July 15, 2025 • 18 mins
Buck Sexton breaks down the latest headlines with Alex Berenson. From the Biden cognitive decline bombshell getting fresh fuel from The New York Times, to the ongoing questions around the Epstein saga. Plus, Alex shares why the mRNA vaccine debate still matters and what’s keeping him up at night in the world of public health.
Never miss a moment from Buck by subscribing to the Buck Sexton Show Podcast on IHeart Radio, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts!
Connect with Buck Sexton:
Facebook – / bucksexton
X – @bucksexton
Instagram – @bucksexton
TikTok - @BuckSexton
YouTube - @BuckSexton
Website – https://www.bucksexton.com/
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Everybody, Our friend Alex Berenson is in the mix once again.
We're going to talk to him about make America healthy again,
about the Biden cognitive decline story, which just got a
big addition to that timeline from the New York Times
over the weekend. And yes, some'm Epstein stuff because I
haven't had his take yet on it, and we still
have a lot of people who are very fired up
(00:42):
about this, mister Berenson. Of course, Unreported Truths on Substack
Go Subscribe does great work there, sir. I just want
to I want to give you the floor. We haven't
talked you and I on the show about Epstein stuff yet. People,
where what is your take with where we are right
now on this?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:02):
I mean, look, I should be asking you because we
know you handled him for the CIA.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
We know that was your job. Yeah, it didn't even joke, right.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
How many people think I'm handling Clay for the CIA
based on what he says of this? I'm like, guys,
it's no one.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
No one could.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Handle Clay trust me, but anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
No, I mean, I.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Mean I almost didn't even want to make the joke because,
like I know, just saying something like you.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Know, there's gonna be people in the comments who are
like he's.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Saying it because it's true. It's like, oh right, it's no, no,
it's not.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I mean, look, I you know you said before we started,
like you feel like we've said everybody said all there
is to say, and I think you're right, but there
is like the reason this still has a hold is
because it is so weird, right, what's happened in the
last you know, a week and then last month with
Elon saying you know that that Trump was in the files,
(01:56):
you know, this allegation about Bannon. I don't I tend
not to believe in big conspiracies, okay, And so which.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Is which is saying something considering you were the guy
that the Biden administration worked with big tech to like
undermine and kick off the Internet and go after and
so for you to say you're not into conspiracies as
a general matter, I feel like you have some credibility
in the area, right.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
And by the way, I can't get any of the others.
I can't get anybody.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Except you practically to acknowledge that this happened, which is,
you know, totally gaslighting and mind blowing and you know,
like insanity making for me this that you know that
the that the that the mainstream media will not cover that.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
So we know the mainstream media has blinders.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Okay, we know that that you know that Jeffrey Epson
was a really bad guy, and that he procured a
lot of teenage girls. I don't think I you know,
I don't think they were five year olds, but you
know they were.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
They were teenage girls.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
They were being taken advantage of their often from either
poor families or poor countries. He was an intermediary for
wealthy men to you know, to get massages, to have
sex with these girls.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
There's no question about all of that.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Would that make him in an attractive target to an
intelligence agency or you know, or even the FBI, Yeah,
of course it would, right. I mean that that's not
that's not a conspiracy. I don't think to suggest that
that's a possibility. Right And by the way, if he
were a cooperating witness working with the FBI or the
CI or the DEA, would they have interceded, you know,
(03:31):
in the mid two thousands to you know, try to
get his prosecution you know, either dropped or pushed way down.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
It was substantially it was substantially downgraded from what anybody
else would have ever faced for similar stuff.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Yeah, that's right, that's right and so but but like again,
I don't really think that suggesting that that's a possibility
makes you a conspiracy there's nor does it mean that
the you know that, I mean, something bad happened, but
that happens, right Like we let murderers go to catch
you know, drug kingpins, right, we let drug ping kingpins
(04:06):
go to catch arms traffickers, right like, Like there is
a hierarchy, and the US government plays this game, right,
everyone plays this game. So so to suggest that that
might have happened.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
I told well twenty years ago, because I think what
people would say is that as they learn more about
Epstein and what happened in twenty nineteen, was the Miami
Herald story came out before that, and and it all
of a sudden it was no, Epstein's actually like doing
the worst, Like he's the worst guy, right, like, there
there is no worst for it.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
I mean, was he doing the worst or was he
doing stuff that the people you know who made these
deals new and you know, and it wasn't child rape,
Let's say, you know again it was it was I'm
going to bring in this fifteen year old from you know,
from Romania and she's pretty and she's going to be
made available. That that is like, that is that is
a crime. You should be punished for that. You should
(04:55):
be punished to be for that. That is not you know,
having sex with a with a two year old and
then killing the you know, two year.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Old and some ritual murder.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Let's let's be clear, right like like what Epstein is
