St. Mueller's Self-Righteous Smoke Screen

This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, You're a great American again. The buck Sexton Show begins now. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there

was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. Now, I hope I expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,

and the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. Welcome through the Bus Accident Show. Finally we got another another Muller based news cycle to dive into together. It was only a matter of time. You thought we were through with the mullerisms, with the Special Council era. But no, Now, sure enough today Bob Muller, by his own admission, then you heard him there, just said I

decided this is what I was gonna do. I was going to stand in front of American people and talk about the report that has been out now for it's in its second month. It's been out for quite a while. I've read it. I'm sure many of you have read it. It's well known what's in the report. What exactly does

Mueller think he's accomplishing today. Let's work backwards on this, because first that the Special Council just declares, oh, well, I wouldn't tell you anything anyway, and so there's essentially no need to subpoena me tells us all we need to know about one the self regard and real arrogance

that Muller has. But also is going to be very interesting when we see journalists who but a few days ago, we're claiming that Bar not showing up for the latest circus on Capitol Hell, for the shenanigans that they're going to perpetrate against him, and this all this talk about how Bar might have to go to prison, that Democrats were playing, playing publicly for their bass. It's just an embarrassment. They should be embarrassed. They're not, but they should be embarrassed.

But now those same people the voices for how we need transparency, we need honesty, we need accountability. Bar must testify. Well, if Bar must testify, why shouldn't the special counsel himself. I heard voices on the left who were calling for the Mueller report to be added to by Mueller himself. Now that Mueller has said he doesn't want to, what are we to make of that, or that it's not necessary, he won't add anything. Let's see other government officials don't

get that. They don't get that ability. You don't get to be another executive branch employee of the presidents and say, you know what, Congress, I know you think you have oversight of me as a government official, senior government but nah,

not really, you don't get to make that call. Oh just watch how quickly the left will we'll turn doing about face on this and they'll act like we don't have the Internet and Google and can't see what they wrote and said a week ago, and the claims they were making about bar and what was gonna remember they were they were talking openly about throwing the attorney general in prison, about having the sergeant at arms of the Congress go and arrest him if he did not show

up and testify. But now Mueller gets to say, yeah, I'm just gonna resign and leave. This is all I got to say, see you later. Nonsense, complete nonsense. But then on this point of inch insufficient evidence, I mean, the big line here is that you know, if they could, if if we could have cleared the president, we would have. I mean, that's a paraphrase, but that was the big takeaway from today. If we could have cleared the president of mis conduct, we would have. That is not the

job of the prosecutor. And that even more importantly, is not the legal standard that this society operates under in any respect ever it is. It is not the government's role. It is not the government's right to say you, sir, should or ma'am should have your reputation ruined and should have adverse consequences because we've been unable to prove that you are one hundred percent innocent of this thing we

think you might have done. No, no, no, You should only suffer consequences, including reputational consequences, if the government believes that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of a criminal offense. This is the legal foundation upon which our society is built. Muller is kicking at the load bearing walls of the rule of law, and the Democrats and the media lackeys are cheering him while he does it. Here's actually exactly how he said

at playclip twenty three. The report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation, and we kept the Office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work, and as at fourth the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did, not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

What kind of double speak is this from a seasoned prosecutor and you know, super g man government man over the FBI. If we could have said he was innocent, he would have. This is a slimy, roundabout way of saying, I mean, he's kind of guilty. We can't prove he's guilty,

but he's kind of guilty. And that then brings us to the purpose behind this whole thing, the transparent and blatant and obvious purpose for the Muller pressor today, for the Muller pronouncement from on High of Special Counsel Landia. This was meant to force the hand of Democrats who have been doing this whole punch's pilot routine over impeachment. Shall we shouldn't we? Who will? Who won't? Good idea?

Bad ideas? Someone else make the call. Mueller is clearly saying to the Democrats, this is on you to take now. I did my part for the anti Trump left. I did my part for the deep state and the establishment. Now it's on you, Pelosi and company to finish this hatchet job, which is exactly now what I think is

going to is going to transpire. I'll get more into why I think impeachment now is essentially inevitable later on in the show that I just wanted to share a little more on on how outrageous what happened today really is. It was completely unnecessary. I mean, in one moment, Muller is telling us let the report speak for itself, as he's speaking about the report unnecessarily and in a fashion that is clearly meant to undermine the president, to hurt

the president. I mean, there's really no serious question about that. I mean, this was meant to destroy the President of the United States, or to open up a pathway to destroy him through impeachment. And they know he won't be removed from office, but they're hoping that impeachment will be the necessary ingredient, the special weapon, the secret weapon that

can stop the president from winning re election. That's what all of this is, All that stuff, all the lectures about all the rule of law and the sanctity of our democracy, and it was all just a smokescreen. It was a cover. It was sanctimony from the Democrats and and their establishment allies. It was self righteous blather meant to cover for what was really going on, which was a get Trump operation. This is now the latest stage of the soft coup attempt against the President United States.

It is disgraceful, and Muller showed us who he really is today beyond a reasonable doubt. He's trying to take down Trump. He has been all along. And the question I really want him to have to answer is when did he know this investigation was a farce, how early on? And why did he continue it? We had more coming up. Teams stayed with me. They interviewed five hundred people, They

spent millions and millions of dollars. They put several people in solitary confinement for a length of time, which frankly should be an American. Then find it. What are they complaining about. They had all the resources, They had a whole bunch of very smart left lawyers, all of them

dislike Trump. They went all out and they didn't get anything. Now, at some point in the hunt, you got to decide that there's no deer in the forest, and the fact is they couldn't prove anything, and they ought to relax and just say, you know, and the absence of proof in America, you are innocent. Therefore, by definition President Trump

is innocent. Ah. But you see, while Nude is completely correct, here, democrats are willing to turn centuries of American jurisprudence, and in fact, going back even further than that, to turn English common law and the basis for rule of law in the Western world on its head, to suggest that you should face consequences because a prosecutorial body was unable to prove you did not do something as improve your

innocence to prove a negative. Democrats have been lecturing us for a long time now in the Trump era over just how important our institutions are and how Trump is a danger to those institutions and we must be on guard to protect them in the era of Trump because of all the terrible things that he's done, and Trump is so awful and he undermines our democracy. They say, well, you know, our rule of law is essential to our democracy.

And what you have here with what went with what Muller did today, and the chorus of left wing partisans who are going out of their way to try and praise what he has done, and now use this not just to say that they agree with Muller's bizarre, counterproductive, and disgraceful press conference, but that they are going to try to capitalize on it. They're going to try to weaponize the Muller press conference and use this as a jumping off point for impeachment proceedings. That tells us a lot,

doesn't it. They do not respect the rule of law. There is no there is no fundamental, principled sense of respect for the rule of law. They just pretend when it is convenient. They believe in our institutions when they support the power of the left. They believe in our government apparatus when it's doing their bidding. The law is the law when it's going their way. But at the moment any of that changes, they will cast it all aside. And you see this with the dare I say unprecedented

actions of some of these anti Trump partisans. Notice always say anti Trump partisans. I know that some of them were formally Republicans, but some of the people who hate Trump the most are in fact other former or even current Republicans. Look at Justin Amash running around saying that Trump should be impeached. What is that guy thinking. I think I know he's thinking. He's just going to start making friends on the other side. As I've told you,

better book deals, better, better TV hits. You know, it's it's sweet stuff on the left. If you want to sell out, be it progressive. Oh man, there's some there's some good eating over there on the left. You know, the barbecue on the left is tasty. But on the right you have to be prepared to deal with those who will constantly fight dirty, and Muller is in that camp. This is it's unprecedented what James Comy did, for example, to stand up and say that no federal prosecutor would

charge Hillary Clinton. That was not his job, that was not his call, that was not true, and it was bizarre that he did it. But we're to ignore that, We're to think that Comy there's nothing about him that is worthy of of repudiation. There's nothing about him that should give us concern when it comes to the actions he took when he was the most or second most powerful,

perhaps law enforcement officer in the country. That Comey would take memos from his time as FBI director and use them for partisan purposes and leak them to a newspaper. We're not supposed to take notice of that either. That's just a thing that happened that we are to ignore. I'm sorry, I don't plan on ignoring it. I don't.

