All Episodes

May 29, 2024 45 mins
Mark our words. Justice Alito flag flap. Clay vs. Buck on movies.

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 (00:00):
Welcome in the Wednesday edition, Clay Travis buck Sexton show,
appreciate all of you hanging out with us. Jury Watch
is officially underway. What I would say to all of
you is, you never know when the verdict is now
going to come. The charge has been given by the judge.

(00:22):
The jury now is in the deliberation phase of the
New York City case. We have told you for some
time that we think the best case scenario is a
hung jury. There was a big piece written about how
anyone on the jury who is willing to not vote
to convict will become I saw an analogy made. I

(00:45):
don't know if you even get this analogy, Buck, but
you probably are familiar at least with the pop culture reference.
Do you remember Steve Bartman, the Chicago Cubs fan who
reached out and accidentally touched a foul ball. The Cubs
then went on to lose to the Marlins. And that
was before the Cubs had ever won a World Series,

(01:08):
and Bartman became just an absolute scapegoat for decades of
Chicago Cubs failures, and he couldn't even have a normal
life in the Chicago area anymore. He had to basically
go into hiding. I mean, it's crazy. He was just
a fan in these stands who touched a foul ball
that otherwise would have been potentially caught, and then the

(01:30):
Marlins go on to win the game, win the series.
So I saw an analogy already being made that if
there is one juror, or maybe multiple jurors that refuse
to convict, that they will immediately become New York City's
part man. That they will be they will be sought after,
they will be ridiculed, they will be attacked, they will
become persona non grada throughout the whole city. You pointed

(01:53):
this out as a New York City guy that inevitably
any juror who has the stones to actually apply the
law here and say there should be a not guilty
verdict and refuses to relent that that would be something
that might happen to them, so that we will see, now,
is there a juror who will actually apply the law?

(02:16):
Is there a juror who was willing to stand up
to the rig job the kangaroo court that has been
in effect. That clock is now ticking and Trump just
came out of the courtroom and addressed the assembled media
and said a couple of different things. We've got cuts
for you. Here's the first. He says, Mother Teresa couldn't

(02:37):
beat these charges.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Cut one, I would.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Say, and listening to the charges from the judges, as
you know, very conflicted and corros because of the confliction,
very very correctly, Mother Teresa could not beat these judges.

Speaker 2 (02:55):
These charges are rigged.

Speaker 3 (02:56):
The whole thing is rigged. The whole country's have met
between the borders and fake elections, and you have a
trial like this where the judge is so conflicted he
can't breathe. He's got to do his job.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
And it's not for me that I can tell you.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
It's a disgrace, and I mean that Mother Teresa could
not be those judges. But we'll see, we'll see how
we do.

Speaker 4 (03:22):
I think he's trying to manage expectations here a bit
that does not sound like a guy who believes that
there will be justice here, at least with a not
guilty verdict, which should be the outcome, although it's almost
hard to say that because the outcome is actually or
should have been, that the judge threw it out. No, actually,

(03:44):
the outcome should have been that no prosecutor would ever
bring this. I mean, you can just keep walking this back.
The whole thing is such an abuse, such a miscarriage
of justice. The fact that Trump has had to go
through this mental energy, the physical presence in the courtroom
in an election year is election interference. They have already

(04:07):
interfered illicitly in this election just by bringing this prosecution.
And now we await an outcome here and all of
the legal analysts, it's funny, you're actually not seeing that
many left wing legal analysts play who are out there
saying that this is a great prosecution or this is

(04:28):
they're really commenting. They're almost doing play by play. And
this is what the Libs will do when they know
that they can't make a real case about something. They're
kind of just telling people what's going on. Meanwhile, on
the right or anyone who's honest, because there are people
like Dershowitz who's not on the right, but who is
honest about this case. Everyone is just pulling their out
because it's so outrageous, and you're seeing merchand the judge

(04:51):
here is opening this up so that you can have
the members of the jury picking what they think would
be different. I'm crazy, you don't have to agree on
what crime was committed, what the second crime that there's there,
They can you can have a fluctuating decision on what
the second crime is in terms of guilty.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
And it's crazy. I've never heard that.

Speaker 4 (05:14):
The judge is trying to give the widest possible justification
to these jurors or for these jurors to come to
a guilty verdict. It's it couldn't be more clear what's
going on here. And I think that I'm still hopeful,
as I've said, I've I've predicted I'm not going to
change it now. I've predicted they're going to find him guilty,

(05:34):
although I think that will actually work the Trump's political benefit,
and I think a hung jury would work to Trump's
political benefit. But my concern here always has been if
you are a member of it. It was nice when
we had people call in like wait, but don't isn't
the judge going to be able to keep the names
of the jury secret if this is a hung jury,

(05:55):
just mark my words, everyone, you will know the name
d be, high school baseball position, first name of his
first hurry. I mean, you will know everything from the
media within twenty four to forty eight hours, everything will
come out right away about this person, despite the judge's order,

