April 26, 2024 • 16 mins
Buck Sexton breaks down the latest headlines with a fresh and honest perspective! He speaks truth to power, and cuts through the liberal nonsense coming from the mainstream media. Subscribe to never miss an episode of The Buck Sexton Show.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, welcome to the Buck
Brief everybody. We're looking at the Trump Supreme Court oral
arguments today, and the biggest takeaway, I think Trump had
a good day. I actually think that Donald Trump's Donald
(00:35):
Trump's lawyer, Sawyer Sawyer, I think he did a really
good job. A friend of mine described the Department of
Justice counselor to the Special Council Dreabin as getting a
legal wedgie today before the Supreme Court, and I think
(00:55):
that was very much what happened.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Let's break down some of this. This is honestly fascinating.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
First of all, before I even get into the merits
of the arguments, let's understand this. This falls into this
category of all of the legal scholars who had told
you previously that the state ballot initiative to or the
states rather sorry States, kicking Trump off the ballot, that
was the initiative kicking Trump off the ballot. Colorado and
(01:27):
Maine both dabbling in this, that that was a serious
legal argument. They got crushed nine er at the Supreme Court,
because obviously that would just mean that any state could
decide to kick any candidate off the ballot and in
essence be in a position to perhaps deliver deliver the
presidency to the other side, right or to their own side,
(01:50):
you know, to get a win. You can't have that, okay,
you can't have states with no due process just saying
you're off the ballot because we say so. California would
just say no Trump on the ballot. Oh, I guess
you know, well, Biden wi win that anyway. I know
some of you would be pointing that out. But Pennsylvania
or Michigan would say no Trump on the ballot, and
you say, okay, we got a problem here, right, all right?
(02:13):
So they got the point is they got slapped down
nine to zero at the Supreme Court. They got slapped
down nineo at Supreme Court, which means that you even
when you have Soda Mayor.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
And Kagan going along with it.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
You have a situation where the argument being made is
so clear that it is irrefutable, undeniable, indisputable. And that
was the case of State Bounce. Why am I talking
to state balance, Well, because on the other side of this,
now we have the presidential immunity debate, and this was
(02:48):
what was heard today at the Supreme Court, the presidential
immunity debate. Now, this has been really interesting because the
courts have never weighed in on this directly before. So
this is uncharted legal territory and it's really important stuff.
What you need to know first and foremost is that
the same legal scholars and experts who are saying experts
(03:12):
in quotes, who were saying it is a silly argument
that Trump is making about this Trump's lawyers are making
that he has immunity for official acts while in office.
Those same people that said that's preposterous. We're telling you, oh,
in the States can kick Trump off the ballot, right.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
So they're wrong in a way.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Well, we'll see what happens with today's argument. I think
it's going to go Trump's way. But they've already shown
you in the past how wrong they are and how
absurd they are, and how poor their legal analysis is. Okay,
so that's a component of this.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Then you have as we sort of look at what.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
The details of this dispute get to private versus public acts.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
That's really what is essential.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
The Biden DOJ Special Counsel and I would note that
this special counsel, I I agree with the former AG
Meice and former AG Mukasey Amicky Brief, Brief's Ammicky and whatever,
my Latin's rusty that the special counsel is illegitimate. How
(04:27):
can you have somebody who they just decide you get
to go and have this unbelievable power to prosecute anyone anywhere,
including a presidential candidate and former president, for his acts
while he was president, without Congress, without a presidential appointment.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
How do you have that? It's absurd.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
So that came up in the oral arguments today from
saur who, again I think did an excellent Trump's lawyer
did an excellent job.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
People who said Trump's never going to have any good
lawyers who will even represent him false. So I did
a very good job today.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
He was he was totally sharp, and his arguments were incisive,
and he came ready to play.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
He was good to go. The dreaming guy who's the Biden.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Deal Jets, I don't know a lot of sort of
trying to talk around some of the stuff install anyway
public versus private acts as a president. They're trying to
say that what Trump did everyone agrees on both sides.