I don't accept that. And now Mueller Muller has also engaged in unprecedented, bizarre and I think very telling behaviors, the decisions about who to prosecute and who not to Tony Podesta, Yeah, he can be a foreign agent and not register, and that's fine. But if you were a Trump person or you didn't register, you got to go to prison. You know. The way that he chose to not choose the decision to not decide about whether the president the law, that was very obviously a break from

prosecutorial precedent. That's not the way it's supposed to work. He should have said, we found sufficient evidence for charges. We leave it to the Justice Department whether those charges can be brought. But we we either did or did not find sufficient evidence for it. That's it. A crime was committed or not. That's what the prosecutor says. Not, well, you know, it could have gone either way, just FYI,

but you know, let's just leave it there. Unacceptable and unprecedented, never heard have you ever heard, I've never heard of a federal prosecutor doing that. Federal prosecutors I've talked to, I've never heard of a federal prosecutor doing that. And then this press conference today, What was this all about? What did he add to our understanding here? What was what was the information that was necessary for him to

share with the American people that came from this? Ah, this was not a gentle nudge, but a shove, a public shove toward impeachment proceedings. This was Muller who should have absolutely no inclination and certainly not a public protestation of his desire for a impeachment proceeding should not happen. This should not have happened, But it did, and it was a very deliberate decision. You know. They he wrote out the statement, or at staff run out the statement

for him. Muller did not seem like the avenging superhero of the establishment that so many have held him out to be. It seemed very kind of you know, it seemed like a man who's most fierce days are long since gone. I can tell you that although he does, he did wield the tremendous amount of power as a special prosecutor. But the precedents get broken, the decisions get made that are inexplicable, and they're always by these senior government officials to harm Trump. They never break precedent in

his favor. Right, They never bend the rules, They never do what they can, They never do what's you know, what's in their discretion, but perhaps on the very edge of it to benefit Trump. It's always to hurt Trump and help his rivals, help his opposition. This is not a coincidence, This is not an accident. This is by design. Mueller, my friends, is part of the hashtag resistance, and he always has been. Both Komi and Mueller are trying to have it both ways. They'd like to be statesman, they'd

like for everybody to respect them. But in Mueller's case, he had two full years, he had a huge team. They wrote a report. Now, if they can't get their report right, I don't know why they're coming back later to tell us what it is they wish they might have said. And I think Mueller's better off. Frankly, it's over,

go home. Relax. In Comy's case, I think he's scared to death of what Attorney General bar is doing and the fact that a lot of stuff is going to be a come public that's going to make Komey's directorship look really, really bad. Well, I don't think it's much of a reaction. It just repeats the report. He had no evidence or insufficient evidence, which is the same thing for a prosecutor of collusion. And although he couldn't reach a decision on obstruction, that's a decision. When a prosecutor

can't reach a decision, that's the decision. So there's no case on obstruction, there's no case on collusion, and the report is forged in thirty pages of opinion. The reality is and he altered his opinion on collusion to opinion on structure. Opinion on collusion was there is no case. His opinion on obstruction was that he couldn't conclude that's the president committed of structure. I gotta say, I think

that Mueller really hurt himself today. I think that for those of us who have all along known that you know, it's more complicated than you know. He's not just doing the Democrats dirty work. For them. I think that Bob Muller really believes that he's doing a great service to the country by fighting dirty against Trump. I believe that. I think that he treats this like he's going up against a mafia kingpin. And if that means he's who's

very guilty, you know, in this case, it's Trump. And if that means he's got to plant a little evidence or play a little too rough with the jury or whatever it is, he's going to do it. And that's been his approach all along. That's that's what I've always thought, And what you see today, I believe, just hammers that home. What the heck was this all about today? What was going on there? What does he really think has been done? Other than well, I think maybe he did it. He

did accomplish the goal. The goal was to establish in front of the whole country that the purpose that this was really all about impeachment all along, that there were never going to be any charges brought against the President United States, no matter what happened here. I still think that's a very weak argument, though, because there's nothing stopping Muller from saying, if we were able to bring charges, we would have brought charges that is not what he said.

And I think and this is an idea will revisit a little later in the show with Kamala Harris. But I mean, I think that the reason that they want to keep this broad and open because if they pick any specific charge, they'd have to defend whether that's whether that's a reasonable charge to bring against the present meaning a specific act. You know, was it firing James Comey?

Are they really because if they said the most egregious, the most obvious thing that he did, that that Trump did that's illegal, is firing James Comey, then we could all look at that and come away with that's not illegal. That's not obstruction. It's this constitutional right to fire the fire James coming for any reason or no reason. So what's really the what's the obstruction? Why don't we ever hear about the act of obstruction? They say ten times?

Ten times? Okay, what's the worst one. But I'll revisit this this point later on in the show with you. One other thing that came up in this uh kind of bizarre press conference, and well we got Sean Davis from the Federalists joining us in just a few minutes to talk about this. But one other thing that came up was that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller praised the Attorney General, which is I'm sure not something that you're

gonna hear on MSNBC tonight. They're not going to spend time on this because the Attorney General has been slandered. I mean, he has been slammed and undermined and degraded, and they've done all this stuff trying to make the Attorney General in the United States look bad because they view him not just as a they say he's a

Trump partisan. The real problem is that he's both an effective effective in the role of Attorney General for this administration, knows the law and is super smart, knows how this game is played. And also they're trying to blunt the weaponry so to speak, that barn will have at his disposal when the Inspector General report comes out. That's what this is really all about. That's why they've gone after

him so hard. But Muller had some words of praise for the Attorney General that we should remind ourselves of and I'll explain why in a moment, But let's hear from Bob Muller himself. Play nine. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released, east the Attorney General preferred to make that and preferred

to make the entire report public all at once. And we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public, and I certainly not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision. Wait, but I thought Barr was engaged in a cover up. I thought Barr was terrible, and oh he he should go to prison. And this is what the Democrats had been saying. And Muller came forward. He's like, look, I wanted there to be and it was this. It's clearly because he wanted the most damaging

narrative possible for Trump. But he says, luck, okay, I

wanted stuff released earlier. But if we're gonna never mind, be fair, just be operating in reality, we have to take note of the fact that the Attorney General did not have to release almost the full report and did the Attorney General did allow for a lot of transparency and did essentially open up a massive taxpayer funded Democrat opo research effort against the sitting president of the United States, leveraging federal law leveraging federal investigative tactics and procedures to

do so. So, you know, I just think that you should go back and try to remember some of the nastiest things said about bar and who said them. Who were the people that were claiming that Bar was you know Pelosi. Pelosi for example, even today is saying that, you know, the Attorney General thinks, and Kamala Harris will say the Attorney General thinks that he really is working for the president and not for the American people. This is all just rhetoric, and it's it's all noise and nonsense.

But ultimately I think that Mueller really this was Mueller's Avenati moment in terms of the remember the Kavanaugh hearings. It was when Avenati came along with that third accuser, sweat Nick, where I went from, I don't believe these women. This is a political hit. To Gosh Jarnett, this is the most obvious, slimiest, most disgusting political hit I have ever been. Anyone who doesn't realize it is either blinded by partisanship or is a moron worth that now with

whether Muller was operating in good faith. They're either blinded by partisanship or just not very bright. This guy was going after Trump. He is doing He did strange things and made clear decisions to show that he is an anti Trump partisan And we shouldn't have to play this game anymore pretending like, oh, Saint Muller and he just did everything by the book. This wasn't by the book today. He didn't need to hold this press conference today. This

was political, This was payback, This was a hit. Sean Davis is up next. But under longstanding Department policy, a president president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge has kept under sealed and hidden from public view, that is prohibited. His Special Council's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound

by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider, not an option they could consider. Isn't that interesting that it comes up just when it seems to be most most convenient for us to hear from this former head of the Special Council team that was trying to take down Trump. We got Sean Davis joining us now. He is the co founder of the Federalist. He's got a great piece

up on the Federalist dot com. Muller just proved his entire operation was a political hit job that trampled the rule of law. I could not agree more, as is evident from my tweets about this today, mister Sean Davis, great to have you back, sir. Just what the heck is Muller doing? Let's just start there. Well, yeah, it was. It was a really interesting press commerce today, and as I wrote on my piece, I was actually thankful for it.

Is infuriating as it was, because Mueller made clear for everyone to see what many of us had said for two years, which is this was not some upstanding public servant just doing his duty to uphold the rule of law when he took this job. He made clear today this is a political hit job from day one. And there was one thing in particular which he did which I thought was absolutely shameful and for which he actually deserves to be sanctioned. You know, he talked a lot

about departmental policy and being bound by DOJ policy. We know there's a lot of DJ policy and even American Bar Association policy prohibiting the sliming of uncharged third parties, as they say. And you know, it was one thing for Muller to write in a confidential report required by law to the Attorney General that, you know, maybe he didn't exonerate Trump. Now I don't think it was a

great idea, but maybe it wasn't totally terrible. But to hold a press conference today, which he did for the express purpose of saying, I, Saint Robert of Mueller refused to exonerate the president is a shameful, shameful abrogation of the law. It is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate or grant innocence. It's the job of a

prosecutor to either prosecute or decide not to prosecute. And again, getting back to DJ regulations, that was his sole job as a special counsel, which to make the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. And now he's coming out and saying no, I didn't. I didn't really feel like doing it. And oh, by the way, Trump's still probably guilty anyway. It was a shameful display today from a hackneyed political

schemer in Conniver. I love the part, and you got into this in your peace where he went through some went through some trouble to make it very clear that well, the Russians who actually hacked and did things online with the sock puppets and the you know, election interference, much overblown election interference in terms of its fact, did this, But the election interference such as it was, they're innocent until proven guilty. But Trump, we can't, We can't prove

his innocence. I was shocked. I had to go to the transcript afterwards and read it again and then watch the video again. So he made a special point of saying, these Russians, these people who aren't even American, who tried to steal our elections, who we charged in court was criminal wrongdoing, they're innocence. Let us not trample on their rights and declare that they're anything but presumed innocent until

