May 6, 2025 • 62 mins
The Neverending Untold Story
In hour 1 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, the hosts dive into several pressing topics, starting with a discussion on President Biden's mental and physical cognition. They highlight a new book that reveals concerns within the White House about Biden's ability to pass a cognitive test in February 2024. This segment underscores the alleged cover-up by Biden's staff, who publicly claimed he was fit for office while privately fearing he wouldn't pass basic cognitive assessments. The conversation also touches on the deep ties between the Democrat party and the corporate media, emphasizing the media's role in perpetuating this narrative.
The hosts then shift to the political implications of Biden's condition, discussing the potential criminality of the cover-up and the integrity of Biden's longtime doctor, Kevin O'Connor. They speculate on the motivations behind the early debate decision in June 2027, suggesting it was a strategic blunder by Biden's team.
Next, Clay and Buck discuss the broader impact of this revelation on the credibility of the Democrat party and the media, comparing it to a rigged sports game. They argue that real journalism should have exposed these issues before the election, not after. The conversation also includes a brief mention of the New York Knicks' comeback win over the Boston Celtics, adding a lighter note to the discussion.
Trump Runs Government Like a Business
President Trump's major announcement from the Oval Office. Trump teases a groundbreaking announcement related to the Middle East, speculated to involve the expansion of the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia. This segment highlights the potential geopolitical impact and economic benefits of such a deal, including a possible trillion-dollar investment from Saudi Arabia into the U.S.
The discussion then shifts to the Trump administration's economic policies, particularly the tariffs and their long-term effects. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent provide insights into the positive outcomes of these policies, emphasizing job growth and investment in domestic manufacturing. The hosts compare the current administration's approach to economic management with previous administrations, noting the practical experience of Trump's team in private industry.
Clay and Buck also explore the concept of "win above replacement value" in politics, arguing that Trump's decisions significantly impact the trajectory of the U.S. compared to other potential leaders like Kamala Harris. They stress the importance of Trump's rapid and decisive actions in reshaping government operations, likening his approach to running a business.
Trump's Magical Thinking
Trump's proposal to make Canada the 51st state, with Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney discussing the idea. While acknowledging the benefits, the hosts recognize the impracticality and national pride issues involved. They appreciate Trump's expansionist mindset and his ability to think creatively about the future of the U.S.
Additionally, the hosts cover Trump's announcement about the Houthis in Yemen, who have reportedly agreed to cease hostilities. This development is seen as a positive step towards stabilizing shipping lanes and reducing conflict in the region.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul
Dr. Anthony Fauci and gain-of-function research. Senator Rand Paul joins the show to provide updates on the investigation into Fauci's role in funding dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Paul discusses the importance of holding Fauci accountable and preventing future pandemics by scrutinizing gain-of-function research.
Additionally, the show covers President Trump's announcement about the Houthis in Yemen, who have reportedly agreed to cease hostilities. This development is seen as a positive step towards stabilizing shipping lanes and reducin
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in appreciate all of you hanging out with us.
We are rolling through the Tuesday edition of the program
and there is a lot going on in the world
that we.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Will dive into.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Our friend Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky will join us
at the top of the third hour of the program.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
He is our only guest today. Eight hundred and two
two eight A two.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
If you want to weigh in on a variety of
different topics that we will soon be diving in.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Two.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
But this story.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
I wanted to dive into got a little bit of attention,
but I actually think it is super fascinating. We are
in the middle right now of what we all told
you would be coming, and it is the Biden's mental
and physical cognition. Everybody knew how bad it was, and
some of the stories that were not told when Biden
(00:55):
was still in office are now being told. And there
is a new story out that I think should have
gotten more attention than it has so far, and I
wanted to talk about.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
This with you.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
New upcoming book that is out about Biden's ongoing mental
and physical struggles in the White House Sunday New York Times,
I read it. This is coming from a couple of
different reporters. The book How Trump re Took the White
House and Democrats Lost America says that in twenty twenty
(01:32):
four February, that there was a substantial debate inside of
the White House about Joe Biden doing a cognitive test,
because in February of that year, if you'll remember, they
came out with the Her Report, which described the President
as a sympathetic.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
At that point in time, the story becoming such an
issue that they thought about having Biden take a cognition test,
but they were afraid that he would not be able
to pass. Now, this is in February of twenty twenty four,
he still buck had nearly a full year as President
(02:20):
of the United States, and they did backchannel conversations, according
to the book, and the physician said, I'm not gonna
lie if he fails it, basically, and so they didn't
believe that Biden would be able.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
To pass the test.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
This is again, this is the New York Times reporting
a book that's going to be out soon. This is
one of the things that is in the book. If true,
If this is true.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
This is a cover up that I believe would be criminal,
because if you have a president of the United States
and his staff which is publicly proclaiming that he's sharp
as attack and that he's going to be able to
run for reelection and be president for four more years,
but privately, that same staff that's saying that publicly is
(03:12):
afraid that if he took a cognition test, and these
cognition tests are not we're not talking about the SAT
the Act rolled into one. It's not an ap course.
It is a very basic test that elderly people sometimes
take to see whether or not they have severe dementia,
or whether their mental and physical capabilities are enough for
(03:35):
them to instance be able to live at home or
drive a car, these kind of things. Buck This is
staggering if this is true, because it would mean, thankfully
we got through it, but that what we were all
talking about was likely true, and that for a year
the White House was trying to cover up the entire
(03:56):
last year of his presidency that many of his top
aides didn't even think that he could pass a basic
cognition test, and that's the reason they didn't have him
do it. Well, that's because everybody knew that this guy
had dementia. But the entire system, the entire apparatus, was
completely enmeshed in the line and they knew, right, what's
(04:20):
going to be interesting here is how do they get
past this? And some of you, I will say, have
been pointing out, Look, we're going to talk about the
tariffs and the latest. You know, the latest is that
Trump knows what he's doing and it's all fine. So
every needs to calm down a bit. But we'll talk
about the news of the day, of course with respect
to that. But why does this story still matter so much?
It matters because it shows everybody just how deep the
(04:42):
rot was between the Democrat Party and the corporate Democrat media,
the old media institutions that still even until this last election,
I think Clay had more of a more of a
claim to, oh, we're trustworthy and neutral than they should have.
Had wised up a lot. But now, if you believe
(05:03):
The New York Times isn't pushing a left wing agenda,
you're just not very smart, right if you believe that
the Washington Post is objective journalism. Even Jeff Bezos doesn't
believe the Washington Post. He owns it, and he doesn't
think it's objective journalism based on what we've seen in
the last election cycle alone. He's figured this out, right,
(05:23):
So I think Clay, what's interesting is, you know there's
this reporting about the cover up and it comes out now,
and this is going to be one thing. This will
be contentious, especially for anybody who's trying to say, well,
look at all the good journalism we're doing now about this.
All of this was known and knowable before the election.
(05:43):
Real journalism would have been telling us about this before
the American people were voting, right, because it doesn't just
go to Joe Biden. It goes to the credibility of
the pro Kamala media and all of the stories around
her and all the things that were going on at
the time. So you know, you can't try to rig
(06:04):
the game. I watched my beloved New York Knicks last
night get a huge win, Clay, huge win over the
Boston Celtic.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
It came back from twenty points down. When's the last
time you watched it full? Did you watch the whole
game or just the end of it?
Speaker 2 (06:16):
No, My brothers texted me and said, stop being a communist.
They're about to win. There's five minutes left or something, okay,
And I said, okay, brothers. My brothers are the normal
ones in the family. They were watching, so I turned
it on. But you know, imagine if it came out
that that one of those teams had tried to rig
the game by paying off the refs. You're not a
hero for telling us that after the game is over
(06:39):
and you've played a year later, I think, and a
year later, that's not heroic. Okay. That's cleaning up after
the parade of elephants and horses, so to speak, has
already gone by. And that's what's going on here. It
is clean up on aisle journalism. And we're going to
have this out I think in time with then anybody
(07:00):
who sees it otherwise. Oh, by the way, which is
one more thing, Clay, if they could have gotten a
doctor to lie, they absolutely would have gone forward with it,
because all these people have their jobs writing on whether
Biden can pass this cognitive test. The doctor, that's what
I wanted to reference. This is, according to the New
York Times, is reporting on this book that's going to
come out. Mister Biden's longtime doctor, Kevin O'Connor told AIDS
(07:24):
he would not take the eighty one year old president's
political standing into consideration when treating him. Good for him? Basically, Yeah,
that guy is That guy is actually a hero in
this story when it mattered he had integrity that Biden's
have declined to comment on this story that is coming
out in this book. Can I just throw something out
(07:47):
there too? Sorry, you've got me fired up about this story.
Clay sent me this story, and now I'm fired up
about this story. Clay, you know who wanted the chief
You know, maybe the chief villain in this whole narrative
is going to be Jill Biden. Well, I'm arguing that
for a while you have because sit in this book,
it's going to completely align with your Jill Biden is
(08:09):
a chief villain. Take but I think we're going to
get some of those details. Now. Can you imagine hiding
your husband's dementia from the country in a reelection camp
we're not even talking about Can he just get to
the end? Right? That would be bad enough? Okay, just
six more months, Joe, just six more months, Clay. They
were telling us she should be president for four more years.
(08:31):
There are two other things in this story that are
in the book that I think is. Mike Donnellan, a
senior advisor to Biden had worked for him since the eighties,
told the Harvard Political Review in March, even when they
were worried about this cognitive test, every day, I keep
seeing him doing the job. I still think he's the
best person to be president today. David Axelrod, top advisor
(08:54):
to President Obama, called into question in July twenty twenty two,
whether Biden would be able to serve another four years.
He said, the stark realities the President's going to be
closer to the ninety than eighty at the end of
the second term. It would be a major issue. That comment,
according to the book, prompted an angry call to Axelrod
(09:15):
from Ron Klaym, then mister Biden's chief of staff. He said,
there's no Obama out there acts who's going to do
it if he doesn't do it. That is why they covered.
It's not only Buck that they were aware and they
wanted to maintain power and everything else. It's that I
(09:37):
think they realized there was no one else who could
do better against Trump than Biden. So they were willing
to weakend at Bernie's two Joe Biden as long as
they could keep this lie going, and that's because there
wasn't somebody in the wings that they thought was better
(09:57):
and they ended up being correct because Kamala couldn't do
it either. I'll also point this out, Clay. I know
you're I know you're with me on this, but I
just think we have to keep on reminding everybody because
remember the people that went along with this line, they
all still run the Democrat Party. They're all still calling
the shots at most of you know, the non Fox networks,
although actually, you know, congrats to uh uh Newsmax and
(10:21):
news Nation for all the gains they're you know, they're
making a lot of gains, and it's and they've earned
it because they've built their brands at a time when
these other brands are just going into the side of
the mountain at high speed. But Clay, if they could
have held off on the debate until the election, yeah,
they would have even still the story. That's still the story.
(10:43):
I want to know more about why did they decide
to do it, And I think it was the biggest
blunder in political history of Clay. They should they would
have gotten away with this, in my mind. Now, I
don't know if they would he would have beaten Trump.
That's a different question. I don't think so. Look at
look at the results in the election. But they would
have dragged him to election day. All they had to
(11:04):
do was say, Joe refuses to platform an election denier.
You have to say it like that because you have
to have no testosterone when you say it, Joe refuses
to platform an election denier. The American people will decide
at the ballot box. Play. They could have kept Biden
in the seat. And I'll say this, it would have
(11:25):
if they had done that, forget about the debate, it
would have been a better showing for them than it
was with Kamala. I think, no question in my mind.
I think that's still the great untold story. Why did
they insist, Remember it was their call.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Why did they insist on the early debate because they're
lying about his mental and physical cognition. Already, he'd already
locked up the overall nomination.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
There was nothing they could have done to him. If
they had just waited to do a debate until September October,
it would have destroyed his chance, says I think of
reelection because everybody would have seen it, and it would
have been impossible to replace him at that point in time,
but why not?
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Or we said it for a while, we thought that
Biden might say, I'm not even going to platform Trump
because his ideas are too.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Crazy. People have seen this debate already. They know what
he thinks, they know what I think. I believe that
that might have been the better play, because then they
could have kept the lie going. I think if you
and I were running the Biden twenty twenty four campaign,
talk about a thought experiment, and we had and we
had sold our souls, and the whole point was anything
(12:38):
because if we believe, let's say that Trump was the
end of the Republic, which isn't that just even more
insane now that we look around her, like, I mean,
the country is healing and things are going great. Yeah,
that's the end of the Republic. We could have gotten
Biden to election day. Look at all this stuff they
were able to suppress. They could that. I agree with
you who pushed forward the early debate, because there are
(13:01):
only two options. The biggest own goal self inflicted wound
in modern American politics. Or maybe somebody was like, I
just can't be a part of this anymore. I think
that's less likely, I do, but it's not impossible. That
would have been the House of Cards part. You know,
(13:21):
if this is the television show that Netflix did back
in the day, the House of Cards version would be
we're going to trot him out there and we're going
to let him go up in flames. But it is
crazy to me that they let this guy debate in
June of twenty twenty seven. I just think it's crazy.