(06:16):
because the media will do everything that they can to
leverage the sources that they have to get that information
out there. So just remember that I said that, and
the fact that we're even having to have this conversation, unfortunately,
is a failure. I mean, that's the part of this
that I find so depressing, Clay. It's a failure of
the justice system at this point, no matter what, and

(06:38):
the people there's such a shortsightedness in this from people
on the left who think that they're doing some sort
of a service here for democracy or however they justify
to themselves at night. They have set a precedent that
can never be undone which is not just bringing a
case again, holding and then bringing a case again state

(07:00):
presidential candidate, but bringing the flimsiest, most absurd, most rigged
case I've ever heard, thirty four felonies, Clay. I mean,
the fact that a prosecutor can look this courtroom in
New York City in the eye in a sense and
say we're charging this guy with thirty four felonies is

(07:20):
is this is like Kafka esque. I mean, this is
Kessler's Darkness at noon. This is some kind of of
a horrifying chapter you can't get out of your head
from soul Zannetzen and the Gulag Archipelago, Like, what are
they doing here?

Speaker 2 (07:36):
It's crazy?

Speaker 1 (07:37):
And I would also point out that it's not benefiting
right now Biden politically.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
And they, I think scored.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
A devastating own goal on themselves yesterday, after not deciding
to have public availability press conferences outside of the courtroom
on the day when the trial is finishing, they decided
to roll out Robert de Niro for one of the
most ridiculous press conferences I have seen in a very

(08:09):
long time. It directly connected the Biden Harris campaign to
this case. And Trump talked about de Niro just now
out on the front steps. Do you want an eighty
year old guy who is clearly suffering from Trump derangement
syndrome to become the face of the Biden Harris campaign.
They made that calculated choice. Here is Trump responding to

(08:30):
De Niro outside at the press conference, and then they.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
Have a protest to Robert de Niro yesterday he says,
he says, broken down, full standing out there, got he
got maggadeer.

Speaker 2 (08:41):
He got Maggot yesterday, got a big do seven.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
That is you imagine this is so embarrassing to them,
whoever made the calculation to do that. We'll play some
of these cuts a little bit later for you, because again,
I think it's emblematic of a form of desperation that's
setting in their game plan. I think it's fair for
everybody out there to understand what their game plan was.

(09:07):
It was, We're going to make Trump the nominee. They
got exactly what they wanted. They wanted to knock out DeSantis,
they wanted to knock out Nikki Haley. Biden and his
team selected Trump as their opponent, and they thought all
this lawfair was going to guarantee that people would not

(09:27):
vote for Trump. They knew that it would. I really
think I'm curious if you would sign on to this.
They knew it would rally Republicans and likely get Trump
the nomination. But I think where this is blowing up
in their faces. It's actually rallied independence and middle of
the road voters at least so far, to be more
likely to support Trump. And there are polls that just

(09:50):
keep coming out. One came out this morning that had
Virginia in a dead tie Biden won. This is Roanoke College,
usually one of the most reliable VIRGINI the upholsters. They
had Biden one by ten in Virginia and twenty twenty.
Right now it's an absolute dead heat, which is what
the Trump campaign has been saying about their polling. And

(10:12):
I think this is all blown up in the Biden
team's face. And I felt like the DeNiro press conference
was evidence that they really don't know what to do
and that they're floundering.

Speaker 4 (10:23):
I mean, I always have to remind people I think,
or I remind myself by saying it. It's hard to
sometimes let yourself believe that the Democrats could miscalculate in
this way because we have a there's a standard, almost reflexive.
Oh they're playing four D chess. Oh they're so. Yes
they're nefarious, Yes they're unprincipled. Yes they will cheat, but

(10:47):
that doesn't mean that their geniuses, right. I mean, this
is actually something we used to have to think about
when I was dealing with terrorists and the CIA back
in the day. I'm not saying the Democrats are terrorists,
but you get what I mean. Sometimes they're just idiots
that do an own goal, you know, some times they
actually just make huge blunders. Twenty sixteen, it was the
It was the Democrat media and party consensus that putting

(11:09):
Donald Trump on TV was laughable, got great ratings, and
Hillary was going to walk away with the whole thing.
It was an enormous miscalculation, right, and they learned a bit.
I think for twenty twenty this time around, the consensus
opinion was we're just going to defeat him with the
system that.

Speaker 2 (11:29):
He tried to overturn.

Speaker 4 (11:30):
That's how they say it. And I think that there's
the possibility. We don't know yet, we won't know until
the election day, but there is the possibility, and I
do believe it is creeping up in the minds of
these Democrats Clay, that this might have been an enormous blunder,
an enormous miscalculation, meaning the law fair against Trump. Yes,

(11:51):
it's great for the MSNBC audience, although I think they
may be disappointed when they see what ends up happening
in the polls too. But for people that are not
completely diluted and brainwashed.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
No, this is too much. This is wrong, and I would.

