YES, The Deep State Spied on Trump

and his campaign aids. That plus the latest on immigration and Bernie sanderstyle socialism coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. I'm not suggesting that, uh, those rules were violated, but I think it's important to

look at that. And I'm not just I'm not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly. So you're not you're not suggesting, though, that spying occurred. I don't. Well, I guess you could. I think there's a spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. Spying did occur against the

Trump campaign. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Very important words there from the Attorney General of the United States, and you can just hell, you can just hear liberals all of a sudden, Oh my gosh, what is he saying? They got so nervous there for a minute, because now

it's all a function of controlling the narrative. Got to keep people from figuring out just how insane, just how reckless and ruthless and disgraceful the Democrats, the mainstream media, the deep staters like Comey and McCabe and Struck and Page and Yates and Brennan and Clapper. What they tried to do is to undo the results of the twenty sixteen presidential election, to nullify the votes of over sixty million of their fellow Americans who voted for Donald Trump

and think that they're righteous. In the whole process, there was spying by a Democrat administration's appointee against a Republican presidential campaign in a election year, and then there was an effort to use that spying to create further problems for the administration once the Republican had won, and to

bring down his presidency, there was spying. We have to we have to say it, we have to repeat it, because just that sinking in, just that that recognition in our brains begins the process of coming to terms with how much of a of a debacle this has been, with the catastrophe that has befallen our institutions and our sense of fairness at the federal law enforcement level, with the press, which I never thought was fair, but now at least we have beyond any reasonable doubt proof of

the press is willing to play very dirty, to send people to prison, to lie about people if it serves their political interests. They are activists without scruples. They are little character assassins for the left. That's what most of the mainstream media has turned into. And Bill Barr is just beginning this process of getting the answers on this. We finally, we finally deserve. We need MSNBC's you know this is gonna go, Cynthia alks need no idea this person is but put on TV to say that bar

Spine Kevins are crazy. They're just crazy. Play twenty. At one point he said, I think spine did occur. Your take on that, Cynthia, Well, I think that's crazy. You know, general the United States suggesting that intel were spying, You know that that some reason there was spying on the Trump campaign, and Trump accused that, and there was bugging in the campaign, and there just wasn't. And obviously bar

feels the need to curry favor with Trump. And I don't understand why a man of his standing and reputation would feel the need to couch out of the President in such a way. That's just idiocy. I mean, she's she's a former federal prosecutor, knows nothing about the intelligence community,

apparently knows nothing about the Russia collusion case. What do you call running human informants against members of the Trump campaign as they did George Popadopoulos going to the FISA court to get really extra constitutional national security based surveillance done of Carter Page tied to the Trump campaign. We don't even know the full extent of what else. We don't know what they did to manaphor It, We don't

know what they did to Flynn. There are some people who think that they might have been caught up in all this too, in terms of the surveillance. But how is that not spying? If taking people's emails and phone calls and getting access to their most private and sensitive personal data. If that's not spying, what is spine? If using foreign intelligence operatives like Christopher Steele, remember he's a foreigner two, and using foreign sub sources in Russia, that's right,

Russian sources to go after Trump. If that's not spying, what is If it's not spying, why did Hillary's DNC pay a former spy to do the work. Of course it was spine. They just know that that word that conjures up. It begins that process of allowing us to allowing us to understand, to come to grips with just how profoundly, profoundly abusive and wrong and underhanded this whole

Trump Russia collusion mass was. Can you imagine, imagine for just a second that we found out what I think of, how the press would react that there was an effort to say that President Obama, and an effort that was picked up by the entirety of conservative media across the board, the top of the Republican Party, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, who knows who else and where else, but working with foreign sources, claimed

that Barack Obama was in fact not only foeign born, but a foreign born asset run against the United States government and was a traitor, right, a foreign intelligence asset who had won the presidency with help of foreign powers. And that this all came out there was no evidence for this, but the Republican establishment, conservative media, and the federal bureaucracy all created this conspiracy and acted on it and spied on Obama, pulled Valerie Jarrett's phone records, pulled

David axel Rod's emails. Can you imagine how they would react to this? And in that case, I would say, rightfully, so, it is all we would It would replace Watergate as this scandal that we would be forced to talk about for the next fifty years, as though it's the only

scandal that has ever happened in political history. It would it would finally replace Watergate as the most profound, most profound abuse of government authority, at least according to the Democrats, right, that's what they say Watergate was, you know, of the last hundred years in American history. But because it's Donald Trump, and because it's the Democrats who were the guilty parties here, we're supposed to believe that this is what this was acceptable?

Can anyone really make that case? Now? Bar my friends, was just giving a beginning of what I think is going to be the reckoning for the Democrat left, the deep state, the mainstream media places like CNN, that we're hiring people straight out of the top, the top echelons of government and then laundering their nonsense stories and using their credentials Clapper and Brandon and others, their former credentials and the Intelligence agency to make their baseless accusations laundered

through CNN seem credible. All of it, all of it was the dirtiest of politics. It was unethical, and I think we'll find out soon it was highly illegal, and no less than the presidency of the United States hung in the bounce. That's why they don't want the word spying to be used. Congressmen. Shots today was trying very hard just to get Barre to say, no, no, don't say spying, call it something else. Play nineteen. Do you

want to rephrase what you're doing? Because I think the word spying could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem to freak out, and I think it's necessary for you to be precise with your language here you normally are, and I want to give you a chance to be especially precise here. I'm not sure of all the connotations of that word that you're referring to, but unauthorized surveillance. I want to make sure there was no unauthorized surveillance.

Is that more appropriate in your mind? This is your call. I really did want to give you a chance to say it how you wanted to say it, and make sure that you didn't misspeak. You know, I'm just like, you know, maybe you just want to use like some different words than spying or something, because like spying sounds scary. Yeah, that's because that's what they did. They spied on the Trump campaign. We were told they were crazy for saying this. I remember it. Remember, Oh, you know when Trump said

that he was wire tap. Oh that's insane. No, no, they it was worse than a wire tap. They used Fizer power to go after carter Page. Remember it's one of Buck's ironclad rules of the Russia collusion fiasco. Anyone who tells you that carter Page should have been the subject of a Fiser request is either a liar or

a moron. No intelligent human being could sit down with Carter Page for five minutes, learn what happened with him, learn his story, hear him talk, and say, yeah, this guy was a threat to US national security of a FISA warrant. But there's a desperation on the left. Look at this. Not only was Trump able to defeat Hillary.

Trump was able to defeat Hillary with some of the most powerful elements of the federal bureaucracy and the government and the media actively working to lie about him, investigate him, and destroy him. And he still won. It's almost a miracle. I don't know how else to describe it. We've never come up against anything like this before, at least not

that we know of. We've never seen such an obvious and concerted effort for people who work in the government and journalists who are supposed to bring us the facts we know that's all a joke, trying to not just tip an election one way, but then undo the results afterwards,

and to weaponize the intelligence community in the process. The intelligence community is never never really going to be the same now, because it has been brought right into the center of this complete nightmare that the Trump administration has been dragged through. It was spying folks. That's what happened here.

The Democrats, the left spied on Trump, spied on his people, and then decided that the narrative that they had already set up was too useful, even when they knew that it was a fantasy to give up too helpful in trying to block Trump from achieving his goals, from delivering on his promises to not just Trump voters, but to the American people. We will never be able to calculate the damage that was done to this country over the last two years. The time, the energy, the resources, the

decision making, all of it. All of it just thrown on a bonfire of the left lunacy because they just can't handle that they lost that the left's vision for the country is not shared by a majority of the American people, that we don't want to be a socialist nation, that we don't want to be all woke and intersectional left, and that people have had enough of a pseudo elite class of political and media celebrities telling us what's right and what's wrong and how we should live our lives.