We'll talk about this. We'll take some of your calls
(13:41):
AI everywhere. If your business isn't using it, you're losing money, productivity,
and a competitive edge. Net Suite helps you control costs
and increase efficiency, like our federal government's trying to do.
Net Suite number one cloud business management system out there,
harnessing the power of AI to give you that competitive edge.
Even the best run businesses could use a little optimizing,
(14:03):
maybe even streamlining. With NetSuite, you'll gain clarity on what
actions to take. With technology moving so fast, you're probably
wondering where to even begin. NetSuite brings accounting, financial management
inventory HR into one efficient suite instead of paying for
multiple systems. Begin by going to NetSuite dot com, slash
clay NetSuite is spelled.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
N E t s U I t E. NetSuite dot com.
Slash Clay brings you to a website where you can
download the free CFOs guide to AI and Machine Learning.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
It's fast, it's easy, It's what next. It's what's next.
Lead your company into the future. Get the AI edge
with NetSuite by Oracle. That's NetSuite dot Com. Slash Clay
saving America one thought at a time. Clay, Travis, and
Buck sext to them.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Find them on.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
The free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Hot off the presses so speak. Clips of President Trump
from the Oval Office addressing some of the most important
news of the day. Let's start with the huge announcement.
Probably some people are saying the biggest announcement of all announcements.
We don't yet know much other than well, here's the
President saying it. Listen to him. We'll have maybe before
(15:21):
we want to.
Speaker 6 (15:22):
As you know, the released in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 7 (15:25):
We're going to Uee and Qatar and that'll be I
guess Monday night.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
Some of you are coming with us.
Speaker 8 (15:32):
I think before then we're gonna have a very very
big announcement to make like as big as it gets,
and I won't tell you on.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
What, but it's gonna and it's very positive. I'd also
I tell you if it was negative or positive.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I can't keep that.
Speaker 6 (15:46):
It is really, really positive. And that announcement will be
made either Thursday or Friday or Monday before we leave.
Speaker 7 (15:55):
But it'll be one of the.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
Most important announcements that have been made in many years
about a certain subject, very important subject, so you'll all
be here.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
I'm guessing it's got to be the Abraham Accords with
Saudi Arabia coming on board. Yes, does that make sense.
That makes the most sense to me too. I don't
think it's a breakthrough with Iran. We would have gotten
some whispers about that beforehand. And plus I just don't
think Iron's ever going to say, you know what, We're
not gonna get nukes. So I think that Saudi. It
(16:26):
might be in agreement with Saudi that is an extension
of the Abraham Accords and also a commitment from Saudi
to invest you know, a trillion dollars in the US
over the next twenty years or something, I don't know, whatever,
trillion dollars. A lot of money, not so much to Saudi.
I feel like they'll they'll pay that for a soccer
team these days. But yeah, that's something that I think
(16:47):
is a likely possibility. I would love to think that
it would be. You know, we're turning all the hostages
from israel I from a Hamas to Israel, but I
think that that is now going into a different phase
of the Israeli are doing the final push in that operation,
as they well should, and that's going to change some
(17:08):
dynamics in the Middle East too. I also think it
has to be someone that you have good relations with
in order to be confident that that deal is going
to be able to be announced. Does that make sense?
Like Iran is constantly shifting. They may say something on
Wednesday that's different than what they said on Monday. You
can't really rely on them Hamas, You can't rely on
(17:31):
anything related to what they might say publicly. So I
think it would have to be someone that the government
would have a good relationship with that you could rely
on being reasonable. I don't think you could say, for instance,
with Vladimir Putin and Russia, that you feel comfortable enough
in them to even forecast something like this, So That's
(17:52):
why I think the idea of the Abraham Accords being expanded,
which is hugely important long range in the Middle East.
By the way, this is something that is significant that
I saw. Also, there's a report that Trump I don't
know if we if he said this or if this
is an official report, that India has basically agreed to
(18:15):
zero tariffs on American products inside of their country. That
could be utterly transformative in the decades ahead, because India
is now the biggest country in the world, and unlike China,
which is collapsing in population and I think has already peaked,
I think India is going to become the second biggest
(18:37):
economy in the world in the next fifty years. And this, then,
I think is a good moment for us to take
a look at what is being said now from some
very infant, very astute places about the Trump tariffs conversation.
Glenn Youngkin one of the I would say top five
(19:00):
I've maybe top ten, top five governors in America right
now in Virginia doing a great job and also a
former very senior level executive, and he was the CEO
of the Carlisle Group, which is one of the largest
private equity firms in the world. This is the governor
of Virginia, and like I said, a guy who also
understands private industry saying that, well, I'll let you hear
(19:23):
it from him. This is cut three.
Speaker 9 (19:25):
I expect that long term we will have an accelerated growth,
and I'm very optimistic. I think in the near term,
as the President resets these imbalanced trade relationships and restores
fiscal responsibility into Washington, we're going to see this location.
It's just a reality. But what I do firmly expect
is investment from companies around the world to accelerate. I
(19:47):
expect job growth to accelerate.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
I think you're already beginning to see some of that.
The job's numbers. This is Scott Bessen. This has cut
one in the first one hundred days. You need to
hear about these jobs. Remember, not all government, you know,
make believe jobs, or at least low show jobs. It's
jobs in the actual economy.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Play.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
This is from the Treasury Secretary Play one.
Speaker 10 (20:10):
The core components of the Trump economic agenda are trade,
tax cuts, and deregulation. These are not standalone policies. They
are interlocking parts of an engine designed to drive economic
growth and domestic manufacturing. Tax cuts and cost savings from
deregulation raised real incomes for families and businesses. Terrorsts create
(20:32):
an incentive for reshoring jobs, and fair trade and deregulation
complements teriffs by making it easier to invest in energy
and manufacturing projects. Already, this agenda is bearing fruit. In
the first one hundred days the new administration, four hundred
and sixty four thousand new jobs were added to the economy.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Clay that people just need to give this some time.
And I think which seeing here is first of all,
I just fifteen years in conservative media all in the
beginning of this, when I got into this, we would
always hear we need private industry minds in government. We
need people who understand how jobs are created in the economy,
(21:19):
not by siphoning money from taxpayers to people who don't
actually necessarily do anything or add anything with some of
these government with some of this government bloat. We have
this now in a way we not only on the advisors,
but Trump himself, right, somebody who understands the private sector.
You look at even Scott Bessant, you compare him to
(21:39):
Biden's Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Yellen is an academic economist. Okay,
that's who is running the Treasury before Bessant is a
guy who had to place multi billion dollar bets and
be right about the trajectory of economic growth, about what
(22:00):
was actually going to happen in the global economy. We
have doors and practitioners now, clay not theorists and faculty
lounge layabouts.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Yeah, and again, I think that's why you know, the
caller from San Diego is fired up. I think people
sometimes have unrealistic expectations of what is capable of doing
with the ship of state. And I've had this analogy
made to me a lot over the years. You know,
(22:33):
in the world of sports, the smaller the team, the
quicker you can adjust the direction. So if you're a
basketball coach, it's like a speedboat. You can change a
couple of players. You can turn it around football teams
like an aircraft carrier. The United States is the largest
floatable ship on the planet. It's very hard to turn
(22:55):
it in any particular direction. Now, sometimes that can be
good because if people make really poor choices, then the
degree to which they can shift the direction of the
country is limited. But you've made the argument for years here,
and it's a pessimistic one, but I think there's some
truth to it that the president doesn't largely matter because
(23:15):
the apparatus surrounding the president is such that they're going
to direct the ship in the way they see best.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
And you made that are Biden was a test of
my theory. Yes, right, Biden was a real world experiment
of is it the machinery and not the man? With Trump,
That's obviously not the case, but I'm just saying it
can be what we just.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Saw well, and this is why I think Elon Musk
has been so frustrated. And look, I love that Elon
Musk and Scott Bessant and Howard Ludnik and all of
these guys that are super successful outside of government are
in government trying to do their best. Trump is a
great example of that too, but in sports, and I've
(24:00):
never seen it applied in politics, but I love the
concept and it's such an interesting one. There's something called
win over replacement value, and I think you can apply
it to all of your life. It's such an interesting concept.
You know, there's basically a war, you know, win above
replacement for every player. And I mentioned Aaron Judge is
(24:20):
the best player in baseball right now statistically across the board.
His stats a New York Yankee player are off the charts.
He has worth multiple wins compared to someone that might
be replacing him at a position. I think you can
apply it to politics. How much better is Trump not
only than any other Republican but than Kamala. I think
(24:43):
massively right, because over every day, every decision, the trajectory
of the USS aircraft carrier is very different based on
the judgments Trump is making versus what Kamala is making,
versus what Biden did. But within the constraint, I would
argue that it is impossible for any president to move
(25:06):
faster and break more things than Trump has done in
the first hundred days. And therefore, when you call in
and say, and I understand, people get frustrated, But I
think it's important to understand the larger construct. There are
people out there who will tell you, oh, the president
can do whatever he wants, and he can take forty
eight thousand different actions.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
And the reality is.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Trump is moving faster and breaking more things than anything
I have ever seen from any president in the history
of our country. And if you are out there saying
he needs to move faster and he needs to break
more things. I respect it.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I would just point out that historically, no one has
moved at the pace that Trump has ever in the
history of the United States government. I really think that's true.
And they're trying to make government move more like a business.
And if you have ever run a business, one of
the great things about sitting at the head of the table,
if you own the businesses, for better or worse, you
(26:07):
make a decision and buck. One of the management lessons
that I think I've learned is it's better to make
a wrong decision than not do anything. And some people
think that's crazy, but actually it's important because you can
give you it's a wrong decision. One of the things
that at the CIA farm, this is our training facility,
that they would always talk about in the context of
(26:30):
counter ambush, somebody's trying to take you out. They would
just and I know this military talks about this too,
but they would say get off the X and they
would They drilled into our brain when you are under threat,
the worst thing you can do freeze is nothing. The
worst thing you can do is I don't want to
(26:50):
make the wrong decision. So I make no decision. Yes,
you can pay with your life or that one. There's
a there's a broader lesson, there's a broader principle. There
got to just do sometimes because sitting around and especially
given the time constraints, I think the Trump administration is
under with the midterms. As we've discussed that moving as
fast as possible, Moving as fast as possible is its
(27:13):
own advantage in a system which we've already seen for
all of our adult for all of our lives, that
can always fall back on inaction as its preferred plan.
And the Democrats were hoping that there would be inertia
even with Trump coming in. The inertia of government would
(27:34):
be a protection for what they want, which is the
status quo. Yes, no, he's smashing that by moving so
fast in so many places. And I would argue, again,
this is me being a history nerd. Probably the person
who's moved the government the fastest in the lives of
anyone out there that is listening to us right now,
certainly the adult lives of anyone that's listening is Lyndon Johnson.
(27:57):
And Lindon Johnson was able to move the government so
rapidly in his one term after one term plus change
when he took over for JFK. Because he was a
genius of Senate procedure and so he was able to
move Congress at a speed in the Senate in particular,
that it had never moved at before because he knew
the inner workings of procedure in the Senate, having spent
(28:19):
time there better than almost anyone. A correlary to that
was Charlie Wilson's war where I for Doc whatever his
name is, I forget now, but the member of Congress
who was like on the you know, the Finance, the
Spending Committee, whatever it was at the time, And Charlie
Wilson knew, if I just got this guy in my pocket,
I got whoever I need in my pocket to get
(28:39):
the things through that I need to get through. So
understanding that system is critical. Trump has come in not
just with the right team to decide, but with people
like Steven Miller and others who know how the system functions.
And this is part of what I think Clay has
driven Democrats so insane because first time around, Trump great ideas,
(28:59):
first term not an understanding of the system. So yes,
a huge, huge difference this time around look here in
South Florida, we get a huge downpours. We actually just
got one a couple hours before the show came out
of nowhere, the kind that will clog your gutters if
you have the smallest amount of leaves, twigs, whatever else
that's accumulated. A clean gutter clears the way for a
care free summer. Whether you're tired of unclogging your gutters
(29:22):
or don't even know what they look like, it's time
for a permanent solution with Lee Filter right now save
up to thirty percent off at leefilter dot com. Slash Clayandbuck.
Gutter clogs aren't just a nuisance. They can cause extensive
water damage. Let Lee Filters, trusted pro help protect your
home from flooding, roof damage, rotted siding, foundation issues, and more.
(29:42):
They'll clean out, realign and seal your gutters before installing
Lee Filter's award winning and patented technology. Protect your home
and never clean out gutters again With Lee Filter. This
is America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free
inspection and get up to thirty percent off your entire
purchase at leefilter dot com. Slash Clay and Buck that's
l e AF filter dot com, slash Clayandbuck see the
(30:06):
representative or warranty details.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Want to be in the know when you're on the go.
Speaker 11 (30:11):
The Team forty seven podcast Trump highlights from the week
Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay and Bug podcast feed.
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
This play is hot on this one. Let's dive into this.