There's got to be some immunity for a president for
official acts. And this is effectively what I've been saying
(05:36):
all along. You know, you can't have a prosecutor, for example,
or a police officer just being sued or being prosecuted
for the good faith operations of their job. Right, So
you can't say, oh, well, this prosecutor made the decision
to prosecute somebody. We're going to say that he goes
to prison now because we don't like that decision. Because
(05:59):
it's within his prerogative to make that determination. It is
an official act.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And what the.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Argument comes down to here is, well, what constitutes for
a press a public versus a private act. Both sides agree,
and this is we are establishing critical precedent here. Both
sides agree that purely private conduct, let's just say a president,
you know, strangles and murders a secretary in the White House, right,
(06:29):
one of his aides or something, you have no immunity
for that. You're going to prison. Okay, that's not a
presidential act. They both agree on that. So that's a
believe it or not. That's an important place to start.
So we know that there is a legal liability that
even presidents have again for their private acts, meaning no
one could make an argument. There is no argument to
(06:52):
be made in a word and world where words have
meaning that a president, you know, bludgeoning a secretary with
a candlestick and she bleeds out on the floor of
the oval office. Oh well, he's the president. That's part
of his job. Like, no one buys that. Fine, Okay,
both sides agree, that's good. But then where is the line?
What is public what is private as an official act?
(07:15):
That's where it gets really really interesting. And I say
that is also where we are going to come back
at a second. I'm going to tell you where that
line is. You know, this podcast as you know, as
you can hear right now, it's all about having deep
dive conversations into topics that have tremendous impact on us
in the world we live in, and I want to
(07:36):
bring you insights about politics and culture and what's actually happening.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I don't really cover the markets.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
I'm not a stock guy, but I know somebody who
does it phenomenally well, Mark Chakin. Mark worked on Wall
Street for fifty years, and his time on the street,
he invented three new indices for the Nasdaq has predicted
some of the biggest market shifts of the past decade.
And he says that there's a big turning point coming
up right now for stocks that are AI involved, that
(08:02):
AI touches on either directly or indirectly. And he says
it's a new dawn for US stocks coming up. He
doesn't want you to miss out on this. It's going
to happen the next ninety days. Go to twenty twenty
four aistock dot com. That's twenty twenty four aistock dot com.
You can watch for free see what he has to say.
Twenty twenty four aistock dot com paid for by Shaking Analytics.
(08:25):
All right, so where is the line public private conduct?
Where is the line for a president? They did ask
some of the questions we expected them to, like, could
Bush be prosecuted for lying about WMD or you know,
for being wrong about WMD whatever, These are the questions
they were asking. Could Obama be prosecuted for droning an
(08:45):
American citizen abroad without that person having any due process
and not being involved in a in an imminent threat
situation like this wasn't you know a terrorist with a
gun to somebody's head.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
When they were killed.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
In fact, if you believe the reports, it is a
it was a US minor abroad as it not yet
even of of age, who was caught in.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
A drone strike.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Now that's a you think that's a big deal. Truth
is Obama. And this is even from the trumplayers. No
Obama cannot be prosecuted for that. That is an official
act as commander in chief, right, he is acting overseas
to deal with an imminent threat against a I should say,
a proven threat against the United States. And I notice
(09:34):
all of these arguments are arguments. None of them are
perfect because then they turn around and say, well, what
about what about if? And they keep I feel that
they actually one of the justices. I forget it was,
but was like, look, I'm not trying to Everyone goes,
what if Seal Team six, you know what if those
guys were assigned to assassin. It's like, they're not an
(09:57):
assassin squad, They're an elite tier one, you know, military
special operations unit. Right, I just feel but they're always
no One's ever like, what about what about the greenen
Berets going in an assassin It's always so what about
Seal Team six going. And so a justice actually pointed
out and he said, look, we're not we know Seal
Team six are not like the assassin squad. But what
if any military that think it could just be an
(10:19):
air strike, it could be a drone strike. Okay, what
if a president ordered a drone strike on another person,
a US person who was their political rival, would that
have immunity? And this is where you get to know
and then you get to the corrupt and criminal purpose.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Hm.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Well, if you have corrupt and criminal purpose for the act,
then the act is not.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Covered under immunity.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Again, going back to the argument here, Well, then where
is the line because for example, if you now we
get into the into the meat of the Trump situation,
if you say, you know the president Trump viewed his
role as president as making sure that there was not
an illegitimate and therefore illegal certification of an election. If
(11:11):
he is wrong, but he still does this believing.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
He is correct.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Does that fall within his presidential powers? And this is
right at the heart of the argument, because what the
what the Democrat left anti Trump argument is is well,
no Trump knew.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
This was not true.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Now you're getting into if you can effectively divine the mindset.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
You know, he didn't.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
It's not like there was an exchange, an illicit exchange.