proven guilty. But but I'm gonna apply a little bit of a different standard to an actual American who hadn't been charged with anything, and say, you know what, it's actually his burden to prove his innocence to me, and I declare him dirty. It was so shameful, and it reminded me of the horrific press commerce that James Coomi gave against Hillary. Now, I don't like Hillary Clinton, and I'm glad she's not president. But his business of going out there and saying, you know what, we're not charging

her with anything. But by the way, she's actually kind of a terrible person, and here's all the bad things she did, and but we didn't charge her. So she's not getting a good day in court. So she can never really clear her name from the mud that I'm throwing at her right now. Oops. I mean, you can see why Mueller and Comi are such good friends. Apparently correct birds of a feather flock together. I also noted that the Special Council former Special Council said that the

report the work speaks for itself. As he's speaking weeks after the report was released about the report, does he is he not up on irony? I didn't really understand how you could miss this, right. It was a four hundred and forty age report which has been out for nearly six weeks. I think April eighteenth is when it came out, So we're looking at well like forty two for you know, forty three days. He says that the work speaks for itself. I'm not going to testify. The

work is its testimony, is my testimony. The works for itself, Which is why I'm here six weeks later, blabbering on like a doddering, senile old fool about something which allegedly speaks for itself. And that's another thing that I thought was very strange today. This is not the Robert Mueller I remember, is the cowering, authoritative FBI director holding court with a complete command of the facts. What I saw

today wasn't this all in command prosecutor. I felt like I was watching a senile non engineering Senator Reid for the very first time, a statement which had been written for him by his staff. It was a thoroughly unimpressive performance, both in style and in substance. Now you mean you used to work on the hills as a senate investigator of Sean the possibility of Muller getting subpoena at here.

He seemed to think that he just gets to kind of do this mic drop of like I'm resigning from DJ This is all I'm saying, Boo yah, We're done here. I'm out. Can he and shouldn't he be subpoenaed? But he if there were a congressional body capable of doing actual work other than reading its own press clips and going on TV. Absolutely, but already this morning Lindsey Graham, who previously now seemed to think his oversight duties consisted of just signing onto letters, Chuck Grassley wrote, he who

is now Judiciary chairman, setting nine, and it's over. This is over as long as as far as I'm concerned. You know, Mueller said the report speaks for herself, and we have the report, So yeah, case clothes, I'm done, which I think is just shameful. Bring that man and put him under oath and make him answer the questions that nobody else can seem to answer from his committee. You know where did all these leaks come from? Why didn't you look at Christopher Steel? Glenn Simpson lied before Congress.

Why didn't you bring up him up? Why didn't you look into Russians doing delivered disinformation through this stafier which you, for some reason used as a roadmap rather than proof of actual Russian inclusions by the Clintons. These are all things that Robert Mueller should be forced to testify to under growth, And yet apparently nobody in Congress really seems to care, including the Republicans out. That's just bizarre. I

don't I don't understand all I know. Graham went on Twitter twice today to say, no, this is case closed. Report speaks for itself. We're done here. Oh my gosh, it's really it's just maddening. Um. But you know, when the IG report comes out, there maybe renewed interest and perhaps then they'll be willing to do what needs to be done here and get Muller under under oath and in front of the American people. I want I've always

wanted to testify. By the way, do you think it You'll see a shift here where people who were clamoring, you know, journos who are clamoring for Muller to testify but a few weeks ago, will now stand behind him say he shouldn't have to testify. He wrote the report. Oh we've we've already seen that. We We went from Democrats saying, oh, when Mueller's done, you you bet your took as He's going to come here and testifying the

oath about what he did. And yet now we see Nadler, We've seen other House Democrats saying, you know, maybe maybe nah, maybe they were just going to do our own investigation and we'll just leave him alone. What are they afraid of? I mean, are they afraid of him having to answer

tough questions? Or are they afraid of him dissembling like he did during his conference today when it becomes apparent that, you know, maybe this guy wasn't calling the shots, maybe he was just a doddering old figurehead completely out to lunch daydreaming like Walter Mitty, and it was actually Andy Weissman doing the dirty work all the way along. But either way, nobody in Congress seems to be interested in

hearing from this guy anymore, which is really curious. We're gonna have to make some noise about this is unacceptable. We got to get this guy under oath, Sean Davis. Everybody, best thing I've read today on the Mueller press conference of Seawan's piece, Mueller just proved his entire operation was a political hit job that trampled the rule of law. It's up on the Federalist dot com right now, Sean, thanks so much, Thank you. Buck. All Right, the eye

word impeachment, yep, Democrats are obsessed with it. We'll talk about that. Stay with me. Unfortunately, Special Counsel Muller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president because the Department of Justice polace he prevents a sitting president from being prosecuted. That policy, in my opinion, is wrong, but it prevented the special Counsel from pursuing justice to the

fullest extent possible. Therefore, as Mueller again highlighted this morning, it forced to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies, and other wrongdoing of President Trump. We will do so. Make no mistake, No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the lawd He did say if he saw any evidence that the president was not what was innocent, he would have let us know. If he had any evidence that the president was not guilty, he would have let us know. But he didn't. He didn't,

and I think that was very, very important. I am gravely disappointed in the Justice Department for their attitude of misrepresentation of the Muller report, to begin with, their hiding behind something that you could never find in the Constitution, that the president is above the law. That wait, they're hiding behind it, or Muller's hiding behind it. What Nancy Belosi's not making sense again? Folks, we all know what this is. We know what Mueller was trying to do.

It couldn't be any more clear. It's a handoff, the impeachment handoff, passing the partisan baton two of the Democrats to try and finally get Trump. Couldn't get him legally, now they want to get him politically, although those two things were always inextricably linked all along the way. Dray Gudi was making the rounds today, he knows exactly what

this is. He gets it Playliff twenty one. And what you're gonna have now for the next fourteen months is an impeachment investigation by folks who have already made up their mind. I mean, sixty of them wanted to impeach him before Mueller wrote a single syllable a report. The jury is never gonna convict him, so we're going to be in this state of chaos for the next fourteen months. Look, I don't think that there's a prosecutable case for obstruction.

I don't know everything, but for what I've seen, firing Jim Comey is not obstruction of justice fourteen months according to you, try gallity, mean, who knows what the real timeline will be but it's all gonna be about impeachment. That's that's the game. And here's what I here's what I'll tell you. They're they're doing it, folks. Today is the day when we finally see and I've thought all along, and I'm sure if we went back in the show archives, we would find me at least a few times saying

that they're they're going to impeach. The left is going to force them to impeach. The left will not have it any other way. This is the most hated president by the left since Ronald Reagan, and it's really much more hated even than Reagan was by progressives. We have reached a level of anti conservative, anti republic derangement that I can't think of any time and certainly in my lifetime, that there's been anything close to this. I don't know if there ever has. I can't speak for all of

American history, but certainly worth thinking about. Impeachment's going to happen. They're going to impeach this president. It's going to happen. They can't control the left wing loons enough. They can't get this. They can't put this genie back in the bottle, so to speak. They can't put the horse back in

the barn. They're going to impeach. And now I'll say this as well, there's been this be very careful in politics, these as about the conventional wisdom, because there has been this conventional wisdom out there for quite some time that Democrats would suffer, they would suffer politically if they impeach

the president. Truth is, we don't know. We don't know, I would like to say to you, and I think it's it's certainly plausible that after a two year just complete disgrace of an investigation of the Russia collusion with a Trump campaign, after all that, I'd like to think that there'd be enough sane, reasonable Americans left who are the the persuadable or undecided voters in the next election, enough of them are saying where they realized that, you know,

there was it didn't matter that Trump was innu and it never mattered to the Democrats. It was always just about destroying his presidency, and that they will that those voters will reject that and will punish Democrats for it. I'd like to think that that's the case. I'd like to believe that that will happen. But I don't know if it will. We don't know. No one knows. Everyone says, oh, look at look at Clinton, the MP. Yeah, Clinton had already you know, he'd already won a second term. You know,

who knows how this one will play out? And every political situation, every moment in time, has its own, has its own nuances, has its own deciding factors at play. You know who knows where this will go. I mean, i'd like to believe that people will start to listen to Sarah Hugaby Sanders point of view on this one. Obviously she's a mouthpiece for the president. But play clip nineteen. He reiterated the points that he'd already made in the report,

and we agree with him. There was no collusion, there was no conspiracy, and we consider this case closed. He completed his investigation. Now he's closed his office and it's time for everybody to move on. He's going back to his private life, and we think everybody else should too. It is case closed now, it's impeachment open. Case closed,

impeachment open. That's what we're heading into. We're going to have a fierce election battle play out, and we are going to have a simultaneous to that and really as a part of that an impeachment battle. I'm convinced. I could be wrong, but I'm convinced this is happening now. I don't know how You've had all these different Democrat candidates, you know, Harris and Booker, and I mean, I can't even keep up with all the different ones who are

saying that. You know, now, there's an obligation and ethical obligation to impeach the president of the United States. There will be great irony in and if in fact that impeachment helps Trump win reelection. I do think that that is possible, but I don't I don't sit here and pretend I'm in the prediction business. I'm in the pundit business, just talking about interesting stuff. Any predictions I make that are correct, will revisit. Any predictions I make that are wrong,

we'll forget about. That's how we roll in the Freedom Hud. We have more on this and what is the truth of Biden some other top candidates. We'll get into that in a moment. Yeah, he's Uncle Joe. Everybody likes the fluffy uncle. But he luck Obama's friend. He's got the cool black friend, right, That's all it is. Joe has a terrible history in the black community, and everybody just loves him because he's the fluffy old guy. He has

given us no policies. This African American voter who was talking about Joe Biden there at this MSNBC town hall, he gets it. I mean it's he almost sounds like he listens to the Block Sexton show. Joe Biden is a nothing burger. Joe Biden has in so many ways betrayed forget about whether you know you agree with progressive ideas or not, betrayed the left throughout his time. When it was popular, when it was good for Joe Biden to be tough on crime, he was mister mass incarceration.