Speaker 1 (12:06):
Argue it hasn't even been great for CNN and MSNBC.
It's not as if their ratings on television have skyrocketed
during this trial. I think so much of this information
was already out there. The lack of video of the
trial diluted the drama in a substantial way, and they've
been relegated on CNN to doing dramatic readings of the

(12:29):
testimony for substantial periods of time, which has not redounded
to CNN's benefit. They had the lowest ratings they've had
in over thirty years. I think the problem they're running
into is it's the same story and people have already
bought into what they believe one way or the other.

Speaker 4 (12:46):
I think they also stepped into the Trump bear trap.
Remember those old cartoon characters It stepped on the bear trap.
Oh yeah. I think they stepped into the Trump bear
trap again insofar as they thought that the trial was
going to be an opportunity to malign and mock Trump.
But by far the most interesting and memorable thing about

(13:06):
this trial has been one that they're actually doing this
because it looks crazy, and two Trump press conferences impromptu
effectively every day at the courthouse and telling the American people, hey,
this is what's going on. Isn't this nuts? No one
is seeing this who is a Biden voter before? And
I think this is where they really have a problem.

(13:27):
If you are a Biden voter before, you see this
and you think this is justice, democracy, whatever. But if
you are not somebody who was already in the tank
for Joe Biden, there is zero chance you have watched
these proceedings in New York City with any focus or
attention whatsoever and come away saying, yeah, now I'm a
Biden litter.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
Do you know what I mean?

Speaker 4 (13:46):
No one's switching the no one's changing their mind based
on this one.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
And in fact, we'll play some of this data for you.
But even CNN is having to acknowledge what the polls
have shown, which is, since they started this trial, Trump
has actually increased his lead over Joe Biden in the
national poll sample. And in it, far from like it
tearing him down, it's actually ended up elevating him, which
makes sense.

Speaker 4 (14:10):
Well, take some of your calls on this as well,
and eight hundred two eight two two eight a two
light him up. Another massive data breach occurred just two
weeks ago, and your online identity could be involved. The
data of forty nine million Dell Technology customers was stolen
by a clever online hacker. Like every data breach, there's
a motivation behind it, and that's to get your info

(14:30):
and sell it for a profit. Online cyber hackers then
sell this data to the highest bidders on the dark web.
It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are
affecting our lives, just like it's important to know how
to protect yourself with Lifelock's help. Their online identity theft
systems continually monitor the web for evidence your info is
in the wrong hands. When they spot it, they alert

(14:50):
you immediately. LifeLock will text, email, and call. Then you
decide if you've got an issue or not. If you
do become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated US
based restoration specialist will work to fix it. You'll save
hours when you need their help. The most easy to
help protect yourself with LifeLock. I have been doing it
for years. I get my LifeLock alerts, I check up
on them. I sleep better at night because I know

(15:11):
LifeLock has my back. And one time one of the
bad guys managed to steal a little bit of my
information and guess what took out a loan that wasn't
mine in my name LifeLock help me fix it, Joy
Now save twenty five percent off your first year with
my name Buck Call one eight hundred LifeLock or head
to LifeLock dot com. Use promo code Buck at LifeLock

(15:31):
dot com. Promo code Buck for twenty five percent off.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
S Peek out with the guys on the Sunday Hang
with Clay and Buck podcast. A new episode of Every
Sunday Find it on the iHeart app or wherever you
get your podcasts.

Speaker 4 (15:45):
All right, second hour Clay and Buck kicks off, and
this is a story that you might not have heard
much about. We'll give you the details and the backstory
on it so we can dive into why it is meaningful.
Flags a lot of focus on them from the New
York Times.

Speaker 2 (16:02):
Why Who's flags? Oh?

Speaker 4 (16:04):
Supreme Court Justice Elito and flags that have flown years
ago at two of his different residences, one in Alexandria, Virginia, which,
of course, as we know, has also been the site
of lunatic left wing protesters intimidating a member of the

(16:24):
federal judiciary, which is a federal crime, not enforced, of course,
by the Biden administration. Because intimidating conservative constitutionalists Supreme Court
justices is considered okay by Democrats. The law doesn't really count.
Remember that while they're prosecuting Trump in New York City,
defending Supreme Court justices, even after there was a lunatic

(16:47):
who showed up who said he wanted to assassinate a
conservative Supreme Court justice. It's not something that Biden DOJ
is really focused on. There's probably an anti abortion protester
somewhere who said a mean thing to a Planned Parenthood
clinic member who needs to be thrown in prison for
thirty years. You know, there's other things that the DOJ
focus is on, but let's get into this.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Here you go.

Speaker 4 (17:09):
This is the New York Times headline, the Alito's the
neighborhood clash and the upside down flag inside the escalating
conflict on a bucolic suburban street that Justice Alito said
prompted a stop the steel symbol at his home. Now,
first of all, it is not a stop this steal symbol.