It wasn't a bribery situation, right, It's not like someone
paid Trump but he was president because bribery is something
he talked about too. Oh, mister president challenged the election,
here's here's a billion dollars whatever, you'd say, Well, then
he has to know he's engaging in illegal conduct with
(12:01):
an explicitly illegal purpose or clearly illegal purpose to him.
But you started to get into all the Democrats say
he knew that it was fake, he knew that he
was breaking the lawn and the Republican The Trump side
of it is, well, you can't prove that that hasn't
been proven. And also being able to even challenge the
(12:23):
official Act itself, whether it's appointing an ambassador or signing
a bill that is a punishment that we can't allow
presidents to go through. So if we determined that it
is a legitimate official act, but we open up this
Pandora's box to well, you can still challenge the intent
(12:44):
behind the official Act.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Where does that stop?
Speaker 1 (12:48):
And now it's as oh, well, you know the president
he appointed that ambassador, because that ambassador is going to
be part of a future coup to overthrow the United
States government. So now let's prosecute him for that conspiracy
they talked about this conspiracy and obstruction.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Conspiracy and obstruction.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Are very broad, very vague statues, and often really just
rely on the good faith of the prosecutor to not abuse,
and clearly they're abusing them against Trump. That's what we
all that's where this all goes, that's what we all see.
I think that the anti Trump argument here had a
(13:26):
bad day. I'm going to tell you where this is going,
where I think the next steps are in just a moment.
But I want to speak to my fellow gun owners.
You know it's time you got introduced to a lot
of firearms that may be new to you, but you
know they're made here in America, their top quality at
an incredible price. Bear Creek Arsenal. Bear Creek Arsenal. It's
a great story too when you look at the founding
of this company. Veteran owned and operated gun manufacturer based
(13:49):
in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear Creek Arsenal makes high quality
firearms at an incredible everyday value. But the quality you're
getting here. I mean, the price point is phenomenal. They're offered.
They're able to offer rather a wide range of premium
calibers that a fraction of what the competitors do. There's
no middleman fees. That's how they're passing that savings along
(14:10):
to you. Their products are precision oriented, perform very well
at the range or in any situation where you need
your firearm. Barck Creek Arsenal was founded by engineers with
over two decades of experience in the firearms industry. I've
got their BC fifteen model, a bar Creek Arsenal AR
fifteen model. It is great, got it all ready to rock.
I've been out at the range with it. It's a fantastic firearm.
(14:32):
I've also got the Grizzly, which is my nine millimeter pistol.
One of the things I love about it is that
it has this excellent groove, you know for my weak hand,
my left hand, and when I am holding it always
reminds me when I'm holding my Grizzly from Bear Creek Arsenal,
make sure I get my left thumb up on the
slide properly to give me the proper grip it's so
(14:55):
important with shooting a shooting a pistol, gotta have proper grip.
And this just this little you can tell, little ergonomics,
little decision making about Bear Creek Arsenal's firearms make such
a big difference. Barcreek Arsenal dot com, slash buck. That's
where I want you to go. Bear Creekarsenal dot com,
slash buck. Use promo code buck to get ten percent
(15:18):
off your first order. Bear Creek Arsenal dot com slash buck.
Use promo code buck for ten percent off. You're gonna
love this. Go to that website. You're gonna love the
firearms gear. They got great prices on optics to all
kinds of stuff knives.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Where do I think this is going for Trump?
Speaker 1 (15:34):
I think the Supreme Court is going to overrule the
lower court and send it down with further instructions to
review it in a specified scope as to what presidential
powers really are. I think they'll be defining some of
it in their in their decision. And I think that
this means that they're not going to be able to
(15:55):
get this. Well, it's gonna be even harder than to
get this federal trial, the JA six trial that's what's
the background of all this. By the way, this is
all I should have said at the beginning. This is
all J six trial stuff. I think they're not gonna
be able to get this if I'm right about the
Supreme Court's order. I don't think they'll be able to
get this thing done in time. Although maybe the lower
courts are going to go into ludacrous speed, which they've
been doing all along. That's possible, so we shall see.
