

People weren't paying attention to it. You will also know that there was not much interest in the media in showing the true level of suffering of the Syrian people because Obama was in office and we were told, you know, we that that he would not allow these things to happen. Obama's chief national security advisors on a number of issues, we're we're actually people who built their whole career, Susan Rice and Samantha Power built their whole careers on our

two p which is the responsibility to protect. And this is these are people that you know, they got all the way up to National Security Advisor and US Ambassador United Nations and well, no, no duty to protecting Syria under Obama. We were like, well, I mean, that's really messy. We're not gonna do anything there, And they didn't want that to become a focus of the narrative of the

media attention on the subject. So there just wasn't as much of a of an interest in Syria as there would have been if there's a Republican president with all the things happening that did. But now we also get into the unintended consequence aside of this, because it's different to have US troops in Syria as we do and a a ground force presence and also allies that are embedded and co located with the U S troops on

the ground in Syria. It's different to hit Assad now than it would have been before, and the Russians, i think, feel like it's different too. Keep in mind, we've been ratcheting up because the media is saying, oh, you're a pudent puppet. You know, we've been ratcheting up pressure against Russia for a while now. We have given lethal aid to the Ukrainian government to use against Russian backed separatists

in eastern Ukraine. We've been piling on the sanctions, including sanctions against oligarchs, very powerful Russians in Putin's immediate orbit, so that that stuff is rattling their cage, that's annoying them. That's not nothing. And now on top of that, we may and oh and by the way, there was about a month ago reports that we killed about a hundred Russians on the ground in Syria, but it was an accident and they weren't Russian soldiers, so that we just

all agreed to pretend that nobody really knew. Nobody really knows what happened here, and the reports were that it was a hunter I've read a dozen that was a hundred, and it was a lot. Russian paramilitaries made a move on Kurdish US background forces, and those Kurdish forces called in US air strikes and just annihilated those Russian paramilitaries. That also ratchets up tensions. Right, these are things that

we we got to remember. That's what's been happening. So people say take it to Assad game, but it's not the same situation now that it was a year ago. The battlefield realities have changed, the situation on the ground has changed. I'm seeing these reports about how Russia is jamming jamming US drones over Syria, and let's put out there the possibility that maybe Russia decides to interfere in

some way with any US strike. I mean, what with Could the Russians try using the air defense systems that they've put in Syria to blunt to to counteract US missiles. Are they able to do it? Well, you know, we have to see, but would they try? Are are they now going to take the position that anything against the Assad regime is an attack on them? They'll respond and

they'll respond in kind, at least to the immediate threat. Uh, we really don't want to wake up in a world where we have to deal where the where the president has to sit down with Madis and and the re to his team and figure out what the proper response to a Russian you know whatever, fourth generation fighter plane shooting down one of ours, What that feels like, what that looks like. So I know right now it seems like that there gathering for a response. I hope that

they measure this response out very carefully. There's a huge variation in the quality and taste of tequila's out there. You've got to think of tequila's like you do wine or beer, right. You got you get familiar with what you like, and all of a sudden you know that some of them are great and some of them aren't worth your time. G four Tequila is the best you are going to get. It is the pinnacle of master

distiller Felipe Camarina's passion for crafting truly great tequila. It's distilled using fifty harvested rain water and fifty spring water. The agave is age two, very clear specification. You will try it. I'm telling you it is delicious. Go check them out. Visit G four tequila dot com for more details or give them a like on Facebook at facebook dot com slash G four tequilas again G four tequila dot com get more details there. So if you can have some ship, do you check them out team of

telling you it is absolutely delicious. Once you try it, you're be like, Wow, this is now my tequila. He's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. To's frankly a real disgrace and saying an attack on our country in a true sense, these people have the biggest conflicts of interest I've ever seen Democrats all or just about all. They're not looking at the Hillary Clinton horrible things that you did and all of the crimes that were committed.

They only keep looking at it us so they find no collusion. And then they go from there and they say, well, let's keep going, and they raid an office of a personal attorney early in the morning, and I think it's a disgrace. You know, going after someone's personal attorney is uh, you know, a great overstep I think in the authority of the prosecutor. And this is why I have opposed really having special prosecutors for almost anything, because I think

they abused their authority. So I think Mueller has abused as authority. Now they say, well he asked somebody else, another U S attorney to do it. Yes, but this is becoming at the behest of Mueller. So I think this investigation no longer has much to do with Russia. Remember what Chuck Schumer said a couple of months ago. He says, if you crossed the intelligence agencies, they can screw you six ways to Sunday. This is about enormous power,

prosecutor power, but also power in the intelligence communities. We have to rein this in or every American citizen is exposed to this kind of abuse of president's right. It's a witch hunt, but it's a wide open thing. It's a mistake to ever have these special prosecutors totally agree with Senator ram Paul. They're welcome to our two of the buck sex and show everyone thank you very much for being here. And the fallout from the Cohen situation continues.

After yesterday when we had the breaking news for you of the raid on Cohen's, uh well, his hotel room and his office and they grabbed all of this stuff. I note that Cohen has since made comments about this, he says, Uh, let me see what we got here. Did an interview with Don Lemon over at CNN, he said quote, I am unhappy to have had my personal residence and office rated, but I will tell you the members of the FBI conducted the search and seizure with

extreme works. They were extremely professional, courteous, and respectful. Um Don Lemon then said that Cohen told him he believed everything he did in respect to Stormy Daniels was legal and it would be proven so in the end. When asked if he was worried about the investigation, he responded, quote, I would be lying to you if I told you that I am not. Do I need this in my life? No? Cohen added, Do I want to be Do I want

to be involved in this? No, that's for sure. You never want to be in any way the target of the subject of near in the next room, in the next building. From a federal criminal investigation of any kind. It just destroys everything that it touches. You don't have to be guilty, they don't have to bring charges against you, necessarily bankrupt you just on legal fees. Bankrupt You know that that's people forget this, But you know Yeah, our

legal system is great, but it's far from perfect. It's just better than all the other terrible ones around the world, but it's not it's not something that you can just rely on all the time and do exactly what's right and exactly what should happen here. Um. The Cohen situation though, after yesterday, I think has shown that you know, one side gets treated with kid gloves, that's Hillary Clinton's team, and our team gets treated with brass knuckles. That's it

the way this goes. It's unfair, but a lot of people don't want it to be fair. They don't really care that it is unfair, that they could care less in fact. And now we have figured out what what do we do about this? And I would know that, of course there's a degree of discretion involved here, right, I mean, yeah, prosecutor can and we got Anie McCarthy joining us in just a little bit of here. He'll

answer some of these questions in detail. And he worked for this other district of New York so as a prosecutor, so he knows that was who went in and grab Cohen stuff yesterday, right, So he knows the score here very very well. Um, But the choice of how to go after and who to go after is everything, you know. The power to prosecute is the power to destroy, just like you know with the I. R. S. You know, it's tax time, folks. Who gets honored it and who doesn't.