When it was good for Joe Biden to be, you know, wanting us to invade the country or not, whatever it was. If it was good for Joe Biden, that's what he was for. Quintessential politician, classic demagogue, pure demagogue. That's who this guy is. And I you know, with the within the black community, it is it is befuddling to me.

I have I've spoken to two friends of mine and I've spoken to colleagues at the Hill who are Democrats and African American pundits and polsters and people who work in in politics and certainly have their have their finger on the pulse of the black community, especially in different states where they're running campaigns and such. And they're telling me that, well, they they like Biden because of Obama, And I just think, how is that? Why is that transferable?

Anybody could have been Obama's vice president. It really didn't matter. Joe Biden didn't accomplish anything as vice president. That was no where they do I didn't do anything for the African American community. And you have two African American candidates in the mix, and you know, I just if I'm Corey Booker, I'm Kamala Harris. Look, the left is the is the side that is always telling us that identity matters and that you know they're but just think about

what poor what's his name Swawell? Yeah, you know there are areas where I just don't think that I, you know, I really have an understanding because I just need to confront my whiteness and you know he has to do that whole maya culpa for his whiteness thing. Uh. You know, but you have these candidates who are part of the African American community who are not getting the support that this old, super white dude Joe Biden is because of

the connection to Obama. I just don't understand it. People say that it's because they think Biden is electable, and I guess this, this is the answer. I'm told frequently that because Biden is the most electable, he therefore is the has the best chance of protecting what is consider or to be important policy issues to the black community.

But to this, I just say, well, he's electable because they say he's electable, meaning that if you had fewer people in the African American community and fewer in the Democrat primary in general across the board who were supportive of Joe Biden, he wouldn't be electable. Right. It's a self fulfilling prophecy this guy is. I mean, there's a part of me maybe I should stop with this. Although I know I'm not talking to that many Democrats here on the show. Most of you are on the right,

and you are right thinking, Thank heavens. Although Democrats that listen to the show welcome you have an open mind and you'd like to listen to smart stuff and learn cool things. So good for you, give you credit. And I do want I want more Democrats listen to the show. I want people to convert to my way of thinking. I believe truly in what I say here on the show, day in and day out. I want people to agree with me. I want to persuade them. I'm not just

here to bash the left. I want the left to know why I think much of what they do is worthy of bashing. And let me know, the door is always open to our side. They're always welcome to come. You know, the water's warm here, and Conservatism please jump in. But the Biden phenomenon, to me, is just indicative of

a party that has kind of lost its way. And perhaps it's so steeped in Trump hatreot at this point that there's a sense of just grasping to what was known in the past, in the pre Trump hatred era of the Obama years. But Biden is not an impressive guy, not somebody that I think is going to be a particularly strong candidate, which is what I was going to

say before. And I don't want I don't want to give the other side too much advice here, but I do not think that putting Biden forward it's going to be something that works for them the way they think it's meaning Democrats the way they think it's going to work. But then again, Booker and Harris, you know, they're desperate, not not just to shore up their support of the African American community, but with primary voters in general. Booker just always seems kind of phony to me. I don't know,

I don't. I think that he lacks in an era of where there's a kind of craving for well I was gonna say political authenticity, but is Joe Biden authentic? I certainly don't think so. But at a time when if you're considered a kind of if people think of you as a phony, whether you are a phony or not, I think you're in a really tough spot trying to win elections, especially at the national level. I think that Booker just there's something about him but doesn't really connect.

And and same with with Kamala Harris. There there's a lack of political skills, a lack of that X factor, that that charisma that's necessary to garner enough support. And I'm talking about from their own their own side, you know, I'm talking about from people who are supportive of their ideas in their ideology, but they're now jumping on the impeachment bandwagon, which we knew was going to happen. And this is an effort now to try to differentiate from

the rest of the pack. Although after today it's not surprising you have more people than ever, more Democrats than ever, talking impeachment. Here's Kamala Harris saying where she stands on this issue. Play for on the issue of impeachment. Let's be clear, you know I've read them all. Report there are at least ten separate incidents of obstruction of justice, but there is no question that the evidence supports a prosecution of that case. I believe that there needs to

be transparency, There needs to be accountability. There is a clear track record of this president and members of his administration obstructing justice. Not to mention what we have seen from the current Attorney General of the United States, who I questioned in the connection with the Judiciary Committee, who clearly thinks his job is to rep present the president and his peculiar interest as opposed to representing the people

of the country in which we live. So there is a lot of work to do and I plan on seeing it through. So Kamala Harris want to ask you, since you won't appear on this show, at least ten instances of obstruction of justice, So you charge all ten. This is not just This is not an idle, idle question. This matters which one. It's often the case, and she

would know this because she's a former prosecutor. In fact, was a pretty rough one from what I understand, would like to like to lock people up during her time

in San Francisco. You usually go with the charge that is the most readily provable, and you offer that, We say we're going to bring the indictment on this one, and then you see if you can get a plea deal right, and if they won't, then you can always add in a superseding a night, but additional charges, which which is the of the ten, which is the act of obstruction that is the most clear, the most egregious, the most provable. They'll they'll never tell us. They never

settle on one. You know why that is because if they picked one and they focused in on that, what they would risk is that we'd be able to say, well, hold on a second, that's not obstruction, that's not a strong case. And if that is your strongest instance of obstruction, and it is not able to persuade it is it is not really strong at all. What does that say

about the other so called instances of obstruction? So they want to keep it broad, They want this this vagueness of the general concept of obstruction or oh, this is like what they say with Trump's lives, they do the same thing. Trump has lied ten thousand times. Okay, what's the really bad Trump lie? Try this with a liberals sometime ask them this, what's the thing that Trump lied about that that really mattered to you? And that was just you know, it was just too much. You'll get nothing.

That what his crowd size was the biggest ever his inauguration? I mean, are we adults? Are we having a serious conversation? Who the heck cares about that? What's the lie along the lines of if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it? You know, what is the lie that was told willfully and deliberately. And I'm not saying that Trump hasn't lied about different things. I'm just saying, notice how they'll tell you is the worst lie or ever? But they said, and he's lied so many times. But

then you say, well, what's the really bad lie. Well, then they just want to go back to ten thousand lies. Look at what the Washington Post says, thousands and thousands and thousands of lives. When you dig into those lies, I would note you see that some of them an't lies at all, and the Washington Post isn't so stupidest to not know that. But they're just trying to pad things. They're trying to, you know, to boost up the numbers quite a bit. It's it's it's ridiculous and it's wrong.

But Kamala Harris's thing here about how she's there. There are ten ten different instances that they could charge un obstruction. Give me one, miss Harris, give me your Senator Harris, give me one. And let's pull that one apart. Let's see what you got. What's the best shot you can take for obstruction at this president? They never tell you. And then to throw the attorney general in there too, ag Barr. That's just pandering, that's all that is. That

is just straight up pandering. And she knows it. Oh you know, ag Bar doing that is she's saying he's a criminal. Should an attorney general Bar go to prison? Remember what attorney general bar send to Nancy Pelosi, did you bring your handcuffs? Because these people are a joke. These democrats are a joke, and it's time that they be treated as such. They don't need to show them all this deference in respect, Oh, Nancy Pelosi, I don't know.

Nancy Pelosi is a clown. A clown, although unfortunately they're doing real damage to the country in this whole process and undermining these so called sacred institutions they pretend so much to care about when it benefits them politically in the short term. So, team, I've got a little announcement to make for all of you. Um you're getting advance

you're getting advanced word about this. But just in case you happen to be among those who have have enjoyed my time trying to have a respectful conversation with the other side on Hill TV. Next week is going to be my last week on Hill TV. I am going to be pursuing other projects as in focusing on this show and focusing on podcasts and some of the some of the things that many of you have been asking about.

I'm going to be leaving on very good terms, and I thank the management at the Hill for the opportunity and the the investment in me. And it's been a very interesting year and a lot of growth. But last week, or rather next week, is gonna be my last week at Hill TV. So Crystal and I are going to be sitting next to each other for about six more shows, and that's going to be all she wrote on that one.