Canada just had a very disappointing election from the perspective
of freedom, liberty, common sense. Pierre Paulyev, he of apple
eating an indifference to media fame, did not succeed in
his effort to become the PM of Canada. I'm going
(30:44):
to put this out some of our Canadian listeners, what
the heck happened there? Guys? You're you're hearing us up
because you know, some of our big New York stations
play stretched, you know, well into Canada. Probably some of
our Michigan stations, I would assume too. I gotta check
the wattage, but yeah, I think that they can be
heard where the Canadian population is. We got Canadian listeners
(31:04):
for sure, some of them streaming what happened there? Well,
here is Trump with the new Prime Minister of Canada,
Mark Carney. I'd never heard of until this talking about
this play.
Speaker 4 (31:15):
It takes two to tango, right, But no, I do.
Speaker 6 (31:19):
I mean, I believe it would be a massive tax
cut for the Canadian citizens. You get free military, you
get tremendous medical cares and other things. There would be
a lot of advantages, but it would be a massive
tax cut. And it's also a beautiful you know, as
a real estate developer, you know I'm a real estate
(31:39):
developer at heart.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
When you get rid of that artificially drawing line, somebody
drew that line many years ago with like a ruler,
just a straight line right across that top of the country.
When you look at that beautiful formation when it's together,
I'm a very artistic person. But when I looked at
that beauty, I said, that's the way it was meant
to be. But you know it's I just I do
(32:01):
feel it's much better for Canada. But we're not going
to be discussing that unless somebody wants to discuss it.
I think that there are tremendous benefits to the Canadian citizens,
tremendously lower taxes, free military, which honestly, we give you
essentially anyway because we're protecting Canada if you have had
a problem. But I think you know it's it would
(32:24):
really be a wonderful marriage because it's two places.
Speaker 4 (32:27):
They get along very well, they like each other a lot.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
So then Carneybuck responded, and I think we have Carney's response.
So Trump still pushing, and I love it. He just
everybody wants to say, like, what is Trump. Trump's a
real estate guy at his core, he's a real estate guy,
and he's looking at Greenland, and he's looking at Panama,
and he's looking at Canada. And the truth of the
(32:53):
matter is some of the most successful presidents that we've
ever had basically have been real estate guys. Thomas Jefferson
Louisiana Purchase, kind of a good Deal, Gadsden Purchase, Seward's Folly.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
When we gudge. Washington was a real estate guy and
a landlord, in fact, a speculator. Some would argue that
nearly went bankrupt many different times over the amount of
land that he was acquiring back to the day most
of the founding fathers big agrarian land related guys. But
then Carney responded, and I actually liked his response, and
you can hear Trump laugh because I think Trump kind
(33:27):
of respects it a little bit too.
Speaker 12 (33:29):
Listen, as you know from real estate, there are some
places that are never for sale. We're sitting in one
right now, you know, Bucking and Pallas and you visited
as well, and having met with the owners of Canada
over the course of the campaign last several months, it's
not for sale, won't be for sale ever. But the
(33:50):
opportunity is in the partnership and what we can build together.
And we have done that in the past. And part
of that, as the President just said, is with respect
to our own secure and my government is committed for
a step change in our investment in Canadian security and
our partnership. And I'll say this as well, that the
(34:10):
President has revitalized international security, revitalized NATAL and US playing
our full weight in NATO, and that will be parts.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
I think Trump Buck is one hundred percent right that
the world would actually be better off. And look if
Canada was a part of the United States. I think
he's one hundred percent right. Here's the problem. It's not
going to happen. One two.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
If it did happen, the devil or in the details,
most of those voters would be far left wing voters,
so you would actually have to instead of making Canada
fifty first state, you would have to in some way
create some of the rural Canadian areas to give them
an opportunity so that we could have senators who were
not insane. It would if Canada were a part of
(34:59):
the United State. Dates and not very many people have
talked about this. Kamala might well have won the presidency
because you're bringing in thirty five million ish new voters,
and that new voter registry is about two to one
Democrat in America over Republican. So look, Trump's right, they
would get a huge tax cut. I think the overall
(35:21):
economy would be better for both countries if Canada were
a part of.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
The United States. I think that's all true. It's not
going to happen. And the reality here is if it
were going to happen, the details in terms of what
it would be necessary to occur are substantial. What I
like about it is it goes to the growth mindset
(35:46):
of Trump. He's not looking at the United States as
a finished product. I bought a map recently and I'm
going to put it in the new house that we're building.
It's what I love about it is it's one of
those old school maps. Buck.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Do you remember when used to be able to pulled
down the map and the teacher would pull out a
ruler or whatever and they would point to it and
it would be this before everybody had the camp had
the computers to be able to put everything imaged out there.
And it's a map from like eighteen forty and it
has the continental United States, and most of the United
States is not filled in yet we didn't know what
(36:20):
the future of the country was going to look like.
And I love the ambition, the scope, the metaphor of
that unfilled map. And I think that is how Trump
thinks that the United States is not a fixed and
permanent and already fully formed country, that we still have
a lot of growth, and I think that is what
his expansionist mindset represents. Whether it's Greenland, whether it's Canada,
(36:41):
whether it's Panama, and making us think in different ways.
But that to me is the challenge of Canada. I'm
not sure even if it's a great idea, and I
do think it would be good for the economy overall,
that the Canadian voters would actually agree with much of
what we think is important in the United States right now.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
But if it's not gonna happen, and I agree with
you that it's not gonna happen, why does Trump know
that it's not gonna happen?
Speaker 1 (37:08):
Because why this is? This is where it's a great question.
I think Trump is a bit of a magical thinker.
This is my psychoanalysis of Trump. And what I mean
by that is, anytime you build something that hasn't been
built before, you have to be a creative, magical thinker.
Real estate developers have to see things that haven't occurred
(37:30):
and believe that they are possible. I think in Trump's mind,
he believes that anything can be negotiated, and so even
if there's a small chance of it happening, he thinks
by putting it out into the larger discussion, he actually
makes it somewhat possible.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
In the same way, if you say, hey, I'm going to.
Speaker 1 (37:48):
Build a two hundred story building, well, maybe that's not
going to end up happening, but the idea that you
think you can expands the Overton window of possibility.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Clay thinks that Trump is a man who dreams ye
great dreams, the greatest dreams. We got to call her
Dave in Maine. He says he lives right near the
Canadian border. Wants to weigh in on this Canada stuff.
What's going on, Dave, my gentlemen.
Speaker 13 (38:11):
Yeah, so my family is from Canada, back and forth.
We live right handy to it. My wife used to
grocery shop the every week, grew up playing hockey with
Canadian kids. My daughter works for a Canadian company, and
we got a lot of friends of the Canadians. What
happened was they were ready, the people that we know,
(38:33):
we're ready to go for Pierre, but the whole fifty
first state. Yeah, thing really touched off their national pride.
And we compete in another sport and we have Canadians
come over and compete with us, and they got so
peed off. They're like, we're not coming to the US
this year to compete and sorry, you know, I don't
(38:54):
take it personal, but you know it's an attack on
our country. I said, he's just one of them anyway,
but they didn't take it that way. And I always said, too,
you should have marketed it as there's ten provinces and
three territories in Canada. So one state wasn't nearly enough
to give them ten states, give them ten or thirteen states.
(39:14):
But all seriousness, Uh, that is really you know, that's
the feedback directly from my best friend lives no Scotiare.
And you know another thing too about is their news
is just horrendous. Like I'm always having to re you know,
tell them these listen to what's the fall of their
rebel news? You know, try to get some all ternative
(39:36):
news sources because their regular news they get is just
you know, do you think I mean.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
It's it's communist drivel. I I know that because I
used to. I used to do some news back in
the day, which I think became rebel news or ezra levant.
You know, very early in my career, I actually appeared
on Canadian TV when I needed more TV reps play.
I was like, Hey, how are my Canadian brothers and
sisters doing that?
Speaker 10 (39:57):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Really that's where you were. The the skills buck is
huge in Saskatchewan. You have no idea, I you know,
it's thank you for the call. By the way, I
do think to answer your question that the fifty first
state talk inside of Canada ignited national pride and it
lit on fire the hopes of conservative governments because they
(40:20):
were seen as closer to Trump. I'm also gonna say this,
it reminds you of somebody that I know, somebody I
spent a lot of time with you today.
Speaker 3 (40:27):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
I don't know if he needs to be named here,
But when you tell Trump not to talk about something,
or that he can't talk about something, guess what is
going to happen. And there are a lot of people
who said stop with the fifty first state talk. Yeah, Clay,
So somebody.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
Could be I don't know how somebody could be that way.
I also think this ties in Trump also sees this
as entertainment. I'm gonna be honest with you, and I
know some people were offended by the Pope Trump as
Pope meme that got shared. I thought it was really funny.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
And I'm not Catholic, so I can't speak on behalf
of the Catholic universe of Trump spoke to this. Let's
hear his because, by the way, I am Catholic. I
went to Jesuit school and did all this stuff, and
you know know some of the things. I was not
even vaguely offended by this Okay, this is there are
things that appear about Catholicism or the way that it's depicted,
(41:22):
and the way the media and the focus on certain
things is offensive. I agree with Trump on this one
one hundred percent. But here he is play cut five.
Speaker 6 (41:30):
We're not so happy about the image of you looking
like the Pope.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Oh, I see.
Speaker 8 (41:35):
You mean they can't take a joke. You don't mean
the Catholics, show mean the fake news media, not.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
The Catholics loved it. I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 8 (41:43):
Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the
Pope and they put it out on the internet. That's
not me that did it. I have no idea where
it came from. Maybe it was Ai, but I know
nothing about it. I just saw it last evening. Actually
my wife thought it was cute, said, this is that nice?
Actually I would not be able to be married though
(42:05):
that would be a lot. To the best of my knowledge,
popes aren't big one getting married are not that we
know of now.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
I mean that we know of, not that we well,
we talked about this. There actually were a lot back
in the back in the day, with a lot of
illegitimate kids out there. If you if you study, it's
a really good Renaissance art that came out of those
naughty popes. So just putting it out there. And uh,
but so I thought that was funny. Again, I think
(42:34):
you tweeted this, and I do think it's important the
fact that Trump has maintained a sense of humor and
a lightness of being with the most important job in
the United States. I think it's probably fair to say.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
Just a few months ago he took a freaking bullet
off his ear that nearly blew his head off on
live television, the thing that doesn't get talked about at all.
And I was with him at the NCAA Wrestling Championships
on that arena floor in Philadelphia. Most people who come
that close to death, who would have an assassin's bullet
clip their ear, Most people would be pretty apprehensive walking
(43:15):
into big crowded arenas. The guy is fearless, and I think,
to your point, has a lightness of bearing about him
that even though he is engaged in serious things, he
still has a sense of humor surrounding it. And so
I think he's putting it out into the ether, this
idea of Canada or Greenland or Panama, or whatever it
(43:37):
might be because of the expansionist idea, but also the
pope thing. I think he enjoys just having fun, or
the running for a third tournament office, all of these things.
I think he enjoys expanding the universe and kind of
ridiculing the people who are most opposed to him.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
And I thought the Pope picture. I saw it, you know,
like I guess when did it come out? Just before
the Kentucky Derby or something? And I thought it was
pretty funny. I know a lot of Catholics. Okay, I'm
related to a lot of them too. I don't know
a single Catholic who thought that that was like blasphemous
or some big problem. All right, everyone can calm down.
You know, Trump Trump, like on the cross or something
(44:16):
that would upset people, Trumps the Pope. I think that's funny.
We'll come back. We'll take some more of your calls.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
We got Senator Rampaul joining us top of the third
hour after yesterday's debate about whether I could swim to
shore from Alcatraz.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
A lot of disrespect for my swimming ability. I have
to say, I'm.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Bracing for the monster size shipment of Chalk's mel vitality
stack to arrive. I think buck right before I jumped
into the water into the icy shark infested waters of
the San Francisco Bay. To demonstrate my incredible swimming acumen,
I would need to pound a bunch of chalk to
just have the energy of a thousand men, a trump
(44:53):
like set of energy in order to propel me across
the entire bay two lane. I can neither confirm nor deny,
but if you were to take some chad mode, would
you be able to outswim a great white shark that
was on your tail, possibly while blowing into my beloved
flute and making melodic tunes for everyone as I swam,
(45:16):
maybe backstroked. You can get twenty percent increase in your
testosterone level in just three months time, July three months away,
just in time for the I just throw something else
out there too, just to love, you know, because you know,
chalk has been part of my regimen now for months.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
I've been on the six month journey. And the last
time I saw Laura when she came over a few
months ago, she looked at me, She's like, wow, you
really did lean out. It's like, yes, proper life, who
has it's going to live to be one hundred and
forty and is very healthy and knows all about supplements.
She was impressed with Chalk. I don't know anything. I'm
kind of a moron on many subjects, as many of
(45:51):
you have learned.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
But in the meantime, you can get hooked up right
now with chalk dot com my name Clay for a
massive discount on any subscription for Life Chalk dot com,
choq dot com. You can cancel your subscription anytime. Imagine
what you could do with way more energy and twenty
percent increased testosterone. It can make a huge difference for you,
(46:12):
and it can just help me to be an even
better swimmer than I already am. Get hooked up today
Chalk dot com, choq dot com, my name Clay, Massive
discount on any subscription for Life News.