(17:32):
But they pick and choose the meanings of things, and
this comes, of course from the same Democrats who I
remember years ago were insistent that the word jihad had
nothing to do with Holy warm, was only about internal struggling.
Do you remember that, Clay, jihad was just trying to
be a better person. And all these people running around
who were yelling about I'm doing jihad and blowing myself
up and killing all these people, they were just confused

(17:56):
about the nature of jihad. It really just meant internal
striving and struggling to be a better person. All these
jihadas terrorists were confused. So they pick and choose meaning
as they see fit for the political purposes of the moment.
I think that's important the basics of this, because they
go deep into the story Clay. They're going back into
phone calls.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
Made in twenty twenty one.

Speaker 4 (18:15):
Here you had Alito in Alexandria, his wife Martha, and
Alito live next to Is this.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
Going to surprise anyone.

Speaker 4 (18:25):
A failed actress from New York City with crazy eyes
living with her boyfriend at her parents' home. Okay, so
that is the neighbor of Alito's, of the Alitos, and
she started putting profane signs out, you know, bleep Trump
and stuff like that. And so in response, the Alitos

(18:48):
on January seventeenth of twenty twenty one, had an upside
down flag outside their home. They say it is because
they really felt the country was in distress. The New
York Times is trying to make the case that this
is somehow tied to stop the steel and the insurrection
and blah blah, all that not content to merely get

(19:10):
into this squabble. Where, by the way, the crazy eyed,
failed actress, democrat, black Lives Matter protester, lady white liberal female.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
So we're all clear, the people.

Speaker 4 (19:21):
White leftist, white left wing females who fail at their
at their chosen path in life probably doing more to
destroy America than any other group of human beings, just saying,
and that includes those who have you know, married, married
billionaires and gotten divorced and now want to fund every
terrible left wing calls on the planet because you know,
they have no purpose otherwise. But this woman called the justices,

(19:45):
you know, senior citizen wife a word that I obviously
can't say on radio. But it's it's even worse than
the B word. How about that it's the worst one
than the B word. She admits in the article to
just calling her neighbor the word because she didn't like
the flag. So she's a really stable, good person. The
New York Times then dove in Clay. Sorry, I know

(20:06):
we're getting deep into the details here, but just whoeveryone
knows to a appeal to Heaven flag that flew at
the Alito's New Jersey summer home residents and the appeal
to Heaven? Where have you seen that before? Well, they
go into some of the history of this. You can
find out that it was the maritime flag of the

(20:29):
Massachusetts state after seventeen seventy six, and it was used
at basically in the American Founding. It appears, as I
understand to Clay, in the trailer for the John Adams
series on HBO. So it's a little bit like the
Gods didn't flag in that sense. It's an Revolutionary era
flag that some people still fly because of the Revolutionary

(20:53):
Founding father's spirit. Guess what, Clay, they found that Alito
had one of those. Now they're running pieces like this,
The Appeal to Heaven flag evolves from revolutionary war symbol
to banner.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
Of the far right that was just published a few
days ago.

Speaker 4 (21:09):
What are they trying to do to Alito with these
flag deep dives is where I want to hand it
off to you.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
Something is up here. Let me also mention that the
Alitos have a lot of flags. The one that I
was most offended by was the Philadelphia Phillies flag. I
would have expected better of Justice Alito than to be
a Phillies fan. I'm saying that as a Braves fan,
but it is worth mentioning that they have a bunch
of flags. Based on the photos that I have seen,

(21:35):
this is not a one off thing, including a Phillies
flag that they fly. So they're sports fans, so I
am of the belief. I was talking about this with
U off air. We were texting about it last night.
These flags flew in twenty twenty one, and I think
this is really important. The Washington Post Supreme Court reporter

(21:58):
got tipped off about this in twenty twenty one, went
to the residence, interviewed the Alitos at that time, and
The Washington Post decided in twenty twenty one that this
was not a story worthy of writing. The New York
Times then says that they became tipped off to it
years later, and they've put it on the front page

(22:21):
of their newspaper multiple days. Why why did they suddenly
resurrect a story buck, I think it's fair to say
that the Washington Post is no great fan of Justice
Alito or any Trump Supreme Court appointee. Why did they
resurrect this story from twenty twenty one and suddenly decide

(22:42):
to run it in the late spring early summer ish
of twenty twenty four, And why would they try to
turn this into a multi week story. To me, and
this is my theory, I think they know that the
Trump immunity ruling is going to come down in Trump's favor.