sort of known to have done is not the stuff
that is floating around out there. So so so here's
the thing, like you can say and believe that probably Epstein,
you know, flipped at some point that he made information
available again, whether it.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Was the CIA, the DEA, the FBI.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Some foreign intelligence service, who knows, and still not think
that the crazy stuff that they're like pedophiles run the government,
and you know, it's all being kept secret to save
you know, George Bush from having to admit that he
was Barack Obama's lover or whatever that you know.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Whatever the not I mean. I'll say this.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I've had a lot of people. I've had a lot
of people from the radio show audience, for example, very
angry at me, very angry at Clay. And I still
I think that Epstein was engaged in blackmail. I think
he might very well have been an asset or an
agent of a intelligence service or a foreign power. I
leave those open as possibilities, and those are ones that
I find likely. What I don't have is proof of this,
(06:06):
or rather such specificity that I can say this group,
that individual, whatever it may be, and I do know
they've I do know that he received treatment that nobody
else would have.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
That as a fact.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
I do know that the suicide was super sketchy.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
That is a fact.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
And also the way that this has been handled with
the binders and the role.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Okay, that's all.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
But at the end of the day, the people who
are mad at me, I keep saying you, actually, if
you're mad at me, as just somebody who is analyzing
and talking about public domain, you really should just be
mad at Donald Trump, because he's told you now very clearly,
we have shared what needs to be shared. This issue
is over with. That is from Trump himself at this point.
So it is not it is the the irrational break
(06:45):
that I've had to make clear, rather the cognitive dissonance
that I've had to call out is you can't be
mad at people who don't agree with you on this,
but not be mad at Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
No, but I totally agree. I think you've you've laid
it out perfectly. But I think people are mad at Trump.
I mean, I think it seems to me from the
emails I get and what I see on X that a.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Lot some of them are, some of them are. That's
what I'm just saying. You can't be mad at the
people that aren't as far you know, as as sort
of fired up on this issue as as some of
the people out there seem very clearly are. Without saying
that this is this is a decision, This decision has
truly been made from the top. Now that this is
the information that's out there, and Trump has made the decision,
(07:29):
so that is where this is.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Is he going to be able to hold to that?
I you know, I guess, I guess we'll see. But
clearly there are people who are unsatisfied. And what's also
very interesting is now that the left, right, the left,
which is always we believe in science, people believe in conspiracies.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
They've seen an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
They realize there's a huge fracture that they can exploit here,
and they're finally it's I've been everybody I know on
the right has actually been talking about this for the
last week, which is you know, they keep on MSNBC,
they keep running these like you know, cheery odds, like
to look at the illegals they're getting rid of, and
everybody in the right is like, yes, I voted for you,
(08:05):
like you know, this is this is getting us excited. Right,
They don't understand we're with this that doesn't work. What actually,
if you're looking to create problems or fan the flames,
is this epscene stuff on the right And the Democrats
have finally woken up to that. So all right, I
think we've set our piece on that for now, and
like one more thing, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
No, no, I would just say the only thing that
I ever saw that were got between Trump and the
Magabase in any way was the vaccines, and he and
he successfully navigated that. Actually, I mean, because you know,
there are a lot of people, there are a lot
of people who didn't like the vaccines, who didn't like
the m RNAs, And he what he figured out was
he could say he was against the mandates, and you know,
(08:47):
and that would satisfy people. I mean, and you know,
I did think Brond de Santis would be able to
make a huge issue out of that in twenty twenty three,
and he was not able to. So perhaps Trump will
find a way to navigate this. But this is bigger
than the m RNA's.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Oh yes, no, I think for a lot of people,
certainly right nowadays, all right, a word from our sponsor
here before we dive into the Biden dementia cover up thing,
because we got more on that from the New York
Alexi to work with the New York Times. We can
have a fun conversation about that. I love just putting
it out because I'm sure there's so many Libs who
see that the notion that you were ever even allowed
in the building, mister Berenson.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
They must see this idea.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
But first up, our sponsor here is Birch Gold. And
as you know, the big beautiful bill passed, there's a
lot of good stuff coming in the Trump economy. Trump
economy is already really cooking, and I think it's going
to get even better. But he's only in office for
four years and the thirty seven trillion in debt we
have is not going away. Purchasing power has been going
(09:44):
down for years and years now because of the excessive spending,
and you need to find ways to protect your wealth
and to diversify. That's where gold comes in. It's time
for you to get some gold to hedge against inflation,
economic instability, and the long term challenges we have to
the dollar. And Birch Gold is who I trust to
(10:04):
do this for you. They've helped tens of thousands convert
an existing IRA or four oh one k into an
IRA in physical gold. Okay, Birch Gold Group. Text my
name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight Birch
Gold to help you with a free, no obligation infoKit.