Speaker 4 (46:25):
You can count on as some laughs too.
Speaker 5 (46:28):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate everybody
hanging out with us. We're joined now by Senator Rand Paul,
a great State of Kentucky and Senat Paul I know
there's a ton of things we're gonna get into with you,
but I want to start with this, Anthony Fauci. The
evidence continues to mount that he lied about gain a
(46:55):
Function research. You, uniquely, I think in the entire political class,
have continued to hold his feet to the fire.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
What is the latest about that that you can tell us.
Speaker 3 (47:06):
We've been trying to get records on the deliberation of
who made the call to send the money to Wuhan,
the research, the lab, the league, who funded it. We
know the NIH did it, but we're going to know
who met about it, who discussed it, and who made
the final approval. We think that's Anthony Fauci, and we're
getting closer to that. The Biden administration refused to give
us any documents. They basically refused for years to give
(47:29):
any Robert Kennedy has opened up the books to us.
Jay Battachari and NIH is also helping us, and we're
sorting through it. We're going to begin interviewing everybody who's
part of the process. So there's a committee over there
that discussed it. When Fauci said, everybody told him that
it wasn't gained a function, it's interesting though, that the
committee has documents, and in the documents they have EcoHealth Alliance.
(47:54):
This is a group that got the money that took
it to Wuhan. They have EcoHealth Alliance sending notes back
to the NIA saying thank you for lifting our gain
of function pause. So they were paused the government quits
funding gain of function between fourteen and twenty sixteen. They
thank them for lifting their pause on the same research
that Fauci said was never gain function. So how do
(48:16):
you lift a pause in funding for a project that
was never gain a function if it was never a
gain a function. So we've got evidence like that. But ultimately,
once we've interviewed everybody, we will get to Anthony Fauci.
That will be within a month or two, and we'll
be having him come in and testify.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
In terms of that testimony, what are you hoping to
be able to get final answers from Fauci on and
given the Senator Paul, given the preemptive pardon that he
was given, which is still pretty remarkable when I say
that out loud, that that even happened. What are you
hoping the final disposition of this whole situation will be?
Speaker 3 (48:55):
You realize that's a preemptive pardon where they don't even
list your crime that he's hard for anything, stealing in
a larceny, grand larceny, assault, you name it. He's pardoned
for anything he could have done over a ten year period.
It's the craziest thing I've ever heard. I've never ever
heard of a pardon. It's preemptive and also includes any
possible crime he committed over a ten year period. I
(49:17):
don't have high hopes that he's going to be ultimately
held criminally responsible, but I think it's important that history
judges him accurately and harshly. He made a decision that
led to the million, millions of people dying, basically a
decision to fund a lab that was not up to
safety standards and fund research that was incredibly dangerous. We
(49:40):
also are concerned that this kind of research still goes on.
So the President came out in the last day or
so with a pause once again on gain to function research, importantly,
not just in our country, but a pause on all
funding we do around the world, because of course, you know,
Uncle Sam funds everybody's research lab everywhere in the world,
and some of these some of this, some people conjecture
(50:02):
Anthony Fauci farmed out because he wanted less scrutiny. So
if he wanted, you know, for example, some of the
most gruesome stuff that was done on beagles was done
in Tunisia. They did in Tunisia hoping that their sensibility
is about selling their eyelids open and infecting them with
sand fleas and then cutting their larynx out, so you
couldn't hear the dogs cry that there'd be less sensibility
(50:24):
for that somewhere else other than the United States. But
same way with the gain of function, we think some
of it was farmed out. We need to know the
degree of this, and we need to get to the
bottom of it. We're also very concerned with a couple
of labs near Fort Tetrick Kennedy closed one down and
the media reported he was anti science, but I heard
there of the accurate story from Jay Battachari. The accurate
(50:45):
story is someone's asthmat suit was purposely cut in one
of the areas dealing with Ebola and different very dangerous viruses.
So getting that kind of disease out of a lab,
if he were to have gotten infected, is incredibly dangerous
and so next to that lab is an niht A
DHS lab Department of Homeland Security that we now have
(51:08):
reports are doing experiments aerosolizing ebola. We think that somebody,
you know, somebody representing the taxpayer and the citizens of
the country ought to be able to take a look
at these labs and find out what experiments are doing
and really should we be doing some of this.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
I think both all of this you just said is
really important because I think it answers two questions. One,
it is backward looking in the context of Fauci should
be seen as a villain of history and his full
trajectory of stories and lies should be analyzed for years
to come. That's backwards looking prospectively. As you just laid out.
Speaker 1 (51:44):
The reason why this matters is if China created COVID,
which I think it's quite clear that they did partly
based on having gain a function access to American taxpayer dollars,
we should be massively concerned about. As you just laid out,
whatever for the next iteration of the virus that could
be created, is because it could end up far more
(52:06):
deadly than anything that we dealt with with COVID. I
think that's kind of a synthesis of all of this.
For people out there who would say, Okay, why are
we still talking about covid, Well.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
You know, the next virus could be avian flu. Avian
flu has a fifty percent death rate. Coronavirus or COVID
was less than one percent. So avian flu currently a
human can get it from chickens or from birds, but
doesn't go human to human. But there are experiments trying
to get it to go human to human, mammal to
mammal through the air. These have been funded by NIH.
(52:38):
This is the kind of stuff that has to be discussed.
Is it a death wish for humanity for someone to
try to get avi and flu and make it more
transmissible among humans? I think is the We should be
shouting this from the rooftop. This kind of research should
not occur, and the taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. But
I don't know that we've actually gotten to that point yet.
The Trump administration's ban or at least temporary or maybe
(53:02):
longer on this is a good step. I have legislation
that would do this, and we actually have gotten bipartisan support.
I've passed it out unanimously out of committee. Last Congress,
do it again in the next month or so, and
then we're hoping it can be included in some kind
of legislation that's going to pass soon. But this would
actually let President Trump appoint a panel of scientists. And importantly,
(53:25):
these scientists would not be ones who get NIH grants,
so they can't be bribed to have an opinion. They
will be independent voices, but experts in their field, and
they will examine all government research, all classified and unclassified documents,
and they will give their opinion on whether it should
be funded, and they will have the ability to stounding.
It will be a powerful committee, but it won't be
(53:47):
a total ban. It would be we're going to look
at case by case. The reason you need that is
if you just ban it and then the next people
come in and say, well, that's not gain a function.
That's what Anthony Vauschi did is oh, yeah, we were
had special safety forget to function, but this wasn't kain
to function. Anthonyphalgi to this day still argues that the
research in wu On that led to the death of
(54:07):
six to ten million people. He said that wasn't gain
of function, which nobody else he's other than Anthony Fauci speaking.
Speaker 2 (54:14):
The Senator Ran Paul Kentucky Senator on President Trump today,
he spoke about the Houthis. I think he said there's
a deal that they have now. Essentially it's please stop
bombing us and we'll stop blowing up ships. But the
Houthis are an extension and allied with Iran. There's a
lot of talk right now about one of kind of
I think you could say a rare disconnect or disagreement
(54:37):
at the senior levels of some of the Trump personnel,
and it has to do with Iran and what we
should do about Iran and its nuclear ambitions going forward.
How do you see that? Where do you think Trump
is on this and where would you like to see
this go?
Speaker 3 (54:54):
You know, I mean encouraged by the announcement today and
Trump shows great strength and they back down, and so
I think that is a good thing. And my hope
is that we can get to a point where international
shipping is safe to go around the bend there and
up through the suss with regard to Iran. My hope
is that we can move forward. And this is where
Trump is different than some of the neo conservatives. The
(55:16):
new Conservatives never want to get to the next step
of negotiation. So Trump goes in with a firm hand,
but he does get to the next step of negotiation.
He did it with North Korea. Didn't necessarily work out,
But most of the neocons, from Hillary Clinton to Bill Crystal,
would have never talked to North Korea. They would never
talk to an Iran. Ultimately, getting to the point where
(55:38):
we talk to them is good because really the only
realistic way of stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon
isn't all likely. Who're likelihod through diplomacy. I don't think
you can bomb away their nuclear knowledge. I don't think
once they haven't rich unuranium. You know, a cupful of
uranium enriched to ninety five or ninety eight percent is
probably enough for a bomb. You know, once you get
(55:59):
six or eight or ten up fuls of the uranium,
your mitched to that point you have the rest of
the technical knowledge to do it. You know, you can
hide that thousands of feet below the ground where no
bomb can get to. So, you know, I don't want
that to happen, and we want to stop it, but
ultimately it has to be both stick and carrot, And
so ultimately you have to talk to people, and you
(56:20):
have to This is the same thing we should be
doing with Russia. You know, they're wanting to put more
more sanctions on Russia. The Lindsey Graham Bill wants to
put a five hundred percent tariff on everybody who buys
oil from Russia. You know what that is. That's about
forty or fifty countries by oil and gas and from
from Russia. The five percent tariff would be a shutdown
(56:42):
of basically all all commerce in the world. And me,
it's a terrible idea. What we should be doing instead
is going to Russia and say you want to get
back in the banking system, you want to get rid
of some sanctions stoming of Venezuela, and let's have a
ceasefire and pea stalks. I think we have the ability
to offer stuff, but I think I think we have
so many sanctions already on these countries that really to
(57:04):
get to diplomacy and get to the peace, the piece
should be offering to remove sanctions and allow Russia back
into the banking world. But they have to do something real.
It has to be real seafire and has to really
ultimately be a peace plan.
Speaker 1 (57:17):
All Right, I know it's a complicated topic, but I
want to give you an opportunity to weigh in on
tariffs and analyze this. Reports today that India might be
willing to go to zero tariffs for American goods. It
seems to me that there is dual arguments here. One
is you hear it from a lot of Trump people, Hey,
we want to actually eliminate many of the tariffs and
(57:39):
have more free trade. The other argument is we need
to have more protectionist trade, potentially with China other countries.
How do you analyze this, what should we do? And
bigger picture, how does it impact the big beautiful bill.
I know that's a big question, but the tax cut
bill that's currently making its way along with Order security
(58:00):
through Congress right now.
Speaker 3 (58:03):
There's two camps on tariffs. They're all pro tariff in
the Trump administration, but two camps. One of the Neanderthal camp.
The Neanderthal camp says that we keep tariffs on until
there's no more trade deficits. Well, you think we're ever
going to get to the point where Bangladesh buys as
much from US as we fire from them? The same
with Vietnam. We're a very very rich country. And part
(58:24):
of a trade deficit is when you're richer, you buy
more stuff from other people than they buy from you.
So it's just that's a ridiculous, Neanderthal sort of argument.
The other camp says, well, we want reciprocal agreements, we
want fairness, but we'll you know, we'd like to see
lower tariffs. That's a more reasonable camp. And I've actually said, well,
I'm not for the tariffs, and I think tariffs from
this guided. If Trump is able to use as a
(58:45):
negotiating technique the ability of lower tariffs with India and
they get to a much lower level than when we started,
I'll be the first to compliment him on that. But
realize that the tariff bill, or the sanctioned bill that
Lindsay is proposing on Russia actually would tearif because India
is an India and China are the two biggest purchasers
of oil and gas from from Russia, and if you
(59:07):
put a five hundred percent tariff, that's going the opposite way.
So I don't think we're going to zero if we
passed this new Russia sanction bill that puts a five
hundred five hundred percent tariff is an embargo it's it's
almost like a declaration of war basically, So it's a
it's a really really, really foolish notion. But uh, if
you know they come up with a deal with India,
(59:28):
I will be the first to compliment the president and say,
bay job, you know, if he gets if he gets
lower tariffs, we'll see what happens. But I think that
should be the goal really with every country, and I
would say even including China, because I think the moment
that we have no trade with China is the moment
that they become less predictable and potentially more militaristic.
Speaker 2 (59:51):
Senator one more for you. Only got about a minute,
but I just wanted to hear you weigh in on
this because I know government spending and are unsustainable. Data
is someone been uh tough for the dog cuts. I'm
hearing there's been some cuts actually made a lot of
cuts advised. What do you think where are we on that?
Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
None of them actually count until they come back to Congress.
So if you say you've cut spending, unless it's actually
booked by Congress and Congress votes on it, it doesn't
really it hasn't been transmitted or accounted for. There's supposedly
a recision package. It can be voted on by a
simple majority. That's coming back to us of only nine billion.
That's a pittance. That's a rounding era. I'm for it,
(01:00:29):
but I'll say send us more please. We'll see. But
right now we've been hearing about that for two weeks
and haven't seen that. And if that gets over here
and the weak need Republicans won't go over that, then
I say, Katie, bar the door. You might as well
plan on a full scale bankruptcy in the country if
it's the Congress canning cut nine billion.
Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
On that note, Senator rem Paul, thank you for being
with us as always, stro We appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (01:00:53):
Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Hopefully, hopefully it doesn't come to that. He's right by
the way on the numbers and he knows it and
always such a good conversation with the Senator from Kentucky.