It's a very powerful decision, and only people that have no familiarity with the process have no understanding what the heck they're talking about it Like, well, if you haven't

done anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide. Really, you know, you can remind people can remind themselves of that after they've been hounded by federal investigators of one kind another for months on end, lost countless hours of productive time, a lot of nights sleep, a lot of stress, so that in the end you get to just go back to all your normal life problems. That's what it's like when you're dealing with anyone on the on the on

the criminal investigative investigative side. Uh. I agree with R. Fleischer by the way that they better have something here or or this is just way too much for us to stomach. It's extraordinary. This is so seldom done. You have to believe that the only reason it was done because they have the goods on Cohen and that better be the case, because if Bob Muller in the U S. Attorney for New York do not, they are going to have violated the public trust in the most fundamental way.

So I have to believe, knowing Bob Mueller as well as I do, that they've got the goods. There is something that led them to do this. But here's the bigger problem. This is all not predicated on You just have to believe. You have to accept the FBI's version. The time is quickly coming for Bob Mueller to come public. He's going to start abusing the public's faith and trust if they don't start to explain what they're doing and why he does not have unlimited time and otherwise, why

should people just accept this at face value. It's starting to strain credibility because this is so extraordinary. Now now, I I I agree with Ari Fleischer there when he says that this is an extraordinary step. It's a big deal, and that was my initial reaction to it, and then I basically disagree with all the rest of what he said. Um, I think that it is a violation of the public trust. I think we'll find out that it was a violation

of the public trust. And I think that there'll be no consequences whatsoever or Mueller and the rest of that squad for it. I think, what's going to happen? Okay, so they don't have the goods, then what the answer is? Nothing? They they did it because they could, because it sends a message, because why not, because they have the power to do it. There's no accountability that will be enforced here for uh Mueller choosing to go with hardball tactics

against a Trump person. Quite the opposite. There are a lot of people who think that Mueller is a hero for doing this. This is the nature of partisan politics. This is the nature of a partisan witch hunt. It's nice. So, like I said, there's not gonna be any accountability here. And I also disagree with Fleischer in terms of his sense that this is we are fast approaching the point at which we could no longer. I think this investigation is being conducted in good faith. I'm already there. I'm

way past that. I was way past that a while ago. And since I don't have any personal interaction with or relationship with Mueller, I I can't pretend that I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubts. I think he's going to do the right thing here. When have any of these Democrats that overstepped their authority but did not

flagrantly break a law, what if anything, faced consequences. We really, we really think that the government, that the Democrat deep state, is going to punish people for doing what they can using government authority to run up the scoreboard for the

left at the expense of of the GOP. No way, Oh yeah, you mean all of the You mean, like the accountability that was enforced against Lowest Learner and Ben got I mean and uh sorry, Bend Lowest Learning the I r S. Nope, nothing happened there, It's gonna happen here. So I think that's wishful thanking. What it really is is Ari Fleischer, who was obviously a very senior guy in the Bush White House, I think hoping that the

America that he wants to believe exists still exists. So I don't you know, I'm not putting him down for that. I'm just saying I think I think he is not being cynical enough here, based on the facts and based on everything that we have seen, what to do about this, Though I know that's probably the next question we we should address, right, well, what is the what is the real response that we should have to all of this? And uh, the answer is, well, a few things have

been put out there. For one, um, we could uh and see m was just reporting on this that Trump is considering taking action against Rod Rosenstein. I don't think people are saying he Kennedy can't fire Mueller. My sense is he can't fire Muller. He won't fire Muller. And that's it's kind of a distraction now for most of the media to even be talking about it. It's just not not realistic, not gonna happen. I don't think that. I don't see that happening. That's said. Could I see

Trump saying, you know what, screw it, I'm gonna fire Rosenstein. Yeah, I could see that happening. I can see that happening. You know. There's that professor of constitutional law, uh Presteriley down to g W. He was on Fox talking about the Cohen situation and the threat that opposes for Trump. Here's what he had to say. The president has to be very careful. The greatest danger that he faces is not Michael Cohen as a defendant, but Michael Cohen is bait.

In many ways, this could be as cunning as it is hostile on the part of Rod Rosenstein. You know, he expanded the mandate for Mueller to go after Manifort on crimes that were far more remote than this. So why would he refer to the Southern District. Well, it has a real threat for the president. It expands the

investigation involves the Southern District that can prosecute it. But if the President reacts aggressively, he could end up triggering a far more serious problem for himself and his presidency. I don't know if I agree with that. It depends on what we mean by aggressively. I don't think firing Mueller's in the cards, but maybe, uh, maybe firing Rosenstein.

I also think that isn't it interesting? You see this happening time and again, and people that can cover for the Republican or that can forget cover give the Republican the benefit of the doubt. They recused themselves. Sessions recused himself, the U s. Attorney in New York who originally people's like, oh, it's a it's a trumpet point. Yeah, he recused himself from this decision to raid Cohen's offices yesterday? Isn't that interesting in the original talking point? Oh, it was a

Trump appointee. Nope, he recused himself. Wasn't part of the process. Wasn't part of the discussion? Uh? Who? Who in a in a in a critical uh junk at a critical point in the major investigations affecting Democrats in recent years, who are the really important Democrat prosecutors to Democrat DJ officials? Who stepped aside? Again? Did uh? Do you remember Eric Holdy recusing himself from anything that would have really affected Obama?

And they No? Do you remember Lauretta Lynch saying, you know, I'm gonna step aside and just kind of let justice be done here, even if it tanks the Democrats hoped for Hillard win. No, I'm just seeing a trend there.

I see something playing out that looks like one side is just in it to win it, and the other side is like, wow, I think that maybe the rule book tells me and you can tell me, well, Buck, that's because we have principles that we okay, but just understand that the other team has has no such compunctions about about making sure that they cover for themselves. Meanwhile, on our side of it, I said, from the beginning,

special Council disaster, it's a terrible idea. A lot of conservatives were having a kind of moment of moral preening over that one. I gotta say, ethical preening over Oh, well, we need a special counsel. No, we we did not need a special counsel. It was it was just the Democrats dream come true of a nemesis. And that's what Mueller and this whole Council probe has turned into and has been really from the start a nemesis for the

Trump administration. Just to bog it all down. This by this effects not just the the enacting of policy and the Trump agenda. It affects our billity, affect what we talk about, what we spend our time on, our our our energy are psychological output is affected by all the time spent it all. Is he going to be impeached? Is he going to be by the way the answers, yes, The Democrats whin he's going to be impeached. I'm not gonna be removed from office. He's going to be impeached.