Text my name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety
eight today, Birch Gold Group. They are the best in
(10:28):
the business. I have to say I think that the
the the Biden dementia cover is one of these. It's
an issue where the Democrats keep trying to They keep
trying to head it off or put it to bed
or start to come, and they always seem to make
it a little worse in my mind. And I you know,
and an example of this for me is the New
York Times with this big piece about oh Biden knew
(10:50):
about all the pardons is basically the headline, right paraphrase,
and then you get into it and it's very clear, No,
he absolutely did not know what was going on with
all of these no idea.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
You're at Brett. He knew that he was pardoning hunting.
The rest of that, it was sort of like, hey,
mister President, we think that there are too many people
in jail.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I'm not on Milan drug crimes, uh Oka, And like
that was more or less in right.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
And like then they would the you know, the chief
of staff and people two levels down would debate who
should be in and out. And I mean there was one.
It's funny you maybe want to write about this, you know.
It's sort of one of these pieces where I go
through a New York Times article and tell you what
it really says, because the facts are in there, but
the truth is still hidden because.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
The way they write it.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
There was an email laid in the piece that they mentioned,
and it was like mister Zenz who was the chief
of staff at the time, who this is his name.
I know very well because he was the COVID head
of the COVID response in twenty twenty one, so and
he got promoted for that. So he he sent out
an email saying it's okay to use the autopack. Well,
(11:59):
shouldn't it be the president sending out the emails like
it's okay to use the auto pan But you're absolutely right,
like like the you are not getting the impression of
a chief executive who is like down in the nitty gritty,
I mean, to the extent he has any idea what's
going on, it's in the broadest strokes.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Yes, And I think that the problem for places like
The New York Times and others in this whole process
is how can you have any credibility to talk or
report on this issue at this stage when essentially the
only way to maintain any credibility is to tell everybody
(12:39):
we were so dumb and so incapable of basic observation
that we missed this. Now, I of course think that
they have to say that because to point out that
they were just colluding in a giant lie to get
a guy elected who is a vegetable is even worse
for them. But we're so dumb we couldn't see what
everybody else could plainly see that that's a tough brand hit.
(13:00):
You know, this is why CNN has like fifty thousand
people watching.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Now, especially when you're the New York Times and you know,
you think you're the smartest and you tell everyone you're
the martial brands being the smartest.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
No, what they.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Really need to do is, you know, look, as I joke,
it's not a joke, they'll acknowledge me on the twelfth
of never. But like they need to bring me or
tayiv or somebody else in to write the piece, like
to be the person who investigates how the Times did
this with full editorial control. They're not allowed to edit it,
(13:33):
and they just you know, they cooperate, They open their
documents and they just publish what.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
I write for what Tybe writes.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
That's the only way forward for them on this issue.