And look, I I have nothing but but fondness for my my co host and I you know that's and as you know, I will do not criticize my friends, and she is certainly a friend. I will say it is very challenging to do a left right show in the current environment. I mean, how do you have a how do you have a civilized and fair minded and

worthwhile conversation about is the president a traitor? For example, which is a topic that the media forces us to cover because that's an allegation that Democrats will make and have made many times against the president. You know, how do you have a civil conversation about is Donald Trump insane? You know, legally mentally incompetent, not not able to medically speaking hold the job of how do you have a real conversation with someone about that, with anyone about that.

So I'm excited to have the the license going forward, and this is going to be the way I conduct my All of this was an experiment to try to have the all right, let's have a conversation that Now I'm just going to have the buck conversation, as in, this is what I think about all of the things. Here's the people need to know, and if they want to have an exchange of ideas with me, that's fine.

But I reserve the right to say that the other side's ideas are stupid, including to anyone's face, and anyone who does not want to have that conversation with me after I'm done at the hill should not talk to me from the other side. Doesn't mean I'll always say that, doesn't mean I'm not willing to have a civil conversation, just means I reserve the right to be able to say that is some dumbass stuff. So that will be

a bit of a change for me. Obviously, here on radio I can say whatever I want, which is great and always have and always will. But going forward, I will not commit I told you this at the Hill, I committed to trying to have a both sides of the aisle conversation. It was challenging. I learned a lot. I am not doing that again. That's that's not that's not in my future, folks, that's not happening. So I can tell you if that, if that explained, feel about it, well,

then there we go. But I did get the chance because of what I've done over the last year or some of my my favorite stuff that I've been able to do has involved speaking to particularly are some of the left wing guests that I've I've had some spirited exchanges with a You know, today I wasn't really in a I'll just tell you, tell you what's really going on here. I didn't get much sleep last night, so I wasn't full of full of zest and energy this morning.

But we had on a I think either national spokesperson or a present or something, a very senior person from the National Organization of Women Now. Her name is Tony Van Pelt, and she came on the show and she would never look. People ask me sometimes, Buck, why woudn't you have on more liberals on your radio show. They won't come on here. They'll get they know what's going to happen, especially if they want to have a productive

conversation and respectful conversation. That's fine, but they don't. They want to go into talking points and they want to you know, they want to engage in the kind of intellectual laziness and emotional blackmail that are central to left wing argument. That's that's what you get on so many of these different issues. So they won't wait, they won't do it, and I won't waste my time with them, even if they would do it in most cases, not

in all cases. But Miss van Pelt was talking about these recent decisions from a Supreme Court involving the abortion law in Indiana, and I just want you to note I'm being very calm because she knows. You know, it's like when the head of Planned Parenthood who recently got four pinocchios for being a liar and lying. This is the head of Planned Parenthood, I can't remember her name now, doctor something or other. She said that thousands of women

die front used to die from abortions. That's not true. That's just a lie that the abortion lobby you keeps saying a thousands of women a year used to dict from abortions. It's not true at all. They believe it might have been like a dozen a year something like that, but they say a thousand women a year. That's that's

not accurate. She lied, but they had identified me. And this is a frustration that I had at the Hill because much of much of the Hill TV staff were very liberal and I am not liberal, so as you know, so there was always a little bit of a little bit of a disconnect in this regard. But they were informed that I was considered an enemy of choice by Planned Parenthood, which is a something that I wear as

a badge of honor. And I should probably get a T shirt that says enemy of choice, although it wouldn't be clear to everybody what choice I'm an enemy of. But anyway, Tony van Pelt knows that I'm not. I'm not on her team, so she sits down and launches right. And this is from the National Organization from Women, far left group. All you know, think of a progressive women's issue, and they're all all over it. And here's how some of the conversation went. Apologies for me not having more

energy play clip thirteen. I'm very sad by this, and I'm of course upset, and many women in the country are very angry by the fact that these men have made this decision about their bodily integrity when it's really none of their business. Well, wasn't just men who weighed in on this. It was a seven two decision, and a couple of liberals actually went along with it. So, well, why you're saying just men because it is driven by men, I'm I'm uncertain as to what you're talking about. It

is an undue burden on women. Kagan joined the majority when simmy say, man, I mean my understanding is that Kagan joined the majority here. She's obviously a woman. Thanks for bringing up that. Yeah, thank you for bringing up that point. Yeah, it wasn't just men. A woman went with the majority here, saying that, yeah, they can dispose the state can say that you have to dispose of this as you would human remains, because that's what it is, human remains. It's a human being. But but notice that

that you know that this sort of snide. Yeah, what she said was stupid, and I just I didn't call it stupid. I just made it obvious that it's stupid by saying that. You know, you're saying that men made this decision. But it wasn't just men. A woman made this decision too, and two liberals went along with the conservatives in the court here, So why go with the why go with the nonsense talking point? But let's let's dig a little deeper into the nonsense talking points of

your play fourteen. Why should the gender of the justice matter in these cases? Why should the gender of the justice in this particular case. We're talking about particular men that hold these views, and that's why it would matter. What about the fact that in Roe v. Wade all of the majority were men, and does that then affect their ability to weigh in an impartial, in fairment or your mind? They're not here, and we're not talking about

that now. We're talking about to establish a principle as to why it is that the or the justice should matter. I really don't see that as an important to this discussion, because what we're talking about is women here. We're not talking about men, except in the way that men try

to control women. And that's why respect for. The first thing you said when you sat down is this is a decision by a bunch of men, and so thinks right, okay, And I just said that it is men who are trying to control women that's why it's so important that we put more women onto the state legislatures. Now, notice how she spits out there. You know, men are the ones pushing this decision, as if they're allowed to push decisions about women's bodies, and all I'm all I say

to her, this is very straightforward. I mean, she's obviously a truly brainwashed left wing pro abortion automaton. All I say to her is, Okay, well, Roe v. Wade was all men, all of the majority, and Roevwade men. Does that mean that, you know, when men do what you want them to do, they have full agency, full license on the court to weigh on women's bodies and what they can and can't you. But when they don't do it,

they're men, they're not allowed to. I think she's just not clever enough to understand what I was trying to explain to her. It's not it's actually not complicated. This is producer Mica. Is she the president of the National Organization for Women? I think she's something either that or the or the national spokesperson for it is. Yeah, she's the president, the president of the National Organization for Women, folks. Not impressive, not smart. Let's just say it not somebody

who wonders. And I think that it's it's not that she's a dumb person, per se. It's her arguments are dumb. Her understanding of the issue is dumbed down because it has to be, because otherwise it falls into contradiction. That's why she's a little brainwashed soldier of sorts for her side who is told to just go and and attack the other side. And she's not told why, or how or anything else. He just knows that this is for women, an abortion is a right and doesn't think on that.

And then I just asked, we're just one more question, just to give you a sense of what the others saw, what the Democrats really want here. This is what I asked the president of the National Organization for Woman play fifteen. Should abortions be directly subsidized by taxpayers? I think that all healthcare should not be subsidized. That is a universal

right for people. That's my personal So the tax dollars should go toward abortions, which you believe is part of health all healthcare, birth control, sex education, abortion, classic abortion lobby maneuver. There, you'll notice what I asked her is a very straightforward yes or no question. Should tax dollars go toward abortion? She says, you know, well, all healthcare is a yeah. Yeah, So is that a yes or no? Well, let's talk about all this other this is what this

is what planned parenthood does. Oh, we're all about mamograms and giving out birth control and also abortion. Why do you have to always talk about the other stuff. Why can't if abortion is fine, why don't you just talk about abortion. They can't argue on the merits, they can't have a real discussion about this because they're wrong. You

should know that. You should remember that. And when the National Organization for Women is releasing these statements and all this left wing claptrap that they're constantly pumping out there, just remember that I was able to with very I wasn't yelling, I wasn't raising my voice. Just ask a few questions and not just poke holes, but really just eviscerate this woman's position that men have no right to say what goes on when it comes to abortion. No, actually,

this is about life and the protection of life. This is an a gender issue. That's what the left doesn't understand, and that's what the left cannot accept because once we frame this as an issue of protecting and defending life, then their position becomes untenable, which is also why they don't want the fetal remains to be treated as what they are, which are the remains of small human beings. But national organization from women, zero buck and righteousness and

the good guys one, we'll be right back. Massoura's last abortion clinic could be shut down this Friday. To the governor there, Mike Parsons his name, signed a bill into law banning abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. The Saint Louis clinic closes, Missouri will become the first state effectively to end all legal abortion service since Roe versus Wage. Forcing women to wait seventy two hours even having unnecessary invasive pelvic exams isn't that dangerous. It's bad for healthcare.