This was all a threat to their power. Trump has always been a threat to the media's sense of itself, to the Democrat establishment's sense of how they've been able to convince Republicans to just lose with dignity time and time again. Now they have to deal with a fighter and a person who will call them out. They didn't like that, and so they went scorched earth to take Trump down. Yes, my friends, they spied on the Trump

campaign without a legitimate basis to do so. If this had happened in some third world country, we would be hearing about how this was an attempted coup, how there should be referrals to the Hague perhaps for prosecution for you know, international meddling in elections. I mean, we'd hear all kinds of crazy things. But because it happened in this country, because Hillary Clinton and her allies and the Obama administration are read at the very heart of it,

they're saying, oh, no, it wasn't spying, you see. It was just highly sensitive, top secret surveillance of American citizens without giving them any due process, all pushed along not by a fear of a real national security threat, but by a fear of a polite utical threat, that political threat being Donald J. Trump. We have much more on this team. I'll be right back. It was an illegal investigation, it was started illegally. Everything about it was crooking, every

single thing about it. There were dirty cops. These were bad people. You look at McCabe and Colly, and you look at Lisa and Peter Struck. These were bad people. And this was a an attempted who This was an attempt to take down of a president, and we beat them. We beat them, absolutely true. It was an attempt to take down of a president. President Trump managed to endure. But that's that's not enough, just that recognition. Although, don't forget it. The Meatia is gonna try to make you

forget it. Don't let them get their way. Remember what was done here, Remember how they played the game. I think Barr is certainly going to remember. He's saying that he might spend some time investigating what the Intel agencies did in this whole process play sixteen. I think it's my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened. We have a

lot of rules about that. Chris Ray is a great partner for me. I'm very pleased that he's there as the director, and if it becomes necessary to look over some former officials activities, I expect that I'll be relying heavily on Chris and work closely with him and looking at that information. But that's what I'm doing. I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused. I mean, I think that's one of the principal roles of the attorney general. He makes such

an important point here. Democrats are so concerned about the intelligence agencies and did they do this wrong or that wrong? Usually Democrats are so critical of law enforcement. But oh no, no, let's not look into this, Let's not get any answers about the Russia collusion probe. Let's just move right past this. They say, let's talk about Medicare for all or something else not on Bill Barr's watch this guy. I'm telling you, I think he's going to get the answers, and the

answers he gets Democrats are going to hate it. Yes, I did, and he also has a fuller explanation of that in the report that I'll be making available hopefully next week. Did he express any expectation interest in leaving the obstruction decision to Congress, not that he didn't say that to me. Now, so he said the obstruction decision should be up to you. He didn't say that either, But that's generally how the Department of Justice works. A prosecutor's role, at the end of the day is binary.

Are there charges or no charges? Or is this a crime or not a crime? Have you overruled mister Muller or his team on any redaction question? No, one way or the other. No, have you discussed any specific redactions with the White House? No ru er. We're we're you know, pad Lahey, maybe maybe time to think about writing a memoir and spending more time with the family. I'm just saying more, we're we're. I think I think we've had enough pad Lahey and the Judiciary Committee for a very

very long time. He's he's he has been a politician for plenty. I think it's time for pad lay to maybe think about, you know, relaxing a little bit more. Anyway, you'll notice that they're trying to say it up some just just the basis for questioning what was done here, for the basis for questioning whether or not bar has been ethical, Has he bent any rules has he's done anything strange here at all? And the answers, of course, no, no,

no where, Well, rich Richard McConnell. Mitch McConnell is very clear on this point. He knows that they're do. They only have a few plays left. Democrats only have a few places they can go once this report finally gets dropped. A few places they can go, and one of them is going to be trying to trash Bar. They've already started that, but they're holding back on the full court press of Bar is terrible. You can't trust him, he's the worst. They're holding back on that until the report drops.

But Mitch McConnell's trying to get a little bit ahead of that play Cliff twelve. I trust the Attorney General to give us all of the information and that we need without revealing classified information or putting out the names of people whose reputations could be ruined who did nothing wrong. So I think it really gets down to a question whether you trust Bill Barr or not. And I do, and I think he will get us a report that is as open as possible, as soon as possible. It's

absolutely true on all accounts there. Look me, Mitch, McConnell's a sharp guy, and I think that, you know, conservatives do tend to give him a hard time and a lot of things because he's a he is a little bit of an easy Obviously, he is the political establishment in many ways. But his work on the judiciary alone and getting those judges through, getting conservative judges put on the federal bench across the country, that's going to have long lasting ramifications that he has been a rock star

on that. So you know, give credit where it's due, Mitch, and Mitch prevented the whole Merrick Garland fiasco from being something that we had to deal with for the next thirty years. So you know, there's there's a lot going on here that Mitch should get a little bit of a rounded applause for. But he knows that they're just gonna try to trash Bar. That's what's coming up next. And the way they're going to trash him is by saying that there's something in the there's some decisions that

were made in these redactions. Even though he's laid out yesterday, Bar laid out the four criteria, they're gonna color code them. They're gonna make it very clear and no one right now at least openly challenges that those redactions or redactions for those reasons are unnecessary or you know that they're not right. But you know they're gonna they're gonna have to do something here because the report's not going to

give them what they want. We already know that they're gonna they're the Democrats are desperate to squeeze something out of the reports. They can pretend that this hasn't all been a a total loss for them, but I think they're going to be quite disappointed. And as to the transparency part of this whole discussion, that's where you have to remember. You know, Congressman Nadler, who's gonna make a few He's gonna make a few appearances on the show today.

A lot of interesting action going on on Capitol Hill last couple of the last couple of days. But we did a little mash up for you of you know what, Congressman Nadler, depending on whether he wants the information, you know, depending on whether the information is damaging to Trump or not, Congressman Nadler is either for the release of the information or against it. There's no principle, there's no rules per se it's just Oh, I think this is bad for Trump.

It should be released. Oh this is good for Trump. No, no no, no, don't don't release that information playlip twenty four. We are demanding and we have a right to the Congress as a right to the entire report with no redactions whatsoever. Much of this material is Federal Rule six material that is material that, by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. We're entitled to see it because Congress represents the nation and Congress has to take action on any of it, So

we're entitled to see all of it. The entire Judiciary Committee is going to see it to decide what must be kept confidential. Is protecting privacy of third parties. That means fifty people are going to see it. It's going to leak out, and those privacy rights are going to be violated, and that is ensured by this resolution. He has said he will redact four classifications of information. Right. Our position is that he should retact none of it.

Statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. Oh wait, but before it was about Clinton, and so they wanted to keep it secret. Now it's about Trump, so it's all about transparency. Like these people, this is why you can't can't trust him, and he really can't take him seriously. I mean that they pose a serious threat to honesty and decency. But they're not.

They're not, as as it turns out, individuals of any real integrity, certainly not Nadler and some of his cohorts and all this stuff. So well, we'll see how this all shakes out. We'll see what ends up going on here. I I do think though, that we should have an expectation that the Democrats are going to try everything that they can to undermine Bar and to make it seem like he's been a bad guy here. And Bar knows that, which is why he brought Mueller along. Muller's a part

of the redaction process. But it doesn't matter. Though. They're gonna lie about this stuff if they have to, They'll they'll find a way to try to make him look bad. They're gonna find a way to at least create a narrative for the MSNBC. Trump deranged that there's something nefarious

going on here, when there's just not. What's nefarious, as we have been discussing, is that there was an effort at essentially a soft coup, using the FBI, the intelligence agencies, some journalists, an OPA researcher, and the DNC to try to frame President Trump, which is what this was. This was framing the President United States. This is the biggest political scandal of my life. There's nothing else that even comes close, and we need to speak about it in

those terms because that's what happened. When I talk about a political revolution, I know this sound radical to some people, but we're all going to create an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the one percent. So to answer you a question, were all going to do away with those outrageous loopholes that allow large corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in this to pay nothing in taxes. We're going to end their ability to put their money in the Cayman Islands

under the taxapments. The millionaires and the billionaires. Bernie Sanders doesn't like him. Millionaires and billionaires running around with all that money landing on fire just to stay warm. Oh, here's a stock of hundreds. I'm a little cold. Maybe I'll warm my hands with it. Maybe I'll just put some lighter fluid on it, increase climate change, and I just burn a couple of mill right here, because I'm a millionaire, maybe even a billionaire. Turns out that Bernie's

a millionaire, Oh what a shock. As we discussed yesterday, he's one of these he's one of these classic socialists who wants to advocate now now that he has a net worth in the millions of dollars, he's happy to advocate for higher income taxes on everybody else so he can push the social programs he wants. And remember, it's not just you know, the tax code is not just about the funding of government and the redistribution of well

through the government mechanisms that are essentially welfare programs. Right, that's all certainly part of it, But it's also about what you can use the tax code to either encourage or discourage. You know, there are ways that you can use the tax code that are effectively tools of policy that don't really have much to do at all with balancing the budget, or rather that aren't first and foremost

about balancing the budget funding different programs. You know, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and it's one that the democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders want to have firmly entrenched in their hands. But you know, Sanders has had some problems in the past because he ran for president in twenty fifteen but only released a single year's tax return for twenty fourteen. Now, why is that?