They'll never do it, you know, Jake Tapper. I mean,
you could see how desperate they are to move forward
from this because Tapper's book, which is just a bunch
of Democrats, you know, complaining that they were misled and
a few reporters and basically ends where it should begin,
ends with the acknowledgment that Biden was a vegetable. Well
(14:01):
thanks for that, Jacob.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Thanks. You can see that.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Book got like incredible acclaim from all these people on
the left because they do want to pretend that like
somehow there were you know, three people in the White
House who knew Biden was demented and everyone else couldn't
see it.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
But see, the big part of that that is a
huge miss, which there's a lot of parts of that
book that's a huge miss, but one part of it
that stands out is in all of this, no one
is actually lying named in that book. From what I understand, right,
it's everyone says someone lied to me and somebody was
covering this up, But there's no person the book even
(14:38):
insinuates is the one doing the lying and the covering up.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
So it's it's like, it's all right, it's a book
about a murder where you never hear who the murderer is, right,
I mean, you never hear like who actually did the thing.
It's just somebody's like, oh my gosh, can you believe
that someone killed this guy over here, Like what a
terrible thing it is that some other person did. No
one is responsible, It's preposterous.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
The book is proposed.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
It is proposal, and you can see that like there
are smarter dumbers. Times actually did have a story today
about these sort of center left Democrats who are acknowledging
what a you know, what a like anchor this is
that they're stuck still having to talk about this more
than a year later, but they still can't figure out
how to get out of it because it really will
require and for the media even more, because the media's
(15:27):
supposed to be independent, Like an acknowledgement of we just
didn't like Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
And we were willing to do anything to keep him out,
that would be true.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
That to me, I actually appreciated it more when they
said the truth is anti Trump, therefore in telling the truth,
we have to be anti Trump. Right, That was the
circular logic that the Washington Post and these others, and
you know what I said, you guys are insane, but
at least that you know, at least there's some there's
some authenticity or some some integrity to that, right, Like
you're just telling us that you're just propaganda now right,
(15:59):
But in this one there's still this. Oh yeah, we
were so dumb we couldn't figure out which I think
nobody believes. All right, our sponsor here, Our sponsor here,
real quick, Alex. And then we then I got to
ask you about Maha, and then we're actually at time.
We're having too much fun.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
It's flying. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
A sponsor here is Paradigm Press. There's something under American
soil that has a value to it in the trillions
of dollars one hundred and sixty trillion, to be more precise.
It's been there forever. This is not new. This endowment
is so large it could pay off our national debt
four times over. Now, thanks to a Supreme Court decision
that Trump administration could soon release that endowment to the public.
Jim Rickards, former advisor to the White House and Federal Reserve, says,
(16:34):
if you're over fifty, this could be your best chance
to build lasting wealth from a once in a century event.
It's a big statement. To hear more of what Jim
has to say, go online to birthright twenty twenty five
dot com. That's birthright twenty twenty five dot com to
get the details free of charge paid for by Paradigm Press.
All Right, what's the most we only got a couple
of minutes of us. What's the most interesting health story
(16:55):
you're working on right now? Big pharma, YadA YadA. What's
keeping you up at now?
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Well?
Speaker 4 (17:00):
I mean, you know, I think that the the efforts
the efforts that you know, RFK and j Ataria at
NIH and Vinet Pissade at FDA and Marty Mockery at
at FDA are making, or marcarry I should say an
FDA are making right.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Now to try to put some limits on the mRNA shots,
and the way the pushback, the unbelievable pushback that they
are facing for doing stuff that wouldn't even put the
United States in line with Europe. Okay, most European countries
have essentially halted the use of these vaccines, uh, you know,
(17:42):
for for for almost everybody under sixty five. And when
and when these guys are trying to move us a
little bit in that direction, it gets talked about like
they literally are trying to you know, throw babies under
a bus. It's not, I mean, it's it's Look, most
people aren't getting in the COVID vaccine, so this may
seem like a theoretical argument, but to me, it's a
(18:02):
very important debate and discussion because it shows you how
insane the US health system is about you know, about vaccinations,
about mandatory vaccinations, about not considering the risk and benefit
of new vaccinations, and and just how difficult it is.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
To get these people to I mean, to look at
the data in the science.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
They claim that they care about about data, they claim
that they're science driven, but it turns out that they're
just completely ideologically blinkered on this issue and on you know,
and on a lot of health issues. And so I'm
really watching what's happening with the m R and as
very closely. Obviously something I care about a lot, I'm
written about a lot, But I think it's also a
(18:45):
sign of something much bigger.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Alex perience and everybody unreported truths on substack. Go subscribe,
mister Parentson. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Thanks, thank you. Sure
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.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Everybody, Our friend Alex Berenson is in the mix once again.