(16:17):
But a good day for Trump, a good day for
the Constitution. I believe we'll see what that decision is
shield time.
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, welcome to the Buck
Brief everybody. We're looking at the Trump Supreme Court oral
arguments today, and the biggest takeaway, I think Trump had
a good day. I actually think that Donald Trump's Donald
(00:35):
Trump's lawyer, Sawyer Sawyer, I think he did a really
good job. A friend of mine described the Department of
Justice counselor to the Special Council Dreabin as getting a
legal wedgie today before the Supreme Court, and I think
(00:55):
that was very much what happened.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Let's break down some of this. This is honestly fascinating.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
First of all, before I even get into the merits
of the arguments, let's understand this. This falls into this
category of all of the legal scholars who had told
you previously that the state ballot initiative to or the
states rather sorry States, kicking Trump off the ballot, that
was the initiative kicking Trump off the ballot. Colorado and
(01:27):
Maine both dabbling in this, that that was a serious
legal argument. They got crushed nine er at the Supreme Court,
because obviously that would just mean that any state could
decide to kick any candidate off the ballot and in
essence be in a position to perhaps deliver deliver the
presidency to the other side, right or to their own side,
(01:50):
you know, to get a win. You can't have that, okay,
you can't have states with no due process just saying
you're off the ballot because we say so. California would
just say no Trump on the ballot. Oh, I guess
you know, well, Biden wi win that anyway. I know
some of you would be pointing that out. But Pennsylvania
or Michigan would say no Trump on the ballot, and
you say, okay, we got a problem here, right, all right?
(02:13):
So they got the point is they got slapped down
nine to zero at the Supreme Court. They got slapped
down nineo at Supreme Court, which means that you even
when you have Soda Mayor.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
And Kagan going along with it.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
You have a situation where the argument being made is
so clear that it is irrefutable, undeniable, indisputable. And that
was the case of State Bounce. Why am I talking
to state balance, Well, because on the other side of this,
now we have the presidential immunity debate, and this was
(02:48):
what was heard today at the Supreme Court, the presidential
immunity debate. Now, this has been really interesting because the
courts have never weighed in on this directly before. So
this is uncharted legal territory and it's really important stuff.
What you need to know first and foremost is that
the same legal scholars and experts who are saying experts
(03:12):
in quotes, who were saying it is a silly argument
that Trump is making about this Trump's lawyers are making
that he has immunity for official acts while in office.
Those same people that said that's preposterous. We're telling you, oh,
in the States can kick Trump off the ballot, right.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
So they're wrong in a way.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Well, we'll see what happens with today's argument. I think
it's going to go Trump's way. But they've already shown
you in the past how wrong they are and how
absurd they are, and how poor their legal analysis is. Okay,
so that's a component of this.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Then you have as we sort of look at what.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
The details of this dispute get to private versus public acts.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
That's really what is essential.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
The Biden DOJ Special Counsel and I would note that
this special counsel, I I agree with the former AG
Meice and former AG Mukasey Amicky Brief, Brief's Ammicky and whatever,
my Latin's rusty that the special counsel is illegitimate. How
(04:27):
can you have somebody who they just decide you get
to go and have this unbelievable power to prosecute anyone anywhere,
including a presidential candidate and former president, for his acts
while he was president, without Congress, without a presidential appointment.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
How do you have that? It's absurd.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
So that came up in the oral arguments today from
saur who, again I think did an excellent Trump's lawyer
did an excellent job.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
People who said Trump's never going to have any good
lawyers who will even represent him false. So I did
a very good job today.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
He was he was totally sharp, and his arguments were incisive,
and he came ready to play.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
He was good to go. The dreaming guy who's the Biden.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Deal Jets, I don't know a lot of sort of
trying to talk around some of the stuff install anyway
public versus private acts as a president. They're trying to
say that what Trump did everyone agrees on both sides.