We all know why that is? Because when Bernie's run around the billionaires, the billionaires, you know, they're just all these these fat cats like Scrooge McDuck. You ever see him. He's a duck with a top hat who swims around that a giant vault of gold coins. Very greedy, very very greedy. Bernie's run around saying that meanwhile, Bernie's got more wealth than ninety nine percent of the country. Bernie's a one percenter, folks. It's a deep, dark, little secret

of the burn. He is a one percenter. And yet he talks all the time about how people you know, are just a wealthy or getting wealthier. And this guy's got three houses and he wants to be a socialist. Now, if he wants to be a socialist, then have three houses. I just would like to understand what that's supposed to mean. For people who are making fifty thousand dollars a year, but who under a Bernie Sanders government, if he had his way, would be paying sixty percent of that income

and taxes. They're never gonna have three houses now, making fifty grand paying sixty percent taxes. No three houses for you. Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite as we know. I mean, there's something deeply fraudulent about someone who could you know he could give his money, He could give the proceeds from his book, which is always says he's made most of his money to charity to fighting climate change. He only want to do that. He likes to keep his money. You are the ones who are supposed to be given

up your money. And he's not the only one who is running far left for the Democrat primary, but somehow thinks that the rules of wealth re distribution should not apply to him. You also have Elizabeth Warren out there who made for her last year attack. I think she released ten years at tax returns. But and she has raised six million dollars. Why doesn't she redistribute that to other people in the race. I think she should have

to read stripute that money. But she's on the want to hand Elizabeth Warren pitching a wealth tax, while we also find out she made just shy of a million dollars for twenty eighteen. You know, her and her husband made nine hundred thousand dollars in income, three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars in book sales, and her husband earned four hundred thousand dollars from Harvard. I mean, these people are well off. I mean by any global standard,

even by American standards, They're they're wealthy. They're not rich, but they're definitely wealthy. And she's saying that she that we should have a wealth tax. Now, how would a wealth tax even be enforced? What would you do about this? Would you force somebody who's what if all your net worth is if you're a farmer, let's say, and all your net worth is essentially the land that you live on and farm in order to get income, are you gonna start to have to parcel up that land and

sell it off? Is that what a wealth tax would be? Are there's going to be a limit on this wealth tax? So okay, where's the limits supposed to be? You know, you'll notice that this is true of a lot of journalists and people in academia who have these positions that where they're essentially unfiable, where they have the right politics to get the job, which is one of the most important requirements. You've got to be a leftist leftist if you want to be a journalist leftist, you want to

be a college professor. And you get a two household income of journalists or college professors, you know you're making a half million dollars a year, more or less. But there's a lot of resentment from the left wing half a million dollars year intelligentsia toward the kind of people that are making ten twenty and fifty million dollars a year or one hundred million dollars a year, which is not that many people do that, but there are some.

They view them as, you know, their earnings are egregious. You know, a half a million a year is not egregious. That's what they say, and that's what they believe. I always remember when John Kerry and producer Mike and fact check me on this, when John Kerry when he was running for president. You know, a guy who's essentially lived off of the divorce proceeds of money made by other men.

I mean, that's what's funded John Kerry's whole life. And yet when Carry was running for president against Bush, I think he paid something like seven percent income tax because all of it was just privileged and tax advantaged investment income. So you know, he's paying seven percent on a few million dollars of passive income and lecturing the rest of us. But how our taxes should go up? And this is

what democrats do. They think that because they have these pure motives, that the hypocrisy of what they want for themselves versus what they want for you shouldn't really matter. Well, I think it matters a lot. You know what else We're going to find out if we see the Burns taxes. Bernie Sanders, I can almost guarantee. I mean this is a guest, but I feel very confident about this. Bernie Sanders, the socialist who cares so much about the poor, cares

so much about people in the struggle. Bernie Sanders does not give much money to charity. I'm telling you I can see it right now. Look, let'll give money to charity. The charity comes from the government. Want to take all your money from the millionaires, the billionaires. We're gonna follow the money the charities, and by charity I mean government programs. They're gonna employ bureaucrats who take a huge cut off the top and then do very low level, third year

kind of work to help poor people. That's his version of charity, Taxing you more and creating more government programs to give money to people based on what the government thinks they should get, and to have a whole layer of waste on top of that, a people that are administering administering those those funds that are taken from you. I am telling you Bernie Sanders not a charitable guy. I don't think Elizabeth Warren you're go to see a

much charity either. Now, it's always been a knock on Trump that you know that people say that he doesn't give enough money to charity and the Trump Foundation bought an oil painting of him. I know all this stuff. But you know, Trump is the guy who's the capitalist. Trump is the one who's run around saying that we all need to pay our fair share. That's these people, that's Sanders, that's Warren, and they don't want to pay

their fair share. They just want YouTube. And this is this is a fundamental flaw in redistributive economics, is that the people that are always pushing this or the rest of us don't want to live with it themselves, maybe because there's something wrong with taking from people to give

to other people. Because you say so, Bernie, the Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russian investigation, and I expect that that will be complete in probably in May or June. I am told more generally, I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted

during the summer of twenty sixteen. Attorney General bar reviewing the conduct of the FBI's investigation into non existent Russia Trump collusion. Will we finally get answers? Here are my friends? I was seeing some nervous stuff on Twitter today from some of the journals who are part of this whole hoax in the mainstream media. What can we expect next? We're joined by an expert on this matter, our friend Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst and author of the

bestselling The Russia Hoax. Greg. Great to have you back, hey, Bud. Great to be with you, So what are your expectations? I mean today, Bar And he's not a guy with a lot of BLUs, you know, he's not somebody who's prone to overstatement. He's been in this game a while. He's a professional. But he seemed to make it pretty clear to folks who are listening then paying attention to that hearing that there could be a reckoning of a reckoning to come here. They might be looking at the investigators,

what are your expectations for where this is going? Well, Barr has a reputation for being an honest, honorable guy, and he cares deeply about the rule of law, and that means nobody's above the laws. He stated today on the Senate side, he said, look, this is my job. If there's an abusive power, I'm duty bound to examine it and hold those people accountable. And of course he said today that he believes spying on the Trump campaign did occur. The question is was it adequately predicated, meaning

did the law justify it? And was the law followed? If there was unauthorized surveillance, that's potentially a crime. But he you know, he said, today's spine on a political campaign is a big deal. So bar is taking this seriously now when we look at what happened here with the FISA process, and fisas something that I'm familiar with

from my time at the CIA. So there was always this sense, Greg that nobody would abuse And this just comes out of the Post nine to eleven mentality and no. Fives has been around for a lot longer than that. But it really used to just be about finding spies in the United States. I mean, that was the primary

reason for FISA. And then when the Counter Terrors the mission Post nine to eleven became the primary national security mission of the United States government, FISA took on a whole kind of new problem, set on a whole new meaning. But there was always this, well, no one's ever going to abuse FISA because it's only for these two really important things, getting spies who are in the US and

stopping terrorists and terror as plots. How confident are you that if we see the redacted information used to get for example, the carter page finds the surveillance warrant, that we're going to see that this system was abused And

what should we be looking for. Well, I we need to examine all of it, and the basis the justification for their seeking an intrusion under the Fourth Amendment of somebody's privacy rights Carter Pages and in turn, to the extent he was associated with a Trump campaign, Donald Trump's First Amendment rights to free speech in his privacy rights. Look, it appears to me, based on the redacted version of the FISA warrants from the FBI and the Department of Justice,

that they concealed vital evidence and deceived the judges. They didn't tell them about exculpatory evidence they had, which the law requires them to advise the court of They didn't tell who was pain for the dossier, Hillary Clinton campaign and Democrats that would be vital information. They didn't tell the court that the information which was based on this phony dossier was unverified. At that point, the law is very specific. You may never submit unverified information to affine

a court. If the judges had known the truth of all of that, they would never have issued a warrant to spy on Carter Page and so, as I explained in my book The Russia Hoax, that constitutes arguably six different felonies deprivation of rights under color of law, perjury, false statements, conspiracy, to defraud fraud on the court. These are serious felonies, and there were five individuals who signed off on these four successive warrants, and so the question

becomes did they break the law? And it looks like both the Inspector General at the Department of Justice as well as the Attorney General will be examining that. Speaking to Fox News, legal analyst Greg Jarrett, also author of the excellent book The Russia Hoax, Greg, what are what are the big You know we're about to get the report. I mean it could be within a matter of just a few days. Here. People are saying next week we're

going to see the report. There'll still be some redactions in it, but it'll give us a really good sense of what happened here with this investigation. But based on what Barr was saying today on Capitol Hill about how he thinks there were spying going on here, I mean, I think at this point we can say there was spying going on. The only question, I mean, spying on the Trump campaign. It's just a matter of was it authorized spying or not? Or was it an abusive authority?

And to your point, was it perhaps criminal in nature not just bad judgment? Inside of the FBI, the dj and perhaps elsewhere. But what are the big questions? You know, you've been covering this for a long time and you've been following it in detail. What are the big questions you want answers to. Well, I argue in the book there was never any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia

to steal the presidential election. So the first big question is upon what basis did you have to launch the investigation? July thirty first of two thousand and sixteen, if you look at the testimony of FBI lawyer Lisa Page, released about three weeks ago, she admitted that they really didn't have any evidence at all. You know, I lay out in my book the FBI guidelines and regulations for when you can and cannot launch an investigation, and they clearly,

in my judgment, violated their regulations. They launched a dilating investigation of Trump driven by personal animus and political bias. If they did that, they are arguably committing crimes. And so, you know, I think that's the first big question that the Attorney General wants answered. And all you have to do is look at the text messages between Peter Struck and Lisa page, which speaks to the question of was political bias motivating and driving this investigation of Trump to

help Hillary Clinton and harm Trump? And the answer to me is yes. Just read the texts. There are some very important parts of the timeline, and you you mentioned one of them here that the investigation into Russia Trump collusion begins July thirty, first, twenty sixteen. But when was This is just really for the benefit of our audience and to make sure that I'm also tracking this properly.