We're going to talk to him about make America healthy again,
about the Biden cognitive decline story, which just got a
big addition to that timeline from the New York Times
over the weekend. And yes, some'm Epstein stuff because I
haven't had his take yet on it, and we still
have a lot of people who are very fired up
(00:42):
about this, mister Berenson. Of course, Unreported Truths on Substack
Go Subscribe does great work there, sir. I just want
to I want to give you the floor. We haven't
talked you and I on the show about Epstein stuff yet. People,
where what is your take with where we are right
now on this?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:02):
I mean, look, I should be asking you because we
know you handled him for the CIA.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
We know that was your job. Yeah, it didn't even joke, right.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
How many people think I'm handling Clay for the CIA
based on what he says of this? I'm like, guys,
it's no one.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
No one could.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Handle Clay trust me, but anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
No, I mean, I.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Mean I almost didn't even want to make the joke because,
like I know, just saying something like you.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Know, there's gonna be people in the comments who are
like he's.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Saying it because it's true. It's like, oh right, it's no, no,
it's not.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I mean, look, I you know you said before we started,
like you feel like we've said everybody said all there
is to say, and I think you're right, but there
is like the reason this still has a hold is
because it is so weird, right, what's happened in the
last you know, a week and then last month with
Elon saying you know that that Trump was in the files,
(01:56):
you know, this allegation about Bannon. I don't I tend
not to believe in big conspiracies, okay, And so which.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Is which is saying something considering you were the guy
that the Biden administration worked with big tech to like
undermine and kick off the Internet and go after and
so for you to say you're not into conspiracies as
a general matter, I feel like you have some credibility
in the area, right.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
And by the way, I can't get any of the others.
I can't get anybody.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Except you practically to acknowledge that this happened, which is,
you know, totally gaslighting and mind blowing and you know,
like insanity making for me this that you know that
the that the that the mainstream media will not cover that.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
So we know the mainstream media has blinders.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Okay, we know that that you know that Jeffrey Epson
was a really bad guy, and that he procured a
lot of teenage girls. I don't think I you know,
I don't think they were five year olds, but you
know they were.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
They were teenage girls.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
They were being taken advantage of their often from either
poor families or poor countries. He was an intermediary for
wealthy men to you know, to get massages, to have
sex with these girls.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
There's no question about all of that.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Would that make him in an attractive target to an
intelligence agency or you know, or even the FBI, Yeah,
of course it would, right. I mean that that's not
that's not a conspiracy. I don't think to suggest that
that's a possibility. Right And by the way, if he
were a cooperating witness working with the FBI or the
CI or the DEA, would they have interceded, you know,
(03:31):
in the mid two thousands to you know, try to
get his prosecution you know, either dropped or pushed way down.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
It was substantially it was substantially downgraded from what anybody
else would have ever faced for similar stuff.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Yeah, that's right, that's right and so but but like again,
I don't really think that suggesting that that's a possibility
makes you a conspiracy there's nor does it mean that
the you know that, I mean, something bad happened, but
that happens, right Like we let murderers go to catch
you know, drug kingpins, right, we let drug ping kingpins
(04:06):
go to catch arms traffickers, right like, Like there is
a hierarchy, and the US government plays this game, right,
everyone plays this game. So so to suggest that that
might have happened.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
I told well twenty years ago, because I think what
people would say is that as they learn more about
Epstein and what happened in twenty nineteen, was the Miami
Herald story came out before that, and and it all
of a sudden it was no, Epstein's actually like doing
the worst, Like he's the worst guy, right, like, there
there is no worst for it.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
I mean, was he doing the worst or was he
doing stuff that the people you know who made these
deals new and you know, and it wasn't child rape,
Let's say, you know again it was it was I'm
going to bring in this fifteen year old from you know,
from Romania and she's pretty and she's going to be
made available. That that is like, that is that is
a crime. You should be punished for that. You should
(04:55):
be punished to be for that. That is not you know,
having sex with a with a two year old and
then killing the you know, two year.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Old and some ritual murder.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Let's let's be clear, right like like what Epstein is
sort of known to have done is not the stuff
that is floating around out there. So so so here's
the thing, like you can say and believe that probably Epstein,
you know, flipped at some point that he made information