It's also traumatizing for women, especially women who have suffered sexual fault and rape. But now the state is threatening to prosecute our doctors. Plant parenthood is more than just abortions. I think people need to understand that too. Yes, safe legal abortion care, because that's what it is. It's healthcare donations. They are going up, true, they are, and I hope that people will keep on supporting Plant Parenthood and other

organizations that provide essential houses. Okay, it's not a drill. Listen to all that Planned Parenthood propagain, and not just from Lena Wynn, who have now remember her name is the president of Planned Parenthood, a ghoulish organization, but all the different media outlets there. Oh, the media is on the issue of abortion. The media is as far left

as they are on anything. In fact, I think that the media apparatus is reflective of the most extreme, and it is it is mainstream in journalism to be extreme on the issue of abortion. But now, notice how the there's this difference between the way they'll talk about different

rights constitutional right to bear arms, for example. Oh, but that there there can be you know, they want waiting periods, background checks upon background checks, limitations on magazine size, limitations on type of weapon, limitations on transfer a weapon, limited you know, all these you know, fill out paperwork, mental health screening for it, all this stuff for what is legitimately a constitutionally protected right, the right to bear arms.

But then when they talk about what the completely phony and fake constitutional right to an abortion, it's oh, women might have to wait a day or two for their abortion. They might have to have a pelvic exam. You can tell from the way the president of Plan PARTI talks about it. They want people to get They want people in getting an abortion like they're being like they're being handed a lollipop. I mean, it's just you know, you don't know what's going on, or you're in and out.

No one knows, no one talks, no one sees, just book. Well, I'm sorry, what about can we can we even talk about the cleanliness of the facilities? Oh no, no, they can't be. You don't need admitting privileges for a hospital, for the doctors or anything. It needs to no no limitations, no restrictions, nothing. They just want it to be fast, quick, taxpayer funded. They want it mechanized. They want it to be like a machine. And that is in fact what's

going on here, the mechanized murder of small children. All right, I will change it up here from one. I don't want to go too too much on this, but I did think the conversation with the president of the National Organization from Women today was worth your time. Um AOC, we're gonna talk in a few minutes about a organization that I don't know if it's real or not, but it seems to be real and it's a left wing thing. AOC addressed the cow fart controversy earlier this week. That's right,

cow farts. It's a thing. And I just want let you know that she's kind of doubled down on the cow fart issue. Play clip one. We need to innovate on our technology, you know, obviously, like I had a stafford, you know, police a document to talk about cow flachelence. But which is an issue. I just want to say, you're so ridiculous, but it literally is. But it but actually is an issue when it comes to contributing to methane.

But that doesn't mean you end cows. It means that we need What it means is that we need to innovate and change our grain, our cow grain from which you know they feed in these troughs, that we need to really take a look at regenerative agriculture, like these are our solutions. What the heck is she talking about? I mean, she doesn't know, so it's fair to ask. She doesn't know what she's talking about, So should we

really know what she's talking about? I think that's probably asking too much, but we're gonna change the grain we feed the cows so they have less methane in the farts. This is the the vanguard of the Democratic Party, the ideological front line of the left, AOC, my friends, somebody who thinks that the answer to any difficult questions we just need to innovate. Let's just like innovate, We'll innovate

the farts away from the cows. White women, you are coming to the table to bear witness to our pain. This is the headline. This is the main wording that you see on this website for something that i'm I will say this right up front. I did not think at first that this is that this was real. My assumption is still that it is is possible that this is some kind of hoax. But I'm not able to say that it's a hoax because so far it seems

like this is a real thing. So if it turns out that this is a high concept hoax, I would just say to you, all, well, how can you know? But it is a website that is up right now, and well I'll have to explain to you what this is, and you can tell me what you think it's called race to Dinner. And here's their mission statement. Our mission statement is simple, reveal the naked truth about racism in America and your complicity as white women. This isn't the

stuff of Trump, the KKK, and Nazis. That's easy, it's obvious, and denouncing it requires almost nothing of white folks. What's hard looking at yourself in the mirror and acknowledging that, as a white person in America you are an active participant in upholding white supremacy. This isn't personal. This doesn't make you bad. This is systemic, and this makes you human who is part of that system. As black and brown women, we too are humans who are part of

the system. Only we are on the other side. We are on the receiving end of white supremacy, while you are on the giving end. Until and unless white folks are willing to bear witness to the pain they've caused, we will never see change. The system of oppression will remain safely in place until white people, all white people, are willing to acknowledge their complicity. This. I think this is a look. It's not written in a way that it's clear that it's supposed to be a kind of satire.

I think this is real. I think this is really have a donation page, they have contact information. You know, this was making the rounds on on social media today and it's hard to know. And with the left. This reminds me of how within Okazio Cortez quote, I find myself saying, there's no way Okazio Cortez said something that stupid, and oh no, it turns out she did. So with this, this is as bizarre. This is so bizarre that there's a part of me that insists that that refuses to

believe this is real. But the way it's written is very much in line with social justice rhetoric and mainstream thinking on the left. Is this has now become mainstream. The idea that white supremacy, which used to be reserved as a description for neo Nazis with swastika tattoos, shaved heads and you know, big boots on right, that that used to be what you thought of as white supremacy. Now white supremacy is the lack of minority PhDs and

the top math programs in the country or something. I mean that that's now considered white supremacy, which is a dramatic downgrading of that of that definition and to expand it into a whole lot more stuff. And this, uh, this concept that's being forwarded here that the systemic injustice in our society is just a form of pervasive white

supremacy that all white people are complicit in. This creates a dynamic, a power dynamic that is meant to force people to adopt certain political positions and posts, in this case white people, for the benefit the political benefit and power of non white people in America who are a part of this left wing identity politics movement. That's what this is and that's where you get this race to Dinner's idea Again. Here's what it says about it. Quote,

white women, we are talking about you. We are talking about your complicity and upholding white supremacy and keeping us brown and black women down. You are an integral part of this system. Our goal is to dig out the tumor called white privilege, power control and reveal it for what it is. Making white women comfortable isn't our goal. Our goal is to be seen, to be heard, and to have you white women bare witness to our pain,

pain you have caused. Ready, and this is the idea here folks, is that there will be a dinner, a dinner where white women attend with minority women present. Look again, if this is a hoax, I'm sorry that I'm in a way maybe I'm falling for it, but it seems believable enough to me. It's a real site. It is getting shared around. You know, how can and this this is even if it is fake, Even if this is meant to be some kind of satire, it is exposing or or it is elevating what is what is mainstream

thinking on the progressive left? How can you host a dinner? They ask on this site. Please consider why you want to join the dinner with Regina and Sarah um. If it's to learn, or to feel better, or to be a good ally, reconsider this dinner is not for you or about you. The dinner will be painful, uncomfortable, maddening, and upsetting, but what you'll experience listening to our stories doesn't come close to the pain of living as a brown or black woman in America? Are you truly ready

to join us? Step two? Plan your race to dinner. Now you think you're ready to bear witness to our pain, Let's get started. The next step is to contact. Jessica mageris our program director and she will help you get going. Click here to smash your white fragility. I mean, I think this is I don't know is real or fake. It seems real enough to me. It seems like this could be. You know, I'm doing the basic Google searches on this to see if people are calling this, uh,

you know A no, I don't. I don't think that this is. This is nuts that you have to bear witness to the pain of black and brown women as as part of this. I mean, people are writing about this. I see the let me see this is Jesse's single who's a writer for New York Magazine. He says that this service allows white women to hire women of color to come to dinner, so the white women can bear witness to our pain, the pain that the women who invited the white women of the women of color to

dinner have caused. Race to dinner nicely sums up contemporary upscale progressivism. So this is a New York Magazine guy who's treating this as real, and maybe I guess this is real. And when I think about what I was subjected to even in college with some of the diversity training that we had where they would bring in these professional, paid speakers who would essentially come in and tell all the white people in the room. And I was one

of them. So I remember that you are not doing enough to combat racism, that you are part of an unjust system, that you have not earned as much as you think you have earned, that you have oppressed more than you think you have oppressed, and that you have to make amends. And if you disagree or you don't make amends, it's because you have not confronted the reality of your white privilege. This is a victimology mindset that quickly lends itself to a kind of a kind of authoritarianism.

You know, do what I say, or else you have not fully understood and embrace the privilege that you have. It's essentially claiming that somebody else has caused an offense for which they must make amends, and if they're unwilling to make amends, they're even causing even greater offense. See, so it's a it's a cycle. There's no way out of this. You either admit and agree and repent for your whiteness, or else you are doubling down on the

sins of your whiteness. This is a an emotional blackmail system that is put in place specific to advance progressive ideology, and it's now widespread. This is what you have on college cabs, is this is what you have in media, This is what you have now increasingly in a lot of government programs, in government hiring. You know, in confront your white privilege. Now, how about I'm not confronting anything.

I confront what I do in life. I'm responsible. I have the the moral culpability for those actions and decisions that I am responsible for. And that is it. Group or collective responsibility is the elimination of the moral foundation of Western society. And that's why identity politics is toxic. It is toxic waste seeping into the ground. And unless

we confront that, it's only going to get worse. Hey, what's going on across the ocean with the European friends, what's the latest with Brexit and all the back and forth over the future of the EU. We got our special freedom Hut EU correspondent with US now better known as the editor in chief of Human Events, the global editor in chief in fact, mister Rahim Kasam, also Generalman about Town ascot aficionado and guest host here of the Buck Saxon Show. Right, he and great to have you. Hey,

thanks for having me again. But all right, man, So what's going on? What's going on with brexite You're all over the place. Boris Johnson's in the headlines, Theresa May, things are going on. Tell us why we care it's all going on. Then I'll tell you exactly why you care. So the European barment elections that happened last week is somewhat of a harbinger for what can be expected, I think in a twenty twenty election cycle in the United States.