In terms of the timeline, the Carter page FISA application did not come till later on, right, So what I mean? I know you said there was no evidence, but what was supposed to be the evidence? I mean, how did they get this thing started? Was it really just based on the dossier and Popidopolis? How do you think that they got this thing up and running. Popidopolis was a red hearing, a diversion that the FBI through to the New York Times, which swallowed it hook line and sinker.

It's silly and ludicrous to think that, you know, popid Appolis hearing a multiple hearsay rumor constituted sufficient evidence and probable cause for an investigation. No, it was based on this anti Trump dossier that was conjured the fertile imaginations of two nefarious characters, an ex British spy Christopher Steele

and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. And it was commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, and then it was peddled all over Washington to journalists, the FBI, the State Department, the Department of Justice. I mean, this thing spread like an airborne contagion, and the premise of it was really a rout and it was as outlandish as the actions of those that the FBI and others who advanced it. You know, remember that Steel was fired

by the FBI for line and went into hiding. Simpson eventually invoked the Fifth Amendment and clammed up. There were never any credible facts when the FBI wrongfully launched its collusion investigation. Do you think there will be accountability on this matter? We do have bar speaking in a warthright manner about it today on Capitol Hill. It looks like all the signs that I know you deal with this in your book, the Russia Hoax, but all the signs

point to this being orchestrated by anti Trump elements. Within the government and in the media, as well as the Democrat Party working together to create this this perfect storm to try to take the president down. But are we going to see anyone who was on that side of the equation. We've seen people around Trump who had nothing to do with Russia collusion get jammed up just in the gears of the investigation itself and get hit with

either tax fraud charges or lying under oath charges. Are there going to be any charges against the people that try to soft coup against the president the United States? Well, there should be, and you know, the Clinton case and the Trump case, or a tale of two cases. There were five individuals close to Hillary Clinton who were given immunity in exchange for nothing, and several of them not

only obstructed justice but lied. And Komy in his testimony, admitted that some of those immunized people that were close to Clinton had lied, and he sort of shrugged it off and said, well, you know, we toss it up to sort of failed recollections. No, they deliberately lied, and

in some cases documents proved they lied. Juxtaposed the Trump case, you know, if you so much or shake hands or wave at Donald Trump, the full force of the federal government, the Department of Justice and FBI comes down hard on you. You know, Michael Flynn didn't really lie. The FBI agents who interviewed him said he told the truth, and yet he was charged with lying, and under pressure, he caved in and pled guilty. So you know, there is a double tiered system of justice in America, one for the

Clintons and another one for Trump and everybody else. And so I am optimistic that those who broke the law will be held accountabile. Just look at James Coming. He stole government documents, leaked them to the media for the purpose of triggering the appointment of a special council. Will

happened to be his longtime friend, partner and ally. I mean, if you harbor any doubts about the complete lack of evidence when Robert Muller was appointed, just read the closed door testimony of Comey and Lisa Page, and their admissions will stun you. It didn't surprise me when Mueller reached the conclusion that there was no collusion, because there never was any to begin with. Greg Jared, everybody Fox News legal analysts check out his book If Villa Want Amazon

Right now. The Russia hoax. Greg always great to have you, sir, Thank you Buck, my pleasure. Thanks. Team will be right back. Well, here's what Biden is up against. Here's how it may keep coming back and back and back. This is a meme that was created by a semi anonymous man from Kansas City. From Kansas people did, and then the Trump world posted it, and then the president himself he posted on Twitter it's Biden fling a funny meme. On another level,

this is how politics has waves. This thing. These are the meme wars in action. Do you think Democrats understand what they're up against? Because there was a Mother Jones hub on the other day saying the right wing media machine is much more effective. Step Bran still that Brad steps there, It's gonna be a headache the baby bloods the Democrat Did they realize the forest is the babes

that are kidding up against it? But it just I just didn't really understand if the babes they're gonna be like really like mead and like mead meme to make me cry, that'll like the beab mebs. Just somebody like said, hey, Bran Stubt there, why are you like Minni Jeff Zucker and why is your bald head show shiny? I just you know, why do people say these things? Oh man to have a show at CNN where you just get to be like, hey, do whatever you want. I just

here to be a check of the media. Make sure that you know the media is a check done thing and bit it's amazing. I don't know. I can't tell if um, I can't tell if the real problem here is that there are people who manage to excel the media despite having no apparent talent or ability, or maybe that's something that should inspire the rest of us, right, like we could be you know, if bands out there, it could have a show that's here, he's like hey here, yeah, you know, they got to be paid him a half

a million year, maybe maybe more. Um, if that can happen for him, I could you know, happen for any number of folks, right, So I should I think we should all be inspired by it. That. Speaking of people who go on CNN, there's a woman by the name of Vinograd, Sam Vinagrad who once referred to my Twitter count that's something that a Russian bot would come up with, which I thought was was both amusing and incredibly stupid

at the same time. She was a collusion truther all along and still still seems to be UM and has not been in any way chastened. She's a national security analyst over at CNA. They put her on to talk about these things. She's not particularly insightful or or interesting on any national security topic. I mean, if you're ever curious, I'll tell I'll tell you who goes on TV and knows knows their stuff and knows what they're talking about.

Um left and right, Because there are some leftists who are knowledgeable about these issues, they just are wrong in their judgment. Vieta grad doesn't strike me as one of them. But she decided a wax philosophical on immigration. Immigration came up for her, and this was just a great moment in CNN, because you know, we're at the OBABA DNC network,

we're just bad journalism. This is their national security analyst explaining how, Okay, maybe Obama did separate a means at the border, but I mean, you know, it was like for their own good play clip Wood. And when President Obama separated children from their family's wealth or from adult's wealth, it was for their protection. It was if there was a risk of trafficking or other kind of harm that might have been incurred. But even if he did do that,

why is Donald Trump saying that two wrongs make it right? Again? Obama wasn't wrong, But so he's saying that because something happened under President Obama, he's repeating in upping the AMPTY. That is an incredibly poor excuse. He is systemized that in humane treatment that again Obama was doing protective. Well, Trump has to do that too to protect the children, because you don't know if someone's being human traffic just because someone shows up with them and says, that's my

you know, this is my child. You don't know. You got to separate them. All those systems are overwhelmed, so now they can't even process them. So now they're just letting them into the country. But the reason that Trump points us out is because the way Democrats try to seize the moral high ground for creating what is effectively an open border and supporting it and stymying, stopping at every turn the President's efforts to try and get control

over the border. They just say, oh, family separation. He's a monster, He's basically hitler family separation. Well, I'm sorry, you don't get to say that Trump's a monster and basically Hitler as a Democrat for doing something that Obama did. And there were there were things that the Obama administration put into place in terms of kids in cages, and all these different policies and procedures that Trump is really

just has inherited. And we still are we you know, we're allowed to do everything except and force the laws with consequences at the borders. That's where Democrats are on the line. Oh yeah, sure, we believe in the law, just no consequences. Here's the problem, there's no consequences. Then,

you know what is also true, there's no laws. Anybody who can look at me with a straight face and tell me that they know what happens to those young children once they're released into the United States is law. It's wishful thinking that they're Oh, they're united with family members and sponsors, and they're gamefully employed and life is life is wonderful, roses and lollypops. After that, you don't know where they are. You don't know if who's human trafficked,

who's murdered, who's with a gang. I've got girls fourteen, eleven, and nine. They are with all three of them within the range of the girls being pumped with birth control and pregnancy tests. Because we know this journey is parallels, stop lying and start doing Galli and Comma makes very important point there. Not only do we not know when the family unit chope of the border that they're actually families.

We just we don't know that, and we know there are recycling rings for the children, but beyond that, we also know that, or rather we don't know. We know that we don't know once they get in the United States, we have no idea what's going on placing them with sponsor families. You know, this isn't supposed to be the job of the government. This is what people keep forgetting. This is is not supposed to be really our problem. This is really not supposed to be our problem. We're

supposed to have laws. Wherever you show up at the border, you're supposed to be it's sorry, turned around, not allowed to be here. It's called sovereignty and rule of law.

See you later. Thanks. Unfortunately that's not the system we have that our border is collapsing because of the exploitation of the kindness and the large ess of the American people are willingness to take people in to make sure that even non Americans get all the due process anybody could ever dream of, and make sure that they're safe and fed and warm while in this country and waiting for that dude process. You know, that's all being exploited.