Uh so we'll say, oh, speaking of Muller by the way in Democrats. One more thing here, um Chuck Schumer never misses an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. By his own words, it's clear the president may may be considering firing the Special Counsel. This Congress must respond forcefully and on a bipartisan basis, by reaffirming our belief that the president cannot fire special counsel without law, without cause, and by passing legislation to ensure that any attempts to

remove Robert Mueller will be unsuccessful. We should not abide the president's attempted assault on the rule of law in America. The eyes of history, very serious, are upon us. Eyes of history. Who spooky Schumer? There the eyes of history. The president can't hand over his constitutionally delegated authority, and the president could fire executive branch officials. So the notion that the Congress is going to pass a statute that says, yeah, you can't fire people who work for the d o J,

that's a big problem. Big problem. I don't think it's gonna happen, but just shows you that how disingenuous the Democrats are. They want to respect the rule of law by passing statutes that break down the rule of law. So there you go. That's that's not Chuck Schumer rules. Um, we gotta roll into a quick break here. We got Annie McCarthy joining us in just a few minutes. Third hour, by the way, quick preview, we'll talk about a major

affirmative action showdown through Harvard University. They could affect the company you work for, the college you will you know you went to, or you go to, or your kids might go to it. It's gonna have big, big ramifications across the board. Um, So there's that. And we will also talk about the breakfast club. And I got some other stuff too, and and and what oh yeah, gosh, there's all these stories on sex robots. I'm just gonna give you a quick take on that one later on

this I'm like, what is going on here? So we have quite quite a roadmap plan for you here. We'll be right back. I got some of the more team Buck callers on a long let's get to it. Uh Kenny in Boston, Hey, Kenny Shield tie Buck shild listen, yes, listen, Um you know this, Maller. We we fail to mention that Mala is not only a hacking the president, but he's also and largely trying to demoralize his base, the president's base, because he you know, he wants people. Oh

my god, that's never gonna end. They want it's an a war of attrition, you know. But if these guys are so brazen and unabashed with the procedural you know, the people in the the what do you call it, the intelligence cabal, the deep state intelligence cabal. If they're so brazen communities procedural acts, what's to stop them from actually completely totally fabricating some event or crime and getting away with it that you know that's supposedly Trump committed.

I mean, how's that going to you know? I mean, how what's going to stop them from that? If they are so all powerful? Know, well, I would say, Kenny, let's not let's not overcomplicated. Right, There's enough damage that the molar probe can do without putting themselves in any jeopardy whatsoever. Right there, there's enough that they can do just using the powers that are that are in fact in there, uh in their arsenal right now. And so that's when you say fabricating evidence. They don't need to

do that, right, So why do it? I mean they can just continue with what's going on right now. It's working pretty well. They're harassing Trump, as you say, they demoralizing the base. So I would say, and let's let's uh, let's not go to the next level until we have any evidence to show that that it's there. But I'm with you, and I'm I'm concerned too. And I appreciate

the call from Boston, our friend Kenny Greg in Oklahoma City. Greg, we got it like a minute in twenty but I want to bring you in make sure we can hear from what's up, hey, Buck? Yeah? I wanted to kind of talk about Syria in something that Typer Carlson brought up last night on this show. Um, are we really sure that assad was the one that did these chemical weapons attacks this time? Um? I'm sure he Obviously he's capable.

He's a genocidal maniac h that has killed a million people now so far in the last five or sixty years. I really wonder, though, why everybody's fully gung ho on essentially a ground to war in Syria, which we both know is going to end with who in power we don't know exactly. It's a quagmire. UM. I really question and we should really be skeptical before we start sending men and women, um, more men and women. I should say, it's a series to die. Um. There are too many

actors in the arena that want us there. Whether it's Russia was just creating more chaos, or obviously the rebels they need our support to win, whether it's the Islamic rebels or the Kurdish rebels. UM. I just really wonder if we're being played here in some sort Um. Obviously the chemical uptance attackers evil, but who was really perpetrating use as these actions? You know, Greg, it's all, it's these are all these are important questions and very fair questions.

And you know the answer is I'm not on the inside anymore. And I know you're not. You're not in uniform anymore. So all I can go on to the press reports I see, But I think we need to be much more cautious to your overall point about what we think we should be doing short term and long term in Syria. She'll tell you, my friend, team, we're gonna roll into a quick break. We'll be right back

with Andy McCarthy. When lawyers think about cooperating with the prosecutors, they have to know that in exchange for cooperation, they'll get treated decently. And here you have lawyers cooperating. Trump's lawyers co operated completely, Cohen cooperated completely, and what did they get for a readingly on the office with everything

being taken. So this sends a powerful message that cooperation is not going to be rewarded by Mueller, It's not gonna be rewarded by the Southern District, and I think the result may very well be far less cooperation. Not a shot across the bow, really a shot into the bow, so to speak, of Trump's inner circle. Here by going into Cohen's hotel room, his office, going through all of his stuff, season things, it has really turned up the heat quite a bit. How big a deal is this

in terms of a tactic? What does it tell us about the investigation? And what does it tell us about any possible legal peril Cohen or Trump himself could be. And we have the man who could answer all of that and more with us right now, Andy McCarthy is on the line. He's a former assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District, which, by the way, was the

outfit that pulled off that raid yesterday. He's also a calmist forward National Review Reader's latest, The Cohen Searches, and Trump's d mini mess I like that, Andy, Thanks for joining. Thanks are ye, I'm good. Are you you were? You were kind of what were you hanging on the beach or something. You've been gone for a while. I did actually have a nice vacation, which was great Dan in Florida, and then the week I got back. I know it's

a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. We had two events in a couple of gorgeous places in California for National Reviews, so I just sort of had to do that. Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it, Andy, because now you've got a presidency to say what the heck is going on here with the Cohen raid. I

see this in Derschowitz Professor Dirshwitz. I'm sure you know, well, it's run around saying that this is Yeah, it might be okay, but there's a difference between what is technically legal and what is what you would expect in terms of how the discretion to do these kinds of things

is used by people like the Southern District of New York. Yeah, well, you know, I'm a big fan of Alan Dershowitz, but I've always thought he gets out over his skis when he goes into the sense lawyer mode rather than constitutional lawyer mode. And I disagreed with just about everything he said in that clip that you you played beginning with, UM, I don't think we know at all whether Colin is completely cooperated or not. Um. We know that he says

he has cooperated. Um what his lawyer says that he's cooperated with all entities of government, which suggests that he was cooperating with Moller. But whether he's set down with those prosecutors or not, I have no idea. Maybe he knows things I don't. Uh. He certainly is uh given information to the congressional committee. But Buck, you know, that's

the same situation Manafort was in. If you remember Manafort was in the middle of cooperating, it was that it was the night between two different appearances before congressional committees when they did the pre dawn raid on his home. So, UM, you know this is this has happened before, and I don't think that that the history bears out what Professor

der dersher what says about cooperation. As we saw the you know, Muller gave a cooperation deal to Richard Gates, which I've been quite critical of because I think he you know, basically sold his case. Ats first time I ever saw somebody had somebody charged on Friday on Thursday with like a hundred million dollars in financial fraud and then on Friday you plead amount to a minor conspiracy in lion to an FBI agent. So, you know, I think there's plenty of people out there think that they

can get a pretty good deal from Muller. And in my experience, people cooperate because it's in their interest to either cooperate or you know, they go down pretty hard and they can get sentenced to a lot of time. Um, So it's not a question of whether you'll be rewarded with uh, you know, whether they'll search your office and that sort of thing. But what about the lawyer component

of this and the attorney client privilege relationship. Now, I know that you know, if you're like, if someone's a mob lawyer and they're and they're the guy who's like passing back and forth letters about who the next HiT's gonna be at, you know that it's not like attorney client privileges is an absolute, but isn't it kind of I mean, does this sort of fit in the same old andy is when you have someone say that, you know, the the Justice Department, they'll pull a journalist's phone logs

that they really need to find a leaguer, for example, but they tend to really not do that because of the tension here. What is the tension, if any between what the Southern Issue did yesterday and hey, if you can just grab all of the lawyer's files and read through them at will, there's not really much of an

