Daily Review with Clay and Buck - May 28 2024

Trump trial closing arguments. You don't want to be that guy. Buck to Clay, "I found you!" Alex Berenson on Fauci's scandalous covid emails.

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's a very sad day.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
This is a dark day in America.

Speaker 1 (00:04):
We have a reached court case.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
That should have never been brought and it should have
been brought in another jurisdiction.

Speaker 3 (00:10):
As you know, we.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
Asked for that, and the judge never allows us anything.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
And just to end, we had an election expert was
going to say everything was perfect when the FBC did nothing,
it was fine.

Speaker 4 (00:26):
And we had a lot of other people.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
I could give you a list of forty people that
would say the exact same.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Thing as these people said. So thank you very much. Well,
we'll see how it goes.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
This is a very dangerous day for America.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
It's a very sad day.

Speaker 5 (00:40):
Thank you one.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
He is saying there at the end, that's obviously President
or Trump. What are you saying? Is important for everyone
to hear over and over again. It is a dangerous
day in America. This is you know, usually Clay, when
someone says this is about more than me, they actually
just want to focus more attention on themselves. This is
about more than Trump. Actually, you cannot have a free

(01:02):
country with free elections where one side will bring obviously
trumped up and absurd political prosecutions against people and use
the justice system to do it. That effectively can end
the process of elections as we've come to know it.
So it is really important. It is more than Trump.

(01:23):
But I think he also makes another critical point here.
This is him speaking this morning before he went into
the trial, and that is not only do they delay this,
not only is the whole charge preposterous, not only is
it all sort of stuck together with you scotch tape
and bubblegum as a prosecutorial view of the case and

(01:45):
view of the crime, Clay the judge has even tried
to I think skew it towards the prosecution in very
clear and obvious ways. And we still now wonder whether
there'll be one person on that jury, maybe more, maybe
a couple, you know, hung jury one, it could be
a few, yeah, but whether one person will see through

(02:06):
all of this. But the whole thing has been truly rigged,
truly rigged.

Speaker 4 (02:11):
And again I think it's so important to strip away
everything that you believe about Trump, everything that you believe
about Biden, everything that you believe about Judge Marchan or
Alvin Bragg. We all have strong opinions there. If these
twelve jurors just focus on what will eventually be they're
trying to finish the closing arguments today, what will eventually

(02:35):
be the jury instructions that they get, which will be
a story in and of itself, because I'm intrigued to
see exactly what the jury instructions look like. But there
is no way possible that you could say beyond a
reasonable doubt that there has been a crime committed here.
I think on two levels. I think there is an

(02:55):
argument that Trump was not involved in these business transactions
in the way that they were booked on the documents,
which by the way, is a misdemeanor. But I think
one hundred percent certainty there is no proving of any
kind of intent on his part, which would be part
of the second crime that would elevate this to a felony.

(03:17):
I think there's a strong and I've hammered this for
a while, every man out there, I really do believe
that Trump was worried about Milania hearing these accusations, whether
they were true or not, inside of his marriage, as
much or more than he was concerned about the political

(03:39):
implications of this. And I think most every man out
there listening can imagine, let presume that Trump didn't do this.
We know that he bought off one allegation about him
having a child out of marriage, which was one hundred
percent not true, and I think that's a big part
of this story. There was a doorman who was telling

(04:02):
a story that Trump had an illegitimate child, and he
paid for that story not to go public, and we
know it's one hundred percent false because he didn't want
the story out there and it was otherwise going to
be Why couldn't the same thing be for his own family.

Speaker 1 (04:16):
So here, here's a perfect example of why this whole
thing is insane. Go to the Federal Election Commission website
and look up the personal Use differentiation but for campaign
and personal use funds, and they have something clay. It's
very straightforward called the And I spoke about this recently.

(04:36):
I said, you know, people think like, oh, I got
a nice suit, I wear it to my office. I
can write that off of my taxes. No, if you
you know, have to dress like you know, if you
have to wear like a uniform or something, you know,
you have to dress like you're from a different century
or something from some kind of a historical society, you know,
something like that. But there's something called the irrespective test

(04:58):
here for the FEC, same thing would apply for you.
Taxes Commission regulations provide a test called the irrespective test
to differentiate legitimate versus campaign expenses. Personal use is any
use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate
to fulfillate commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective
of the candidate's campaign or responsibilities as a federal office holder.

(05:18):
So you're not allowed to just be like, I have
campaign funds, I'm going to be talking about the campaign
in this new home. I'm going to buy this new
home for myself with campaign funds. Like this is pretty straightforward, right,
I mean, it's it's a pretty straightforward rule. Paying somebody
to shut up about an affair you had a long
time ago is clearly dual use, right, I mean, it's

(05:39):
clearly a thing that you would have done I'm sorry,
personal use, pardon me, Clearly a thing you would have
done on a personal basis, which is what you're talking
about with the alleged a doorman affair thing, whatever that was.
And the even more clear way to look at this
is if this is a campaign expense, they rather if
he had treated this as a ca paign expense. They

(06:00):
absolutely would prosecute it. John Edwards, right, they absolutely would
prosecute him for this, so he there's no way that
that's what you're getting at, which is important. There's no
way that under this version of the law.

Speaker 4 (06:14):
Trump could have been able to legally pay these funds
for a non disclosure agreement. And remember they keep calling
this a hush money trial. We tried to avoid using
that terminology here because that's not a crime. Paying hush money.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Is not a crime. It's a business rerecord.

Speaker 4 (06:32):
It for a long time, this is.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
A business records trial, which I've been saying all along.
We even talked to one of trump'sttorneys. I said, isn't
this a business record? The answer is yes. I'd also
know with John Edwards, because I think there's a tendency
for people to say, oh, well, they prosecuted. They try
to prosecute John Edwards for having a campaign like you know,
funder basically pay this woman and take care of her,
and that they were unsuccessful in the prosecution. But remember

(06:56):
John Edwards was done at that point. He was humiliated,
and he had aumiliated the Democrat Party as well. He
was no longer politically useful, So he was fair game
for any headhunting prosecutor that wanted to make a name
for himself. By the way, who was the prosecutor who
brought that charge or brought that case. You start to
look into this and you see there are some people

(07:16):
for whom public corruption cases are an opportunity to make
their own name. And it's really not about what's what's
fair and what's right. I think in this instance, Trump
was damned if he did damned if he didn't. And
that's that is, on its face, an unfair position to
put someone in. Legally, you can't say I'd prosecute you
if you did A, and I'd prosecute you, prosecute you

(07:38):
if you did B, and those are your only choices, right.
You can't put someone in that situation, and that is
what they have done to Donald Trump. You want to
get into the de Niro thing here for a second.
You saw they deployed de Niro. Yeah, downtime. I can't
believe this is real. They biden campaigns like, yeah, let's
go have Robert de Niro make our case for us. Uh,
this is him. Play three.

Speaker 6 (07:57):
The Twin Towers fell just over here, just over there,
This part of the city was like a ghost town.
But we vowed we would not allow terrorists to change
our way of life, and we started the Tribeca Festival
to bring people back.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
I love this city.