You know, this is like, you know, imagine if you show up at a soup kitchen, which I'm sure many of you listen to this dude, and you know you're helping people to the soup kitchen, giving them food. People down their lock, they need a little bit of assistance. You want to get them a good hot meal. You want to encourage some people maybe to try to get back on their feed. And you know it's a good

Christian kind thing to do. But imagine, imagine when you find out that the person that you've been serving at the at the soup kitchen follows you home and says, hey, I'm just gonna take this, uh this spare room. I'm gonna I'm gonna sleep here. You're not using it. Let's say to yourself, well, hold on a second, I mean, I'm I'm I'm trying to be a decent person here trying to help you out, and I want to make sure that you know you're okay and you're fed. But

I didn't offer you a room in my house. No, no, no, no no, it's fine, it's fine. I just I'm just gonna take this room. Don't worry about you won't even know I'm here most of the time. What do you are you Are you gonna be inhumane? Are you gonna kick me out on the street? I mean I need a place to sleep. That's what the American people are being, uh shown right now that that exploitation of our of our kindness as a people is what is going on

at the border. Make no mistake about it. This is people who are following us home from the soup kitchen saying they want to room in our house. Huh. It's not the way it's supposed to be. And the numbers are just showing that is a scam. One part of this that I don't think people here nearly enough is that the media and the government in countries like Guatemala, Honduras and Al Salvador, they're also they're fanning the flames of this conflagration at our border. They're making this worse

for us because they want people. Who does anyone really think that what's happening is you have you know, brain surgeons and college professors and engineers who are on foot and entrusting themselves to the coyotes over this journey. And no, of course not. These are overwhelmingly very poor, uneducated, non English speaking people, and they're going to require a lot of assistance, a lot of help, and a lot of you know, extra government and state attention. This is a fact.

It's just a fact. We all know this, and that that's why that the numbers matter so much, because the long term implications and long term costs of this are going to be astonishingly high. It's not gonna be These are not gonna be net contributors to the economy. If that were the case, why are there so many developed first world countries that have very strict immigration requirements that

are meant to bring people in on merit. Whatever happened to that, We're just going to skip right past that now. It's now our immigration system is all show up at the border and say that you're scared when you really just want a job, or you want welfare benefits or family, you know, chain migration. Those are the two. That's how we're picking most of our immigrants down this country. Y, that's not the system that the American people think they're getting.

Kelly and Comway also gets this part of it. The numbers really speak for themselves. Play thirteen the fiscal years so far, we've had one hundred and four of these one hundred and four so called caravans with at least one hundred people. Two years ago, in fiscally year twenty seventeen we at exactly two. We've gone from two to one hundred and four. Stop denying what you see in

front of you. We've got people still searching for the elusive collusion, and we'll deny what's right in front of them, which is over one hundred thousand migrants presented at the border just last month alone. That was a thirty five percent jump from February from the month before. The flow is different for years, really a decade ago. Most of them were single males coming from Mexico and you can

return them very easily to their home country. Now you have eight thousand or so unaccompanied minors last month, you have the family units from the Northern Triangle countries. It's a perilous journey. It is a security any humanitarian crisis at the border, vanitarian crisis at the border, that's what we've got going on. That is what is happening here. It's also a security crisis. It's also a crisis of the rule of law. Democrats are fine with all this.

Democrats don't seem to have a problem with it. As we know, they encourage it. And I would note that the caravans are are not just that we're told. It's usually reported that they're so people can come and they can be safe, but also the mass surrenders that happen, those are happening for meaning that people they say present, I mean they're being detained. They're a crossing illegally in the United States. Even if you show up not at a port of entry and say hey, here I am,

and you walk into America, that's illegal. You've broken the law. They're presenting themselves and then they're detained. The reason that they're sometimes showing up in groups of one hundred, three hundred, five hundred is because one the cartels are controlling all this, making a ton of money off of it, and they know that when they have a group of that size, there's such an immediate drain on border patrol resources that you can essentially sneak anything across the border at that

point that you want. That's one big component of this, and the other it's just that it further overwhelms a system. You gotta remember that. I've seen these processing facilities and I've been to the one in El Paso where you have people living under a brit and not living sleeping for two days under a bridge overpass surrounded by you know, chain link fence, and you know, if you bring in enough people, they have to do triage with who's sick,

who has an infant, who has immediate needs. And so if you're trying to sneak into the country, if you are recycling a child or human trafficking or doing any of these things, you want to go in with a big group because they just they're overwhelmed with trying to process them and they're just going to move people through as fast as they can. So there's a strategy behind these caravans. It's not it's not just for self preservation. The cartels are utilizing it, and there are some bad actors.

I can tell you that in these groups who have been deported multiple times they've they're you know, showing up with the child, and now whether the child is theirs or not, they know they're gonna be let into the United States. Don't have any answers for how to solve this one yet. I'm I'm working on it. At least now the nation has fixed much of its attention. The

news cycle is dominated by this border issue. But as long as you have the Ninth Circuit running defense for the open borders left, and you have Democrats completely unwilling to take any meaningful enforcement measure against, you know, infrastructure is not enough. We're not just trying to make the pathway easier, bigger, and faster for people to just flood into the country who aren't actually legal immigrants. That's not what we're trying to do. That's all Democrats want to do.

We'll continue to fight on this one. I'm I get frustrated with it. I get frustrated because we know what the truth is, but so many people are just either lying or delusional. The issue is it's the NR and it's greed. The n RAY is largely funded by the gun manufacturers. The gun manufacturers want to make money at all costs. It doesn't matter who they're selling the gun too. The reason why they are against universal background checks is they want to sell a weapon to somebody on the

terror watch list. They want to sell a weapon to someone gravely mentally ill with a violent background. They want to sell a weapon to someone with a criminal conviction for a violent crime. Kirsten Gillibrand, I don't know if she's just completely cynical or a total moron. I can't tell. I go back and forth, but everything that she just said there is false. I mean, I mean, you could go through it. And that was during a CNN town hall.

Apparently CNN claims to be able to tell the difference between an apple and a banana, but they can't tell when someone's nuts. Everything she said there was false. Every statement she made was factually demonstrably true. Let's go through them for a moment, where all the Pinocchio, Washington Post fact checker people, huh, where's Snopes and this and that fact checker on what Jillibrand is saying here, All of a sudden, you notice how these people focus so much

on guns in this campaign. Rhetoric number three hundred million guns in this country. This is just all virtue signaling they're not serious about stopping Well, they think that by harassing legal gun owners with additional paperwork and restrictions on magazine capacity. Does Kirsten Jill Ban really Is she so dumb that she thinks that's going to stop all the homicides and or stop any homicides in the south and West Chicago? I don't think so. So why don't you

say this stuff? Because the good people don't like guns? You see, that's what the left believes. The good people think guns are scary, guns go bang, guns are bad. That's all they need, That's all they need to know. Oh and more importantly, perhaps now people who own guns with bad people and the people that you know, believe in traditional America and church and God and freedom and the Founding Fathers and oh all that yucky stuff. Those people also tend to like guns. So that's why she

says this. But let's just let's just for a moment, just because we're all about getting things right here, we're all about the facts. Let's just for a moment take a look at what she said. Wants to sell people sell guns to people on the terror watch list. The terror watch list, I mean, it depends on. First of all, what she's really talking about. If you are not a citizen, you are not allowed. I mean, if you're not if you're in this country on a visa, you're not buying

a gun. So who are you really talking about? The terror watch list? Also, if you are a citizen and you're on a watch list, yeah, should you lose your constitutional rights and have no means of redress for them? Because that's the situation on the watch list right now. You know, we're talking about the no fly list, the terror watch list. You know, she's just using all these things interchangeably. But that's just fearmongering, no idea. What the

heck she's talking about? Gravely mentally ill with a violent background. Nobody in the NRA, and I know people who are in the senior leadership ranks the NRA, I know. I mean, I myself have been an NRA member. Although I'm not gonna lie, I think my dues might elapse recently, but I have been an NRA member on the past. I should probably just become a lifetime member and get it over with. I just realized as I was on air here that I think I need to send in my

NRA dues for this year. My bad, a little, a little late in the game. But nonetheless, the the NRA is not funded by the gun companies. The NRA is founded by its is funded rather by its members. And the NRA does not want people who are gravely mentally ill with a violent background to get a gun. And there are already laws that prevent people. It is already a felony. If you have been involuntarily committed or determined mentally unfit by a judge, then yeah, then then you

can't have a gun. And also criminals convicted for a violent crime. I mean, I'm assuming see she'd probably say, well, you know, not all violent crimes or felonies, but criminals convicted of a violent crime and people convicted convicted of domestic violence, they cannot own guns. Felons by definition cannot, as a matter of federal law, cannot own a gun. So does anyone care that she's just making stuff up? Does anyone care that she just lies and lies and lies?