attorney client privilege anymore. Yeah, well, the tension is profound, Buck, And in fact, the U S Attorney Annual Guidelines admonished prosecutors that if there's any way to deal with a lawyer who's the subject of an investigation without doing a search warrant, like if you think you can get the information by some alternative like a grand jury subpoena, that's what you're supposed to do. And that's because of precisely the constitutional concerns you talk about about the representation by

counsel and the derivative the attorney client privilege. That said, um, when you do have to do these things, and the Southern District, you know, these are not usual things to do, but to the extent they're they're done with some with any frequency at all. The the Southern District has a lot of experience in this area. I had experienced in this area. Um, there's two things I think to bear

in mind. One is if you're talking about the communications, and remember now, the only thing that sacrosancted the lawyer's office are the attorney client communications. So for example, if you if you break into a lawyer's office with a warrant and he's got a pile a heroine on the table, he doesn't get a pass on that because he's a lawyer's client heroine, right, right, right, So the only thing we're talking about here, or should be, is the communications

that are privileged. Um, if you and your lawyer plan um a scheme that's that's criminal or fraudulent, the communications are not going to be protected under the what's known as the crime fraud exception. So you know, to the extent that they're interested in Trump Cohen communications on a theory that they were scheming, say to get around the campaign finance laws and doing this hush agreement with with the peign Star. That's the allegation. I don't know whether

it's true or not. Those communications likely would not be

covered by the attorney client privilege. And as as to the rest of the stuff that's in the lawyer's office in the nature of communications that's not relevant to the case, what the Justice Department does in a situation like this is a clean team has to go through everything and give back everything that's not relevant to the case before the prosecutors who are handling the case and the agents who handle the case will get to see any of it,

and they'll completely litigate with the court anything that the lawyer and his clients claim is privileged before it gets given to the people who are doing the investigation. So it's you know, I can understand why a lawyer obviously is virtually put out of business if you take everything that's in his office, But there are procedures to protect

the constitutional interests. Yeah, by the way, what if you're somebody that just was represented by Michael Cohen, has nothing to do with any of this, and your stuff is now in the hands and you did have privileged communications, but your stuff is now in the hands of of the FBI could could they use that just out of curiosity to start another investigation? I mean, is is there a fruit of the poisonous tree component? But they can't

use it. The whole point of having the clean team is the first thing you do is go through everything and give back anything that's not relevant to the investigation they're doing, and anything that's in the nature of communications that actually is privileged. You know, it's not of prime fraud excession. It's really attorney client privileged stuff. None of that can be used to start an investigation. All right, now I want to ask him. We're speaking to Andy McCarthy.

Everyone and check out his latest is always National Review dot com. Uh, Andy, what about just the this is pretty brass knuckles stuff from the southern District of New York. Uh It seems like, you know, I don't want to get into the whole Look what they did with the Hillary, Look what they did versus Trump. I've been talking about that a lot. I think that that kind of speaks for itself. But but is it unusual to go to to go to this level for I mean, as you said,

a payoff that might be an f EC violation. I mean, is this is there any part of this that's troubling you just in terms of how heavy handed it is. We can't say at this point, Buck whether it's trouble or not. The the one thing that I must say, between reading the reporting on this and rereading the guideline that applies that really admonishes prosecutors not to do this sort of thing unless it's a serious case and this

is the only way to get the information. It really signals to me that there's a lot more going on here than just stormy Daniels. I would be I mean, if we get to the end of the rainbow and the only thing that they were looking for here is evidence of that, uh, of that incident, I'm going to be very, very surprised. And I'll agree with anybody, including Professor Dershowitz, who wants to say it's completely outrageous. So so it would be at that point, I just I

just want to this is important. I think at at that point even you'd want to say, oh no, that's maybe it's not illegal, but it's unethical. Plus what would be the reason for it, you know, I mean, you know, well, but that's what I mean, right, If it's just if they find out at the end, all they had, all they did this for. It was the Stormy Daniels FBC thing.

Then they did decide to you know, theoretically law enforcement, right if if they think that there's some guy who's growing weed in in his in his closet, they can send in a squat team and you splash bangs. But usually they don't do that exactly right, Yeah, So do you think that this is you know, I know you wrote you wrote here in Nashal Review about the mini mess um? Is this? Is this a real danger to Trump? He was very upset. We actually played the audio yesterday

right after he uh he was in that meeting. We're supposed to be talking about Syria, very serious national security policy. Instead he's talking about the raid on Cohen's office. Are you getting a feeling that maybe, if not Trump himself, but Cohen and some other top people are are about to get jammed up? As we used to say in the p D, I think at a minimum Cohen's jammed up.

Let's remember that if if a judge issued this warrant, that means this a finding a probable cause that they were going to have evidence of crimes in the places where they were searching, right, So I'd say Cone's got a problem at a minimum. I think the president, you know, the good cast I supposed to put on it is he's so cumulatively frustrated by the Russia investigation, which really seems like it's mainly a main up, made up thing,

and now this on top of it. I could see him between that and the fact that he's an intemperate type to begin with, and the fact that they know ransacked his lawyer's place, I can see him losing his cool over that. Uh. The you know, the other alternative is what we just discussed, which is there may be more here than just Stormy Daniels that they're interested in, and you know that that obviously would be a concern

he He and Cone have a very close relationship. Cone is like a loyal six or for him, who seems to revel in this depiction of him as like a Tom Hayden type. As my friend Jonah Goldberg noted at National Review Today's consiliari, Yeah, he's a kind of an interesting guyn, you know, the godfather everybody the consuliary for those who might have missed the top, you know, right right, there's no spelling test here, right, Buck, I don't have

to spell conciliary. Yeah, I know some people actually they actually pronounced the G because it's like an americanization of the Italian. But I like, I like, yeah, like I keep it the on the up and up. Andy think nothing that is silent? Yeah, no, I know, but I and I hear some some wise guys go a consigliari and I'm like, well, you know, if you're gonna be, if you're so attached to the homeland, you know you

should probably know that it's consiliary. But Andy, thank you man so much for joining us as always, just just one last one free for you that you got a a quick one. Uh is this is this mother thing just gonna just gonna grind on forever. But go nowhere. I think it's gonna grind on. I don't know if it goes nowhere. Um, it probably goes nowhere. With respect to collusion with Russia, I don't think there's a obstruction case.