Speaker 5 (08:18):
I love this city.

Speaker 6 (08:19):
I don't want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to
destroy not only the city, but the country and eventually
he could destroy the world. But we vowed we would
not allow terrorists.

Speaker 1 (08:37):
They're yelling fjb for in case anyone doesn't couldn't hear
with what was going on that we had to bleep
that out. Obviously, yeah, bleep Joe Biden. But Clay, Donald
Trump wants to destroy New York City and the country
and the world. I mean, people, people who say this
discredit themselves just with that one with that one sentence,

(08:59):
or with that one paragraph of idiocy.

Speaker 4 (09:02):
I just cannot imagine that you would think, Hey, the
guy that we need to bring this all home for
us as the trial is completed is Robert de Niro.

Speaker 5 (09:14):
I mean, it's just.

Speaker 4 (09:15):
Such a weird thing to do. De Niro has totally
lost his mind over Trump. And but even if you
were breaking this down, does anybody out there really trust
I mean Robert de Niro made a career playing gangsters
in in movies. I mean, it's not like this is

(09:35):
Tom Hanks, right, I mean somebody who was really beloved
for the characters that he played.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
I also think most people realized actors weighing in on
politics is really just annoying and kind of sad because
they're mostly idiots who haven't had to deal in the
real world in any meaningful way and they've really just
won the lottery.

Speaker 5 (09:57):
Well, that was the.

Speaker 4 (09:58):
General perspective when the whole era that we grew up. Everybody,
whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or independent, would roll your
eyes when somebody won an Oscar and they got up
and they tried to lecture the American public. And then
in a social media age, suddenly these people started being
taken way more seriously. Maybe it's also I think it's
the reverse celebrity culture. I think it's the reverse. I

(10:20):
think that they were far more revered for their ideas
and politics because we were limited in our exposure to them.
Now we see these morons on Twitter and Facebook and whatever, unscripted, unfiltered,
and we're like, this person knows nothing. I mean, you know,
this is like Leonardo DiCaprio flying around in a private
jets to his climate change conferences and then tweeting about

(10:43):
the threat of climate change.

Speaker 1 (10:44):
Like, we see who these people are now in a
way that before you might have bought into the mystique
a little bit. So I just I see it differently.
I think that now we got there. I think actors
have never been more more undermined in the public mind
by their own stupidity. I think that they're at the
app so the peak of it now.

Speaker 5 (11:01):
Oh.

Speaker 4 (11:02):
I think that social media has made this whole idea
that everybody needs to use their platform and that we
should be I've seen it with athletics to such a
degree where it used to be everybody rolled their eyes,
and then suddenly people are like, you know, Lebron James
really does have really important things to say about the world.
I mean, this is the argument that people make. You're like,

(11:24):
I'm not sure Lebron James has read a book in
his life. There are a lot of idiot actors. I
remember back in the eighties and nineties, everybody would kind
of roll their eyes, and then it's like social media
suddenly tried to convince these people that everybody desperately was
concerned about what they say. But I mean, I don't
remember this like Robertson, like, who why is there a

(11:44):
press conference for Robert de Niro outside of the outside
of the tribe. That's crazy, right, I mean, the idea
that this would occur. I think they realized that Trump
has been able to use what's going on to some
degree to his advantage, which is to say, but Robert
de Niro is your is your is your is your counterweight?

Speaker 1 (12:07):
I don't know. Some people still think there's something that
you need to hear from Robert de Niro. My understanding is,
by the way, if he doesn't have a script, he's
one of these people that has nothing to say.

Speaker 4 (12:14):
But I don't know, well, I mean, he's eighty almost,
he's on like his eighth wife or whatever the heck
it is. I think he just had a nasty divorce.
I think doesn't he have a baby? Doesn't he have
like a one year old?

Speaker 1 (12:25):
Probably?

Speaker 4 (12:26):
I mean, if you're over seventy and you have a baby,
I think in many ways you probably should have your
I'm probably gonna have eight kids after I'm seventy now,
and somebody's gonna clip this, But if you're over seventy
and you have a baby, I think your general decision
making should be questioned, right in general, and you think
I think people have never thought that celebrities were dumber

(12:48):
than they are now.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
I think that our knowledge of celebrity stupidity is higher
now than it has ever been. O.

Speaker 4 (12:53):
I'm concerned that we give way more credence to celebrity
opinions than we ever have.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
We have the exact opposite take on this interesting Yah.
I don't know. I mean I see these people now
and I'm like everyone because they always explain I'm impressed
by him. I'm just saying I think that they have
more of an influence now with the rise of social
media than they ever did back in the day. See,
I think they just have influence on social media among
their followers. And I think that most people who pay

(13:19):
attention to politics in any meaningful way realize that these
these celebrities are ignoramuses. And it's not you know, they
don't have the same like, oh, let's trot them. They'll
raise money with them. I mean they'll they'll use them
in certain ways. But the notion that you're going to
have I don't know. Maybe maybe I'm seeing it differently

(13:40):
as somebody who was in New York all those years.
But I think people realize that these celebrities are because
I remember it's happened with journalists for sure. By the way,
you know, you see people is somebody who can he
can make you think that he's a knowledgeable guy based
on the columns he rights. You hear him speaking, and
you see the way, and the same thing with Paul Krugman.
These people are not very bright. Actually they're not wise,

(14:03):
they're not knowledgeable, but they can cut away with pretending.
And because of Twitter and because of the more exposure
you see, you know that they're not impressive. I think
that that stretches to celebrities too, but I don't know.
I mean, I don't think anyone Clay reads Lebron James's
tweets and goes, this guy has important things to say
about the world. Nobody who knows anything about the world,

(14:23):
at least the media does.

Speaker 4 (14:24):
But we do agree the media has destroyed itself as
a collective whole with social media. It's just really kind
of exposed them. Roberts and Niro just had his seventh
child at eighty last to April. I mean, if you
are eighty years old and you have a child, what
in the world can you possibly be thinking. I mean,

(14:45):
to me, that's tangible evidence that your brain doesn't work.
I mean, best case scenario, you die at what when
your kids ten twelve years old? I mean, are you
expecting to live to be one hundred and ten? The
whole thing's pretty crazy, I want to tell you, by
the way, you know crazy. It's Tuesday evening. In Tel
Aviv and Jerusalem. Every day and night Israeli residents contend

(15:07):
with the threat of missile attacks. It happened again over
the weekend, which is why the majority of residents live
with bomb shelters in their residences so they have protection. Lately,
even more attacks have been coming on Israeli citizens. The
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, that's the IFCJ, is
on location in Israel addressing all the urgent needs and

(15:29):
offering help. IFCJ is preparing for the worst by packing
emergency bomb shelter kits that can be delivered immediately to
those in needs. Your donation to the IFCJ will help
as symbol and place those kits with enough food and
life saving emergency supplies for twenty people huddled in a

(15:49):
bomb shelter. The cost to put this together and distribute
the kits is just under three hundred bucks each. Donate
to this worthy cause, and thanks to a matching challenge
gift from a generous IFCJ supporter, your gift will double
an impact. The number to call to make the gift
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ listen carefully eight

(16:13):
eight eight four eight eight IFCJ. You can go online
to SUPPORTIFCJ dot org to give one word SUPPORTIFCJ dot org.