I mean, at this CNN town hall, everyone's just eating it up. You know, Aaron Brunett, who is a stunningly successful mediocrity. I do not understand what is going on there. At all. I don't, I really don't. Um, but she's she's running this town hall. They seem to have no problem with all this stuff that was being said there by Kirson Jilla Brand, all all the lies, all the nonsense, and uh, this is just what we're up against, speaking of nonsense, fact checks, things that people should be aware

of that they're not aware of. See, you've got Maxine Waters, who, by the way, producer Mike is Maxine, the one who is Congresswoman Water is the one who President Trump has said is low iq or is that is that that member congressor as mixing it up with another one. Oh yeah, he calls her low iq, right right, that's okay, that's what I thought. Yeah, he calls her low iq Maxine. Now, people get very mad about that, and they say that's not fair, it's mean, it's people will say it is

it is racist for Trump to say that. But you know, I will just be very clear on this. It is possible for people of any race to be stupid. It is possible for every person of any ethnic background to be done, white, everything else, you name it. There are dumb people that we all know this, right, So calling someone dumb is not racist. Calling someone dumb because they're dumb is just a statement of fact or an observation maybe, if not a statement of fact, an obvious observation has

nothing to do with race. And it is not fair for people to say that about President Trump when he's talking about Maxie Waters, because Maxie Waters does say some really, really dumb stuff. Today she was doing her thing on Capitol Hill and the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, remember that, seemed to forget something about student loans. Talking about student loans? Is hearing's going on here? Play clip twenty five please? Today they are more than forty four

million Americans that, oh, this is student loan crisis. One point five six trillion in student loan debt. Last year, one million student loan bars defaulted, which is on top of the one million barriers who default the year before. What are you guys doing to help us with the student loan debt? Who would like to answer first, mister Monahan, Big bang, we'd stopped making student loans in two thousand and seven or so, Oh, so you don't do it anymore.

Mister Carbett, We actually did student lending in two thousand and nine. Mister Diamond, when the government took over student lending in twenty ten or so, we stopped doing all student lending. She doesn't know it's been almost a decade since these banks got pushed out of the student loan business. Mike, how is this possible? Tears of joy and not joy? It say, tears of laughter. We're coming out of my eyes. As I was cut, I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

That's right, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee. Who's who's smarter, Mike, Maisie Herrono or Maxine Waters or the hard wood that's my desk is made out of. I'll go with the hard wood that my desk is made out of. I think that's smarter than both of them. Are our three's coming up? Of all the people that Republicans could have selected, they picked Candice Owens. I don't know miss Owens. I'm not going to characterize her. I'm

gonna let her own words through the talking. So I'm gonna play for you the first thirty seconds of a statement she made about Adolf Hitler. I agree. I actually don't have any problems at all with the word nationalism. I think that it gets the definition gets poisoned by a ladist that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I

don't want. So when you think about whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about in at least in America as Hitler, you know, he was a national socialist. But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run, well, okay, fine. Problem is that he wanted he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking Germany.

That was from today, and that was the clip that was played by Ted lew at a House Judiciary committee on online hate speech. That got very testy today because you have Ted Lu, who's he's mister like left wing woke member of Congress now and things got testy because ted Lu, during this hearing on hate speech, decided to

play that clip. Now, now let's before we get into Candice's full on body slam of Lu, which was amazing and great and very thankful that Candice took the position she did and threw down in the way that she did. But before I let you just enjoy that glorious moment with me, what is Ted Lu really trying to say, here is his position. I mean, this is this is the level of intellectual dishonesty, the degree of a lack of seriousness in their arguments and in their position that

democrats show all the time. Is it really is his position? His belief that Candice Owens, a black female American conservative, is pro Hitler? Is that really? What? Is that what ted Lew is selling? Because I think that's what he's selling.

I think this is what he's trying to This is the point he's trying to make it by pulling that clip and playing it there when Cannis was trying to have a discussion about nationalism and how nationalism has a negative connotation versus patriotism, when really nationalism and patriotism are in many ways very similar things. I mean, you know, there's there's some nuance in the definitional difference, but the nuance is really a difference of connotation, not of hardcore meaning.

And that's what she's trying to say. And it's because of who people think of as the greatest nationalist. I mean, if you really want to talk about the the you know, the the ultra nationalists of history, you've got people like you know, Napoleon and Stalin and Hitler, and you know, these are people that are thought of as ultra nationals. Always an interesting side note, they all came from the

fringes of their national identities. Just by way of a little historical digression here, Napoleon came from Corsica, not from mainland France island in the Mediterranean. Stalin came from Georgia, not from Russia, which is really a province of the Russian what was the Russian Empire, and then of course the Soviet Union. And Hitler came from Austria, not from Germany,

which people often forget. Nonetheless, and that this reminds me of a line I think it was a Christopher Hitchins line that the greatest trick the Austrians ever pulled was convincing the world that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Viennese. So what is Ted Loose saying. You're saying that Candice Owens is Hitler. I guess I don't know. But Candice, whom I've worked with before, had on my show and seen when you poke, you poke, Candice, You're better be ready.

You better be ready for it. And this is how that turned out. For Congressman lou Today. Please play it. It's pretty apparent that mister Luke believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety. He purposely presented an extractive clip. We acus will suspend for a moment. It is not proper to refer disparagingly or to a member the committee. The witness will not do that. Again. Witness may not refer to a member the committee is stupid. I didn't refer to

him as stupid. That's not what I said. That's not what I said at all. You didn't listen to what I said. He is assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two hour clip, and he purposefully extracted, he cut off, and you didn't hear the question that

was asked of me. He's trying to present as if I was launching a defensive Hitler in Germany, when in fact, the question that was asked of me was returning to what or not I believed in nationalism and that nationalism was bad, And when I responded to was that I do not believe that we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal psychopathic meniac that killed his own people. He purposely wanted to give you a cut up, similar to what they do to Donald Trump,

to create a different narrative that was unbelievably dishonest. And she goes on and on slapping around some of these Democrat members of Congress today and man, did they ever deserve it? They deserved it. This is one of the

more disgraceful trends in American politics. You see this with Democrats now just saying that anything that is conservative or anything that is right wing is synonymous with white nationalism, that when people talk about a focus on America first, that is inherently some kind of a racist dog whistle, and Cans a very effective messenger on this issue, which she's like, this just needs to stop these approaches to discourse that are just meant to shackle free thought. It

can't be allowed to continue. It's wrong. It's wrong when it does to people. It's wrong to imprison people's minds by telling them that if they don't agree with what the Democrats are forced feeding them, they must be racist, it must be they must be evil. And especially it's you know when you add into this that they're telling people who aren't white, who don't believe in all of the allegations all the time that Trump is a white nationalist, that white supremacy is the you know, is at the

heart of so much of American life. I mean, all of just exaggerated, irresponsible nonsense that Democrats spiel a the time. If you're a minority and you don't buy into this, the left just despises you. The left just wants to do everything they can to make your life miserable because to them, it is completely unacceptable to be non white. And to refute this belief that the left is trying to foist in the American people that all things conservative and all things on the right are really just a

cover for synonymous with somehow related to white supremacy. It is an absolute smear. It is a slur, and that's one you're going to see a lot more of, um, a lot more of going forward, by the way, you know, Nadler, because that's one of the things that Democrats are going to do is just trying to make twenty twenty a referendum on racism. Are you a racist? No vote vote Democrat? That's what they're gonna say, because you vote for Trump,

You're you're a racist. That that's really the extent of the argument that they're gonna they're gonna wage for many, many people. Nadler, by the way, has a habit of cutting off people. Producer Mike pointed out to me, this was a in a in a Mike, what was this hearing on the Jewish activist Morton Klein calling out Omar? Is this also on the hate speech right? Yeah, it's the same hearing. It just took place a little earlier

in the day, so um, yeah, same hearing. Well, what a different time of das here, let's hear what Congressman Nadler does when he starts to hear things from a witness that he doesn't like. Play Club five Zooey's letter to City University. If we want to stop hate, to stop institutions from supporting Cantoni ga, I don't know how much time I have your your your forty eight seconds over. Well, but I was stopped. I was stopped with the outburst.

With the outburst ahead, I have something very very important to say. I was horrified to see Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer defend Representive Omar after her vicious anti Semitic remarks, I press gentleman's time is expired. Miss Owens. That was unfair. It was not unfair. You had plenty of extra time. No, not,

miss Owens. You remember the chairman agreeing to give you an extra thirty seconds because of the interruption that you experienced during your opening statement, And then do you remember being gabbled down by the chairman once you began speaking of the anti semitic remarks by a member of Congress. We've just timed this. You only got twelve seconds. I have thirty seconds left, and so I'm going to give you those thirty seconds that you were promised. And we're tonight.

Things getting a little feisty on Capitol Hills, getting a little woo, a little spicy there in that hearing. But you know, Nadler doesn't like to hear things. He doesn't like to hear. And it's true of all Democrats. They would rather shout down arguments, whether it's on campuses or it's on Capitol Hill. They would rather shout down arguments that they find troubling than try to engage with the ideas and defeat them or even perhaps co opt them

into their own thinking. You know, it is possible. I mean it is the mark of I think, a very limited intellect to believe that there's no such thing as learning more about an issue from somebody else. Democrats are ossified in their thinking on the matters. They do not open themselves up to alternative points of view. In fact, they think alternative points of view are a form of violence, that there's something unethical about having to hear alternative points

of view. Then there's just this other I just found this kind of amazing. So the Treasury Secretary Steve Manuchin, Oh, Maxine Water is going to make another appearance here on the show. In a second, look at this Treasury Secretary Manuchin appeared and this is just quite an exchange. I just, I just I don't know why. I just wanted to play this for you because you don't see that get testy like this usually on Capitol Hill. But there's something in the water right now, man, people are getting spicy

with each other. Play play clip eight. This is Secretary. I want you to know that no other secretary has ever told us the day before that they were going to limit their time and the way that you're doing so, if you want to use them as examples, you have acted differently than they have acted as I have said. If you wish to leave, you may. If you'd wish to keep me here so that I don't have my important meeting and continue to grill me, then we can do that. I will cancel my meeting and I will

not be back here. I will be very clear. If that's the way you'd like to have this relationship. Thank you the gentleman. The Secretary has agreed to stay to hear all of the rest of the members please cancel, and was next on the list foreign meeting. You're instructing me to stay here and I should cancel. So you just made me an offer. No, I didn't make you any maybe an offer that I accepted. I did not make an offer. Just let's be clear. You're instructing me.