Few nonprofit organizations can make this claim three hundred and
fifty thousand lives saved, but that's exactly what Preborn has
done over the twenty years of its existence. The Preborn
clinics nationwide welcome pregnant moms into their facilities when that
(01:01:19):
decision is being made life or abortion. And here's what
Preborn does. They welcome in all those moms. They give
them love, support, a tension care, and a free ultrasound
because when that mom meets the tiny life growing inside
of her, I just went through this with my own boy.
Go into those ultrasound check ins with my wife. It's
incredible seeing that little heart beat and mom sees that
(01:01:41):
little heartbeat, the discussion is so much easier for oh yeah,
life for my unborn baby. Preborn is saving lives day
in and day out. This way they do it with
just twenty eight dollars expense per ultrasound. Twenty eight bucks.
You could save a life with twenty eight dollars donation
to Preborn. Some of you have very fortunate financial situations
(01:02:05):
and you can do two hundred and eighty dollars or
even more. Whatever you can spare Preborn will use for
this incredible mission of saving tiny babies. To donate securely,
dial pound two point fifty and say the keyword baby.
That's pound two five zero say baby, or visit preborn
dot com, slash buck, preborn dot com slash b uc
(01:02:27):
k sponsor by Preborn.
Speaker 4 (01:02:31):
Cheep up with the biggest political comeback in world history.
Speaker 11 (01:02:34):
On the Team forty seven podcast, playin Buck, Highlight Trump
free plays from the week Sundays at noon Eastern. Find
it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome in appreciate all of you hanging out with us.
We are rolling through the Tuesday edition of the program
and there is a lot going on in the world
that we.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Will dive into.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Our friend Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky will join us
at the top of the third hour of the program.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
He is our only guest today. Eight hundred and two
two eight A two.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
If you want to weigh in on a variety of
different topics that we will soon be diving in.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Two.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
But this story.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
I wanted to dive into got a little bit of attention,
but I actually think it is super fascinating. We are
in the middle right now of what we all told
you would be coming, and it is the Biden's mental
and physical cognition. Everybody knew how bad it was, and
some of the stories that were not told when Biden
(00:55):
was still in office are now being told. And there
is a new story out that I think should have
gotten more attention than it has so far, and I
wanted to talk about.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
This with you.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
New upcoming book that is out about Biden's ongoing mental
and physical struggles in the White House Sunday New York Times,
I read it. This is coming from a couple of
different reporters. The book How Trump re Took the White
House and Democrats Lost America says that in twenty twenty
(01:32):
four February, that there was a substantial debate inside of
the White House about Joe Biden doing a cognitive test,
because in February of that year, if you'll remember, they
came out with the Her Report, which described the President
as a sympathetic.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
At that point in time, the story becoming such an
issue that they thought about having Biden take a cognition test,
but they were afraid that he would not be able
to pass. Now, this is in February of twenty twenty four,
he still buck had nearly a full year as President
(02:20):
of the United States, and they did backchannel conversations, according
to the book, and the physician said, I'm not gonna
lie if he fails it, basically, and so they didn't
believe that Biden would be able.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
To pass the test.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
This is again, this is the New York Times reporting
a book that's going to be out soon. This is
one of the things that is in the book. If true,
If this is true.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
This is a cover up that I believe would be criminal,
because if you have a president of the United States
and his staff which is publicly proclaiming that he's sharp
as attack and that he's going to be able to
run for reelection and be president for four more years,
but privately, that same staff that's saying that publicly is
(03:12):
afraid that if he took a cognition test, and these
cognition tests are not we're not talking about the SAT
the Act rolled into one. It's not an ap course.
It is a very basic test that elderly people sometimes
take to see whether or not they have severe dementia,
or whether their mental and physical capabilities are enough for
(03:35):
them to instance be able to live at home or
drive a car, these kind of things. Buck This is
staggering if this is true, because it would mean, thankfully
we got through it, but that what we were all
talking about was likely true, and that for a year
the White House was trying to cover up the entire
(03:56):
last year of his presidency that many of his top
aides didn't even think that he could pass a basic
cognition test, and that's the reason they didn't have him
do it. Well, that's because everybody knew that this guy
had dementia. But the entire system, the entire apparatus, was
completely enmeshed in the line and they knew, right, what's
(04:20):
going to be interesting here is how do they get
past this? And some of you, I will say, have
been pointing out, Look, we're going to talk about the
tariffs and the latest. You know, the latest is that
Trump knows what he's doing and it's all fine. So
every needs to calm down a bit. But we'll talk
about the news of the day, of course with respect
to that. But why does this story still matter so much?
It matters because it shows everybody just how deep the
(04:42):
rot was between the Democrat Party and the corporate Democrat media,
the old media institutions that still even until this last election,
I think Clay had more of a more of a
claim to, oh, we're trustworthy and neutral than they should have.
Had wised up a lot. But now, if you believe
(05:03):
The New York Times isn't pushing a left wing agenda,
you're just not very smart, right if you believe that
the Washington Post is objective journalism. Even Jeff Bezos doesn't
believe the Washington Post. He owns it, and he doesn't
think it's objective journalism based on what we've seen in
the last election cycle alone. He's figured this out, right,
(05:23):
So I think Clay, what's interesting is, you know there's
this reporting about the cover up and it comes out now,
and this is going to be one thing. This will
be contentious, especially for anybody who's trying to say, well,
look at all the good journalism we're doing now about this.
All of this was known and knowable before the election.
(05:43):
Real journalism would have been telling us about this before
the American people were voting, right, because it doesn't just
go to Joe Biden. It goes to the credibility of
the pro Kamala media and all of the stories around
her and all the things that were going on at
the time. So you know, you can't try to rig
(06:04):
the game. I watched my beloved New York Knicks last
night get a huge win, Clay, huge win over the
Boston Celtic.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
It came back from twenty points down. When's the last
time you watched it full? Did you watch the whole
game or just the end of it?
Speaker 2 (06:16):
No, My brothers texted me and said, stop being a communist.
They're about to win. There's five minutes left or something, okay,
And I said, okay, brothers. My brothers are the normal
ones in the family. They were watching, so I turned
it on. But you know, imagine if it came out
that that one of those teams had tried to rig
the game by paying off the refs. You're not a
hero for telling us that after the game is over
(06:39):
and you've played a year later, I think, and a
year later, that's not heroic. Okay. That's cleaning up after
the parade of elephants and horses, so to speak, has
already gone by. And that's what's going on here. It
is clean up on aisle journalism. And we're going to
have this out I think in time with then anybody
(07:00):
who sees it otherwise. Oh, by the way, which is
one more thing, Clay, if they could have gotten a
doctor to lie, they absolutely would have gone forward with it,
because all these people have their jobs writing on whether
Biden can pass this cognitive test. The doctor, that's what
I wanted to reference. This is, according to the New
York Times, is reporting on this book that's going to
come out. Mister Biden's longtime doctor, Kevin O'Connor told AIDS
(07:24):
he would not take the eighty one year old president's
political standing into consideration when treating him. Good for him? Basically, Yeah,
that guy is That guy is actually a hero in
this story when it mattered he had integrity that Biden's
have declined to comment on this story that is coming
out in this book. Can I just throw something out
(07:47):
there too? Sorry, you've got me fired up about this story.
Clay sent me this story, and now I'm fired up
about this story. Clay, you know who wanted the chief
You know, maybe the chief villain in this whole narrative
is going to be Jill Biden. Well, I'm arguing that
for a while you have because sit in this book,
it's going to completely align with your Jill Biden is
(08:09):
a chief villain. Take but I think we're going to
get some of those details. Now. Can you imagine hiding
your husband's dementia from the country in a reelection camp
we're not even talking about Can he just get to
the end? Right? That would be bad enough? Okay, just
six more months, Joe, just six more months, Clay. They
were telling us she should be president for four more years.
(08:31):
There are two other things in this story that are
in the book that I think is. Mike Donnellan, a
senior advisor to Biden had worked for him since the eighties,
told the Harvard Political Review in March, even when they
were worried about this cognitive test, every day, I keep
seeing him doing the job. I still think he's the
best person to be president today. David Axelrod, top advisor
(08:54):
to President Obama, called into question in July twenty twenty two,
whether Biden would be able to serve another four years.
He said, the stark realities the President's going to be
closer to the ninety than eighty at the end of
the second term. It would be a major issue. That comment,
according to the book, prompted an angry call to Axelrod
(09:15):
from Ron Klaym, then mister Biden's chief of staff. He said,
there's no Obama out there acts who's going to do
it if he doesn't do it. That is why they covered.
It's not only Buck that they were aware and they
wanted to maintain power and everything else. It's that I
(09:37):
think they realized there was no one else who could
do better against Trump than Biden. So they were willing
to weakend at Bernie's two Joe Biden as long as
they could keep this lie going, and that's because there
wasn't somebody in the wings that they thought was better
(09:57):
and they ended up being correct because Kamala couldn't do
it either. I'll also point this out, Clay. I know
you're I know you're with me on this, but I
just think we have to keep on reminding everybody because
remember the people that went along with this line, they
all still run the Democrat Party. They're all still calling
the shots at most of you know, the non Fox networks,
although actually, you know, congrats to uh uh Newsmax and
(10:21):
news Nation for all the gains they're you know, they're
making a lot of gains, and it's and they've earned
it because they've built their brands at a time when
these other brands are just going into the side of
the mountain at high speed. But Clay, if they could
have held off on the debate until the election, yeah,
they would have even still the story. That's still the story.
(10:43):
I want to know more about why did they decide
to do it, And I think it was the biggest
blunder in political history of Clay. They should they would
have gotten away with this, in my mind. Now, I
don't know if they would he would have beaten Trump.
That's a different question. I don't think so. Look at
look at the results in the election. But they would
have dragged him to election day. All they had to
(11:04):
do was say, Joe refuses to platform an election denier.
You have to say it like that because you have
to have no testosterone when you say it, Joe refuses
to platform an election denier. The American people will decide
at the ballot box. Play. They could have kept Biden
in the seat. And I'll say this, it would have
(11:25):
if they had done that, forget about the debate, it
would have been a better showing for them than it
was with Kamala. I think, no question in my mind.
I think that's still the great untold story. Why did
they insist, Remember it was their call.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Why did they insist on the early debate because they're
lying about his mental and physical cognition. Already, he'd already
locked up the overall nomination.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
There was nothing they could have done to him. If
they had just waited to do a debate until September October,
it would have destroyed his chance, says I think of
reelection because everybody would have seen it, and it would
have been impossible to replace him at that point in time,
but why not?
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Or we said it for a while, we thought that
Biden might say, I'm not even going to platform Trump
because his ideas are too.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Crazy. People have seen this debate already. They know what
he thinks, they know what I think. I believe that
that might have been the better play, because then they
could have kept the lie going. I think if you
and I were running the Biden twenty twenty four campaign,
talk about a thought experiment, and we had and we
had sold our souls, and the whole point was anything
(12:38):
because if we believe, let's say that Trump was the
end of the Republic, which isn't that just even more
insane now that we look around her, like, I mean,
the country is healing and things are going great. Yeah,
that's the end of the Republic. We could have gotten
Biden to election day. Look at all this stuff they
were able to suppress. They could that. I agree with
you who pushed forward the early debate, because there are
(13:01):
only two options. The biggest own goal self inflicted wound
in modern American politics. Or maybe somebody was like, I
just can't be a part of this anymore. I think
that's less likely, I do, but it's not impossible. That
would have been the House of Cards part. You know,
(13:21):
if this is the television show that Netflix did back
in the day, the House of Cards version would be
we're going to trot him out there and we're going
to let him go up in flames. But it is
crazy to me that they let this guy debate in
June of twenty twenty seven. I just think it's crazy.
We'll talk about this. We'll take some of your calls
(13:41):
AI everywhere. If your business isn't using it, you're losing money, productivity,
and a competitive edge. Net Suite helps you control costs
and increase efficiency, like our federal government's trying to do.
Net Suite number one cloud business management system out there,
harnessing the power of AI to give you that competitive edge.
Even the best run businesses could use a little optimizing,
(14:03):
maybe even streamlining. With NetSuite, you'll gain clarity on what
actions to take. With technology moving so fast, you're probably
wondering where to even begin. NetSuite brings accounting, financial management
inventory HR into one efficient suite instead of paying for
multiple systems. Begin by going to NetSuite dot com, slash
clay NetSuite is spelled.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
N E t s U I t E. NetSuite dot com.
Slash Clay brings you to a website where you can
download the free CFOs guide to AI and Machine Learning.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
It's fast, it's easy, It's what next. It's what's next.
Lead your company into the future. Get the AI edge
with NetSuite by Oracle. That's NetSuite dot Com. Slash Clay
saving America one thought at a time. Clay, Travis, and
Buck sext to them.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Find them on.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
The free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Hot off the presses so speak. Clips of President Trump
from the Oval Office addressing some of the most important
news of the day. Let's start with the huge announcement.
Probably some people are saying the biggest announcement of all announcements.
We don't yet know much other than well, here's the
President saying it. Listen to him. We'll have maybe before
(15:21):
we want to.