Speaker 3 (16:25):
From the front lines of truth, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
Imagine a lot of you still out there on the
roads in the skies, traveling all over the place to
get back to wherever you were as part of your
holiday weekend travel. I'm down in Florida, up on the
Panhandle thanks to the Panama City affiliate WFLA ninety six
point three one oh two point five. You guys can

(16:51):
see that banner if you're watching me on video. Buck
is down in Miami, so we're both in the Free
State of Florida this week. Different edges of it, however,
is I'm on the Panhandle and Buck is all the
way down in South Florida. Do you have a good
Memorial Day weekend?

Speaker 1 (17:05):
Yes, excellent. It was just Carrie me the dog had
a great time, no real obligations or anything on the schedule.
It's my favorite kind of weekend, to do what you
want weekend.

Speaker 5 (17:17):
I love it.

Speaker 4 (17:18):
We did three straight days at the beach down here,
which I don't remember doing three straight deep days at
the beach. The boys are in mourning over for those
of out there, those of you out there who are
Atlanta Braves fans, their favorite player is Ronald Acunya. He
tore his acl We got that news at the beach,
so they have spent the past couple of days in morning.

(17:41):
But that was I mean, it was awesome, Just a
really fantastic weekend. And I knew Buck coming out of
Memorial Day weekend. I'm always really fascinated to see the
planned stories, and so this morning when I woke up
and I started doing the reading to get ready for
the show, I was not surprised that one of the

(18:02):
first stories I saw that was published at five am
from Politico. I understand if a lot of you are
not Politico readers, but Politico is the inside Washington d
C news site that many read right up there with Axios.
But Politico obviously just focused on politics and their lead

(18:25):
story with three different writers bylined on it. Here's the headline.
DEM's in full blown freakout over Biden. One advisor sub headline.
One advisor to major Democratic donors keeps a running list
of the reasons Biden could lose. Listen to this opening

(18:46):
paragraph Buck. A pervasive sense of fear has settled in
at the highest levels of the Democratic Party over President
Joe Biden's re election prospects, even among all office holders
and strategists who had previously expressed confidence about the coming
battle with Trump.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
And here's what they say. The gap. This is not
going to be a surprise.

Speaker 4 (19:12):
This is a direct read from the article. The gap
between what Democrats will say on TV or in print
and what they'll text their friends has only grown as
worries have surged about Biden's prospects. You don't want to
be that guy direct quote who's on the record saying

(19:32):
we're doomed, or the campaign's bad, or Biden's making mistakes.
Nobody wants to be that guy, said a Democrat operative
in close contact with the White House. But Biden's poor
polling is creating a freak at freak out. This isn't
this is a great quote. Oh my god, Mitt Romney
might become president. It's oh my god, the democracy might end.

(19:58):
And there's so much detail in here, the fact that
Trump is now out raising him, the fact that there's
so many different aspects of this. They've spent twenty five
million dollars in battleground states. They are having real difficulty
now raising money. And again the polls have not worked.

(20:22):
The panic is setting in. So if there were to
be a not able to get a verdict in this case,
and then you follow it up, remember next week, Hunter
Biden goes on trial for his gun charges and is
likely to get hit with a felony. It's not only
that the lawfair is blowing up in Democrats' faces, it's

(20:44):
that Joe Biden's own son is almost assuredly going to
be considered a felon by next week. And this has
a lot of people super nervous. So my thought is
June twenty seventh for Biden, now Buck is make or break.
I still think there's gonna there's possibility they're gonna throw

(21:05):
him off the boat.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
I like that, you s.

Speaker 4 (21:11):
I don't want to say I don't want them to
do it because I think Biden is such a weak candidate.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
I want him to be the nominee.

Speaker 4 (21:19):
But I think the panic is growing to the point
where if he's bad on that June twenty seventh debate,
I think there's there there's trouble bruin.

Speaker 1 (21:27):
There's no mechan Should we go through this all, everybody
one more time?

Speaker 5 (21:31):
You get it.

Speaker 4 (21:32):
You don't believe there's anybody powerful enough to force him out.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
There is no mechanism through which they could do this.
They're going think about this. They already moved the DNC
convention clashing with Ohio state law. And if Ohio didn't
change the laws, which I guess that's underway because of
Mike the Wine, they would not have Biden on the ballot.

Speaker 5 (21:53):
There.

Speaker 1 (21:54):
You know, there are processes here too. It's not just
like you know, poof, we have a new person who's
at the top of the ballot. It's not like there's
a person who is the case. I mean, quite honestly,
if you're first of all, if it's not Biden, it's
Kamala that's why you have a vice president. There is
no way that you always talk about the fractured Democrat

(22:14):
or the fracturing of the Democrat coalition, the risk that
they take with the absolute core of the Democrat Party,
which is consistent black female voters who vote Democrat right,
the risk they take by skipping over Kamala Harris and
putting in like Gavin Newsom or something that that's just

(22:34):
a non starter. I know people say Michelle Obama is
a way to get around this, but you'd have to
have a unanimity within the party at the convention, which
you will not have. It'll be a messy fight of
a situation. You have to be convincing everybody not only
that Biden shouldn't be at the top of the ticket,
but that Kamala the vice president, should not take over.

(22:57):
I mean, the whole point of a vice vice president
is that if for some reason the president can't do it,
and that's obviously what they would say. I think even
at this point they wouldn't say our guy can't get
it done in the election. They would say that there's
you know, we realize now because of the challenges, they
try to mold it together because of the challenges of

(23:17):
his schedule and everything. His age has caught up to him,
YadA YadA. We need somebody else. It has to be
uh Kamala Harris who steps in at that point, because
then it just shows that the whole thing is a
political calculation and they're throwing out the system and the
incumbancy that they have. But this is my whole point.
They're not gonna do it because if they do it,

(23:37):
they're ensuring Donald Trump is going to win. I mean,
the whole thing. Let's think about this. You're you're prosecuting
this guy, you got the cases going against him, and
your guy can't even make it across the finish line
to try to run again while he's the president. I mean,
the optics of this are terrible. So that's just for me.
Oh but I was gonna say though, and this will

(23:58):
get people fired up ready for this win. Clay, you
know who the likeliest person is if you're talking, if
you're talking about the parachute situation, and I think you
get one hundred to one odds on this one, or
one to one hundred odds whatever. I think you get
one to one hundred odds on this one. Like it's
a one percent chance that this could happen, meaning that
anyone is replacing Biden and Kama Kama replacing Biden. I've

(24:19):
always said that could happen.