You are ordering me to stay here. No, I'm not ordering you. I'm responding. I said you may leave anytime you want, and you said, okay, if that's that's what you want to do, I'll cancel my appointment and I'll stay here. So I'm responding to your request if that's what you want to what I want to do. I told you, what would you like to do? What I've told you is I thought it was respectful that you'd let me leave at five fifteen. Pre to leave any

time you want, anytime you want. Please please dismiss everybody. I believe you're supposed to take the gravel and bang it. That's please. Do not instruct me as to hi. I'm to conduct this committee. Mike. Do you like that? I mean, what a what? I was a mess? It's amazing. Right, she doesn't understand what. He's like. I mean, if you're gonna make me sit here, I guess I'll sit here. But that's not cool. She's like, okay, you'll sit there, and he's like, so you're making me She's like, no,

you said you would. He's like no, I'm saying, if you make me, I will, but I don't want you. Oh man. It's like she like, I don't know if she wasn't listening or she just didn't care or whatever. But she's a gift that keeps on giving. She's amazing, dude. The chairwoman of House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters. Democrats, everybody just remember it. They say that they Oh they're gonna be good in government, They're gonna be better. A

Trump is so bad an evil. Yeah, let's put vaccine waters at the head of the House Financial Services Committee. That seems like that seems like a great idea. Oh, my team, We've got so much more coming up. Stay with me Ocasio Cortez and to extent, Representative Chili and also Representative Omar. They're basically creatures of social media and identity politics. I don't want to disparage them unnecessarily, but they have no achievement, they have no wealth of knowledge

they draw on. So they each night they tweet something that's more ignorant than the last tweet. It's anti Semitic, it's bigotry, shows an ignorance of the Middle East, of history of economics. And the question Sean is though, why do they have such residents. Why do the three leading candidates Beato and Biden and Bernie. Why are they falling all over themselves to apologize for their privilege or to

apologize for the history of white, toxic masculinity. I think the answer is that these three representatives have terrified the Democratic Party because they've suggested that they represent a constituency without which the Democrats count win. I don't think that's true, but there's sort of a rain of terror going on that these three have engineered. I agree with the rain of terror that he's talking about here. I've said before that Okazio Cortez is for you Game of Thrones fans

coming back this weekend. The Jeoffrey Barathian of the Democratic Party just running around ordering people, you know, to be horrifically punished and have their tongues cut out in things, and no one will no one will tell them no, you know, no one will tell them to stop on social media. That's kind of like Okazi Gortz. He runs around says things. You know, people are all running around

scared of her. I mean, she's she's an ignoramist. I mean, I don't know if it's fair to say she's stupid, because she's obviously won a you know, a political contest that required some degree of savvy and you know, I think that she markets herself well, but she's not knowledgeable about anything. She's shockingly poorly read and poorly equipped to do higher level analysis. I mean just not. This is not someone who impresses anyone with the intellectual horsepower she

brings to the issue she talks about. But there is a kind of invulnerability that you know, the Democrats now have to deal with the fact that if you are, because they're so reliant on identity politics, because these different constituencies from within the Democratic Party, you're treated as as really sacro sanct They are treated as people who should be at all opportunities elevated, protected, treated to a different set of rules that goes easier on them than they

would on people that are not in these protected groups. See Jusse Smolette for example, or ilhan Omar. I mean, if any if a white guy named Bob and the Democratic Party from Indiana had said this stuff about Israel and Jews that ilhan Omar had said, trust me, it would be a very different response to the Democrats. But

they don't really get to call these shots anymore. They have created this mentality of the victimhood of identity groups, and it's very powerful, right because what the the victimology narrative does the Democrats is that it gives them, in the minds at least of their voters their constituents, the

moral high ground. And it also exploits among people that aren't comfortable enough with their own thinking on these issues, or it exploits the sense that a lot of other people, perhaps centrists, moderates, have that, you know, they don't want to be part of the bad group. They don't want to be victimizing anyone in these victim groups. And so there's there's essentially a using of the goodwill and good

faith of people who aren't leftists against them. Say oh, well, you know you better you better not open up a Chinese restaurant if you're not Chinese. That's cultural appropriation. People. Some people will say to that, oh, wow, you're right, I don't I don't want to be insensitive. Nobody wants to be insensitive. We got people not running another the Democratic Party who remembers the Congress, who wield this like a weapon. You know, take what we say seriously, or

else you're racist. Take what we say seriously, or else you're an islamophobe, and so on and so forth. The Democrats use this, they benefit from it. But it's also apparent, especially with the rise of as as VDH says here to leave are an Ocasio Cortez, it's not clear that Pelosi and the Democrat establishment really have control of these forces and these individuals within their our own party, and this could drag things into some very interesting directions going forward.

The very first picture of a black hole, folks, you might have seen it today. It was making the rounds. A lot of people pointed out that it it kind of looks like the eye of Sauron. I mean, it's it's a little terrifying this this photo of it. Here's the reporting on it from CNN. Hope CNN is not fake news, hopefully when it comes to astrophysics, but maybe. Scientists in April twenty seventeen used a global network of telescopes to see and capture the first ever picture of

a black hole. This is according to announcement by Research Is the National Science Foundation. They captured an image of the supermassive black hole and its shadow at the center of a galaxy known as M eight seven. This is the first direct visual evidence that a black hole exa, the researchers have claimed. In the image, a central dark region is encapsulated by a ring of light that looks

brighter on one side. The massive galaxy called Messia eighty seven or M eighty seven, is near the Virgo galaxy cluster fifty five million light years from Earth. The supermassive black hole has a mass that is six point five billion times that of our sun. And yeah, this is one of these things where I read about it and I try to understand what's going on, but I take some solace in knowing that really nobody knows what this

stuff is. Nobody truly understands what's going on here. I mean, there's there are some you know, astrophysicists and theoretical physicists, and it is amazing that Einstein, from what I understand again, this is way, this is way beyond my sophomore in high school geometry level of understanding and math and science. But that Einstein was correct in what he thought about black holes. That's that's what I saw today. So that

guy Einstein, very smart dude. That much is clear. But there, you know, there's there are some theories that I that I have that I carry around. Don't worry, not theories about relativity or things that require you to be able to do math, because that's not something that I would be able to do, but the theories about human knowledge.

And one of them is the more you learn about the history of science and scientific inquiry, the more obvious it is that we are at the very we are at such an early phase in the development of our knowledge about things. Uh. This comes up for me in the context of modern medicine a lot where people talk about the miracles of modern medicine. Yeah, there's some incredible stuff. There's also areas of tremendous Uh. Still tremendous ignorance might be a little bit too pejorative a word, but the

lack of knowledge is astonishing. The lack of knowledge about gastro intestinal health, about autoimmune diseases, about chronic pain, about you know, medicine is in its infancy, and I mean over the course of human history. You look back. I mean it wasn't It wasn't until the last hundred years or so that we had anything even approaching a sensibility

of or a sense of modern medicine. It's still very early in terms of our understanding of space, you know, the final Frontier, Right, it sounds like I'm the beginning of a Star Trek show. We don't know squat. I mean, we are so early on on this process, and I just think, I just think that it's interesting that here we are. This is the first time we've ever had a photo of a black hole, and it does look like the eye of Sauron, which is going to consume

our planet and destroy all of us. The good news is it's really really far away, fifty five million light years from Earth. Also, this may bring up for Don Lemon over at CNN, is this, in fact where that missing plane went? You'll recall you will recall that Don Lement, Monsieur don Lement, may we that he over at CNN asked out loud on television if a black hole perhaps was what consumed the Malaysian Airlines flight that disappeared without

a trace. Monsieur Don Lament was asking a very serious question at the time, I think, or maybe he was being facetious. It was tough to tell, because well he's Don Lemon, so big discovery day. If you haven't seen the photos, definitely worth checking out. It might terrify you a little bit to know that Soron is out there and that if Frodo doesn't throw the ring in Mount Doom, we're all finished. But better to know the no. Right, We've got roll call come up in a minute, Team,

that'll be some stuff that is worthwhile. Stay with me, hey, team Buck, It's time for roll call. Finally, a beautiful day here in the swamp. This is this one window in DC where the weather is warm enough you can walk around in a T shirt, but not so warm and sticky that your T shirt turns into a wet T shirt contest, if you know what I mean. So

it's nice right now. I'm not sure it's gonna stay that way, but in the meantime, things are are pretty good here in swamp Landia, also known as the People's Republic of Washington, DC, Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. If you want a piece, if you want to get in on all the action, all if you just write me a note there and we'll be off to the races,