(23:03):
I think they believe it's going to be five to four,
and they want Alito knocked out of being able to
have a vote in this case, which would then put
it for four and would not allow there to be
a change of the decision that was made from the

(23:24):
Circuit Court. Now, people out there can call and you
can react to this. Certainly they have been attacking the
Supreme Court Justice Thomas amy Cony Barrett. The Rolling Stone
has a story up today where shudder, amy Cony Barrett,
her husband is one of the lawyers who is representing
Fox and suddenly meaning the larger Fox corporation and defamation

(23:46):
claims that they still have outstanding. Her husband is a
highly trained attorney. I don't know why this would be
a surprise at all, but they're trying to make it
seem very nefarious, as if there's something that is not
honest going on here. I think they know inside of
the times what the result of this case is going
to be, or they highly suspect that it's going to

(24:08):
be a five to four decision, and they are trying
to knock Alito out of being able to be involved
because they don't want Trump to get a positive result
in the immunity case. That's my theory of why this
is resurrected in twenty four.

Speaker 4 (24:21):
There is I think basically no chance that Alito, I
mean it would be I would give you less than
a one percent shot that he actually recuses himself based
on any of this. He's not going to do it.
There's no basis for him doing it. So I don't
even think it's about trying to pressure him to get
that result Clay just because there's no chance. I think

(24:42):
it is trying to delegitimize the conservatives on the court
because they know there are decisions and specifically Alito. They
know there are decisions that are coming down that they
will not like as it pertains to Trump, and they're
holding out. I think hope that let's say Joe Biden
is is able to hold on in some way. I mean,

(25:02):
Democrats will pack the court. It is just a question
of when. In their minds, they're just waiting for when
they have the votes to do it and they decide
to pull the trigger, they decide that they're gonna use
the political will. So that's one component of it. I
think it's just the undermining because I mean, do you
think Alito based on any I think they could be
trying to pre So here's my concern. But do you

(25:23):
see what I'm saying? The pressure campaign has zero chance
of working.

Speaker 2 (25:26):
That's not well. My concern that it could work on
John Roberts, and that because he's the Why aren't they
going after Roberts going after it?

Speaker 1 (25:35):
Least he didn't he didn't do it. They're using Alito
to attack Roberts. I think he's wobbly again. I think
it's messy because of the past history. It just doesn't
make sense to me that they would sit on this
for three years. The Washington Post. Why didn't they write
this story three years ago?

Speaker 4 (25:52):
They know there's the the immunity case is coming down soon, right,
we know that for sure. Yeah, I and you and
I see that the same way they're gonna say that Trump,
They're going to come back with some version of the specific,
some more specific version of what kind of immunity present
has and kick it to the lower courts. I think
we both see that as the likeliest outcome, and I
think that is what's going to happen here.

Speaker 2 (26:14):
They want to tell their.

Speaker 4 (26:16):
Audience New York Times, ap et cetera, all these different
outlets that they want to undermine the conservatives on the
Court as much as they can, because this is going
to go to the heart of the narrative which you
brought up before, of Trump is illegitimate and a threat
to a threat to democracy. And they're losing their grip
on the threat to democracy stuff via the law Fair campaign.

(26:38):
But they may try to say, just look they did
in two thousand and Bush b gore Trump, everything about
him is illegitimate, even the Supreme Court stuff that holds
up his rights or that that's illegitimate too. So to me,
it's it's smearing them all. Also, I think they just
hate Aledo. I think they hate him in a way
that's irrational to all of us because what he did

(27:00):
for the abortion decision, uh, in the you know, writing
the Dobbs decision.

Speaker 2 (27:04):
I think that they can't help themselves.

Speaker 4 (27:07):
You know, you've ever been around somebody who knows it's
not a good idea to attack somebody at a dinner
or something. But they just load them so much that
they kind of say they let things rip anyway, and
you're like, oh gosh, you know, you know what I mean.
I've seen what I've seen that happen before, where it's
clearly unwise, but they'll do it anyway. I'm not sure
it's unwise for them, but it's definitely uncouth. It's definitely

(27:29):
showing their hand.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Clay, I just.

Speaker 4 (27:31):
Think the mainstream Democrat legacy media hates Justice Alito, and
so they're willing to go down this rabbit hole on
the flag. I'm not saying that's the primary. I think
you're right on the pressure side of this as the primary.
But I do think that whenever you're talking about Alito
and Thomas, they just low, you know, they don't feel
the same way about Andy Coney Barrett or Gorsics. They
just don't they hate Alito and Thomas. They really Gorsuch.