Speaker 4 (24:20):
I to one on this one for a one, Okay, James,
you get paid off at one hundred to one.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
Yea one hundred to one. I think you get a hundred.
You would have one hundred and one odds on this one.
You know who? I think the person would be Hillary Clinton.
I think it's likelier to be Hillary Clinton than it
is to be Michelle Obama. I think it's likely to
be Hillary Clinton than anybody else on the Democrat side
of things. She would say, uh, you know, I'm here
to finish the job for Joe. We've known each other forever.

(24:48):
Twenty sixteen was a fluke. And and you know, the
if she'd mentioned some stuff about Russia and I'm here
to I don't I would only serve one term or something.
I know, I'm old sacred democracy, YadA, YadA. Look, I
don't think this is going to happen either. But I'm
just saying, if you're talking total collapse of the Biden ticket,
and they did I them Hillary Clinton, they still they

(25:10):
still think that they're ready for her or whatever the
slogan was, like they now, I don't think this is
just to be clear, I think none of this is
going to happen. But to me, that's a far likelier
situation than when people start talking about Gretchen Whitmer, like
no one knows how Gretchen Widmer polls and any of
these like this whole thing is crazy. Gavin Newsom, Gavin
Newsom's a snake.

Speaker 4 (25:29):
I actually think if they were so pretend that if
Michelle Obama said no, because I think that's how you
get over the black woman angle, which is why I've
been arguing they draft her, they bring her in at
the last minute. What I would say is Gretchen Whitmer
or Josh Shapiro in the battleground states the only route

(25:54):
right now if you look at the polling, and if
I understand people out there saying I don't trust the
poll okay in it, but walls.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
Right a lot recently, so just to refair, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (26:05):
And then when they're all telling the same story, yes,
could there be an exaggeration? Could Trump only be up
you know, in in in in in Georgia. Could he
only be up three or four instead of seven or eight. Yes, okay,
I can see that, but remember when he's outside the
margin of error in many of these states. Right now,
it looks like you have to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

(26:30):
If I were just sketching for the Democrats, the best
scenario for them, I think it would be Shapiro Whitmer.
If Michelle Obama says no, Gavin Newsom I don't buy
into Kamala Harris would get beat worse if you took
two popular governors in the Midwest. Shapiro has got a

(26:53):
very high approval rating right now. I can't believe it,
but Michiganers have given Gretchen Whitm decent, decent support. If
you look at the data, Whitmer seven or eight points
ahead of Biden in the state of Michigan. If you
could win those two and then you find a way
to get Wisconsin, you're gonna win the presidents.

Speaker 1 (27:14):
But you have no way of making Gretchen Witmer and
Joshuapiro the top of the presidential ticket unless you're going
to somehow.

Speaker 4 (27:21):
Have well, you would free up you would free up
all the delegates, right, That's what would have to happen.
Biden would say, I'm not running. I don't have the
physical capacity. I am not I mean Lyndon Johnson sixty eight.
He would do it after I think it would have
to be a disastrous performance. On June twenty seventh, he
would say, the state of the nation's too high. I

(27:43):
don't have the ability to do this, and we're going
to have an open, contested convention, and Democrats are going
to pick the best candidate to beat Trump.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
I agree with you.

Speaker 4 (27:55):
I don't think it's Gavin Newsom. I don't think it's
Kamala Harris. I don't think it's JB.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
Pritzker.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
If I'm looking at this strategically and Michelle Obama says no,
because I think she's by far the best option, then
the next best option is Shapiro in Pennsylvania and Whitmer,
some combination of a Midwest ticket that would win those
two states.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
It's but it's gonna be Biden. I don't know what
else to say. It's just it's I've told you this
all all you.

Speaker 5 (28:24):
Have to see.

Speaker 4 (28:25):
On June twenty seven, what if Biden fell walking on
to the stage, Do you think there's nothing?

Speaker 1 (28:30):
Then Eleve Kamala Harris, the the issue of a floor fight,
and and the different factions. You gotta remember there's all
these people who are pure egomaniacs who are in politics.
I mean, do you really think you really think, like,
what's her name, the fake Native American Elizabeth Warren. You

(28:51):
think that she's gonna just say, okay, like what's best
for the party. I'm just gonna stand aside. No, she's
gonna start pounding the table.

Speaker 5 (28:58):
I'm gonna hold Wall Street a.

Speaker 4 (29:00):
You know, she can do all the stuff that she
I agree, it would be riveting television, but I think
that's what they're gambling on.

Speaker 5 (29:06):
So but think about what.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
You throw the party in a disarray, you throw it
into a royal rumble situation. While and this is the
key thing, while you have an incumbent president, right, You're
you're bringing this all on yourself as a party. I
think the power of the incumbency is being underestimated here
because as things get closer and Democrats are piling in
more and more money and more and more dollars, and

(29:30):
you know, we'll see how people are feeling. I think
the economy, because of inflation, they can't hide what's really
going on the way that they would like to, and
I don't think that's likely to change. But I think
that there's a I think we're underestimating the machine here
a little bit, just because things look great in May
and things can change really fast. The Democrats what that's why, Buck?

Speaker 4 (29:53):
I think the fact that the Politico piece says they've
spent twenty five million dollars in the battleground states, that's
a lot of money to spend, and the numbers have
gone down. I just think that what Democrats are recognizing
is a lot of people have made up their mind
and they know Trump and they know Biden, and nothing
is moving the numbers. And at some point you have

(30:13):
to start to say, Okay, if nothing's moved the numbers yet,
what are the levers we're going to pull that's going
to change the calculus that exist right now. And the
fact that they would write that political piece, which is
typically a left leaning site, that they would write that
piece on the Tuesday coming out of Memorial Day and
basically say, hey, there's a full blown panic going on.

(30:33):
The timing on it's super interesting to me.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
I think we agree that if they if they convict
Trump in New York. I think it politically helps them
if they nationally speaking, Yeah, what if they actually put
them in a cell?

Speaker 4 (30:48):
Oh, we need to talk about it, because there's a
report that they're seriously conducting discussions about it.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
They they sure are. Everybody, we haven't really discussed this.
We haven't put that scenario out there a lot. We've
talked about it. But what if that's the move. They
are charging him with thirty four felonies, which is completely insane.
I think he could theoretically serve one hundred and fifty
years or something. But obviously it you know, it would

(31:16):
be like a year. But a year would be all
they need, right or six months would be all they need.
I don't know. I I their desperation. We cannot underestimate
what the Democrat commies are willing to do given the
situation that they're in. That's just every day That's what
I'm thinking. I'm thinking, we cannot underestimate how underhanded they

(31:40):
are willing to be eight hundred two A two two
eight A two Clayton. I will come back onto this
issue of the possible incarceration and more. You know, one
of the great product discoveries that I've had recently is
chad Mode. In fact, when I get a chance, I
sometimes just because it says bring the thunder, you know'
that's what it says on the chad Mode. You know,

(32:02):
when you're scooping it out the powder and I text
the CEO, I say, thunder has been brought before I
go to the gym, because Chadmode gets me that fired up.
I mean, I am ready to go. I'm doing all
kinds of doing all kinds of reps. I'm not saying
with a lot of weight, but I'm trying. Chad Mode
gets me fired up. My friends. It's one of the
amazing products from Chalk Choq. You know, I don't want

(32:23):
to be one of these guys who's like, I have
a YouTube channel and I don't know what a woman is. No,
I take chad Mode because Chad Moode keeps me fired
up and masculine. Chalk's Male Vitality Stack includes a leading ingredient.
By the way, this is one of their other products.
The Male Vitality Stack is actually a series of products
that replenishes diminished amounts of testosterone. You need enough tea.
If you don't have enough tea, you find yourself standing

(32:46):
outside the Trump trial saying, eh, the end of our democracy.
And that's the register you're going to be saying it.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
In.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
You need TA, you need Chad Mode, you need Chalk,
you need the Male Vitality Stack. Go to Chalk dot com,
Choq dot com. Use my name Buck is your promo
code to unlock this offer chalkchoq dot com promo code Buck.
That's promo code b Uck. Offer only valid for subscriptions.
You really want to subscribe. I mean that's the best way.