Thomas writes. As more details of the Molar report get released next week, Buck, I expect the most frightening thing that will come into focus is that the failed coup plan was developed over a period of time, starting as far back as before Hillary announced she was running for president and had the flexibility to be used for whatever Republican candidate emerges. The nominee, Donald Trump just happened to

be the unfortunate target in the end. That leads me to believe this conspiracy plan was devised and implemented by Obama Jarrett Lynch, Brennan Clappercomy, and struck once the Republican candidate was determined a generic blueprint later refined for candidate Trump. The determination to get Hillary into the White House exists, and she was Secretary of State. Then when she was revealed as a felon for potential acts of espionage, the cover ups began. The only possible way to make that

all go away was for her to become president. I know, sounds like a second rate novel, but very plausible. What do you think, Thomas? A lot of analysis there, and I'll just say there we have it. There there, there you go. You heard what Thomas Dicks might have gone on here, Thomas. I believe that Trump was considered by some people to be an unusually clear and present danger

to the public republic. I do think that there were bureaucrats and that in the federal bureaucracy there were deep state types that quite honestly convinced themselves that Trump was a very serious threat. I think that that's real. I do um. I think they're crazy, but I think they believe that Paul Rights Howdy Buck was wondering why everyone is so hung up on the idea of a wall. Let's get medieval on their butts and dig a moat instead.

It'll be quick, cheap, defenceable, and savanna and contribute some alligators just so they know we're not screwing around shields. I well, Paul, I do have to note that the Rio grand is kind of like a moat, except in some areas it is so shallow and flimsy that you could walk across it in flip flops, no problem. But yeah, a moat would be an interesting way to slow people

down even more. You could create I'm just gonna say this, you could just dig out a ditch that would be right in front of the fence on the Mexican side, because they do usually build a fence a few feet from the actual technical international boundary, so that if they need to do fence repair, they can go on the

other side of the fence if they have to. But if you created a ditch there, even if it was maybe six or seven feet deep, it would make it harder for people to get across in those areas because the remember, it's not that the fence stops everybody in their tracks, it's that it slows them down enough that the other border protection measures in place, notably border patrols roving units are able to get there in time to make the apprehension, to make the arrest, Paul, I like

where your head's at, Carolyn, right, hey, Buck, I agree with you, it's crazy to suggest reparations for slavery. There's not a single person alive whoever participated in this tragic chapter in our history. We should not be held accountable for the crimes of generations before us. However, we conservatives like to stay logically consistent. How do you reconcile this position with DACA? Should the adult children of illegals be

held accountable for the crimes of their parents? I think they should not benefit from the illegal actions of their parents. But how do you reconcile these two positions in adjust in logical manner? For me, I think it's just a matter of how many generations you go back. Just Carrios for your thoughts. Also, if these libs really cared about slavery, they'd focus where it's happening right now, with the human trafficking going on at the border. Shields High Carolyn, Carolyn,

very astute question. Here's how I would approach it. If you robbed a bank, Carolyn, which no one is recommending you do, very bad idea. But if you were to rob a bank and then you took all that money and you put it in a piggy bank for your kid, you gave it to your kid and said, hey, here's all this money from the bank, Well, guess what the ill gotten gains of your Bonnie and Clyde routine, or I guess just Bonnie routine, because there's no Clyde in

this situation. I just watched the movie The Highwaymen, and I thought it was very good on Netflix. I would say, I'd recommend it for you, worth watching for sure. But the government wouldn't say, well, it's not fair to take away what has been illegally given to your children. They would take that money and it didn't matter that you had gifted it to your kid and your kid didn't know where it came from. I think that also can

apply here in the case of citizenship. I'm sorry, in the case of presence, not citizenship in the United States, where someone's been brought here as a child, and I would say that you also have a legitimate deterrence function here, as in, if you take away what has been given to children who are brought here illegally, then the parents going forward will know don't do this. So there's also

a state interest in that. Is it fair to the kids? Well, no, but it's also you know, not fair when the government comes and takes away the kid's house and all of his toys because dad didn't pay the tax bill, you know. So that's you can have a direct line of culpability and responsibility that the state can enforce when you're talking about what was done one hundred and fifty years ago. I don't understand how anybody could make a serious case that that's a line that you could you could enforce.

You know. It's almost like there's a there's a statute of limitations or there should be a statute of limitations on, you know, in intergenerational crimes, where you have to be able to make it make a clear case as to who's responsible for what and who benefited from one, and there's just no way to do that with reparations. But it's a very interesting question, Carol, and thank you for raising it. Aaron, Hey Buck, when are you going to

do another deep dive? I think your show needs it to break up some of the looney left wall stuff that's bombarding the news of late I know that I would appreciate it. Actually I kind of need it. You are our generations, Paul Harvey, since most of us don't read as much as you do. Can I ask for one more favor as well? Could you make it separate available download in case I missed that one show for some reason. I'm a podcast only listener. I don't catch

them every day. Thanks Man, Shields High Aaron, you know, I would like to do another another episode of Shields Hie, And I think this summer, if my schedule is what I think it'll be, I think there's a real chance that we'll push some of the history shows again. It's just that the time, the time involved in doing it,

because I do it all myself. I mean, I've got producer Mike and my usual radio team that will assist, but the research, they're writing them out and scripting them, and I'll say it's it's also tough because some people really really like the history, but other people really want me to focus on the current events, the news of the day, more political philosophy and ideological battle stuff. So it's it's tough to know how much of it to do it any one time. But look, I love it.

I'm I'm all, I'm all about it, and I would very much like to bring it back. So I appreciate that you also like it, and Aaron, I'm looking for an opportunity, Melissa rights Block, I got a tech comment. Your podcast was interrupted twice in the first four minutes by advertising love the new picture with the beard. It looks terrific, much more grown up, not so sweet and innocent. She'll tie well, thank you, Melissa BARBAROSSA red beard over here is you know, I've kind of taken to it.

I kind of like it. I'll be honest with you. It's it's fun. It's nice, nice little beard going on, and a lot of a lot of this audience on the mail side. Maybe if you on the female side too, I don't know, you know, chin hair can get very long. I don't know. I'm not passing judgment one more or the other. But a lot of the dudes listen to this show are very much pro beard because they have beards.

So I've seen this. I've seen this. Uh, I've been like inducted into the brotherhood of beardom is what I'm trying to say, and some of you lovely ladies who listened to the Bucks Exton show are also pro Beard, so thank you so much for that. And enough self indulgent grooming commentary from myself, James Rights. Hey, Buck, love your show and listen via podcast because I'm at work when you are live. The last few months, though, there have been ads for other podcasts added by whatever podcast

network you are on now. They're even mid segment cutting it off. I listened to a few podcasts and sometimes sometimes these ads only show up on the Rush podcast in yours, please make it stop. I can only take so many fashion and transgender podcast ads before my shields fail. You know, producer, Mike, do you know what they're talking about? I don't even know what this is? What is going on? Oh, it's it is the new platform. DJ John's telling me

it's it's a new platform. This is the way it is. Huh. Well, let me see if we can look into this, because I really I want you all to have, especially those of you who are listening on the podcast side of it. I want to make sure you have a very user friendly experience. Right if you're listening on your local radio station, Hopefully you have a good signal and we're good to go. But on the podcast side, I don't want you being

bombarded with too many ads. I will say though, that I unfortunately don't have as much control over these things as I would like. James, my taxes went up because my state, pennsylvani You're raised its taxes and ate up my lower federal taxes. Well, James, that's stinks man. I'm sorry to hear that that is not the way that it should be. Darn it, Joe rides Buck. You should ask Democra they believe in Sharia law. If so, doesn't

that mean they believe in slavery? Well, Joe, Sharia law does have, depending on who's doing the interpreting of it, provisions for slavery, just as the Islamic state. As the Democrats in general, I don't think that they would take that position. But I appreciate you writing in sir. Thank you.

Laurel writes Buck. I was reminded of what he said about prosecutors exercising their discretion when I saw that Laurie Lawlin and her husband were hit with even more charges in the college bribe scandal after declining a plea deal. The contrast between this and J. Smolette cannot be any clearer. Who would call this justice? It looks more like extortion. Yeah, Laurel, this is this is headhunting. This is a high profile case, got a lot of media attention. The prosecutors involved want

to really nail people. When you think about the real crimes here, the only victims are some students who law places in the schools. I'm not saying that's that doesn't stink, but that's not you know, they went on to other schools. I'm sure everyone's fine. And the state lost some revenue from the tax avoidance schemes. That's it. So I don't think people should be going to prison for a long time for that. Free and Becky, that's gonna be for today's team. Talk to you tomorrow. Shields High