available again, whether it.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Was the CIA, the DEA, the FBI.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Some foreign intelligence service, who knows, and still not think
that the crazy stuff that they're like pedophiles run the government,
and you know, it's all being kept secret to save
you know, George Bush from having to admit that he
was Barack Obama's lover or whatever that you know.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Whatever the not I mean. I'll say this.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I've had a lot of people. I've had a lot
of people from the radio show audience, for example, very
angry at me, very angry at Clay. And I still
I think that Epstein was engaged in blackmail. I think
he might very well have been an asset or an
agent of a intelligence service or a foreign power. I
leave those open as possibilities, and those are ones that
I find likely. What I don't have is proof of this,
(06:06):
or rather such specificity that I can say this group,
that individual, whatever it may be, and I do know
they've I do know that he received treatment that nobody
else would have.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
That as a fact.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
I do know that the suicide was super sketchy.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
That is a fact.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
And also the way that this has been handled with
the binders and the role.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Okay, that's all.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
But at the end of the day, the people who
are mad at me, I keep saying you, actually, if
you're mad at me, as just somebody who is analyzing
and talking about public domain, you really should just be
mad at Donald Trump, because he's told you now very clearly,
we have shared what needs to be shared. This issue
is over with. That is from Trump himself at this point.
So it is not it is the the irrational break
(06:45):
that I've had to make clear, rather the cognitive dissonance
that I've had to call out is you can't be
mad at people who don't agree with you on this,
but not be mad at Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
No, but I totally agree. I think you've you've laid
it out perfectly. But I think people are mad at Trump.
I mean, I think it seems to me from the
emails I get and what I see on X that a.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Lot some of them are, some of them are. That's
what I'm just saying. You can't be mad at the
people that aren't as far you know, as as sort
of fired up on this issue as as some of
the people out there seem very clearly are. Without saying
that this is this is a decision, This decision has
truly been made from the top. Now that this is
the information that's out there, and Trump has made the decision,
(07:29):
so that is where this is.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Is he going to be able to hold to that?
I you know, I guess, I guess we'll see. But
clearly there are people who are unsatisfied. And what's also
very interesting is now that the left, right, the left,
which is always we believe in science, people believe in conspiracies.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
They've seen an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
They realize there's a huge fracture that they can exploit here,
and they're finally it's I've been everybody I know on
the right has actually been talking about this for the
last week, which is you know, they keep on MSNBC,
they keep running these like you know, cheery odds, like
to look at the illegals they're getting rid of, and
everybody in the right is like, yes, I voted for you,
(08:05):
like you know, this is this is getting us excited. Right,
They don't understand we're with this that doesn't work. What actually,
if you're looking to create problems or fan the flames,
is this epscene stuff on the right And the Democrats
have finally woken up to that. So all right, I
think we've set our piece on that for now, and
like one more thing, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
No, no, I would just say the only thing that
I ever saw that were got between Trump and the
Magabase in any way was the vaccines, and he and
he successfully navigated that. Actually, I mean, because you know,
there are a lot of people, there are a lot
of people who didn't like the vaccines, who didn't like
the m RNAs, And he what he figured out was
he could say he was against the mandates, and you know,
(08:47):
and that would satisfy people. I mean, and you know,
I did think Brond de Santis would be able to
make a huge issue out of that in twenty twenty three,
and he was not able to. So perhaps Trump will
find a way to navigate this. But this is bigger
than the m RNA's.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Oh yes, no, I think for a lot of people,
certainly right nowadays, all right, a word from our sponsor
here before we dive into the Biden dementia cover up thing,
because we got more on that from the New York
Alexi to work with the New York Times. We can
have a fun conversation about that. I love just putting
it out because I'm sure there's so many Libs who
see that the notion that you were ever even allowed
in the building, mister Berenson.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
They must see this idea.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
But first up, our sponsor here is Birch Gold. And
as you know, the big beautiful bill passed, there's a
lot of good stuff coming in the Trump economy. Trump
economy is already really cooking, and I think it's going
to get even better. But he's only in office for
four years and the thirty seven trillion in debt we
have is not going away. Purchasing power has been going
(09:44):
down for years and years now because of the excessive spending,
and you need to find ways to protect your wealth
and to diversify. That's where gold comes in. It's time
for you to get some gold to hedge against inflation,
economic instability, and the long term challenges we have to
the dollar. And Birch Gold is who I trust to
(10:04):
do this for you. They've helped tens of thousands convert
an existing IRA or four oh one k into an
IRA in physical gold. Okay, Birch Gold Group. Text my
name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight Birch
Gold to help you with a free, no obligation infoKit.