(33:13):
It's like you're committing to all the benefits of this.
You know, if you're just gonna try it, Okay, subscribe
to it, you're gonna love it. If you want a
cancer subscription on some point you could, but you're not
gonna want to start off with a subscription. And right now,
Chalk has a new phone number to order today. Dial
five zero Chalk Choq three thousand Again you're ready for

(33:34):
that phone number, Get fired up five zero c ho
Q three thousand or going to Chalk dot com, use
promo code Buck and subscribe.

Speaker 3 (33:45):
Learn and Last Weekdays with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.

Speaker 7 (33:51):
Libertarians, Libertarians at their three percent Donald Trump code up
at the Libertarian Uh.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
You know convention this weekend where they chose a guy
who is firmly in favor of drag, Queen Story Hour
and sort of a lot of the transgender stuff in
front of kids. So yes, uh, this was they. They
liber I mean Libertarians nominated Chase Oliver for president. I

(34:26):
thought this was really funny, though, clad if you saw this.
Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Rechtenwald confirmed over the weekend. Forget
who the reporter was it said this confirmed over the
weekend that he ate an edible before the press conference, saying, quote,
this was not some sort of major political scandal. Okay,
I wasn't found in bed with Stormy Daniels. I'm at

(34:50):
a Libertarian Party convention. Somebody, somebody offered me something, and
I would say, so one of these guys, one of
these guys just like tripping on shrooves or something. I mean,
if you know, why not look libertarian. It's you gotta
go through a libertarian face, probably in college. Okay, it's
a good time to go through it. We were like,

(35:10):
why can't we all just like do whatever we want, man,
and like the government like not exists.

Speaker 5 (35:15):
Man.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
It sounds great. Sounds great, but unfortunately the world's a
little more complicated than that. And I know that's a
little a little reductive and a little dismissive. But you know,
when libertarians lost me, I don't remember. I don't remember
libertarians going to the to the mat over COVID stuff
at all at all. They a lot of them were
really like, oh, the science. They were like, all right,

(35:37):
I'm a smart person who likes the science too, so
they all any libertarian who wasn't this is tyranny. This
COVID stuff is insane. I don't want to hear anything
that because because they failed the ultimate stress test. But
just put that aside for a second. Trump, Uh, Trump
was there, and I just want you to hear this exchange, Clay,
this is great. They started to boo. Trump went to

(35:58):
the Libertarian Party can which I'm sure is a great
place to find some really kind bud if you catch
my drift, probably some really excellent marijuana cigarettes. But here
is Donald Trump talking libertarian folks in attendance, and they
got a little salty, little saucy with them. Play nine.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
First time in US history that a presidential candidate of
a rival party will address the convention of a party
that is presumably gathering to nominate its own candidate. Now,
I think you should nominate me, or at least vote
for me, and we.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
Should win together. You heard those words nominate.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
Me or vote vote for me, because the Libertarians want to.

Speaker 1 (36:50):
Vote for me, and most of them will.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
That is why I'm committing to you tonight that I
will put a libertarian in my cap and also libertarians
and senior posts.

Speaker 1 (37:07):
Pretty good, that's pretty big.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
Oh, you can't keep going the way you have for
the last long decades and get you three percent and
meet again, get another three percent. Now you want to
make yourself winners. It's time to be winners. You have
a lot of common sense. It's time to be a winner.
Time to be winners.

Speaker 1 (37:26):
Stop being losers. Join Trump. I'll make some libertarians senior
people my administration. This is what other politician, which other
politician in the country, could go into a room like that,
get get booed resoundingly and then turn about half of
it to applause and make the people booing look like
the imbeciles. The guy who is their nominee was my understanding,

(37:52):
a big masking guy. So the idea to your point
buck of so many libertarians being absent at the most
important moment of governmental overreach in any of our lives,
that they just abandoned the field and said, you know what, Yeah,
you're right. You shouldn't be able to go to church,
you shouldn't be able to go to school, stand six.

Speaker 4 (38:15):
Feet away from someone put on a mask. They demanded governance,
and their entire philosophy is supposed to be, hey, let
individuals make their own decisions. They didn't stand by their
principles at the time of COVID, when we most desperately
needed people to be willing to stand on principle. They were,

(38:38):
to a large extent absent.

Speaker 1 (38:40):
Libertarians were completely completely mia during the COVID battle. That's
just that's my impression of it. But I found a
lot of I found you. I found you, mister sportsman
over here. I didn't know what the sec was. I
found you because you were like masking as stupid, open
up the you know, the sporting events should happen again.
And I found a lot of other people, you know,
and Carol Markowa, it's in Jordan shack Tel and you know,

(39:03):
I go down the list. Jesse Kelly and I were
sitting around talking all the time about how crazy all
the mask stuff was, and libertarians were Mia man m
i A. They were, they totally. It was their moment
to finally be worth something beyond legalizing marijuana, which also,
by the way, terrible. It's actually terrible for the country,
it's terrible for society. Put that aside, you know, legalizing

(39:25):
weed really important, and being able to breathe not with
a mask on not apparently that important. But I think
that Trump will get some of the libertarian vote because look,
I mean Rand Paul I think philosophically is a libertarian,
but he governs as a Republican, meaning he realizes the
world that we're in and has to operate within the
framework that we have because he's an adult. Some of

(39:46):
them don't get mad at me over this.

Speaker 5 (39:48):
Buck.

Speaker 4 (39:48):
As you well know, if you are in a battleground
state and you vote libertarian, you are voting for Joe Biden.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
I'm sorry you.

Speaker 4 (39:58):
Just if you're listening to to us right now and
you're in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, maybe Georgia, Arizona, Nevada,
maybe even New Mexico, you don't have the luxury in
my opinion, to go out. I think you're wasting your
vote in those states. Now people say, oh, you voted
third party before, and I have, But I live in Tennessee.

(40:22):
People make mistakes. I live in Tennessee. Republicans are going
to win Tennessee by twenty points. If you live in
a state, if you live in California, or you live
in New York or whatever it is, maybe New York
can be a battleground state. Got to change my tune there.
Live in California, you live in Alabama, and you decide, hey,
you know what I really care about this libertarian issue.