Speaker 1 (27:54):
Gets off with no criticism relatively speaking. And I don't
know why that is, but I ranked them as you
were talking. Clarence Thomas clearly the most hated. I think
Alita well, but Kavanaugh clearly has been ripped to the shreds.
I'd put him second, Alito third, Amy Coney Barrett fourth.
It feels like all four of those they've had people

(28:14):
going after over the years, Roberts and Gorsach don't get
as much of an attack. We'll take some of your
calls on this. And also I want to just talk
about the way that this is so dishonest to me
because the story is laundered through the New York Times,
which has really just become a propaganda arm of the

(28:36):
Democrat Party, and they want the Times to write it
so they then can then claim the Democrat Party can oh, look,
this independent arbiter effect is actually coming down on our side.
We had nothing to do with this. We're just reacting.
We're talking right now, by the way, about potentially trying
to make part of a trip over to Israel.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
Maybe I'll go, maybe Buck go.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
We'll see exactly how this is going to work out,
But we want to tell you about one of our
new sponsors. Israeli citizens really appreciate the support they're receiving
from many groups around the world, including our friends at
the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. We know there's
all been an increase in tax in attacks and anti

(29:20):
Israel rhetoric. The IFCJ is a welcome friend to many
throughout the region. They're helping so many Israelis by providing
emergency bomb shelter kits that can be delivered immediately. Your
donations will help place these kits enough food and emergency
supplies for twenty people in bomb shelters. The cost to
put together the kits just under three hundred dollars each.

(29:43):
Thanks to a matching challenge gift from a generous IFCJ supporter,
your gift will double in impact generosity of so many
in the audience and around the nation providing contributions so
they can gift needy Israeli families and individuals with supplies
to make it difference. The number to call to make
your gift eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's

(30:07):
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ. You can also
go online to support IFCJ dot org to give that's
one word support IFCJ dot org.

Speaker 2 (30:21):
Have fun with the guys on Sundays, the Sunday Hang podcast.
It's silly, it's goofy, it's good times.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Fight it in the Clay and Buck podcast feed on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 4 (30:34):
And it turns out our timing today is really something
we were just talking about.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
The deep dive into flags.

Speaker 4 (30:42):
The appeal to heaven flags, like they're practically flying the
stars and stripes over there too. It's crazy, the appeal
to heaven flag outside of injustice, Alito beach home from
three years ago, very upsetting to The New York Times.
We discussed why they might be doing this, and I said,
to you leave, I would say, almost exactly ten minutes ago.

(31:03):
The chance, yes, I agree with Clay. They want to
put pressure on Aledo. The chance of Alito recusing over this,
as I said, is absolutely zero. I said, there's no
chance of Alido doing it. And now we have a
statement that was just released as we are on air
with you Live from Justice Alito, who wants to guess
play go ahead. He is responding, and again this is
where I talk about the way that this is wandered.

(31:26):
After the New York Times story which Democrats got them
to write, multiple senators demanded that Alito recuse himself. Alito
now has just released a letter to Durban and Whitehouse,
two Democrat senators, and he says, this is in response

(31:46):
to your letter of May twenty third to the Chief Justice,
which I was saying John Roberts, requesting that he takes
steps to ensure I recuse in Trump the United States
and any other cases quote related to the twenty twenty
presidential election, or quote the January sixth attack on the Capitol.

Speaker 2 (32:07):
And he cites the code.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Of conduct and says that it does not disqualify him
because his impartiality might not reasonably be questioned here. He
then explained the two incidents you cite again, these flag
flying incidents don't meet conditions for recusal. And this is

(32:30):
kind of funny, I thought, buck as I was reading it.
The first incident cited concerns the flying of an upside
down American flag outside the Virginia House where my wife
and I reside and he said I had I'm reading
I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of
that flag. I was not even aware of the upside

(32:50):
down flag until it was called to my attention. As
soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to
take it down, but for several days she refused.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
I just I want to pause here.

Speaker 4 (33:01):
If a guy is married, the guy is married, you
know what I mean, He's got to do what he's
gotta do.

Speaker 1 (33:05):
There's a lot of married men out there, Buck, you're
a newly married man, my wife. And then he continues,
My wife and I own our Virginia home jointly. She
therefore has the legal right to use the property as
she sees fit, and there were no additional steps I
could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly.

(33:26):
My wife's reasons for flying the flag are not relevant
for present purposes, but I note that she was greatly
distressed at the time, doing a large part to a
very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement.
A house on the street displayed a sign attacking her personally,
and a man who was living in the house at
the time trailed her all the way down the street

(33:47):
and berated her in my presence, using foul language, including
what I regard as the vilist epithet that can be
addressed to a woman.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Yes, worse than the B word. One that's worse than
the B word. Yeah, starts with the C.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
In case you're wondering, my wife wouldn't recommend to use it,
especially not with a woman. My wife is a private citizen.
She possesses the same First Amendment rights as every other American.
She makes her own decisions, and I've always respected her
right to do so. She's made many sacrifices to accommodate
my service on the Supreme Court, including the insult of

(34:24):
having to endure numerous loud, obscene, and personally insulting protests
in front of our home that continue to this day
and now threaten to escalate. This is important. That is illegal.
They are not enforcing the law to protect Supreme Court justices.
We know this because someone tried to kill Brett Kavanaugh,

(34:45):
remember before the Roe v. Wade case.

Speaker 2 (34:48):
Until the case is published, the case is not law.