But I don't think Mohler's in any hurry. He's got two cases against Danaforth that that that won't be over toward the end of this year. I don't think, all right, we'll keep looking at Andy. Thank you so much for joining us. Everybody, Andy McCarthy check out his latest at National review dot com. Thanks Andy, team. All right man, good to talk to you. Great to talk to you too. Good, good to have any back. Um, we're gonna roll into

a quick break here. We'll be back and just a few stay with me where beefing up the border patrol who has done a fantastic job. Ice has done a fantastic job, and we will take care of that situation. We need a wall, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, we need a wall, and it'll stop your drug flow. It'll knock the hell out of the drug flow, and you'll it'll stop a lot of people that we don't

want in this country from coming into our country. So right now we are to think that there's something of a stand down and effect for this caravan that was coming to the US. That remember that people keep saying, oh, that they're gonna try to sneak to the country illegally. No, it's worse than that they were going to hand themselves or over to border patrol and claim asylum in this country because they you know, there are a lot of people that live in El Salvador and Honduras that are

are living there, and they're fine. I'm not saying it's a great place to be economically and otherwise, but so if you just happen to be from that country. There's not a war going on there. There's a lot of crime,

theres a lot of poverty. But if crime and poverty are the basis for asylum claims in Central America, then don't they have to be the basis of asylent claims from any Think about all the countries that all of a sudden, now you show up, Oh I'm from I'm from Somalia, I'm from Bangladesh, I'm from of you know, mean mar I mean, you know, just think of a country that's in rough shape and you're like, well, I

should be able to claim asylum in the States. I think that's if nothing else, a good takeaway from the from the whole situation is that now more Americans know that that's what our policy is. The policy is crazy, it's being abused, it's being exploited. Uh. But this issue is not over at all, And in fact, I think you will see a an effort to renew that. I think this caravan will get going again, because this is a very clear visualization. It's, you know, the optics of

the situation of this, of this immigration debate. You actually had CNN. I was traveling with reproducer, traveling with one of some folks from this caravan, and this is how

the conversation went. We just left Pueverla well ahead about two to three hours north to Mexico City, and the plan there is to meet with immigration officials, to meet with government officials, meet with those that can give them some sort of legal aid and actually, let me just ask them, cans in Mexico, who will stay in Mexico. So these are the people who say that they will be going to the United States, and some of them

not answering. Uh, Mike told me so in the in the clip of that, the video clip of that, every hand went up when it was who's going to the United States. They're not not coming to the US. They just may have realized, oh, better for us to just show up at the border as individuals and not be part of this politicized and and very publicized A better world than politicized, publicized movement. But this is not over, folks, None of these issues, nothing has been resolved, nothing has changed,

nothing is better now. National garbers called down by Obama, by Bush, others have done this in the past, does not solve the problem. You get a wall there, or the illegal immigration continues, So just keep an eye on that. We'll be back on this story again um soon. And in the meantime, coming up, I want to tell you about how we finally break apart the regime of affirmative action in this country, but I'll have to tell you about it after this break, so stay with me. Hey, everybody,

welcome to our three of the Buck Sexton Show. Maybe we should start doing a recurring, recurring segment that I could just call under the Radar. I kind of I kind of like the ring of that where there are stories that are being reported on but they haven't really been packaged in a way, or they haven't been promoted I think as quite as important as interesting as they really are. And there's one of those that I want

to tell you about it right now. Harvard is on the hot seat because there's a group of students, specifically Asian American students Students for a Fair Admission. For Fair Admission is the name of the group who are suing Harvard University over their admissions policy. Now you don't need me to tell you Harvard's probably the most famous and and elite university in the world. Sorry, yalies, but Harvard is by most folks, by perception at least, consider to

be number one, which is kind of silly. All these schools are really when you get to a certain level, it's all the same. But anyway, consider number one. But here here's the problem with Harvard and the problem with the left on on all these issues of affirmative action, which this this is where this is where the things are gonna get very interesting. They are not legally allowed

under under recent Supreme Court decisions, to have quotas. So you cannot say that the incoming Harvard class will be, you know, twelve percent African American, seven Hispanic, fifteen or twenty percent Asian, and the rest you know, white and whatever else they consider to be white. I can't do that. Yet, somehow, somehow, each year, for those of us who pay attention to these things, the demographic makeup of the incoming class at

these schools, And it's not just Harvard. That's true at schools all the way down wherever you are in the country right now. The states school that you maybe either you want to go to or your kids are thinking about going to, this plays a role there too. They've gotten rid of race as a factor in admissions in California and so we actually have data on this and what that what that all means. But in most places they still do what is called a a holistic approach.

And this comes from one of the most bizarre Supreme Court decisions of all time, in which Sandra Day O'Connor said, well, she was the designing vote was five four, and I

think this was in Gruttter v. Bollinger. Was that was the case, although that might have been the precedent case before, but I think it was Gruttter v. Bollinger had to do with law law school admission and if memory serves, I could be wrong on this, and I'm just gonna the top of my head, but Santaday O'Connor, in her majority opinion was five four, said that you know, maybe in fifteen or twenty years, we won't need to do

this any more, but we still think. Basically five of the nine Supreme Court justices came down in the Yeah, it's discrimination, but it's discrimination that we like and we think it's a good thing, So we're gonna we're gonna pretend that it's constitutional when it's just flatly not. It's

just not. And the argument that people like me have been hearing and making stretching back for decades now that even positive discrimination the basis of race is unconstitutional, and then it's inherently subjective and will be abused and destroys meritocracy in this country. I haven't been able to win that one quite yet. The forces of the institutional left, the media, the academy, college campuses too powerful on that to break through. And now they've got a couple of

Supreme Court decisions that give them cover. Right, they've got a lot less leeway than they used to on this on admissions. But I understand this once. Admit always remember the colleges campuses. They are a front line in the culture war, and it spreads to the rest of siety very quickly. Right, It's not like this is just oh, it's a it's an issue of college admissions. It will also then factor into hiring policies, government hiring policies, So

it's well beyond just who gets into what school. The fundamental question is is the government allowed to pick within a hierarchy of races who the beneficiaries are and who loses out Up to this point, and this is just all fact. People can they won't like the way that I put this forward, or they won't like the terminology or the framing of the subject for me, if they disagree with the infirmative action. But affirmative action is discrimination

the basis of race. Suprema court justices have said this. This is very clear. You fall into one race category and don't even get me start out on the whole race is a construct and races increasingly malleable as a construct. And but you fall into a category and the school decides based on that whether you get an advantage over other applicants or not. To me, it's so flatly and obviously unconstitutional, especially when it is extended beyond as it

is extended beyond African Americans. It's one thing to say that there is an institutional unfair bias against African Americans as a result of of actual laws on the books in the United States, uh throughout the twentieth century and before that, as we know that terrible period of the ownership of human beings under slavery. It's one thing to say we gotta do something about that. That's not what affirmative action says now. Predominantly, affirmative action now is all

about diversity. They're not saying this is about reparations for slavery. They're not saying this is about um a debt ode to the African American community in this country. I'm actually sympathetic to that argument. I can hear that out. No, the way that affirmative action plays out now with schools is, well, you know, you're, uh, you're Guatemalan, therefore you have a big advantage over some kid who is, uh, you know, an immigrant from Romania. Why does the why does the

Guatemalan have an advantage over the Romanian? Romania? For those you don't know, it is actually a pretty pretty poor country, not as poor as Guatemala, but not that far off. You know. Why is that? Oh, because one is Hispanic and one is white or Latino? I guess now is that preferred nomenclature. So it all falls into self contradiction, it can't actually sustain itself. And then you also start to look at the socioeconomic implications of this, and I

saw this myself. You know, there were, uh, there were

students that I would talk to at Amherst. I went to Amherst College and we were My class was forty three percent minority, and there were some students that I talked to who, you know, they were from very economically underprivileged backgrounds, who were white, and they had a much they had a very hard time getting uh getting financial aid at some places, whereas I had other friends who were minority, particularly friends who are either black or black

or Latino and actually some some Native Americans too, um, because we had Native Americans in my class, and they would say, oh gosh, you know, I got there were special minority students. This is true, folks, this is what actually happened. They're minority Inclusion weekends where only minority admitted students are invited to the school, and you know they're paid.