Speaker 6 (15:22):
As you know, the released in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 7 (15:25):
We're going to Uee and Qatar and that'll be I
guess Monday night.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
Some of you are coming with us.
Speaker 8 (15:32):
I think before then we're gonna have a very very
big announcement to make like as big as it gets,
and I won't tell you on.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
What, but it's gonna and it's very positive. I'd also
I tell you if it was negative or positive.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I can't keep that.
Speaker 6 (15:46):
It is really, really positive. And that announcement will be
made either Thursday or Friday or Monday before we leave.
Speaker 7 (15:55):
But it'll be one of the.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
Most important announcements that have been made in many years
about a certain subject, very important subject, so you'll all
be here.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
I'm guessing it's got to be the Abraham Accords with
Saudi Arabia coming on board. Yes, does that make sense.
That makes the most sense to me too. I don't
think it's a breakthrough with Iran. We would have gotten
some whispers about that beforehand. And plus I just don't
think Iron's ever going to say, you know what, We're
not gonna get nukes. So I think that Saudi. It
(16:26):
might be in agreement with Saudi that is an extension
of the Abraham Accords and also a commitment from Saudi
to invest you know, a trillion dollars in the US
over the next twenty years or something, I don't know, whatever,
trillion dollars. A lot of money, not so much to Saudi.
I feel like they'll they'll pay that for a soccer
team these days. But yeah, that's something that I think
(16:47):
is a likely possibility. I would love to think that
it would be. You know, we're turning all the hostages
from israel I from a Hamas to Israel, but I
think that that is now going into a different phase
of the Israeli are doing the final push in that operation,
as they well should, and that's going to change some
(17:08):
dynamics in the Middle East too. I also think it
has to be someone that you have good relations with
in order to be confident that that deal is going
to be able to be announced. Does that make sense?
Like Iran is constantly shifting. They may say something on
Wednesday that's different than what they said on Monday. You
can't really rely on them Hamas, You can't rely on
(17:31):
anything related to what they might say publicly. So I
think it would have to be someone that the government
would have a good relationship with that you could rely
on being reasonable. I don't think you could say, for instance,
with Vladimir Putin and Russia, that you feel comfortable enough
in them to even forecast something like this, So That's
(17:52):
why I think the idea of the Abraham Accords being expanded,
which is hugely important long range in the Middle East.
By the way, this is something that is significant that
I saw. Also, there's a report that Trump I don't
know if we if he said this or if this
is an official report, that India has basically agreed to
(18:15):
zero tariffs on American products inside of their country. That
could be utterly transformative in the decades ahead, because India
is now the biggest country in the world, and unlike China,
which is collapsing in population and I think has already peaked,
I think India is going to become the second biggest
(18:37):
economy in the world in the next fifty years. And this, then,
I think is a good moment for us to take
a look at what is being said now from some
very infant, very astute places about the Trump tariffs conversation.
Glenn Youngkin one of the I would say top five
(19:00):
I've maybe top ten, top five governors in America right
now in Virginia doing a great job and also a
former very senior level executive, and he was the CEO
of the Carlisle Group, which is one of the largest
private equity firms in the world. This is the governor
of Virginia, and like I said, a guy who also
understands private industry saying that, well, I'll let you hear
(19:23):
it from him. This is cut three.
Speaker 9 (19:25):
I expect that long term we will have an accelerated growth,
and I'm very optimistic. I think in the near term,
as the President resets these imbalanced trade relationships and restores
fiscal responsibility into Washington, we're going to see this location.
It's just a reality. But what I do firmly expect
is investment from companies around the world to accelerate. I
(19:47):
expect job growth to accelerate.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
I think you're already beginning to see some of that.
The job's numbers. This is Scott Bessen. This has cut
one in the first one hundred days. You need to
hear about these jobs. Remember, not all government, you know,
make believe jobs, or at least low show jobs. It's
jobs in the actual economy.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Play.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
This is from the Treasury Secretary Play one.
Speaker 10 (20:10):
The core components of the Trump economic agenda are trade,
tax cuts, and deregulation. These are not standalone policies. They
are interlocking parts of an engine designed to drive economic
growth and domestic manufacturing. Tax cuts and cost savings from
deregulation raised real incomes for families and businesses. Terrorsts create
(20:32):
an incentive for reshoring jobs, and fair trade and deregulation
complements teriffs by making it easier to invest in energy
and manufacturing projects. Already, this agenda is bearing fruit. In
the first one hundred days the new administration, four hundred
and sixty four thousand new jobs were added to the economy.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Clay that people just need to give this some time.
And I think which seeing here is first of all,
I just fifteen years in conservative media all in the
beginning of this, when I got into this, we would
always hear we need private industry minds in government. We
need people who understand how jobs are created in the economy,
(21:19):
not by siphoning money from taxpayers to people who don't
actually necessarily do anything or add anything with some of
these government with some of this government bloat. We have
this now in a way we not only on the advisors,
but Trump himself, right, somebody who understands the private sector.
You look at even Scott Bessant, you compare him to
(21:39):
Biden's Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Yellen is an academic economist. Okay,
that's who is running the Treasury before Bessant is a
guy who had to place multi billion dollar bets and
be right about the trajectory of economic growth, about what
(22:00):
was actually going to happen in the global economy. We
have doors and practitioners now, clay not theorists and faculty
lounge layabouts.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Yeah, and again, I think that's why you know, the
caller from San Diego is fired up. I think people
sometimes have unrealistic expectations of what is capable of doing
with the ship of state. And I've had this analogy
made to me a lot over the years. You know,
(22:33):
in the world of sports, the smaller the team, the
quicker you can adjust the direction. So if you're a
basketball coach, it's like a speedboat. You can change a
couple of players. You can turn it around football teams
like an aircraft carrier. The United States is the largest
floatable ship on the planet. It's very hard to turn
(22:55):
it in any particular direction. Now, sometimes that can be
good because if people make really poor choices, then the
degree to which they can shift the direction of the
country is limited. But you've made the argument for years here,
and it's a pessimistic one, but I think there's some
truth to it that the president doesn't largely matter because
(23:15):
the apparatus surrounding the president is such that they're going
to direct the ship in the way they see best.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
And you made that are Biden was a test of
my theory. Yes, right, Biden was a real world experiment
of is it the machinery and not the man? With Trump,
That's obviously not the case, but I'm just saying it
can be what we just.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Saw well, and this is why I think Elon Musk
has been so frustrated. And look, I love that Elon
Musk and Scott Bessant and Howard Ludnik and all of
these guys that are super successful outside of government are
in government trying to do their best. Trump is a
great example of that too, but in sports, and I've
(24:00):
never seen it applied in politics, but I love the
concept and it's such an interesting one. There's something called
win over replacement value, and I think you can apply
it to all of your life. It's such an interesting concept.
You know, there's basically a war, you know, win above
replacement for every player. And I mentioned Aaron Judge is
(24:20):
the best player in baseball right now statistically across the board.
His stats a New York Yankee player are off the charts.
He has worth multiple wins compared to someone that might
be replacing him at a position. I think you can
apply it to politics. How much better is Trump not
only than any other Republican but than Kamala. I think
(24:43):
massively right, because over every day, every decision, the trajectory
of the USS aircraft carrier is very different based on
the judgments Trump is making versus what Kamala is making,
versus what Biden did. But within the constraint, I would
argue that it is impossible for any president to move
(25:06):
faster and break more things than Trump has done in
the first hundred days. And therefore, when you call in
and say, and I understand, people get frustrated, But I
think it's important to understand the larger construct. There are
people out there who will tell you, oh, the president
can do whatever he wants, and he can take forty
eight thousand different actions.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
And the reality is.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Trump is moving faster and breaking more things than anything
I have ever seen from any president in the history
of our country. And if you are out there saying
he needs to move faster and he needs to break
more things. I respect it.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I would just point out that historically, no one has
moved at the pace that Trump has ever in the
history of the United States government. I really think that's true.
And they're trying to make government move more like a business.
And if you have ever run a business, one of
the great things about sitting at the head of the table,
if you own the businesses, for better or worse, you
(26:07):
make a decision and buck. One of the management lessons
that I think I've learned is it's better to make
a wrong decision than not do anything. And some people
think that's crazy, but actually it's important because you can
give you it's a wrong decision. One of the things
that at the CIA farm, this is our training facility,
that they would always talk about in the context of
(26:30):
counter ambush, somebody's trying to take you out. They would
just and I know this military talks about this too,
but they would say get off the X and they
would They drilled into our brain when you are under threat,
the worst thing you can do freeze is nothing. The
worst thing you can do is I don't want to
(26:50):
make the wrong decision. So I make no decision. Yes,
you can pay with your life or that one. There's
a there's a broader lesson, there's a broader principle. There
got to just do sometimes because sitting around and especially
given the time constraints, I think the Trump administration is
under with the midterms. As we've discussed that moving as
fast as possible, Moving as fast as possible is its
(27:13):
own advantage in a system which we've already seen for
all of our adult for all of our lives, that
can always fall back on inaction as its preferred plan.
And the Democrats were hoping that there would be inertia
even with Trump coming in. The inertia of government would
(27:34):
be a protection for what they want, which is the
status quo. Yes, no, he's smashing that by moving so
fast in so many places. And I would argue, again,
this is me being a history nerd. Probably the person
who's moved the government the fastest in the lives of
anyone out there that is listening to us right now,
certainly the adult lives of anyone that's listening is Lyndon Johnson.
(27:57):
And Lindon Johnson was able to move the government so
rapidly in his one term after one term plus change
when he took over for JFK. Because he was a
genius of Senate procedure and so he was able to
move Congress at a speed in the Senate in particular,
that it had never moved at before because he knew
the inner workings of procedure in the Senate, having spent
(28:19):
time there better than almost anyone. A correlary to that
was Charlie Wilson's war where I for Doc whatever his
name is, I forget now, but the member of Congress
who was like on the you know, the Finance, the
Spending Committee, whatever it was at the time, And Charlie
Wilson knew, if I just got this guy in my pocket,
I got whoever I need in my pocket to get
(28:39):
the things through that I need to get through. So
understanding that system is critical. Trump has come in not
just with the right team to decide, but with people
like Steven Miller and others who know how the system functions.
And this is part of what I think Clay has
driven Democrats so insane because first time around, Trump great ideas,
(28:59):
first term not an understanding of the system. So yes,
a huge, huge difference this time around look here in
South Florida, we get a huge downpours. We actually just
got one a couple hours before the show came out
of nowhere, the kind that will clog your gutters if
you have the smallest amount of leaves, twigs, whatever else
that's accumulated. A clean gutter clears the way for a
care free summer. Whether you're tired of unclogging your gutters
(29:22):
or don't even know what they look like, it's time
for a permanent solution with Lee Filter right now save
up to thirty percent off at leefilter dot com. Slash Clayandbuck.
Gutter clogs aren't just a nuisance. They can cause extensive
water damage. Let Lee Filters, trusted pro help protect your
home from flooding, roof damage, rotted siding, foundation issues, and more.
(29:42):
They'll clean out, realign and seal your gutters before installing
Lee Filter's award winning and patented technology. Protect your home
and never clean out gutters again With Lee Filter. This
is America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free
inspection and get up to thirty percent off your entire
purchase at leefilter dot com. Slash Clay and Buck that's
l e AF filter dot com, slash Clayandbuck see the
(30:06):
representative or warranty details.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Want to be in the know when you're on the go.
Speaker 11 (30:11):
The Team forty seven podcast Trump highlights from the week
Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay and Bug podcast feed.
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
This play is hot on this one. Let's dive into this.
Canada just had a very disappointing election from the perspective
of freedom, liberty, common sense. Pierre Paulyev, he of apple
eating an indifference to media fame, did not succeed in
his effort to become the PM of Canada. I'm going
(30:44):
to put this out some of our Canadian listeners, what
the heck happened there? Guys? You're you're hearing us up
because you know, some of our big New York stations
play stretched, you know, well into Canada. Probably some of
our Michigan stations, I would assume too. I gotta check
the wattage, but yeah, I think that they can be
heard where the Canadian population is. We got Canadian listeners
(31:04):
for sure, some of them streaming what happened there? Well,
here is Trump with the new Prime Minister of Canada,
Mark Carney. I'd never heard of until this talking about
this play.
Speaker 4 (31:15):
It takes two to tango, right, But no, I do.
Speaker 6 (31:19):
I mean, I believe it would be a massive tax
cut for the Canadian citizens. You get free military, you
get tremendous medical cares and other things. There would be
a lot of advantages, but it would be a massive
tax cut. And it's also a beautiful you know, as
a real estate developer, you know I'm a real estate
(31:39):
developer at heart.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
When you get rid of that artificially drawing line, somebody
drew that line many years ago with like a ruler,
just a straight line right across that top of the country.
When you look at that beautiful formation when it's together,
I'm a very artistic person. But when I looked at
that beauty, I said, that's the way it was meant
to be. But you know it's I just I do
(32:01):
feel it's much better for Canada. But we're not going
to be discussing that unless somebody wants to discuss it.