And I'll tell you exactly why. Last week we saw a repudiation once again in a massive way of the political center, the elites, the the end of history, Francisco Guayama types who had decided that neoliberalism opened blowers. All of that stuff was just garegur and that's how things were from now on. Well, the Greens on the far left picked up a load of votes from the center left, and on the hard right in Europe you had Marine La penn and Salvini and the Brexit Party all stealing

votes away from the center right. So You've got this now polarization in European politics, and I think that's exactly what's happening here in the United States as well. When you look at who you know whose ideas are rising to the surface, it's the hard left, the Sanders and the Cassio Cortez. And on the other side it's it's Trump. The era of Bill Crystal and Hillary Clinton and all these guys is for the time being over, and that's why it's so important for Britain. For Brexit, well, it

was quite an extraordinary scenario really. You had Nigel Farage coming out of retirement, set a whole new political party. He didn't go back to the UK Dependence Party, which is a previous vehicle, set up a whole new party called the Brexit Party. New candidates, new logo, new infrastructure, knew everything. And that was just six weeks ago, and he won a major national election just six weeks later. Firstly,

absolutely unheard of in British political history. Secondly, the second time he's won a major national election with a new, non mainstream political party. And what that means is that the voters out there in the United Kingdom begetting sick to death of Brexit not being delivered. Q Theresa May resigning and Q this new leadership contest inside the Conservative Party to decide who becomes the next Prime minister. And for the people out there listening and going, oh, why

doesn't Nigel just become prime minister? We need to have a majority in the House of Commons, and so far the Brexit Party hasn't got a single all seat in the six hundred and fifty seat House of Commons. Now, just America for you again. I know I was gonna say, how does Boris Johnson way into walls? Well, so exactly so to bring it back to America for you again.

President Trump is going to the United Kingdom on an official state visit next week, and he has in his diary in his schedule a lunch or dinner or some sort of sit down meeting with Boris Johnson, the former Foreign secretary now favorite to be the next Prime minister.

The problem is Boris, although he pretends to be a conservative, and although he's making nice with the White House and what President Trump now, he is on the record as having called Trumper moron, said that he's unfit to serve as president, that he doesn't go to cist in parts of New York because he doesn't want to bump into him. Says that he doesn't want to bring him to London because he doesn't want to expose Londoners to him. And Boris's only record is pretty poor as well. He's bad

on immigration, he believes in amnesty. He's historically bad. As the mayor of London, he was a terrible foreign secretary. He's sort of known as this cute, bumbling buffoon, but actually he's quite a nefarious character in the sense that he actually tricks people into believing that he is a conservative. So we've got six weeks now ahead of us of a Conservative Party leadership election, and of course the President meeting with Boris will give Boris the edge in that election.

It would almost be like a level of foreign interference in deciding on who the next prime minister should be. And I'll tell you what, if people want Trump to have a really good ally in Britain, as as the British public want to be to America, then they will implore him not to meet with Boris Johnson because that can only go awry. And who should be the next prime minister? Well, I like to think that I should

throw my head in the ring. But him, I'd vote for you, and i'd i'd even, you know, become one of those fancy minister positions to help you out. Oh yeah, absolutely, we'd create a whole new ministry for you, then the Minister of Fun. And here's the thing. The Conservative Party is put up so far, there's about ten candidates fighting in this and all but one of them, or maybe two of them, these these two backbenches, Steve Baker and

Esti McVay, those are probably the two good ones. Very conservative, very free market capitalists, very keen on board of control, very good on Brexit. But they're not cutting through because as they're safe, they're just back benches. You know how the Democrat Party right now as all these no name people running in their presidential race. Unfortunately, that's what's happening

to the Conservative Party as well. Just so happens that we're losing a lot of talent from the Conservative back benches, while the continuity candidates, you know, cut from the same mold as David Cameron Theresa May, are rising up because that's who the media wants to win, so they're giving them all the support to the casual observer Brexit. We keep hearing about it. What is this with the implementation? Will there want there? Didn't they vote for this thing?

And why is it happening? Right? I mean, we voted three years ago to leave the European Union, but then the government set upon a path of trying to negotiate a leading deal with the EU, which means because we do trade, and because we have a border with Ireland, the Northern Ireland border, because of the peace process that took place in ninety seven, because of all of that Common Fisheries policy, because some of our waters bleed into one another. There's all these things that the government has

been trying to square the details away on. But of course the European Union doesn't want to square those details away because they don't want a nation to look like it can successfully leave the EU. They want nations to be supine towards Brussels. So they've thwarted it for three years now. Theresa May was terrible at dealing with it, so she's gone nine or four hours of the breaks of Party are saying this, look, we can leave. We are perfectly within our rights to leave with outer deal.

We revert to World Trade Organization trading rules and we just go from there and then if the EU wants to come to the table later and say we want preferential treatment, then we'll have that conversation when it needs to be had. And I think that is well. Most of the British public are now leading towards let's just go man is Rahim Kassam. Everybody. He doesn't just have a fancy accent, ladies and gentlemen. He also writes and

does TV. Check out his latest over at human events dot com, where he is global editor in chief again human events dot Com. For mister Rahem Kassam, Rahem, my friend. Good to have you. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks so much, Buck Tickere all right, team, What does it mean now that the other end of the app may be able to rate and review you in a world where we are increasingly defined by our digital reputations? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I will

address that in a moment. I like this new era of digital accountability we find ourselves in, my friends. Let me let me explain. Currently, there are all these apps out there where you get to rate services that you get, and you can go online and you can find out so much about everything, from the best plumber or the best vacation spot. You know, who gave us the best foot massage? I mean, if one is so inclined. But

you can find out all kinds of stuff. I believe it's called reflexology buck, but yeah, whatever it's called, I love it. But you can find out all kinds of stuff online. You can also get a sense of ratings of different individuals in a whole lot of ways. And Uber, the ride sharing app. I like Lift a lot too. If either one of them care to sponsor the show, I'd be interested. I'd be interested in either one of

those opportunities. But Uber and Lift, you know these ride share apps, they let you comment on the driver, and well, now it turns out that they well, as you know, for a while, they all so can rate you as the user. So if you are a very mean person, or if you leave garbage in the back of their car, what is with the people that put the garbage in the in the door handle like they used tissue? That

is so disgusting. And whenever I reach in the door handle and there's a used tissue in there, I want to punch something, preferably the person who left the used tissue in the door handle. But they're not around, but they can rate you. And now Uber has finally said that that's not just so the driver gets a sense of who he or she may be dealing with. Now they may start to ban people from their services based on bad behavior. I think this is great. I think

we should get ratings for all kinds of things. I know you can say, Buck, you're crazy. Maybe I am. It's a brave new world I want us all living in. But I want there to be an app where everyone shows up to a movie theater and if you start talking, people can give you like a demerit. You know, people can give you points off no talking during movies and ever when just by being there you're GEO located up

that person's a movie talker. And then enough people say you're a movie talker, they can keep you out of the movie, or you can see before you go into the movie. Is this is there going to be a talker in there? And maybe some movies people only want talk I'm just saying there's all these different applications for this. And with Uber, now if you're a jerk and you're mean to the drivers, they can say sorry, you're not allowed to use our app anymore, that they're going to

give you warnings and so on and so forth. Open table another site that I use all the time because I spend like so many millennials, that's right, I'm a graybeard millennial. Like so many millennials, I spend far too much of my disposable income on food and particularly going out to eat, because it's not like I can invest in the housing market, not enough money, so I spend far too much money on food. And but with open table, I'm pretty much I'm like a ninety nine sure thing.