They're not paid, but you know, they're all their expenses are paid for coming onto campus and there are special set asides for for money for financial aid for minority students. And so kids that I know who are like, yeah, I'll be the first of my family to go to college, but you know, I'm like half you know, half Irish, half Greek or something from the suburbs of Boston. They were left on the you know, they were just like left on their own, whereas other kids I know who

are like, well, yes, I'm I'm African American. My father works at Goldman Sachs, and you know, they had the benefit of the of diversity, Diversity inclusion weekend and and diversity practice is in the emissions office. So I get passionate about the subjectis you can tell. I think it's an area where the conservative causes uh is just clearly in the right, and it's just a matter of time before the left loses, and then we'll have to admit to a scheme of racial spoils as Scalia called it,

and propping that up for a long time. The news story here, which I know has gotten lost in all this, but I thank you for staying with me through my my diet tribe against these practice, the news stories that students for fair admissions. I've just found out that they're actually gonna get a They're gonna get a hearing before a judge in ten I think it says here right a year from now, uh in January, I think is

when they're supposed to get there. They're hearing now it's taken years, right, this this case was filed back in And here's what's really an issue. These schools have been getting away with this for a long time because they lie about their policies, they lie about what they're actually doing that they pretend that they just use a holistic process, but if you look at the numbers, somehow, year in and year out, they're getting rough with the same proportion

of minorities no matter what the applicant pool is. Beyond that, one reason that the argument hasn't moved all that much is because the only people that were really considered to be disadvantaged by this process are white, when in fact, the most disadvantaged in the affirmative action process because of the diversity balancing that they do for their incoming classes, the most disadvantaged are Asian Americans. This is also an important place to put put in there that for our country,

that is all about white privilege. The average Asian American household has a higher income than the average Caucasian or white American household, so white privilege is apparently a thing that we all get lectured on all the time. Meanwhile, is there Asian privilege because they're making more money on average and white people are. So there's that. So and these are just facts. Numbers. People can go number they just start getting all angry about it, but it's just true.

This is the whole in their argument. Their argument is always that there's disadvantages against non white minorities. Meanwhile, Asian Americans do incredibly well in the school application process and also are now the highest per capita earners per household in the country. Uh, and they have much higher hurdles to get past to get entry into places like Harvard than other minorities. And they do not have quote white privilege, which I don't think exists. But that's a whole other discussion.

So why do they get the short end of the stick here? Why are they left out in the cold? And the left answer is because we say so, because you're doing fine, because you don't need the help, because mostly because we say so. And so this group of students is filing suit. They're saying they're being discriminated against, and Harvard saying, well, we keep our we need to keep our it may sitions practices, sacro sanc. You know,

we we can't. So a judge is gonna look at this, and this is why this is in the news the last twenty four hours. A judge is going to decide whether or not they have to make public some of

their admissions practices. Now, if this were a country club, by the way, that was engaged in and keep in mind, universities get a tremendous amount of federal funding, a lot of federal support, and but you know, I doubt there like, well, we won't make our practices um public if it's were a public accommodation that was discriminating on the basis of race, which is what is going on here. They are discrimining the basis of race. There's no question that judge would say, Okay,

let's let's see what you're doing here. But Harvard thinks. Harvard thinks that they should be able to make up the rules as they go along and do it their own way. And uh, I can tell you this right now.

If we get a look at the most elite universities books when it comes to how they do their admissions, what we will find out is that they are doing de facto quotas, that they have been lying to the public about their admissions procedures, that they are entirely run these admissions committees by by committed progressives and social justice warriors, and that they are actively discriminating on the basis of

race and violation of US law. That's what we will find out, and that's why they're desperate to keep this out of the public eye. And this is a big scandal. Is a big story that will have ramifications for you. Whether you never went to college, you don't care if your kids go to college, or that doesn't matter. It'll it'll affect all of us. It has it's going to affect what institutions across the board are allowed to do when it comes to hiring and all the rest. So

that's our under the radar for today. The Harvard A Firm of Action clash keeps going on. Um, we will be back here just a few minutes. Teams, stay with me. There are some movies that if you're around my age, I think it was required that you watch many many times. Right, so I was born in eighty one, and there there are some films that you just if you're from that general time period, you know, ten years before me, maybe five or ten years after me, probably ten years after me.

You saw and producer Mike knows what I'm talking about. Brandon, you defy age. I have no idea how old you are. You could be. You could be twenty five, you could be all the way up to who knows. So I don't know, but I'm gonna assume you were roughly the same age, right, what thirty? Oh yeah, okay, you're like, you're we got a whole bunch of You got a whole bunch of thirty four year old dudes here basically in this room, or thirty something year old dudes here

in this room. So I saw The Breakfast Club. You guys have both seen The Breakfast Club so much because it was one of these movies. Also they put on TV, and they put on TV. In that sense, it's kind of like Blood Sport, one of the true classics of cinema because it was made for like thirty thousand dollars and they just ran it on all these different cable channels all the time. But Blood Sports very different kind

of movie. We'll talk, We'll have a whole hour of a show one day just devoted to eighties martial arts movies, and it'll be kind of a retrospective on how that's actually not how people fight. But anyway, The Breakfast Club was one of them. The Fairest Bueller's Day Off is another one. You just you had to see those, you had have familiarity with them. If you hadn't seen those movies, you were kind of left out. You were gonna miss references.

And and what John Hughes is the director, right, he was the one that was made a bunch of these rat pack movies. What's the other one? Oh, Saint Elmo's Fire, which I will admit it's a bad movie, actually does not hold up. It's you know, it's a little bit of nostalgia carries it for a while, and it has that very upbeat theme song saying now almost fire. I can't say it at all, but you don't know, it's very good for those of you know what I'm talking about. If you google uh um to say almost I don't

even know what you call it. By the way, Sat tell Himbo, you know it comes from actually from ships, and it has to do with the blue hue around the ship mass that it's from static electricity. That's right.

Buck knows things. So back to this, Molly Ringwold was one of the actresses in the Breakfast Club, and she has now decided that she is entering into her own moment of me too, nous of the of the hashtag me too movement, by writing about how she's revisiting the Breakfast Club with our current sensibility about sexual harassment and sexual exploitation and all this kind of thing. Now, I

want to be very clear about this. Now, you have an actress who, granted, look here I am talking about her, this is probably the whole purpose of this, but an actress who was in some very light kind of coming of age comedic fair back in the eighties. I mean, I think of myself as a child of the eighties. I was an adolescent of the nineties, but as a child of the eighties, you know, I saw this stuff.