I think that there are tremendous benefits to the Canadian citizens,
tremendously lower taxes, free military, which honestly, we give you
essentially anyway because we're protecting Canada if you have had
a problem. But I think you know it's it would
(32:24):
really be a wonderful marriage because it's two places.
Speaker 4 (32:27):
They get along very well, they like each other a lot.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
So then Carneybuck responded, and I think we have Carney's response.
So Trump still pushing, and I love it. He just
everybody wants to say, like, what is Trump. Trump's a
real estate guy at his core, he's a real estate guy,
and he's looking at Greenland, and he's looking at Panama,
and he's looking at Canada. And the truth of the
(32:53):
matter is some of the most successful presidents that we've
ever had basically have been real estate guys. Thomas Jefferson
Louisiana Purchase, kind of a good Deal, Gadsden Purchase, Seward's Folly.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
When we gudge. Washington was a real estate guy and
a landlord, in fact, a speculator. Some would argue that
nearly went bankrupt many different times over the amount of
land that he was acquiring back to the day most
of the founding fathers big agrarian land related guys. But
then Carney responded, and I actually liked his response, and
you can hear Trump laugh because I think Trump kind
(33:27):
of respects it a little bit too.
Speaker 12 (33:29):
Listen, as you know from real estate, there are some
places that are never for sale. We're sitting in one
right now, you know, Bucking and Pallas and you visited
as well, and having met with the owners of Canada
over the course of the campaign last several months, it's
not for sale, won't be for sale ever. But the
(33:50):
opportunity is in the partnership and what we can build together.
And we have done that in the past. And part
of that, as the President just said, is with respect
to our own secure and my government is committed for
a step change in our investment in Canadian security and
our partnership. And I'll say this as well, that the
(34:10):
President has revitalized international security, revitalized NATAL and US playing
our full weight in NATO, and that will be parts.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
I think Trump Buck is one hundred percent right that
the world would actually be better off. And look if
Canada was a part of the United States. I think
he's one hundred percent right. Here's the problem. It's not
going to happen. One two.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
If it did happen, the devil or in the details,
most of those voters would be far left wing voters,
so you would actually have to instead of making Canada
fifty first state, you would have to in some way
create some of the rural Canadian areas to give them
an opportunity so that we could have senators who were
not insane. It would if Canada were a part of
(34:59):
the United State. Dates and not very many people have
talked about this. Kamala might well have won the presidency
because you're bringing in thirty five million ish new voters,
and that new voter registry is about two to one
Democrat in America over Republican. So look, Trump's right, they
would get a huge tax cut. I think the overall
(35:21):
economy would be better for both countries if Canada were
a part of.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
The United States. I think that's all true. It's not
going to happen. And the reality here is if it
were going to happen, the details in terms of what
it would be necessary to occur are substantial. What I
like about it is it goes to the growth mindset
(35:46):
of Trump. He's not looking at the United States as
a finished product. I bought a map recently and I'm
going to put it in the new house that we're building.
It's what I love about it is it's one of
those old school maps. Buck.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Do you remember when used to be able to pulled
down the map and the teacher would pull out a
ruler or whatever and they would point to it and
it would be this before everybody had the camp had
the computers to be able to put everything imaged out there.
And it's a map from like eighteen forty and it
has the continental United States, and most of the United
States is not filled in yet we didn't know what
(36:20):
the future of the country was going to look like.
And I love the ambition, the scope, the metaphor of
that unfilled map. And I think that is how Trump
thinks that the United States is not a fixed and
permanent and already fully formed country, that we still have
a lot of growth, and I think that is what
his expansionist mindset represents. Whether it's Greenland, whether it's Canada,
(36:41):
whether it's Panama, and making us think in different ways.
But that to me is the challenge of Canada. I'm
not sure even if it's a great idea, and I
do think it would be good for the economy overall,
that the Canadian voters would actually agree with much of
what we think is important in the United States right now.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
But if it's not gonna happen, and I agree with
you that it's not gonna happen, why does Trump know
that it's not gonna happen?
Speaker 1 (37:08):
Because why this is? This is where it's a great question.
I think Trump is a bit of a magical thinker.
This is my psychoanalysis of Trump. And what I mean
by that is, anytime you build something that hasn't been
built before, you have to be a creative, magical thinker.
Real estate developers have to see things that haven't occurred
(37:30):
and believe that they are possible. I think in Trump's mind,
he believes that anything can be negotiated, and so even
if there's a small chance of it happening, he thinks
by putting it out into the larger discussion, he actually
makes it somewhat possible.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
In the same way, if you say, hey, I'm going to.
Speaker 1 (37:48):
Build a two hundred story building, well, maybe that's not
going to end up happening, but the idea that you
think you can expands the Overton window of possibility.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Clay thinks that Trump is a man who dreams ye
great dreams, the greatest dreams. We got to call her
Dave in Maine. He says he lives right near the
Canadian border. Wants to weigh in on this Canada stuff.
What's going on, Dave, my gentlemen.
Speaker 13 (38:11):
Yeah, so my family is from Canada, back and forth.
We live right handy to it. My wife used to
grocery shop the every week, grew up playing hockey with
Canadian kids. My daughter works for a Canadian company, and
we got a lot of friends of the Canadians. What
happened was they were ready, the people that we know,
(38:33):
we're ready to go for Pierre, but the whole fifty
first state. Yeah, thing really touched off their national pride.
And we compete in another sport and we have Canadians
come over and compete with us, and they got so
peed off. They're like, we're not coming to the US
this year to compete and sorry, you know, I don't
(38:54):
take it personal, but you know it's an attack on
our country. I said, he's just one of them anyway,
but they didn't take it that way. And I always said, too,
you should have marketed it as there's ten provinces and
three territories in Canada. So one state wasn't nearly enough
to give them ten states, give them ten or thirteen states.
(39:14):
But all seriousness, Uh, that is really you know, that's
the feedback directly from my best friend lives no Scotiare.
And you know another thing too about is their news
is just horrendous. Like I'm always having to re you know,
tell them these listen to what's the fall of their
rebel news? You know, try to get some all ternative
(39:36):
news sources because their regular news they get is just
you know, do you think I mean.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
It's it's communist drivel. I I know that because I
used to. I used to do some news back in
the day, which I think became rebel news or ezra levant.
You know, very early in my career, I actually appeared
on Canadian TV when I needed more TV reps play.
I was like, Hey, how are my Canadian brothers and
sisters doing that?
Speaker 10 (39:57):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Really that's where you were. The the skills buck is
huge in Saskatchewan. You have no idea, I you know,
it's thank you for the call. By the way, I
do think to answer your question that the fifty first
state talk inside of Canada ignited national pride and it
lit on fire the hopes of conservative governments because they
(40:20):
were seen as closer to Trump. I'm also gonna say this,
it reminds you of somebody that I know, somebody I
spent a lot of time with you today.
Speaker 3 (40:27):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
I don't know if he needs to be named here,
But when you tell Trump not to talk about something,
or that he can't talk about something, guess what is
going to happen. And there are a lot of people
who said stop with the fifty first state talk. Yeah, Clay,
So somebody.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
Could be I don't know how somebody could be that way.
I also think this ties in Trump also sees this
as entertainment. I'm gonna be honest with you, and I
know some people were offended by the Pope Trump as
Pope meme that got shared. I thought it was really funny.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
And I'm not Catholic, so I can't speak on behalf
of the Catholic universe of Trump spoke to this. Let's
hear his because, by the way, I am Catholic. I
went to Jesuit school and did all this stuff, and
you know know some of the things. I was not
even vaguely offended by this Okay, this is there are
things that appear about Catholicism or the way that it's depicted,
(41:22):
and the way the media and the focus on certain
things is offensive. I agree with Trump on this one
one hundred percent. But here he is play cut five.
Speaker 6 (41:30):
We're not so happy about the image of you looking
like the Pope.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Oh, I see.
Speaker 8 (41:35):
You mean they can't take a joke. You don't mean
the Catholics, show mean the fake news media, not.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
The Catholics loved it. I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 8 (41:43):
Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the
Pope and they put it out on the internet. That's
not me that did it. I have no idea where
it came from. Maybe it was Ai, but I know
nothing about it. I just saw it last evening. Actually
my wife thought it was cute, said, this is that nice?
Actually I would not be able to be married though
(42:05):
that would be a lot. To the best of my knowledge,
popes aren't big one getting married are not that we
know of now.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
I mean that we know of, not that we well,
we talked about this. There actually were a lot back
in the back in the day, with a lot of
illegitimate kids out there. If you if you study, it's
a really good Renaissance art that came out of those
naughty popes. So just putting it out there. And uh,
but so I thought that was funny. Again, I think
(42:34):
you tweeted this, and I do think it's important the
fact that Trump has maintained a sense of humor and
a lightness of being with the most important job in
the United States. I think it's probably fair to say.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
Just a few months ago he took a freaking bullet
off his ear that nearly blew his head off on
live television, the thing that doesn't get talked about at all.
And I was with him at the NCAA Wrestling Championships
on that arena floor in Philadelphia. Most people who come
that close to death, who would have an assassin's bullet
clip their ear, Most people would be pretty apprehensive walking
(43:15):
into big crowded arenas. The guy is fearless, and I think,
to your point, has a lightness of bearing about him
that even though he is engaged in serious things, he
still has a sense of humor surrounding it. And so
I think he's putting it out into the ether, this
idea of Canada or Greenland or Panama, or whatever it
(43:37):
might be because of the expansionist idea, but also the
pope thing. I think he enjoys just having fun, or
the running for a third tournament office, all of these things.
I think he enjoys expanding the universe and kind of
ridiculing the people who are most opposed to him.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
And I thought the Pope picture. I saw it, you know,
like I guess when did it come out? Just before
the Kentucky Derby or something? And I thought it was
pretty funny. I know a lot of Catholics. Okay, I'm
related to a lot of them too. I don't know
a single Catholic who thought that that was like blasphemous
or some big problem. All right, everyone can calm down.
You know, Trump Trump, like on the cross or something
(44:16):
that would upset people, Trumps the Pope. I think that's funny.
We'll come back. We'll take some more of your calls.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
We got Senator Rampaul joining us top of the third
hour after yesterday's debate about whether I could swim to
shore from Alcatraz.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
A lot of disrespect for my swimming ability. I have
to say, I'm.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Bracing for the monster size shipment of Chalk's mel vitality
stack to arrive. I think buck right before I jumped
into the water into the icy shark infested waters of
the San Francisco Bay. To demonstrate my incredible swimming acumen,
I would need to pound a bunch of chalk to
just have the energy of a thousand men, a trump
(44:53):
like set of energy in order to propel me across
the entire bay two lane. I can neither confirm nor deny,
but if you were to take some chad mode, would
you be able to outswim a great white shark that
was on your tail, possibly while blowing into my beloved
flute and making melodic tunes for everyone as I swam,
(45:16):
maybe backstroked. You can get twenty percent increase in your
testosterone level in just three months time, July three months away,
just in time for the I just throw something else
out there too, just to love, you know, because you know,
chalk has been part of my regimen now for months.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
I've been on the six month journey. And the last
time I saw Laura when she came over a few
months ago, she looked at me, She's like, wow, you
really did lean out. It's like, yes, proper life, who
has it's going to live to be one hundred and
forty and is very healthy and knows all about supplements.
She was impressed with Chalk. I don't know anything. I'm
kind of a moron on many subjects, as many of
(45:51):
you have learned.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
But in the meantime, you can get hooked up right
now with chalk dot com my name Clay for a
massive discount on any subscription for Life Chalk dot com,
choq dot com. You can cancel your subscription anytime. Imagine
what you could do with way more energy and twenty
percent increased testosterone. It can make a huge difference for you,
(46:12):
and it can just help me to be an even
better swimmer than I already am. Get hooked up today
Chalk dot com, choq dot com, my name Clay, Massive
discount on any subscription for Life News.
Speaker 4 (46:25):
You can count on as some laughs too.
Speaker 5 (46:28):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate everybody
hanging out with us. We're joined now by Senator Rand Paul,
a great State of Kentucky and Senat Paul I know
there's a ton of things we're gonna get into with you,
but I want to start with this, Anthony Fauci. The
evidence continues to mount that he lied about gain a
(46:55):
Function research. You, uniquely, I think in the entire political class,
have continued to hold his feet to the fire.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
What is the latest about that that you can tell us.
Speaker 3 (47:06):
We've been trying to get records on the deliberation of
who made the call to send the money to Wuhan,
the research, the lab, the league, who funded it. We
know the NIH did it, but we're going to know
who met about it, who discussed it, and who made
the final approval. We think that's Anthony Fauci, and we're
getting closer to that. The Biden administration refused to give
us any documents. They basically refused for years to give
(47:29):
any Robert Kennedy has opened up the books to us.
Jay Battachari and NIH is also helping us, and we're
sorting through it. We're going to begin interviewing everybody who's
part of the process. So there's a committee over there
that discussed it. When Fauci said, everybody told him that
it wasn't gained a function, it's interesting though, that the
committee has documents, and in the documents they have EcoHealth Alliance.
