Welcome to The Buck Sexton show everybody out here in Las Vegas, Nevada. We have a lot of big stuff to get to today on the show. Let's start with the whistle blower. The new whistle blower out there. You have a second whistle blower claiming firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine dealings. Now this is in so many ways, very similar to what we saw with Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford, isn't it? This seems like if you were drawing up a playbook of how the Democrats now go after their targets, it's allegation that can't be disproven and then add somebody else into the mix. Bring somebody else out of the woodwork who has another allegation and perhaps there might be a third whistle blower who knows? Who steps forward to say that the president did what exactly?
There was a very excellent piece over the weekend in Rolling Stone, which is generally garbage, but sometimes there's good stuff that you'll see in there by Matt Taibbi. Who's a left wing guy but something of an iconoclast. And he makes the argument that even the first whistle blower is not a whistle blower. You've heard me on this show say that the person who has come forward, they, I guess we have to use that cause we don't know if it's a he or she and that feels a bit clumsy to keep repeating on the air. But they, as I've referred to that person as a hearsay er are not really a whistle blower. And when you look at what we have so far, it's quite clear that this is being dressed up by the media as something that it is not the psychotically anti-Trump and just feverishly seeking to destroy him before he can get to 2020. That media, they have decided to make the whistle blower into something that he or she is not.
Let's go over some of why that is. A whistleblower is someone who is calling out egregious wrongdoing, right? Something that is clearly wrong. Not someone who says, I don't like the decision you made. If the CEO of a company decides that there's going to be a merger with another company, you don't go through in the private sector. You don't go to federal regulators and blow the whistle because you don't like the decision. There is nothing about what president Trump did on that phone call with Zelensky of Ukraine that was illegal. Nothing. So what is the whistle blowing component of this? Now you have a second person who comes forward also being given the status they say of whistle blower, but why do we need that? Why do we need another voice? We already have a transcript unless this person is going to tell us things that we do not know about, a phone call for which we already have a transcript and which many other people were on.
Unless that's the case, what does the second even bring to the table? What does the second accuser really, perhaps a better way to say it. The second partisan attacker. It's a question that the media won't ask. It's a question you won't get any answers to because it is all about the creation of a narrative right now that there are so many people within the federal government who are just simply outraged, outraged at what President Trump has done. Meanwhile, the secretary of state was on the phone call. He's not outraged. I've heard the transcript I'm not outraged and let me tell you why. We cannot let them beat us into submission here. We cannot let them convince people to start abandoning their support of President Trump or just start walking around saying that he's done something terrible. Look is it a strategic error for the president to have spoken the way he did on that phone call about looking into the Biden situation in Ukraine, knowing that he'll be given zero leeway that
he should have known that his enemies would use this against him. Yeah, it was not a smart thing to do, but that's not the same thing as it was an impeachable thing to do or a deeply wrong and immoral thing to do. The Biden's have no special against prosecution, no special protection against investigation, which is all we're even talking about. The way that this story keeps getting rewritten. It's the president asked the president of Ukraine to help him manufacture dirt. I keep hearing that phrase, nowhere did he say that. He said he's heard bad things. Can you look into this? That's really what he said. Can you find out more about what happened here? And it keeps getting translated. It keeps getting transformed into something much more nefarious than that. It gets turned into. We need you to be part of a dirty tricks campaign against the, against the "oh so pure and innocent Biden's who would never do anything that was unethical or politically damaging." Keep in mind, the whistle blower is really saying that what the president of the United States did is a political crime. As in the person doesn't like the decision that a political elected leader made. And so he wants the American people to turn or she to turn on Trump because of it.
That's where we are right now. Well, the Biden's may have also committed a political crime of sorts by having Hunter Biden on the board of Barisma, a company that was paying him 50 to $83,000 a month for a skill set that nobody can particularly figure out what it is. So that's the reality of our current situation. With regard to the whistle blower complaint. As it stands, they say there may be more information. I'd be very curious to see what that is, but as we get more of our own information, we see that this was an effort from behind the scenes to attack the president and it was, dare I say, full of collusion conspiracy. There were people who were working together on this. This was absolutely not a situation where a whistle blower on his or her own decided that decency and integrity and honor compelled compelled this complaint to go through.