When I say I'm gonna be at a restaurant and I'm there on time too, I'm very fastidious about it. I get there, I arrived, So I feel like that should be I don't know if open table does this or not, but that should be represented in my profile, so that when I make a reservation a restaurant, they should know that I'm showing up, and unless I stop showing up, that should always be the expectation that this is a guy who shows up who's on time. I would even say let them know if I consistently tip

twenty percent, which of course I do. No cheap skate here. I may not be rich, my friends, but I'm rich in spirit. So I like this. I want people to think more about their behavior in this way. I want people to have to have greater consideration of their behavior. I mean, I think this this even applies to just

the way we act on the street now. Because everyone has a cell phone and has video and streaming capability, you know, you're a little less likely to throw a fit and be verbally abusive to somebody, at least if you're smart, because you never know. You know, you might decide you're gonna start saying something really nasty to somebody, and maybe they even deserve it, but you get live streamed and that all of a sudden goes viral and

becomes a big problem for you. I want services. I want people that I engage with to mark it down that I'm I'm a good customer, who's polite, who's a man. I don't know that all of you would feel the same way. Right. You want credit for this, so I like that Uber's doing this. I'm hoping this expands to a whole lot of other platforms. The good people should get credit for being good people in the digital world. Folks,

and the jerk should be treated like jerks. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real, it's time for roll call. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton for roll call. The most fun thing you can do on Facebook other than posting photos of yourself on vacation. You gotta do the the feat in the photo to show you're there, and then some beautiful background, some beach seen, some kind of landscape, you know, the Swiss Alps or whatever. That's how, it's how you got to do it. Facebook dot com

slash buck Sexton's the place to go. And Bucksexen dot com by the way, new and improved, if you want to go check out Bucksexen dot com. We are against our posting all kinds of fun stuff and content there. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Get some articles up, got some good things happening, All right, Glad you're first up, He writes. Buck was wondering if there's any chance Congress can force Muller to testify. Well, yes, Glenn, Mine understanding is that Congress can do a little thing

called subpoena. Subpoena ing Muller, and Muller would be in a very strange position as far as I can tell to say no. So I think that that's what's going to happen. If the Republicans don't subpoena him, they're missing a big opportunity, and there is, in my opinion, no way the Democrats can try to push back against a Muller subpoena without looking like complete hacks. But that may not stop them, as we know that may not be on its own enough. Let's see here, Kimmy writes, yo book.

You recently mentioned that you finished Frank Herbert's done. Excellent choice, and you are just the audience the author is writing for ie people who don't read sci fi. Herbert, along with Robert Anson Heinlein, is one of my two favorite authors. Herbert once said something the effect of Dune isn't sci fi, it's socio political commentary. Check out this interview with him. Stay with the story to the end of the first trilogy at least Shield High, Long Live the Fighters. Well,

thank you so much, Kimmy for this. I was just told today I haven't finished the first the first of the Dune trilogy books quite yet. I'm about six hundred or so pages into the eight hundred pages, but it's the writing is excellent. I mean, the guy's an incredible storyteller, and the intricacy of the novel as such that I find myself sometimes going back and rereading parts of it.

I think that they are remaking the Dune movie. I was just told that today by one of my colleagues at the Hill, who is sci fi sci fi not obsessed. What's the word, I say? Sci fi savvy. Here we go a little alliteration. Diane writes, Hey Buck on Wednesday's show, you wonder why the Democrat candidates done have any real substance given how strongly their political ideology supported in colleges.

And I think I know why. College kids these days are not only taught what to think, not how to think, so they have no clue how to present arguments to support their ideology, much less how to analyze arguments against them. As a result of Democrats know they don't have to provide any substantive or substantive support for their platform to sustain the support of their followers. Anyway, That's how I see it. Shields High, keep up the great work, Diane.

It's true college made me a much better conservative because I was always swimming against the current there, I had to be able to defend my ideas in the classroom and outside of the classroom, not just against my fellow students, but also against professors. So that meant that I had to be particularly adept in making my case and making my points. I'll never forget taking a class called the

American Right in sociology. And as I've described in the past, sociology is the study of why left wing social theories are correct. That's what sociology is. I would even go so far as to say it's not in the way it is generally taught in schools. It is not a real academic discipline. It's just indoctrination. But I took a sociology class called the American Right, and it was the worst class. It was the worst grade rather that I got my entire senior year. It's the only non A

that I got senior year. Humble brag, humble brag. I'm just kidding it, Amirst. Everybody gets say it's ridiculous, But I remember being in this classroom, and just because I was willing to ask questions of the professor and push back a little bit, there were some other conservatives in the class who would sit near me on purpose, because we formed this little unit and they liked me going toe to toe at the rest of the classroom, and they'd come up me afterwards like that was great man. Yeah,

you gotta keep it going. Little did they know one day here I'd be speaking to hundreds of thousands of you across the country. Yeah. Uh, Jackie, all right, Hey Buck love the show. Glad you're back from China. Well, Jackie, that makes two of us. I had enough ound sauce and boiled vegetables for a lifetime. Please tell me why all these expert pundits who are supposedly expert on China,

North Korea, law, obstruction and presidential everything. Tell me why they didn't know alllong that Muller can't charge a president if it's unconstitutional to charge a president. Why haven't all the constitutional experts been telling us that every time some new revelation comes to light, all the pundits crow in unison that this, that or the other thing is something that they're all an expert in. How come none of them have been saying this for the past two years? Then, huh?

Why does Muther continue to do this, keep dragging it out over and over. How does this stop so? Well, Jackie, You're making a very important point here, which is that there are so many people that hold themselves up as experts and it is never challenged, or rather, they never stop and think about whether they really qualify as experts in anything, And I think the answers they don't, or at least they should have to do a whole lot of additional study to be considered an expert in anything

because they are not particularly impressive in it. People have been wrong, wrong, and wrong again on Russia collusion and still think of themselves as beyond reproach, still think that they have all the answers, and they're unwilling to change that. Josh right, Nalie am Brulia was hot back in the day. Also, did you switch producers? Where's producer Mike No? I didn't switch? Okay, a few thinks here, Josh Nalie am Brulia was very talented, and she was the one who sang that song Torn,

That's correct. She also has a song for the ladies out there, just Leave Me Alone, that some of you ladies might like. It's very very catchy, not as well known as Torn, And I didn't I have a new technical producer. People also afford him as a board op and a board op. But we have a new technical Producer's name is Mark. Mark. You won't say high everybody, Hello, everybody. Yeah, see,

that's Mark, Mark's new technical producer. We had a couple of different technical producers before, but we have Mark now in full time. He is the man. He is our technical producer. So you'll hear him bouncing in and out of the show as we go along. Producer Mike is there, but he runs back and forth. I always joke around. I mean, sometimes it's he's getting phone numbers from you know, ladies in the lobby that are going in and out

to get their Starbucks. But it's often that he's pulling video or rather audio and different components for the show, and he'll leave the studio to do that. So that's why if you hear me, see where's producer Mike, it's not that he's not around. He's just usually working on some stuff outside of our actual radio studio. Let's see, and then here we go. Josh's last Aquaman was good for a DC movie, but that doesn't say much. It was cheesy and a little over the top, but most

DC movies are unwatchable. Yeah, Josh, I can't disagree with you on that. Most DC movies are unwatchable. And the Last a Man movie was incredibly cheesy. All Right, I'm not just gonna sit here and keep trashing Aquama because of some of you like it. And that's fine. You know, you could trash Big Trouble in Little China, for example, which I talk about frequently on this show. I mean, you'd be wrong, but you could do that. You could tell me that Tombstone's not really a Western, even though

I think it's the greatest Western of all time. That's right, fight me, fight me. Tombstone is. It's just a great movie. It's just a really fun to watch, excellent movie. Notice how both Kurt Russell movies. So yes, I would. I would put that out there for you. Last night, I

couldn't sleep. I don't know why. I just I couldn't sleep, really, and I woke up after and it was one of those things where I woke up after two hours and all I can think is, please tell me you've been to sleep for five or six hours, please, And it was two hours and I was wide awake, you know, not like a little bit awake, wide awake for some reason, and I went out to just find something to watch on the Telly. Oh it wants to find something to watch on the lay late at night, and I turned

on whatever happened to beyond It. It was Resident Evil Extinction or Apocalypse or I mean those Resident Evil movies. Movies they they they still make money, and Mila Djobovic just keeps churning them out. It's all A said. It's just zombies mad, you know, eating people men and then women running around in very tight tank tops and shorts doing a lot of spin kicks and firing a lot of machine guns. So that's really all you need, you know. I just I just want to make a series that's

women in short shorts with machine guns and zombies. I'll make producer mark true or false. I'll make money. I think you'll make money. Thank you. That's the correct answer. Let's see what we kind of here next up? Oh oh, I got a fine one that's unread. Um Jerry, right, can you tell me more or about yourself? Well, Jerry, I'm a capricorn who grew up in New York City and likes to have a good time. But it also knows how to kick back, relax and let the good

times role. Jerry, I don't know what you want to know, my friend. You got to send me more specific question than that. Bruce. Read the Weed Agency to see how bureaucracy works in government. Hilarious and scary at the same time. Bruce, there's some great books on bureaucracy, but I will tell you this, there is nothing that really teaches you about bureaucracy like working for the federal bureaucracy, which I have done, and it is a It is an experience, my friends,

that I can tell you. Mike up in Alberta, Canada, all right, I stumbled on a quote from a noted democrat apologies if you're aware of it already. On April twenty seventh, nineteen sixty one, in a speech in New York City, John F. Kennedy said quote, we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.

On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion, instead of elections, on intimidation, instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into building a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Just want to share this with you. Okay, Mike, thank you. I've never seen that quote before. I don't know.

I can't attribute to anything because I don't know, but you say it's Kennedy. Thank you so much for sending it saying that's going to be it for the show for today. It has been excellent, may we biesser? I hope you agree. Please do download the podcast, subscribe on iTunes to the Buck Sexton Show. Tell a friend to subscribe, like this is the best podcast ever. I will talk to you tomorrow. Shields High