(40:45):
Do whatever you want, because we know how the outcome
of those states is going to be when it comes
to the presidential election. But I'm sorry if you're listening
to us in Wisconsin and you show up and you
vote libertarian and you would otherwise vote Now, if you're
a big Biden person and you want to show displeasure
with Biden, I hope you dive right into the Libertarian

(41:07):
party because that's a vote taken away from Joe Biden.
But if you're trying to make a decision, you're sitting
around right now and you're like boy, I don't know
Trump or the Libertarian candidate than Trumper RFK Junior. I
think that you are putting the worst president potentially of
any of our lives into the White House again. And

(41:28):
to me, that makes you a loser. And I'm sorry
if that offends people.

Speaker 5 (41:34):
Because they're not a loser.

Speaker 4 (41:35):
Well, in this case, you're helping to ensure that the
worst president in any of our lives stays in office.
To me, that makes you a loser. So that's the
way that I would analyze this as it pertains to Libertarian,
to any other third party out there. And every time
I say this, people are widing in my mentions like,
well Trump isn't perfect on I get it. This is

(41:57):
the real world. Every single candidate it out there is
not going to be your night in shining armor and
be perfect on everything. Biden's awful on virtually every single issue.
And oh, by the way, his brain doesn't work and
we're in danger of spiraling into World War three. This

(42:18):
is not the time for you to be sitting around
going third party. In my always humble opinion.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Now, there have been times where we thought a brain
didn't work, and maybe it was having some trouble, but
then it made something of a comeback. John Fetterman, Yeah,
John Fetterman, we caught a transition that was by you, John,
really well done. Helped procure the release of the American

(42:47):
husband slash dad who got got arrested in Turks and
Caicos for the couple of rounds of loose ammunition in
his bag. Coming back, he was literally actually five of
these guys. Buck realize how many of their work, Five
different guys caught up in the same charges. And Fetterman,
my favorite Democrat senator you talk about an upset, decided

(43:09):
this is wrong and put himself in the mix and
got this resolved. Tell everybody Range for a bag for
the Range bags for everything else. Do not have a
Do not have a one bag that you use, you know,
one day for the office and one day for the Range.
It's not worth it. You can get a bag on Amazon.
You know, you can get a Range bag for now
thirty or forty bucks. Do not mix. In my opinion,
and I've seen this, and I've been through this before,

(43:31):
and this was told me by, like I said, an
SF guy with decades of experience and had been all
over the world traveling through airports because you know, in
the Specops guys they'll sometimes just sort of fly, you know,
not necessarily military aircraft and anyway. But Fetterman back to
the point here, Fetterman helped get him back. It's good work,
good work by Fetterman. I mean, unless I'm missing something. No,

(43:53):
he he got involved and used some political pressure and
brought back in, brought back one of ours, brought back
in American And he's really good on the Israel stuff.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
I know.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
I'm sure he's a communist on a million other things.
And we'll say that when he says the bad things.
But Fetterman maybe the best Democrat senator in the Senate
right now. That may be the best Democrat of all
the senators, because I can't think of anything other Democrat
senators are doing worth a damn, So just throwing that
out there.

Speaker 4 (44:21):
No, there's a big piece on him in the New
York Times where he basically takes aim at the progressive
element of the Democrat Party and says that he doesn't
believe that they're right on a lot of things. I mean,
he's even said a lot of things that are right
on the border, I think. And he went to he
went into rehab. I guess it was technically treatment for

(44:43):
mental health related issues at Walter reed and he came
out and I don't know if he felt liberated in
some way, but he came out as the sanest Democrat senator.
And he's been right on a lot of things. And
this is the thing sample.

Speaker 1 (45:02):
I just I think I underestimated the guy. I'm not
saying he's amazing on everything or anything like that, but
I think, go under it. I'll just admit it. I
underestimated the guy. He's actually shown shown some ability to
make the right call on a few things, on a
few things that matter. So there you go. I think
I I think I got that one a little off,
a little wrong.

Speaker 4 (45:23):
I did too, And this is an example of how
a senator can use his force to actually tangibly get
something good. We talked about the fact that Turks and Kkos,
there are five different individual men from the United States
who were being held in face twelve years in prison
over this issue, variety of different states. Fetterman went to

(45:44):
Turks and Caicos and basically said, this is ridiculous. Let's
get this solved.

Speaker 1 (45:48):
This is also why you know men's rea and he
just goes back to English common law, goes back to
the constitution and just a fundamentally just society, you know.
So a total accident is a total accident.

Speaker 5 (46:02):
Yeah. I know.

Speaker 1 (46:03):
There are some strict liability crimes and things like that,
the very few of them, and that's a good thing.
But you know, if you didn't mean to do anything
wrong and something happened, that should always at least be
taken into account. And in most cases, I think it's
hard to argue that somebody is a unless they're you know,
there's recklessness. There are things, But if somebody, you know,
forgetting to take your illegally owned bullets out of your

(46:26):
bag when you're at the range and you're traveling somewhere else,
there is no harm done to anyone, there is no
risk to anyone, and there's no intent to break any laws,
and that should all be taken into account.

Speaker 4 (46:38):
Also, somehow they didn't get caught going to the island, right,
which is another part of this. They only got caught
returning after they had already arrived at the island, So
they went through TSA or whatever else and didn't get
flagged as.

Speaker 1 (46:52):
Messed up as our system is in this country. You
would as an American, you would rather be an our
justice system than anybody else's, I'll tell you that. And
it's not even close.

Speaker 4 (47:03):
So all five of these guys got failed, arguably by
our TSA, because if they had gotten caught, the punishment
would have been far less significant. They would have never
gotten there with that ammunition. They somehow got through our
security before they were able to return. If you're a city, state,
federal employee, there's an online shopping destination deep discounts just

(47:24):
for you called gov x. Already got eight million members
using it, and there's room for you too. If you
qualify teachers, police officers, firefighters, ems crew members, all of
you hold full time jobs as a government service personnel member,
you're all eligible gov x dot com. It's got great
discounts on products, vacations, concert tickets, so much more. Go

(47:46):
sign up today at gov x dot com once you're remember,
great discounts on a variety of products, benchmade, Garman Brooks,
running ray Ban, all sorts of others, tickets, sporting events,
music concerts, theme parks, attraction, forty percent up to off
on apparel, jewelry, watches, camping, hunting gears, so much more,
and they also give back to organizations that you will

(48:11):
be proud to be a part of. Visit gove x
dot com join a community more than eight and a
half million people. See if you qualify gov x dot
com use my name Clay. That's Clay. You get fifteen
dollars off extra on your first purchase. That's govx dot com.
My name Clay. Sign up Today.