In fact, we know that Adam Schiff had advanced warning about this and then lie to the American people about it, pretended that he did not have the advanced notice of this situation. We know that that happened. Now we also have other people who are coming forward or at least one other person who's coming forward to make it seem like this is a more credible allegation. But ultimately it's just their opinion. There's no wrongdoing to speak of. There's no law that was broken. It's not a campaign finance violation.
Ultimately, the decision to prosecute, the decision about who to bring a case against can always be second guessed. There's always considerations that go beyond just the law, but if a prosecutor has the authority to bring charges and you broke the law, the fact that that prosecutor may not like you, may get political benefit from it doesn't invalidate it. It certainly doesn't invalidate the investigation of somebody for possible crimes, which happens all the time in this country for which you never get an apology or a sorry when they find out you didn't do anything wrong. And Democrats have been using investigation of this president as a weapon from the very beginning. So they can investigate anyone they want, they can use, we'll use whatever tools of the federal government against elected leaders like Trump that they want to, but the moment that they feel like, wait a second, you mean that that can be turned on us? Do you mean that the other side can fight fire with fire? Then we're told that this is a terrible threat to our democracy. You know what? The threat to our democracy is Democrats who want to undo the results of the 2016 election and use our government apparatus that is un-elected to undo the decision of the American people in 2016 that is a threat to democracy. A phrase that I hate, it's stupid, but they use it all the time. And the same week that they are telling us that Trump's request for further information or inquiry into the situation of possible Biden family corruption in Ukraine the same week in which were told that that is a horrible abuse of power. We also see that New York, the state of New York, the city of New York, Manhattan district attorney, Cy Vance, is trying to get the president's tax returns to look into the possibility of campaign finance violations and violation of New York state law. My friends, come on. Does anyone really think that Vance is investigating the president wants to look at his tax returns is going to court for reasons that are not political? I mean, do the Democrats really expect us to act like we're all morons and can't figure this out? Why is the Manhattan district attorney, why is he trying to get Trump's tax returns? These tax returns are already in the government's hands. My friends, the federal government already has them.
But Vance wants eight years going backwards of Trump tax information. Is this political or not? You know, we saw them last week whining, crying, freaking out. Oh, how could they Joe Biden, you don't investigate your political opponents. Democrats investigate political opponents all the time. Just look back in recent history. At politically motivated investigation in some cases, prosecution, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Perry in Texas, Chris Christie in New Jersey, McDonald in Virginia,Can you name a similar group of Democrats who didn't break the law, who were under investigation like that? There is a two tiered system of justice in America, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, and you don't want to be on the Republican side of it.
It's amazing how, how brazen this is. Oh, Trump made a request of a foreign leader to look into something that involves the Biden's. That's a terrible abuse of power. Meanwhile, the Manhattan district attorney wants eight years of Trump tax returns for what? Oh, we're still, we're supposed to believe that they're not just trying to make them public in some effort to embarrass the president. And the campaign finance charge would never stick in court and they know it. It's not a serious crime anyway. It's the kind of thing you'd end up paying a fine for, even if you were guilty, but it's all a pretext. They weaponize the law all the time and then, and then right after they do it they look at us and say, how could you not respect the law more? Well, maybe because we're in a street fight and we're sick of the other side using, you know, baseball bats and chains with locks on them while we say, Hey, can we be friends? Trump understands that's the good news. He understands what the other side is willing to do. I started to feel like some Republicans, some conservatives, some Trump supporters are losing sight of, this is just the beginning. The stuff that they're going to come after this president with will throw all ethics, all decency by the wayside.
We better be ready for that kind of fight or just accept having a President Warren and everything in this country that has been going well. That's a decision the president makes going in the other direction. See how that goes. I mean we can surrender to the other side because we're supposed to be the nice ones, the ethical ones, the ones that obey the law. Or we can say, hold on a second, we're going to have to get tough too.