There's got to be some immunity for a president for
official acts. And this is effectively what I've been saying
(05:36):
all along. You know, you can't have a prosecutor, for example,
or a police officer just being sued or being prosecuted
for the good faith operations of their job. Right, So
you can't say, oh, well, this prosecutor made the decision
to prosecute somebody. We're going to say that he goes
to prison now because we don't like that decision. Because
(05:59):
it's within his prerogative to make that determination. It is
an official act.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And what the.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Argument comes down to here is, well, what constitutes for
a press a public versus a private act. Both sides agree,
and this is we are establishing critical precedent here. Both
sides agree that purely private conduct, let's just say a president,
you know, strangles and murders a secretary in the White House, right,
(06:29):
one of his aides or something, you have no immunity
for that. You're going to prison. Okay, that's not a
presidential act. They both agree on that. So that's a
believe it or not. That's an important place to start.
So we know that there is a legal liability that
even presidents have again for their private acts, meaning no
one could make an argument. There is no argument to
(06:52):
be made in a word and world where words have
meaning that a president, you know, bludgeoning a secretary with
a candlestick and she bleeds out on the floor of
the oval office. Oh well, he's the president. That's part
of his job. Like, no one buys that. Fine, Okay,
both sides agree, that's good. But then where is the line?
What is public what is private as an official act?
(07:15):
That's where it gets really really interesting. And I say
that is also where we are going to come back
at a second. I'm going to tell you where that
line is. You know, this podcast as you know, as
you can hear right now, it's all about having deep
dive conversations into topics that have tremendous impact on us
in the world we live in, and I want to
(07:36):
bring you insights about politics and culture and what's actually happening.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I don't really cover the markets.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
I'm not a stock guy, but I know somebody who
does it phenomenally well, Mark Chakin. Mark worked on Wall
Street for fifty years, and his time on the street,
he invented three new indices for the Nasdaq has predicted
some of the biggest market shifts of the past decade.
And he says that there's a big turning point coming
up right now for stocks that are AI involved, that
(08:02):
AI touches on either directly or indirectly. And he says
it's a new dawn for US stocks coming up. He
doesn't want you to miss out on this. It's going
to happen the next ninety days. Go to twenty twenty
four aistock dot com. That's twenty twenty four aistock dot com.
You can watch for free see what he has to say.
Twenty twenty four aistock dot com paid for by Shaking Analytics.
(08:25):
All right, so where is the line public private conduct?
Where is the line for a president? They did ask
some of the questions we expected them to, like, could
Bush be prosecuted for lying about WMD or you know,
for being wrong about WMD whatever, These are the questions
they were asking. Could Obama be prosecuted for droning an
(08:45):
American citizen abroad without that person having any due process
and not being involved in a in an imminent threat
situation like this wasn't you know a terrorist with a
gun to somebody's head.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
When they were killed.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
In fact, if you believe the reports, it is a
it was a US minor abroad as it not yet
even of of age, who was caught in.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
A drone strike.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Now that's a you think that's a big deal. Truth
is Obama. And this is even from the trumplayers. No
Obama cannot be prosecuted for that. That is an official
act as commander in chief, right, he is acting overseas
to deal with an imminent threat against a I should say,
a proven threat against the United States. And I notice
(09:34):
all of these arguments are arguments. None of them are
perfect because then they turn around and say, well, what
about what about if? And they keep I feel that
they actually one of the justices. I forget it was,
but was like, look, I'm not trying to Everyone goes,
what if Seal Team six, you know what if those
guys were assigned to assassin. It's like, they're not an
(09:57):
assassin squad, They're an elite tier one, you know, military
special operations unit. Right, I just feel but they're always
no One's ever like, what about what about the greenen
Berets going in an assassin It's always so what about
Seal Team six going. And so a justice actually pointed
out and he said, look, we're not we know Seal
Team six are not like the assassin squad. But what
if any military that think it could just be an
(10:19):
air strike, it could be a drone strike. Okay, what
if a president ordered a drone strike on another person,
a US person who was their political rival, would that
have immunity? And this is where you get to know
and then you get to the corrupt and criminal purpose.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Hm.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Well, if you have corrupt and criminal purpose for the act,
then the act is not.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Covered under immunity.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Again, going back to the argument here, Well, then where
is the line because for example, if you now we
get into the into the meat of the Trump situation,
if you say, you know the president Trump viewed his
role as president as making sure that there was not
an illegitimate and therefore illegal certification of an election. If
(11:11):
he is wrong, but he still does this believing.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
He is correct.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Does that fall within his presidential powers? And this is
right at the heart of the argument, because what the
what the Democrat left anti Trump argument is is well,
no Trump knew.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
This was not true.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Now you're getting into if you can effectively divine the mindset.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
You know, he didn't.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
It's not like there was an exchange, an illicit exchange.