Speaker 3 (48:32):
Twenty four a weekly podcast from Clay and Buck covering
all things election. Episodes drop Sundays at noon Eastern. Find
it on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
Our friend Alex Barronson back in the mix. He is
author of the substack Unreported Crews. And also you can
check out Pandemia, which is booked about the madness of
the pandemic and fauciism and all the rest of it.
And Alex, I'll just remind everybody it was on this show,

(49:08):
I would say now three years and about two months ago,
right near when Clay and I started, where you were like, hey, guys,
the data on the vaccine shows that they really don't
stop you from getting COVID at all. And I will,
I will just it was only you know, it was
three years and two months. It was like July of
twenty twenty one, and I remember you were saying it,

(49:32):
and we let you say it, and we believed that,
you know, you knew what you were talking about. But
at the time that was a oh my gosh moment
for a lot of people.

Speaker 5 (49:42):
Yes, yeah, no, I mean it it was. And look,
as we know, three years later, COVID he's with us,
it will be with us forever. The vaccines, you know,
did not change that. You know, no one's going to
get smallpox, no one's going to get polio, but people
aren't going to get COVID. That's that's difference between a
real vaccine and what was sold to us in twenty

(50:04):
twenty one. And the fact of the public health and
I know this is not really what we're talking about today, yeah,
but the fact that the public health authorities and the
you know, and the and the media on the left
won't just admit that. Okay, just admit that and then
we can go from there, like, admit that you promised
something that didn't happen and maybe you'll get some trust back.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
Maybe, And they're not doing that at all. In fact,
what and just what we wanted to have you want
to talk about I just play. I wanted to give
him the occasional victory lap here because you know, some
people were right, some people were wrong on this one.
Alex was right, big time, bigly, huge correct. You could say,
Alex Fauci's top advisor. Fox had a story on this

(50:43):
just last week, offering apologies and excuses for COVID email revelations.
This was up on the House What House Oversight Committee
hearing and it turns out that some of the top
fauciites were hiding hiding email correspondence about all this stuff.
What can you tell us about all this?

Speaker 5 (51:00):
So this is really an amazing story, and I and
you know, we're really only I think actually in early
innings on this believe it or not. So look in
you know, the beginning of twenty twenty, COVID comes, you know,
comes out right in China and Wuhan, China. There's this
new respiratory virus, and almost immediately there's a concerted campaign

(51:24):
at the top of the US scientific establishment to say
this can't have come from a lab. Yes, there was
a lab in Wuhan called the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
but No, it did not come from there. If you
say it came from there, you're racist or any Chinese.
You can say that Chinese ran discussing what markets and
you know, flaughtered animals live and you know, but that's fine,

(51:46):
but do not say this came from a lab. It's
not the result the lab work. And I mean, and
that was not that was not subtle. It was very
loudly proclaimed. Okay. So what we now know on the
sort of scientific side is that it's quite likely that
it did come from that lab, okay, as anybody with

(52:07):
the brain sort of could have thought, was at least
a real possibility at the time, because because as John
Stewart famously said in twenty twenty one, if there's a
giant chocolate leak in Hersey, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, maybe with
the chocolate factory, Okay, maybe all the risky work these
guys were doing at this lab had something to do

(52:27):
with the emergence of this virus. Okay. So that's part one. Okay,
Then part two is it turned And this is what
we're coming to now in twenty twenty four, we still
don't have evidence out of China. We don't have you know,
we're probably never going to get inside that lab or
probably never being an independent investigation. But what is coming

(52:47):
out now is the is the cover up of the
cover up, okay, the US led cover up of the
Chinese cover up, which is there were people at the
very top of NIH and I'm not saying that they
knew that they were certain that this was a lab leak,
but they were certainly worried about it, and they knew

(53:08):
they knew that the US had funded research that looked
very bad in the light of what had happened in China,
and they went out of their way to discourage these
you know, anybody, any independent journalists, any you know, scientists
from investigating this. And then as people started to try

(53:29):
to get to what was happening inside aniation, and this
is really what came out last week. These people did
everything they could to hide their actions. They deleted emails,
they used their Gmail accounts, they tried to have phone
conversations instead of you know, instead of anything that they
would have to turn over. And the guy you're talking about,

(53:49):
his name David Morens. David Morrin's a very long time
advisor to fault you more than two decades. And the documents.
I mean, it's very very rare to see documents this
damning come out where David Morren's actually said, I'm not
going to use my official email accounts. I want to
use Gmail. It's not foilable. And you guys, the people

(54:11):
he was emailing with should do the same. And by
the way, if I have important documents, and this is
the part where we're just beginning to see the next step,
if I have important documents to give to Tony, to
Anthony Spaucci, that man at the center of all of this,
I give them to him in person or at his home,
or I use his Gmail account. So what that means

(54:33):
is that Tony Fauci, we need to know what documents
he got, and there are going to be people who
know that. There's going to be places. These documents are
our chives. We just have to get to them.

Speaker 4 (54:45):
Okay, Alex, you're a former New York Times reporter. When
I hear everything that you just laid out, if we
had a truly honest and not propagate Gamda Layden me,
wouldn't this be the equivalent of if you're a great
white shark, they're being just tons of chum in the water.

(55:09):
And this be something that an honest media would aggressively
cover and go after. At the time, Fauci was correct
me if I'm wrong, the highest paid employee in all
of the federal government. He's been testifying like crazy in
front of Congress. Wouldn't this be the actual perfect distillation

(55:31):
of going after powerful people if we had an honest media.
Wouldn't The New York Times, the Washington Post, these usual
supposed vanguards of protecting the democratic process, wouldn't they be
after this? So far it appears they aren't. As a
former New York Times reporter, just analyze where we are

(55:52):
that that could be the case.

Speaker 5 (55:54):
Yeah, I know, you're you're absolutely correct. I mean, here's
an amazing thing. Okay, last week the demo, it wasn't
as the Republicans on this House committee. The Democrats said
to David Morns, we can't believe this, we can't believe
that you said this stuff and that you did this stuff.
And one of them, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, actually

(56:14):
basically told them to stop testifying that he was that
he was, you know, creating criminal problems for himself in
doing so. I mean, he didn't come out and say
that explic'tly, but that was definitely the subtext of what
was said to David Warrens last week. So the Democrats
are in front of the media on this. That's what's
so unbelievable. And you're absolutely right. This is you know, COVID,

(56:36):
COVID killed You know, we can we can talk about
who died, but COVID killed a lot of people in
twenty twenty one, millions of people worldwide. And that's absolutely
the case. The US, you know, US lab work or
US funded lab work may have had something to do
with that. We don't know, but certainly there's very good
you know, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence Tony found

(56:58):
you was at the middle of all of this. Now
we know Tony Fauci and people close to him appear
to have gone out of their way to have violated
federal records. Love, I mean, yes, how is this not
How is this not a story that every good journalist
in the in the in the country is not bang at.
It's an incredible story.

Speaker 1 (57:18):
It absolutely is. I mean I'm seeing here. I forgot
to say, there's no worry about Foyas. This is one
of these emails I can either send stuff to Tony
on his private Gmail or hand it to him at
work or at his house. He is too smart to
let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble. Okay,
that's from Niad nih from David Moraan.