Speaker 1 (34:53):
I'm continuing to read. I am confident a reasonable person
who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or
desire to affect the outcome of the Supreme Court cases
would conclude the events are counted above do not meet
the applicable standard for recusal. I am therefore required to

(35:13):
reject your request. That is the official letters. It has
just been released.

Speaker 4 (35:20):
This is Elito kind of like that Leonardo DiCaprio meme,
but he's not using any profanity where he's like, I'm
not leaving. Alito is not leaving. He's not recusing, he
is not stepping down. Sorry, libs. Nice try, but not
even close, not even close. But I think it does
go to the anxiety they have Clay over some of
the Supreme Court decisions that are coming this way, and

(35:43):
they are hoping that they can at a minimum delegitimize,
if not pressure, I mean pressuring Alito, you know, good luck,
like they've been pressuring Thomas, as I said, for thirty
something years. And it doesn't if Thomas loves to just
you know, crush, crush. The Communists hopes and dreams that
every opportunity. So yeah, I think it's a couple of

(36:04):
more funny quotes. By the way, from this letter, My
wife is fond of flying flags. I am not which
is a very funny line. My wife was solely responsible
for having flags put up at the residence and our
vacation home, and she's flown a wide variety of flags
over the years, and I thought this is funny. In
addition to the American flag, she's flown other patriotic flags

(36:26):
and flags of nations from which the ancestors of family
members came, flags of places we have visited, seasonal flags,
and religious flags, and we get with the appeal to
Heaven flag. He addressed both of these stories that specifically
have been written. Yeah, one thing that I will say,
and this just came up in one of our one

(36:46):
of our commercial breaks. Clay did not warn me that
as a married man, it is my duty to smell
all questionable meat in the refrigerator and make the final determination.
But it's whether it's like, say, to eat or spoiled.
But once is not enough. I usually have to smell
it a couple of times to make sure that she
truly believes that I have given enough smelling of the

(37:08):
spoiled meat to make that determination. I had never done
this before I was married. I did not know that
this was this was a thing I usould just go
it looked okay, no problem, but I am forced to
smell this. Clay tells me he does not have to
smell the possibly expired meat as part of his gig,
So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (37:25):
Well, that's just because.

Speaker 1 (37:26):
My wife rightly recognizes that I can't smell anything. I mean,
I I think I have no now, I mean not
like I'm not like a one of these COVID long
sufferers who claims it. I mean, I can smell like
broad you know, sense of smell. But if you ever
lose your sense of taste during COVID. That when I
had COVID, that did happen to me. And I remember

(37:47):
just ordering lots of really spicy food because I had
learned from the interwebs that your ability to detect spice
is like heat based, it's not sensory taste based. So
you could pick up spice even if you couldn't pick
up salty, sweeten sour. Important suff That's that's a true
I had. No.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
I hadn't other than like a mild cold.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
The multiple times that I know of that I had COVID,
I had like, I mean, it was I would rather
have had a lot of bad colds rather uh, than
I would rather have COVID than a lot of bad
colds I've had. Do you think, by the way, this
is I'm still laughing about this flag situation.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
This is utterly absurd.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
Alito having to have conversations with his wife about the
fact that he was going to write a long letter
about the flags that she's been flying outside of the
house is one has to have been one of the
most ridiculous Supreme Court discussions ever because I bet Alito,
even though he's one of the nine most powerful jurists

(38:49):
on the planet, I bet he gets to decide nothing
inside of.

Speaker 2 (38:53):
His house, right, I mean married, he wants to stay in.
This is what you saw.

Speaker 1 (38:58):
There was a letter of a Supreme Court justice who
is one not recusing himself and two correct not planning
on getting divorced. I just I love the idea that
he is all powerful, that he can decide whether abortion
is legal in the country, that he can decide whether
Trump has a presidential immunity, but he can't even decide

(39:18):
what flags fly outside of his actual house. And that,
I'm not kidding strikes me as exactly one hundred percent
true for the vast majority of married men in the country.
If your wife's really into flags, and it sounds like
she is because this list, he's sports teams flags, college flags,

(39:40):
she is a flag flying fan. The last thing you
want to do is get into a dispute with her
over what flags she could fly.

Speaker 4 (39:49):
Eight hundred two way two two eight A two Supreme
Court analysis and or marital advice. That's taking it now,
taking it out here on the program. Do you or
a loved one fall on any of these categories? By
the way, military, police, fire and ems. Medical educator a
medical comma educator. Government service employee that includes federal, city,

(40:09):
or state employees. Look if the answer is yes, check
this out. Gov x incredible savings for those who serve
our country and communities. This is a website where if
you're one of those categories a lot of different public
service categories, right, you get special deals. I am a
former federal government employee, so I qualify and gov x

(40:29):
has got great stuff, unbeatable discounts from really amazing brands.
You know ones you recognize. Yeddy ray Ban, I just
got my ray Band sunglasses a couple of weeks ago
from govex. Wear them all the time. Bench made Garman,
I mean brands you're going to want to be buying
and have been buying from anyway, they're on gov x
dot com. But you're just getting a much better deal.