It wasn't a bribery situation, right, It's not like someone
paid Trump but he was president because bribery is something
he talked about too. Oh, mister president challenged the election,
here's here's a billion dollars whatever, you'd say, Well, then
he has to know he's engaging in illegal conduct with
(12:01):
an explicitly illegal purpose or clearly illegal purpose to him.
But you started to get into all the Democrats say
he knew that it was fake, he knew that he
was breaking the lawn and the Republican The Trump side
of it is, well, you can't prove that that hasn't
been proven. And also being able to even challenge the
(12:23):
official Act itself, whether it's appointing an ambassador or signing
a bill that is a punishment that we can't allow
presidents to go through. So if we determined that it
is a legitimate official act, but we open up this
Pandora's box to well, you can still challenge the intent
(12:44):
behind the official Act.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Where does that stop?
Speaker 1 (12:48):
And now it's as oh, well, you know the president
he appointed that ambassador, because that ambassador is going to
be part of a future coup to overthrow the United
States government. So now let's prosecute him for that conspiracy
they talked about this conspiracy and obstruction.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Conspiracy and obstruction.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Are very broad, very vague statues, and often really just
rely on the good faith of the prosecutor to not abuse,
and clearly they're abusing them against Trump. That's what we
all that's where this all goes, that's what we all see.
I think that the anti Trump argument here had a
(13:26):
bad day. I'm going to tell you where this is going,
where I think the next steps are in just a moment.
But I want to speak to my fellow gun owners.
You know it's time you got introduced to a lot
of firearms that may be new to you, but you
know they're made here in America, their top quality at
an incredible price. Bear Creek Arsenal. Bear Creek Arsenal. It's
a great story too when you look at the founding
of this company. Veteran owned and operated gun manufacturer based
(13:49):
in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear Creek Arsenal makes high quality
firearms at an incredible everyday value. But the quality you're
getting here. I mean, the price point is phenomenal. They're offered.
They're able to offer rather a wide range of premium
calibers that a fraction of what the competitors do. There's
no middleman fees. That's how they're passing that savings along
(14:10):
to you. Their products are precision oriented, perform very well
at the range or in any situation where you need
your firearm. Barck Creek Arsenal was founded by engineers with
over two decades of experience in the firearms industry. I've
got their BC fifteen model, a bar Creek Arsenal AR
fifteen model. It is great, got it all ready to rock.
I've been out at the range with it. It's a fantastic firearm.
(14:32):
I've also got the Grizzly, which is my nine millimeter pistol.
One of the things I love about it is that
it has this excellent groove, you know for my weak hand,
my left hand, and when I am holding it always
reminds me when I'm holding my Grizzly from Bear Creek Arsenal,
make sure I get my left thumb up on the
slide properly to give me the proper grip it's so
(14:55):
important with shooting a shooting a pistol, gotta have proper grip.
And this just this little you can tell, little ergonomics,
little decision making about Bear Creek Arsenal's firearms make such
a big difference. Barcreek Arsenal dot com, slash buck. That's
where I want you to go. Bear Creekarsenal dot com,
slash buck. Use promo code buck to get ten percent
(15:18):
off your first order. Bear Creek Arsenal dot com slash buck.
Use promo code buck for ten percent off. You're gonna
love this. Go to that website. You're gonna love the
firearms gear. They got great prices on optics to all
kinds of stuff knives.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Where do I think this is going for Trump?
Speaker 1 (15:34):
I think the Supreme Court is going to overrule the
lower court and send it down with further instructions to
review it in a specified scope as to what presidential
powers really are. I think they'll be defining some of
it in their in their decision. And I think that
this means that they're not going to be able to
(15:55):
get this. Well, it's gonna be even harder than to
get this federal trial, the JA six trial that's what's
the background of all this. By the way, this is
all I should have said at the beginning. This is
all J six trial stuff. I think they're not gonna
be able to get this if I'm right about the
Supreme Court's order. I don't think they'll be able to
get this thing done in time. Although maybe the lower
courts are going to go into ludacrous speed, which they've
been doing all along. That's possible, so we shall see.
(16:17):
But a good day for Trump, a good day for
the Constitution. I believe we'll see what that decision is
shield time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.