And she's right. She's written an essay. It was in Vanity Fair or The New Yorker, one of those very fancy journals of opinion, and she's written this essay and it's all about how she's uncomfortable with her own kids seeing the stuff from the eighties. Now, look, you can all make your own decisions about you know, and you don't need anyone to tell you that, including me about what you think your kids should watch you should not watch. But it's also part of this effort among the left

too now be because they've got this problem. There's all these people who had careers that were built celebrating certain works of art, you know, if that's what we'll call films, but a certain media and entertainment properties that now are offensive by our current stand by our current PC politically correct sensibility. And I've said for a while this is like we talked with the Simpsons last night, this is

a recurring theme. I've told you that people complain about Robin Williams retrospectives after he died because I thought they were offensive. Robin Williams, one of the great comedic minds of the last thirty forty years, offensive too offensive to

air some of his bits on TV. And now the Breakfast Club is also in the sights of the regressive, the Soviet or the Soviet Left that likes to erase, airbrush parts of history that it finds inconvenient, to airbrush parts of its own cultural uh contributions that it now finds to be too much to be child But one of the things that she talks about is you know how how in our current in our at our current moment, there's a scene where one of the guys like looks

up the skirt of one of the girls. And first of all, one, this is all fictional, didn't actually happen. It's a movie. And two, you know, they had an adult body double for the seed and there was no one was actually naked under anything. You know, it's probably wearing basketball shorts under the skirt. Like, it's just the depiction of this. But but the notion that a teen would try to sneak a peek at a at a another teen in that way is too damaging for for

the eyes of the current generation apparently. I mean, it's They're not even gonna leave the breakfast club alone, folks. Nothing, nothing is sacred to these people except political correctness. Nothing. They they will find a way. Just give it time and we'll be back in a place where they wanna, you know, cover up the naughty parts of of Michelangelo paintings, you know, and sculptures. Just give it time, alright, written a quick break your team, We'll be back with a

whole lot more. Stick with me. A lot of news stories popping up today about sex robots. It's one of the New York Posts, the one that was linked on the Drudge Report. So you know, part of my job what I do every day is I go through just all of the the main news sources, a lot of you would see No Fox News, the Walstreet Journal, New York Times, you know, Washington Post. I go through all that and I read up so I'm up to speed

on everything. But also I look for stories that are outside of the the daily deluge of all the different news outlets that are focused on the same usually the same two or three, maybe three or four stories. But this whole sex robot thing is very weird. Um. There's this piece in the New York Post about how they're now marketing a uh, they're marketing robots, sex robots for couples, and and there are dolls out there that are that

are going for seven thousand dollars. Um. You know, I tend to be a as much as I can, a live and let live guy. You know, it's like, if you're not hurting someone or taking their stuff, you know, if you're not hurting me or taking my stuff, not hurting someone else taking their stuff. I liked it, so you know, I know that's the old libertarian line, right, But I try to approach a lot of things that way,

you know. Or to go back into my political science training from years past with Professor Hadley Archy's at Amherst. You gotta separate what is a question of morals, a question of of ethics, from a question of taste, you know, whether or not. For example, you could say to me that the the best ice cream flavor is strawberry, and we all know that that's just not right. That's just a crazy thing to say. But you're can't. You're not wrong who likes it? Used to be chocolate, vanilla, strawberry

were like the three main stays. And I don't care anybody says nobody like strawberry ice cream that much. Um, chocolate or vanilla are the acceptable answers there. But that's a question of taste, not not morals or ethics. Right. There are some people out there that order their steaks well done. They're not bad people, they just they just don't they don't they don't fully embrace the glory that is a medium rare medium rare red meat, you know, which is those you want to go rare, that's fine,

medium rare I think is the sweet spot medium. Okay, well done. I don't understand what's going on anymore now now you've lost me. But that's a question of taste, not ethics when you get into the sex doll discussion, which I I usually wouldn't, but it's becoming a story, right, It's a thing that they're now gonna be much more a part of the culture. I remember years ago people would make on sitcoms and make jokes about blow up dolls. But now these dolls are uh, these they're not dolls.

These um well, robots are meant to mimic real human beings as much as they can. They respond to I believe they respond to verbal commands now, and they definitely I mean, you can look like there's this link on the Drudge Report for uh, for one from the paper The Sun in the UK, And there's also this link up on the New York Post is talking about this. And we're just going down a very weird path here,

you know. And I was reading an analysis recently, and I don't mean you and me, I mean the world, because this sex robot thing is turning into a something of a global market. I'm it's just look it's just too weird. I don't know what else to say. It's

just too weird. I don't get it, and and it and it crosses over into the I don't I don't know about this, but anyway, I was reading this analysis of of the problems the demographic problems that some East Asian countries are having in Japan, UM most notably, but

also South Korea, they're just not having enough children. And the analysis was also going into a a discussion, ah, a deep dive on what is the role of sexuality in these cultures and and how and there's there's a lot of stuff that they've got to they gotta work out in Japan right now, a lot of stuff in terms of other they're not having enough kids and it's

not enough a part of UM. There are a lot of people that leave these celibate lives basically and then that all but but they're celibate is and they're not with another person. But then they turned to different kinds of you know, visual stimula. I and there's a huge market for all that stuff in Japan, you know, pornography and UM. But you know, it's something that I don't understand, what enough to know anything about in the Japanese context. I just know that it's it's affected them at a

national level. I think that's sexual Robots producer Mike sex robots too weird, just too weird, right, it's just too weird. I don't know. I can't say that we should. You could ban them per se, that make them illegal, But it's just too weird, man, I don't know. That's kind of my that's my analysis, just too weird. Um. But you know, then again, I'm also somebody who thinks that the only the only part of the show Billions that I just you know, the fact they gotta put all

that STM stuff in there. I'm just like, really, the U S Attorneys into into S and M and me. Come on. But anyway, we'll talking about Billions in their time. And uh, I think that's probably the only analysis of sex robots, despite all the Drudge Report and other news stories on them that I'll give you for quite a while. Bottom line, I just thing too weird, just too weird. All we got to a roll call coming up? Stay with me, Well, Team Buck, you are my sanity in

an increasingly insane world. And that's why it's such an important part of my day when I get to bounce in with some roll call team buck it's time for roll call, I will say, this is not part of roll call. But you know, music is just not as good now as it was for a long time. It's just true. And that's not even that's like studio produced music that we can just play over rare, but it had a little bit of a classic rock vibe to it.

And this is just you know, the fact of the matter is that there are not many bands that are around today that you're gonna be thinking about in five or ten years. And quite honestly, even ten years ago, there's not a lot of bands you'll be thinking about. But do you go back years, you still got bands that are selling out arenas and that I've really left left their mark. I don't know if we blame this on the digital era in which we live, you know,

the the end of the record labels. And I think it's also in part because music now is just it's so everywhere, it's it's uh so accessible that it in a sense has been kind of devalued. And I think back to when I got my first MP three player that I could use in the gym right, So I guess that would have been right around. It was similar

to the time of the first big iPods. But I had MP three player that you would plug into a like a desktop computer, and it was essentially a glorified flash drive that could play songs and in one direction, I think anyway. But you know, I remember doing this and this. I had like room for thirty songs on there, and I was like, man, is amazing. I'm gonna look like he Man because of all the awesome motivation I'm

gonna get from this music. The he Man part didn't work, but I did listen to those same thirty songs a lot. Was there a lot of Creed in that mix. There was I'm not gonna I'm not gonna pretend, uh, there was definitely a fair amount of Creed. And there was no Matchbox twenty however, so I will just I want to get that on the record. But now I have Spotify and I could sit here and I can listen to just I could listen to music literally all day long.