(47:54):
This is a group that got the money that took
it to Wuhan. They have EcoHealth Alliance sending notes back
to the NIA saying thank you for lifting our gain
of function pause. So they were paused the government quits
funding gain of function between fourteen and twenty sixteen. They
thank them for lifting their pause on the same research
that Fauci said was never gain function. So how do
(48:16):
you lift a pause in funding for a project that
was never gain a function if it was never a
gain a function. So we've got evidence like that. But ultimately,
once we've interviewed everybody, we will get to Anthony Fauci.
That will be within a month or two, and we'll
be having him come in and testify.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
In terms of that testimony, what are you hoping to
be able to get final answers from Fauci on and
given the Senator Paul, given the preemptive pardon that he
was given, which is still pretty remarkable when I say
that out loud, that that even happened. What are you
hoping the final disposition of this whole situation will be?
Speaker 3 (48:55):
You realize that's a preemptive pardon where they don't even
list your crime that he's hard for anything, stealing in
a larceny, grand larceny, assault, you name it. He's pardoned
for anything he could have done over a ten year period.
It's the craziest thing I've ever heard. I've never ever
heard of a pardon. It's preemptive and also includes any
possible crime he committed over a ten year period. I
(49:17):
don't have high hopes that he's going to be ultimately
held criminally responsible, but I think it's important that history
judges him accurately and harshly. He made a decision that
led to the million, millions of people dying, basically a
decision to fund a lab that was not up to
safety standards and fund research that was incredibly dangerous. We
(49:40):
also are concerned that this kind of research still goes on.
So the President came out in the last day or
so with a pause once again on gain to function research, importantly,
not just in our country, but a pause on all
funding we do around the world, because of course, you know,
Uncle Sam funds everybody's research lab everywhere in the world,
and some of these some of this, some people conjecture
(50:02):
Anthony Fauci farmed out because he wanted less scrutiny. So
if he wanted, you know, for example, some of the
most gruesome stuff that was done on beagles was done
in Tunisia. They did in Tunisia hoping that their sensibility
is about selling their eyelids open and infecting them with
sand fleas and then cutting their larynx out, so you
couldn't hear the dogs cry that there'd be less sensibility
(50:24):
for that somewhere else other than the United States. But
same way with the gain of function, we think some
of it was farmed out. We need to know the
degree of this, and we need to get to the
bottom of it. We're also very concerned with a couple
of labs near Fort Tetrick Kennedy closed one down and
the media reported he was anti science, but I heard
there of the accurate story from Jay Battachari. The accurate
(50:45):
story is someone's asthmat suit was purposely cut in one
of the areas dealing with Ebola and different very dangerous viruses.
So getting that kind of disease out of a lab,
if he were to have gotten infected, is incredibly dangerous
and so next to that lab is an niht A
DHS lab Department of Homeland Security that we now have
(51:08):
reports are doing experiments aerosolizing ebola. We think that somebody,
you know, somebody representing the taxpayer and the citizens of
the country ought to be able to take a look
at these labs and find out what experiments are doing
and really should we be doing some of this.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
I think both all of this you just said is
really important because I think it answers two questions. One,
it is backward looking in the context of Fauci should
be seen as a villain of history and his full
trajectory of stories and lies should be analyzed for years
to come. That's backwards looking prospectively. As you just laid out.
Speaker 1 (51:44):
The reason why this matters is if China created COVID,
which I think it's quite clear that they did partly
based on having gain a function access to American taxpayer dollars,
we should be massively concerned about. As you just laid out,
whatever for the next iteration of the virus that could
be created, is because it could end up far more
(52:06):
deadly than anything that we dealt with with COVID. I
think that's kind of a synthesis of all of this.
For people out there who would say, Okay, why are
we still talking about covid, Well.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
You know, the next virus could be avian flu. Avian
flu has a fifty percent death rate. Coronavirus or COVID
was less than one percent. So avian flu currently a
human can get it from chickens or from birds, but
doesn't go human to human. But there are experiments trying
to get it to go human to human, mammal to
mammal through the air. These have been funded by NIH.
(52:38):
This is the kind of stuff that has to be discussed.
Is it a death wish for humanity for someone to
try to get avi and flu and make it more
transmissible among humans? I think is the We should be
shouting this from the rooftop. This kind of research should
not occur, and the taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. But
I don't know that we've actually gotten to that point yet.
The Trump administration's ban or at least temporary or maybe
(53:02):
longer on this is a good step. I have legislation
that would do this, and we actually have gotten bipartisan support.
I've passed it out unanimously out of committee. Last Congress,
do it again in the next month or so, and
then we're hoping it can be included in some kind
of legislation that's going to pass soon. But this would
actually let President Trump appoint a panel of scientists. And importantly,
(53:25):
these scientists would not be ones who get NIH grants,
so they can't be bribed to have an opinion. They
will be independent voices, but experts in their field, and
they will examine all government research, all classified and unclassified documents,
and they will give their opinion on whether it should
be funded, and they will have the ability to stounding.
It will be a powerful committee, but it won't be
(53:47):
a total ban. It would be we're going to look
at case by case. The reason you need that is
if you just ban it and then the next people
come in and say, well, that's not gain a function.
That's what Anthony Vauschi did is oh, yeah, we were
had special safety forget to function, but this wasn't kain
to function. Anthonyphalgi to this day still argues that the
research in wu On that led to the death of
(54:07):
six to ten million people. He said that wasn't gain
of function, which nobody else he's other than Anthony Fauci speaking.
Speaker 2 (54:14):
The Senator Ran Paul Kentucky Senator on President Trump today,
he spoke about the Houthis. I think he said there's
a deal that they have now. Essentially it's please stop
bombing us and we'll stop blowing up ships. But the
Houthis are an extension and allied with Iran. There's a
lot of talk right now about one of kind of
I think you could say a rare disconnect or disagreement
(54:37):
at the senior levels of some of the Trump personnel,
and it has to do with Iran and what we
should do about Iran and its nuclear ambitions going forward.
How do you see that? Where do you think Trump
is on this and where would you like to see
this go?
Speaker 3 (54:54):
You know, I mean encouraged by the announcement today and
Trump shows great strength and they back down, and so
I think that is a good thing. And my hope
is that we can get to a point where international
shipping is safe to go around the bend there and
up through the suss with regard to Iran. My hope
is that we can move forward. And this is where
Trump is different than some of the neo conservatives. The
(55:16):
new Conservatives never want to get to the next step
of negotiation. So Trump goes in with a firm hand,
but he does get to the next step of negotiation.
He did it with North Korea. Didn't necessarily work out,
But most of the neocons, from Hillary Clinton to Bill Crystal,
would have never talked to North Korea. They would never
talk to an Iran. Ultimately, getting to the point where
(55:38):
we talk to them is good because really the only
realistic way of stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon
isn't all likely. Who're likelihod through diplomacy. I don't think
you can bomb away their nuclear knowledge. I don't think
once they haven't rich unuranium. You know, a cupful of
uranium enriched to ninety five or ninety eight percent is
probably enough for a bomb. You know, once you get
(55:59):
six or eight or ten up fuls of the uranium,
your mitched to that point you have the rest of
the technical knowledge to do it. You know, you can
hide that thousands of feet below the ground where no
bomb can get to. So, you know, I don't want
that to happen, and we want to stop it, but
ultimately it has to be both stick and carrot, And
so ultimately you have to talk to people, and you
(56:20):
have to This is the same thing we should be
doing with Russia. You know, they're wanting to put more
more sanctions on Russia. The Lindsey Graham Bill wants to
put a five hundred percent tariff on everybody who buys
oil from Russia. You know what that is. That's about
forty or fifty countries by oil and gas and from
from Russia. The five percent tariff would be a shutdown
(56:42):
of basically all all commerce in the world. And me,
it's a terrible idea. What we should be doing instead
is going to Russia and say you want to get
back in the banking system, you want to get rid
of some sanctions stoming of Venezuela, and let's have a
ceasefire and pea stalks. I think we have the ability
to offer stuff, but I think I think we have
so many sanctions already on these countries that really to
(57:04):
get to diplomacy and get to the peace, the piece
should be offering to remove sanctions and allow Russia back
into the banking world. But they have to do something real.
It has to be real seafire and has to really
ultimately be a peace plan.
Speaker 1 (57:17):
All Right, I know it's a complicated topic, but I
want to give you an opportunity to weigh in on
tariffs and analyze this. Reports today that India might be
willing to go to zero tariffs for American goods. It
seems to me that there is dual arguments here. One
is you hear it from a lot of Trump people, Hey,
we want to actually eliminate many of the tariffs and
(57:39):
have more free trade. The other argument is we need
to have more protectionist trade, potentially with China other countries.
How do you analyze this, what should we do? And
bigger picture, how does it impact the big beautiful bill.
I know that's a big question, but the tax cut
bill that's currently making its way along with Order security
(58:00):
through Congress right now.
Speaker 3 (58:03):
There's two camps on tariffs. They're all pro tariff in
the Trump administration, but two camps. One of the Neanderthal camp.
The Neanderthal camp says that we keep tariffs on until
there's no more trade deficits. Well, you think we're ever
going to get to the point where Bangladesh buys as
much from US as we fire from them? The same
with Vietnam. We're a very very rich country. And part
(58:24):
of a trade deficit is when you're richer, you buy
more stuff from other people than they buy from you.
So it's just that's a ridiculous, Neanderthal sort of argument.
The other camp says, well, we want reciprocal agreements, we
want fairness, but we'll you know, we'd like to see
lower tariffs. That's a more reasonable camp. And I've actually said, well,
I'm not for the tariffs, and I think tariffs from
this guided. If Trump is able to use as a
(58:45):
negotiating technique the ability of lower tariffs with India and
they get to a much lower level than when we started,
I'll be the first to compliment him on that. But
realize that the tariff bill, or the sanctioned bill that
Lindsay is proposing on Russia actually would tearif because India
is an India and China are the two biggest purchasers
of oil and gas from from Russia, and if you
(59:07):
put a five hundred percent tariff, that's going the opposite way.
So I don't think we're going to zero if we
passed this new Russia sanction bill that puts a five
hundred five hundred percent tariff is an embargo it's it's
almost like a declaration of war basically, So it's a
it's a really really, really foolish notion. But uh, if
you know they come up with a deal with India,
(59:28):
I will be the first to compliment the president and say,
bay job, you know, if he gets if he gets
lower tariffs, we'll see what happens. But I think that
should be the goal really with every country, and I
would say even including China, because I think the moment
that we have no trade with China is the moment
that they become less predictable and potentially more militaristic.
Speaker 2 (59:51):
Senator one more for you. Only got about a minute,
but I just wanted to hear you weigh in on
this because I know government spending and are unsustainable. Data
is someone been uh tough for the dog cuts. I'm
hearing there's been some cuts actually made a lot of
cuts advised. What do you think where are we on that?
Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
None of them actually count until they come back to Congress.
So if you say you've cut spending, unless it's actually
booked by Congress and Congress votes on it, it doesn't
really it hasn't been transmitted or accounted for. There's supposedly
a recision package. It can be voted on by a
simple majority. That's coming back to us of only nine billion.
That's a pittance. That's a rounding era. I'm for it,
(01:00:29):
but I'll say send us more please. We'll see. But
right now we've been hearing about that for two weeks
and haven't seen that. And if that gets over here
and the weak need Republicans won't go over that, then
I say, Katie, bar the door. You might as well
plan on a full scale bankruptcy in the country if
it's the Congress canning cut nine billion.
Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
On that note, Senator rem Paul, thank you for being
with us as always, stro We appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (01:00:53):
Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Hopefully, hopefully it doesn't come to that. He's right by
the way on the numbers and he knows it and
always such a good conversation with the Senator from Kentucky.
Few nonprofit organizations can make this claim three hundred and
fifty thousand lives saved, but that's exactly what Preborn has
done over the twenty years of its existence. The Preborn
clinics nationwide welcome pregnant moms into their facilities when that
(01:01:19):
decision is being made life or abortion. And here's what
Preborn does. They welcome in all those moms. They give
them love, support, a tension care, and a free ultrasound
because when that mom meets the tiny life growing inside
of her, I just went through this with my own boy.
Go into those ultrasound check ins with my wife. It's
incredible seeing that little heart beat and mom sees that
(01:01:41):
little heartbeat, the discussion is so much easier for oh yeah,
life for my unborn baby. Preborn is saving lives day
in and day out. This way they do it with
just twenty eight dollars expense per ultrasound. Twenty eight bucks.
You could save a life with twenty eight dollars donation
to Preborn. Some of you have very fortunate financial situations
(01:02:05):
and you can do two hundred and eighty dollars or
even more. Whatever you can spare Preborn will use for
this incredible mission of saving tiny babies. To donate securely,
dial pound two point fifty and say the keyword baby.
That's pound two five zero say baby, or visit preborn
dot com, slash buck, preborn dot com slash b uc
(01:02:27):
k sponsor by Preborn.
Speaker 4 (01:02:31):
Cheep up with the biggest political comeback in world history.
Speaker 11 (01:02:34):
On the Team forty seven podcast, playin Buck, Highlight Trump
free plays from the week Sundays at noon Eastern. Find
it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.