Text my name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety
eight today, Birch Gold Group. They are the best in
(10:28):
the business. I have to say I think that the
the the Biden dementia cover is one of these. It's
an issue where the Democrats keep trying to They keep
trying to head it off or put it to bed
or start to come, and they always seem to make
it a little worse in my mind. And I you know,
and an example of this for me is the New
York Times with this big piece about oh Biden knew
(10:50):
about all the pardons is basically the headline, right paraphrase,
and then you get into it and it's very clear, No,
he absolutely did not know what was going on with
all of these no idea.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
You're at Brett. He knew that he was pardoning hunting.
The rest of that, it was sort of like, hey,
mister President, we think that there are too many people
in jail.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I'm not on Milan drug crimes, uh Oka, And like
that was more or less in right.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
And like then they would the you know, the chief
of staff and people two levels down would debate who
should be in and out. And I mean there was one.
It's funny you maybe want to write about this, you know.
It's sort of one of these pieces where I go
through a New York Times article and tell you what
it really says, because the facts are in there, but
the truth is still hidden because.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
The way they write it.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
There was an email laid in the piece that they mentioned,
and it was like mister Zenz who was the chief
of staff at the time, who this is his name.
I know very well because he was the COVID head
of the COVID response in twenty twenty one, so and
he got promoted for that. So he he sent out
an email saying it's okay to use the autopack. Well,
(11:59):
shouldn't it be the president sending out the emails like
it's okay to use the auto pan But you're absolutely right,
like like the you are not getting the impression of
a chief executive who is like down in the nitty gritty,
I mean, to the extent he has any idea what's
going on, it's in the broadest strokes.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Yes, And I think that the problem for places like
The New York Times and others in this whole process
is how can you have any credibility to talk or
report on this issue at this stage when essentially the
only way to maintain any credibility is to tell everybody
(12:39):
we were so dumb and so incapable of basic observation
that we missed this. Now, I of course think that
they have to say that because to point out that
they were just colluding in a giant lie to get
a guy elected who is a vegetable is even worse
for them. But we're so dumb we couldn't see what
everybody else could plainly see that that's a tough brand hit.
(13:00):
You know, this is why CNN has like fifty thousand
people watching.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Now, especially when you're the New York Times and you know,
you think you're the smartest and you tell everyone you're
the martial brands being the smartest.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
No, what they.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Really need to do is, you know, look, as I joke,
it's not a joke, they'll acknowledge me on the twelfth
of never. But like they need to bring me or
tayiv or somebody else in to write the piece, like
to be the person who investigates how the Times did
this with full editorial control. They're not allowed to edit it,
(13:33):
and they just you know, they cooperate, They open their
documents and they just publish what.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
I write for what Tybe writes.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
That's the only way forward for them on this issue.
They'll never do it, you know, Jake Tapper. I mean,
you could see how desperate they are to move forward
from this because Tapper's book, which is just a bunch
of Democrats, you know, complaining that they were misled and
a few reporters and basically ends where it should begin,
ends with the acknowledgment that Biden was a vegetable. Well
(14:01):
thanks for that, Jacob.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Thanks. You can see that.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Book got like incredible acclaim from all these people on
the left because they do want to pretend that like
somehow there were you know, three people in the White
House who knew Biden was demented and everyone else couldn't
see it.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
But see, the big part of that that is a
huge miss, which there's a lot of parts of that
book that's a huge miss, but one part of it
that stands out is in all of this, no one
is actually lying named in that book. From what I understand, right,
it's everyone says someone lied to me and somebody was
covering this up, But there's no person the book even
(14:38):
insinuates is the one doing the lying and the covering up.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
So it's it's like, it's all right, it's a book
about a murder where you never hear who the murderer is, right,
I mean, you never hear like who actually did the thing.