I mean, other than what I have to do work, stuff that I've pay attention to, but I could do I could listen to any number songs and because of that, I feel like it just has less I don't know, less appeal now because everyone either I remember when you had certain CDs and you would take care of them, right and bred you know what I'm talking about, Like like like that c D even though it was a mass produced plastic disk that you could always go get another

one for ten or fifteen bucks, and one CDs are fifteen dollars, you know, seventeen an HMV sometimes if it was like the latest, if it was like the latest and greatest of Salt and Pepper or three eleven. Now I'm really dating myself here with you know, you'd pay

like seventeen bucks for a CD. Alright, alright, I know this has turned into a buck a bucalogue on music instead of what I was just gonna say is that you treated that CD like it was something that you're gonna keep for decades and your you know, along with books in your library or your bookcase or whatever. And no, I do not do you own it? Do you own

any CDs right now? Brandon? I have them, but they're like in my attict, I mean you basically can't give them away now, right, I mean, they're not you know, you go to some of these stores and LPs have kind of maintained a certain you know, they've maintained a certain degree of heirloom like status, I guess, but CDs not so much. Alright, alright, roll call, roll call, I know. Pardon me, I get, I get all excited. Ronnie right

in regard to the left. Oh but if you want to be a part of roll call, just remember Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. If you haven't heard Jersey and you sent us an email, good chance, we'll get to it tomorrow. I meant to do the email batch today, but I left that one on the cutter room floor now, Ronnie writes, in regard to the left, it's amazing how many attack options you have when morality is no longer considered. Trump arrangement syndrome seems to have dissolved their last vestige

of integrity. Hey, look, Ronnie, you get You have no argument for me about how they have a lot of options, because there's a whole lot you can do when you have no integrity to to protect, when you have no principles that you have to worry about losing in a process, you have freedom of action. So that's a good thing. Uh, jen is next up here. She writes, great show, this was from last night. I'm just listening to the show, and for the first time, I'm really nervous about what

the establishment is doing to Trump. This is setting such a dangerous precedent. Well, Jenna, I hope you've got that sense from our discussion today of what has happened with the Trump administration. And it is troubling to me to see that, you know, where's the Not that I'm not a fan of the A C l U at all, but it is troubling to see how quickly they will abandon whatever principles they have all of a sudden attorney

client privilege. It's not really that big a deal. It's no longer sacred, So you know, that's that's a part of what's troubling. Just overall, though, I think that there is a complete lack of any willingness among those who consider themselves opposed to Trump's policies to approach any aspect of Trump in good faith. So, you know, whatever, I think there are a lot of people out there who realize And now I'm just drawing on my own context or in New York City, I know plenty of Democrats

who realized that there was no Russia collusion. They know, did they know that Trump didn't come up with some plan with Putin? And then that's all crap and it's amusing to them, but they know it's but they're happy that this Muller probe is going on it because it's a a a form of hashtag resistance. It's a drag on Trump. It's a way to fight the administration, not in terms of policy and winning the argument, but but

literally to sabotage it. And so I know people who are like, yeah, the Molar thing, it's it's not gonna find any Russia collusion, but you know, it's good sabotage against the administration, and they're they're okay with that. And I think that's an unprincipled approach, but that's what you see a lot of that going on. Evan. Next up here, it's Hey Buck and talking about social media and the fact that most or all large social media platforms are

owned and operated liberals. Are there not any conservatives that can start up the next Facebook or Twitter? Why are they always liberal owned? What if a situation we're backwards? What conservatives try and impose their political beliefs upon the public. Thanks for the show and keep up the great work. Well, thank you, Evan. That's a great question. By the way, why is it that we have You know, Peter Tiel, for example, is a big Silicon Valley name. He's a libertarian.

He spoke at the RNC convention. I'm sure many of you will remember that spoken favorite trump is is in good standing with Trump? Um. Why are all the social media platforms progressive left? I'd like to say it's the same reason the media is in academia, but there's something distinct about you know, to be a social media uh founder or one of these companies, you had to be in the computer science realm. You had to be somebody that was look at what would have been called the

computer nerd. You know, now we don't call them computer nerds anymore because they all drive Maserati's and fly around in private jets and could buy any of us, So we we instead call them, you know, social media is ours. Um. But you know, I look at this and I think, uh, I don't have a good answer. Let me think about

that one, Evan, Why is it? I could probably look into the history of it, um, But I also think that culturally speaking, conservatives are more willing to or maybe even better to say, right of center people are more willing to separate their work for their political beliefs. I think that to be on the left now, to be progressive, to be woke borrow one of their terms. To be

woke is to be woke at all times. To be a social justice warrior means that you don't put on your your shield and sword, so to speak, just when you're out and about or when you're engaging with people on Twitter or Facebook. When you're in the office, you're a social justice warrior. It's it's a two seven thing I think about in my own life. I I we said laught, people said, well you were you work in politics, and they want to talk to me about politics, and

but Buck doesn't play that game. I do this for a living. You know, if somebody is uh, someone who listens to me, if anyone a team Buck, Everyone's talk politics. Yeah, of course, right, because that's like the family. But I mean if I'm at some New York City dinner party, which I never get invited to because I'm not fancy, but occasionally or something like that, somebody will say, well, you know, you work in politics, you know, what do you think of the Trump administration? I'm like, ah, not

gonna happen. You think you thank you fool me. You think you're slick with that one. But I prefer I prefer not to have my evening ruins so that you can share your share your political loathing of the Trump administration with me. So those are some of them. But I'm saying I separate out right what I do professionally from the way I am interacting in terms of discussion, at least personally. Right, I still hold my beliefs, I still have my principles, but I just don't walk around.

I think that social justice the same reason they politicize everything. Right, who's politicizing sports all the time? The left? You know who politicizes entertainment media all the time? The left? They don't have a separation mechanism in their minds. I don't know if it's like a an actual I don't know, something having to do with their neurochemistry. But anyway, I digress. Uh William is next up. Um Sessions is not doing good job. I'm starting to think the guy's a plant

for the other side. And he also wrote that our compliance rate is less than ten percent in Connecticut. That's about turning in firearms. So I believe it uh standard. Next up here, writes buck Love, the roll call music very upbeat, helped with my case of the Monday as well. I certainly hope, so my friend, I certainly hope. So I'm glad you guys liked a little. See, it's the little thing sometimes they make the radio show that change up in music a little, just a little sprinkling of quotes.

I think of what we call actually, you know what, it's not an actuality. That's when I play a news clip, it's not image. Is it imaging? When I play an action movie quote, we'll call it imaging. Yeah, Imaging to me is like spice, you know. And so you use imaging on a radio show just to give it a little a little something there. But he used too much. Any of you who have ever had the top come off the salt shaker and you're like, maybe you will just be salty. It's gonna taste gross. You know, you

gotta control the spice. Um, So stay oh and then sean one more your Shawn Rights, thanks for bringing the dubstep roll call theme back. Well there you go, Sean, I'm glad some people like it. I like that one to actually, but dubstep is an acquired taste. We're gonna close up the Hot for tonight. Thank you all for joining. Please do subscribe on iTunes if you have not already. It's free and it just pops up in your inbox. If you ever missed the show live, you'll have it.

They're waiting for you on iTunes to the Box Sexton Show. Signed to be with you tomorrow. As always, my friends, we have our mission shields high