Speaker 5 (57:40):
It's incredible. It's you know, look, I wrote a stack
about this. If you don't want to read the House
Committee report, which is thirty five pages of just you know,
one document after the next, read read the stack. It
you don't take you five minutes. It's free. You can
look at it. But and by the way, there's something
else when you go look at the underlying documents, because
there's one hundred and fifty five hates of emails that

(58:02):
and a couple of like transcripts of zoom calls that
the House also released. The way they that mourns and
Moreen is a huge Fauchet partisan. The way he talks
about Fauci is incredible. Fauch comes off sort of like
like a jag or Hoover figure, like he's incredibly powerful,
he's touchy. You have to sort of maneuver him. You

(58:22):
can't tell him what to do. The only people he
will even pretend to listen to have to have a
Nobel prize at the you know, or you know, or
be like the head of a university. He comes off,
as you know, basically an egomaniac and and you know,
somebody who has to be handled with kid gloves. And
it is incredible to see this discussion of him. And

(58:42):
then there's another document where and where where these where
Morns starts talking about other scientists and basically he categorizes
them not by their intelligence or by you know, the
work that they've done, but solely by whether or not
they are pro or anti Fauci, and pro or anti
being willing to look at the possibility of a lamp

(59:03):
week It's it's it's it's sort of the worst kind
of partisanship, only this guy's supposed to be a scientist.
It's really amazing to see.

Speaker 4 (59:12):
Do you think, based on everything that you have seen?
Rand Paul has been beating this drum senator from Kentucky
for a long time that he feels very confident that
Fauci lied in front of Congress, that there would be
perjury charges that would be justified. Do you think again,
asking the same kind of question that I did about
the New York Times in the Washington post. Do you

(59:33):
think if we had a completely honest Department of Justice,
which sadly we do not, do you think Anthony Fauci
should base charges criminally for his testimony based on what
you have seen.

Speaker 5 (59:46):
I don't want to. I don't want to definitively say
yes today, Yet I think the investigation is going that way.
I think that Peter Dazak, who was sort of this
you know, this independent this independent group that was a
conduit for money between the US and China. I mean,
it certainly looks like Dazac should face contempt of Congress
charges and other criminal charges more in the same thing.

(01:00:08):
Whether you get to Fauci at this point, you know,
I think it's close, But I think I think you'd
want one of those guys to slip before you would
do that. It's all kind of irrelevant anyway, because the
Justice Department, as you say, look Andy Slavitt, who in
particular is a figure in particular interest to me. Flabbott
was in the White House, and he's the guy who

(01:00:29):
tried to get Twitter and ultimately you know, succeeded in
getting Twitter in banning me in twenty twenty one. He
has refused to testify before Congress, and the Justice Department
has said they will not prosecute him for contempt of
Congress charges. So so, so the you know, the Biden
White House, you know, they complained constantly about Trump politicizing
the DOJ. They are you know, just as bad, if

(01:00:52):
not worse they you know, so I don't think we're
gonna see that at the moment with Fauci unless unless
you know, Moren's actually lips or something like that.

Speaker 4 (01:01:01):
Okay, last question for you, and I mean again, I
think that if we had an honest media and an
honest Department of Justice, this would be such an unbelievable story.
What's the latest on the COVID shots themselves? Are people
just going to pretend that this whole era never happened?
It seems basically no one's getting boosters anymore. Stock prices
for Pfizer and Maderna to a large extent have tanked.

(01:01:24):
Where are we now on the actual shots?

Speaker 5 (01:01:28):
I mean, that's about right if you and it's not
just in the US, by the way, if you look
sort of worldwide, I mean, you know, a country like
Singapore which had near total compliance with the first two
shots and the booster they you know, they're complaining that
COVID is coming back and saying that more than eighty
percent of people you know didn't get a booster in
the last year. I mean that's Singapore, you know, Australia,

(01:01:50):
same thing, the US, same thing people, you know. So
the sort of the back guard argument that the pro
vaccine people things, oh well, we all have community now,
so you know, that's why COVID isn't as bad. We'd
like you to get shots, but don't get them. The
truth is, the shots basically failed. Almacrom is more mild,
everyone got it, and now people, I think people are

(01:02:13):
just done with COVID. You know, we've talked about this before, right,
people are done with COVID. They're done with the shots.
You know, MR and AS have sort of left a
bad you know, a lot of people got sick, a
lot of people had bad responses to the MR and AS,
and I think a lot of sort of at least
healthy people under fifty or sixty are left wondering whether
they would have been better off just getting COVID and

(01:02:34):
being done with it. So so yeah, we're done. We're done.
We're done with COVID, and you can see I think
also that that you know, there's been a couple of
efforts to scare people about first about monkey pocks two
years ago, a little bit about av and flu H
five N one in the last couple of months. And
I think, you know, whether they admit it or not,
people are pretty they're pretty cynical right now about what

(01:02:58):
the public health establishment is telling them. And how can
they not be when you see the behavior.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
Well, I mean, Alex, if you say, for example, still
on social media that the COVID vaccines you know, didn't
work as advertised, or you still get dinged, I mean,
they still cling to this, or even if you say
masks don't work, they'll still sometimes give you like a
fact check or whatever. So they haven't actually backed off
this stuff.

Speaker 5 (01:03:24):
Well but yeah, but when you say they, I agree
with you that the public health establishment hasn't backed off.
But but but in terms of you know, in terms
of your question is who's taking this, who's listening? I
think a lot of people are in a you know,
fool me in twenty twenty shame on you pull me
in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 1 (01:03:43):
You know it's not happening, Alex.

Speaker 4 (01:03:45):
We appreciate everything that you have done. Keep us updated
on how this goes. I would love personally to see
you sitting in the courtroom covering a doctor Anthony Fauci trial.

Speaker 5 (01:03:56):
It would be fantastic. I am going to talk to
rand Paul in the next couple weeks, so that could
be an interesting conversation and I hope to put it
on the stack. But you know, he's done great work
and we just have to keep pushing on these questions.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
No doubt, and we will here as well.

Speaker 4 (01:04:12):
Thank you for the time.

Speaker 5 (01:04:13):
Thanks a lot.

Speaker 4 (01:04:15):
Look, even the most advanced technology companies out there, they
have data breaches. They could affect you and your online identity.
That happened earlier this month when Dell experienced a data
breach that exposed their info to forty nine million customers.
Stolen info didn't include credit cards, did include name, cities,
zip codes, what Dell products were purchased. Goes to show

(01:04:35):
how clever these cyber hacks are and why it's important
to protect yourself and your online identity.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
You can do that with LifeLock.

Speaker 4 (01:04:43):
Their online identity theft systems monitor the web for evidence
your infos in the wrong hands. When they spot it,
they alert you immediately. If you've become a victim of
identity theft, dedicated US based restoration specialist will work to
fix it. It's important to understand how cybercrime and and
identity theft are affecting our lives and what you can

(01:05:03):
do to protect yourself. Join LifeLock now save twenty five
percent off your first year with my name Clay one
eight hundred LifeLock, LifeLock dot Com my name Clay for
twenty five percent off twenty four Clay and bucks.

Speaker 3 (01:05:20):
Weekly campaign Cliff Notes episodes dropped Sundays at noon Eastern
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.