It's just somebody's like, oh my gosh, can you believe
that someone killed this guy over here, Like what a
terrible thing it is that some other person did. No
one is responsible, It's preposterous.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
The book is proposed.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
It is proposal, and you can see that like there
are smarter dumbers. Times actually did have a story today
about these sort of center left Democrats who are acknowledging
what a you know, what a like anchor this is
that they're stuck still having to talk about this more
than a year later, but they still can't figure out
how to get out of it because it really will
require and for the media even more, because the media's
(15:27):
supposed to be independent, Like an acknowledgement of we just
didn't like Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
And we were willing to do anything to keep him out,
that would be true.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
That to me, I actually appreciated it more when they
said the truth is anti Trump, therefore in telling the truth,
we have to be anti Trump. Right, That was the
circular logic that the Washington Post and these others, and
you know what I said, you guys are insane, but
at least that you know, at least there's some there's
some authenticity or some some integrity to that, right, Like
you're just telling us that you're just propaganda now right,
(15:59):
But in this one there's still this. Oh yeah, we
were so dumb we couldn't figure out which I think
nobody believes. All right, our sponsor here, Our sponsor here,
real quick, Alex. And then we then I got to
ask you about Maha, and then we're actually at time.
We're having too much fun.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
It's flying. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
A sponsor here is Paradigm Press. There's something under American
soil that has a value to it in the trillions
of dollars one hundred and sixty trillion, to be more precise.
It's been there forever. This is not new. This endowment
is so large it could pay off our national debt
four times over. Now, thanks to a Supreme Court decision
that Trump administration could soon release that endowment to the public.
Jim Rickards, former advisor to the White House and Federal Reserve, says,
(16:34):
if you're over fifty, this could be your best chance
to build lasting wealth from a once in a century event.
It's a big statement. To hear more of what Jim
has to say, go online to birthright twenty twenty five
dot com. That's birthright twenty twenty five dot com to
get the details free of charge paid for by Paradigm Press.
All Right, what's the most we only got a couple
of minutes of us. What's the most interesting health story
(16:55):
you're working on right now? Big pharma, YadA YadA. What's
keeping you up at now?
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Well?
Speaker 4 (17:00):
I mean, you know, I think that the the efforts
the efforts that you know, RFK and j Ataria at
NIH and Vinet Pissade at FDA and Marty Mockery at
at FDA are making, or marcarry I should say an
FDA are making right.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Now to try to put some limits on the mRNA shots,
and the way the pushback, the unbelievable pushback that they
are facing for doing stuff that wouldn't even put the
United States in line with Europe. Okay, most European countries
have essentially halted the use of these vaccines, uh, you know,
(17:42):
for for for almost everybody under sixty five. And when
and when these guys are trying to move us a
little bit in that direction, it gets talked about like
they literally are trying to you know, throw babies under
a bus. It's not, I mean, it's it's Look, most
people aren't getting in the COVID vaccine, so this may
seem like a theoretical argument, but to me, it's a
(18:02):
very important debate and discussion because it shows you how
insane the US health system is about you know, about vaccinations,
about mandatory vaccinations, about not considering the risk and benefit
of new vaccinations, and and just how difficult it is.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
To get these people to I mean, to look at
the data in the science.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
They claim that they care about about data, they claim
that they're science driven, but it turns out that they're
just completely ideologically blinkered on this issue and on you know,
and on a lot of health issues. And so I'm
really watching what's happening with the m R and as
very closely. Obviously something I care about a lot, I'm
written about a lot, But I think it's also a
(18:45):
sign of something much bigger.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Alex perience and everybody unreported truths on substack. Go subscribe,
mister Parentson. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Thanks, thank you. Sure
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.