(40:51):
And gov x has a give back initiative as well.
They donate a portion of every order to nonprofits that
serve military and first responder communities. Save up to forty
percent on apparel, footwear, jewelry, watches, camping, hunting gear, and
so much more. See if you qualify, go to govgov
govx dot com. Use the code buck in the shopping cart.

(41:12):
You get an extra fifteen dollars off your first order.
That's govgov govx dot com savings for those who serve You.

Speaker 1 (41:21):
Know them as conservative radio hosts, Now just get to
know them as guys.

Speaker 2 (41:26):
On the Sunday Hang podcast with Clay and Buck.

Speaker 1 (41:29):
Find it in their podcast feed, on the iHeartRadio app,
or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 4 (41:34):
Close it up shop here on Clay and Buck for
the day. What are mine you to please subscribe to
our podcast?

Speaker 2 (41:40):
You might be like, well, I'll listen to you on radio.
Why would I do that?

Speaker 4 (41:42):
Well, first of all, maybe you can only listen on
Wi Fi at some point because you want it on
demand Donald the iHeartRadio app and you can do so
listen on demand.

Speaker 2 (41:53):
Also there's extras.

Speaker 4 (41:54):
There's the Buck Brief, which is a little extra show
that I do during the week. And there's also the
Carol Marcowitz Show, the Sean Parnell Show, Lisa Booth. We've
got great stuff, Tutor Dixon, great podcasts, all for your
listening enjoyment there and yes it's fantastic things, so please
do subscribe to that. We show, Oh, the movies. It's

(42:18):
ode with the movies here for a second. I got
to look at where the movie theater stocks are because
I got a figure that it's going to be a
tough time for movie theaters going forward. It's when you
add up all the headache. First of all, the notion
you have to be somewhere at a certain set time
even to watch a movie. It's not a Broadway play like,
it's not quite the same kind of event. I remember

(42:40):
back in the nineties early nineties going to a movie
with my family when it was first coming out and
it was a big movie like the first remember the
the Michael Keaton Batman e n That was a huge
movie when that came out. I remember going to see
Jurassic Park with my parents and my whole family and
seeing that the Zigfeld Theater in New York City and

(43:02):
the giant speakers, and that was so cool. Movies used
to be an experience that you couldn't replicate at all
at home. Now you can and you don't have people talking.
What is it with people think that when the when
the music gets loud or the sound gets loud, you can.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
You get start to do with the loud whisper.

Speaker 4 (43:19):
Thing no, no, no, and pulling their phones out, and
it's just it's you know, I don't know. I don't
I don't go to I don't go to movies anymore.
I'm kind of out. I watch movies. I just don't
go to the movie theater anymore.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
I love going to the movie theater.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
And staff looked this up and and and crew confirmed
that I'm conding you still do though you still do
still want to take it. My boys like to go
see a movie, love the experience. Uh, even today, I
would still I was one of the diehards that would
still be willing to go to the movie when everybody
else was convinced they were gonna die of COVID. I

(43:57):
couldn't wait for the movie theaters to be back open.
I think they opened back up in like May or
June where I am. I was right back in the
theater as soon as I could be, even when they
were showing old eighties and nineties movies because they didn't
have any new movies to be able to watch.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
What was the was?

Speaker 1 (44:14):
What was the movie that came out that was like
the first movie to come back out after COVID? That
was a I know we had Top Gun Maverick, but
the Interstellar guy, Uh didn't he come out with a movie?
Is it?

Speaker 2 (44:29):
Inception? Is that the movie that came out for what.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Was it?

Speaker 2 (44:33):
No one who had It's?

Speaker 1 (44:35):
It's Denzel Washington's son, and it was about the theater
getting taken over and it's kind of a thriller and
you could change. That was the first real new release
to come back out after COVID, and I feel like
that was I don't remember when that came out, but
I remember being super excited to.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
Go see it. I wanted to go this weekend buck.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
I got my phone out, I pulled up the fan
Dango app.

Speaker 2 (45:00):
Mean to Fail. It's unbelievable how awful they were.

Speaker 4 (45:03):
Tenant is the movie that you're tending. I wish I
never saw. I know nothing about it.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
It's good.

Speaker 4 (45:08):
They're not making good movies anymore. But they're not making
good movies because the whole industry has changed. Because people
aren't paying twenty bucks a person to go sit in
the theater the way they used to. They want to
sit at home and stream it. That's just the reality.
My couch is so much more comfortable than a movie theater.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
I want to be in the movie theater with really
good movies out again, like in the eighties and like
in the nineties. I think that Hollywood has just destroyed
itself by being more concerned with politics than story. Just
get back to telling me good stories. That's all I want.

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News

Advertise With Us

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Clay Travis

Clay Travis

Buck Sexton

Buck Sexton

Show Links

WebsiteNewsletter

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

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.

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.