August 5, 2025 • 56 mins
Obama Won't Be Indicted
Deep dive into the explosive developments surrounding the Russia collusion investigation, now reignited by a grand jury probe into Obama-era officials. This hour centers on the Department of Justice's referral and the legal implications of potential indictments stemming from what the hosts describe as a decade-long political conspiracy aimed at undermining President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.
Clay and Buck analyze the statute of limitations, the legal viability of conspiracy charges, and the strategic importance of grand jury venue selection—highlighting the difference between a DC-based jury, which they argue is politically biased, and a South Florida jury, which could offer a more neutral ground. They reference insights from Miranda Devine, who suggests that continued cover-ups may extend the legal window for prosecution.
Eye for an Eye?
The political ramifications of pursuing charges, even if convictions are unlikely. The hosts debate whether the Republican legal strategy should mirror the aggressive tactics used by Democrats, emphasizing the concept that “the process is the punishment.” They caution listeners to temper expectations, noting that presidential immunity likely shields Barack Obama from criminal liability, despite public frustration.
Listeners from across the country, including law enforcement veterans and legal experts, call in to share perspectives on perjury, RICO, and wire fraud, with many expressing skepticism about the likelihood of successful prosecutions. The show underscores the importance of a public reckoning, even if legal outcomes fall short, and stresses the need for political accountability.
Trump Happened
The Trump administration’s economic trajectory, AI-driven investment optimism, and ongoing legal and political battles, all framed within the broader context of media bias, historical accountability, and public trust in institutions. The segment opens with a strong endorsement of the Trump 2.0 economy, highlighting early signs of growth and the administration’s push for 100% expensing, which is projected to supercharge business investment. Clay and Buck explore the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data integrity, citing declining response rates and questioning the reliability of monthly job reports. This leads to a broader discussion on economic indicators, Federal Reserve policy, and the anticipated housing market thaw.
A major theme is the AI revolution, with comparisons to the railroad boom of the 1880s. The hosts emphasize that AI investment has already surpassed the dot-com era, positioning it as a transformative force in American industry and productivity.
Everything is the Holocaust
Texas State Rep. Jolanda Jones, who fled the state to Illinois, compares redistricting to the Holocaust, which Clay and Buck critique as historically ignorant and hyperbolic. The segment also includes commentary on fashion choices, Kamala Harris, and media narratives, blending serious political discourse with light-hearted banter.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Tuesday edition of the Klay, Travis and Buck Sexton Show
kicks off right now, and we've got a lot to discuss,
including the referral to the DOJ of those names from
the Russia collusion soft coup attempt of years past, and
(00:21):
now the impaneling of a grand jury.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
A grand jury is now in the mix on this.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
We shall give you the latest on it and where
we think that this is going. Prosecutors are starting that
grand jury probe into the Obama era officials of the
Russia collusion investigation. Interesting note, Clay, you know, I talked
to our friend Miranda Devine on also our friends legitimately
these are friends of ours, are also our friend Will
(00:51):
Caine's show yesterday? Were you and Jesse last night? Was
that right where I see you were somewhere? You're Hannity.
You were on someone's show last night? Oh god, I
don't know one of them. I was on. I was
on what I don't know Will. I was on Will
Show too, Oh okay, Will Show.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I saw a clip. Okay, there we go. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
So yeah, but in point point being we're talking about this,
Clay's Clay's omni prison. You know, what I mean those
jackets that he wears. You guys have demanded more.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
News has got me basically on every day somewhere. So
when you asked me, I was like, I couldn't even
remember there for a sec where I was on America's
newsroom this morning.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
That's okay, I saw you there, and then your Will Show.
My point being he's talking about the Pam Bondi stuff.
I'm talking about the Pam Bondi stuff. Everybody's talking about
what's going to happen here in this Russia era Russia
collusion investigation, and part of it is I spoke to
Miranda Devine on Will Show and she said something I
thought was interesting, and maybe we should ping Miranda to
(01:46):
come talk to us more about this because she raised
this and I hadn't heard this before, So I'm just
putting this out there.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
You know, that's the thing. You get to do a
hit with some some great people. You know, a hit
is our shorthand for TV appearance. But it was wondering
and sometimes we'll even learned things in the process. She
said Clay that the Statute of limitations issues that clearly
would come up in some cases because five years five years.
When you're talking about something happened ten years ago, this
(02:14):
is not a tough call. Ten year statute of limitations
also applies to some things federal crimes that would have run.
But if the conspiracy was continued and there was cover
up and it even endured during some of the Trump
years and beyond perhaps into the Biden years, that would
Now I hadn't heard this before, but she indicated this
(02:34):
on TV that that could be a part of all
of this. Because short of that, I look at this,
Clay and I say, I don't understand what the statutory
framework would be for the charges yet. I'm not a lawyer,
but Play's a lawyer. We're going to get into this.
I think the grand jury probe into Obama officials is
(02:56):
an interesting step. I am still not convinced it is
likely that any of them will face even with a
grand jury looking at them criminal charges, but I'm certainly
open to and know I could be wrong. What do
you see given where this is right now?
Speaker 4 (03:13):
There are so many different angles that you can analyze
this report from the one that I think is paramount
and matters more than anything else, is where is the
grand jury going to be impaneled, And I haven't heard
this widely discussed because to me, it's the only thing
that matters, because if they did a DC based grand jury,
(03:36):
I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration
getting indicted for anything related to Russia collusion or virtually zero.
And so I think you would have to find a
hook to move the grand jury out of DC and
put it somewhere else. Now, what I've heard being discussed
is because of the mar Lago raid, maybe the grand
(03:59):
jury is going to be I paneled in somewhere in
South Florida as the mar a Lago case was. Here
is the challenge with that.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Do you think I could put on like one of
those glasses with mustache outfits and be like, hello, fellow citizens,
put me on this grand jury.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, it would be funny because in theory you could
be impaneled as a South Florida resident on one of
these grand juries. But I imagine that you would be stricken
from the jury pool quite quickly.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
I would imagine so too. Yes, But.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Here is the challenge.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
So one everything else, all I think that matters is
where's the grand jury located?
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Two?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Is there a is the grand jury if it were
located in Florida, is that a valid grand jury? And
that's where you try to argue, oh, this is all
part of one grand conspiracy to get Trump and it
includes even the mar A Lago investigation and raid from
the FBI. I would imagine that almost immediately you would
(05:01):
see where the grand jury is located as a major
part of any defense that was offered. And remember this
became an issue because initially Jack Smith tried to impanel
the Florida Classified Documents case in DC and then up
at the last moment and recognize that he had a
(05:22):
jurisdiction issue, a venue issue, and he suddenly moved into
South Florida. This is me being a legal nerd and
telling you where this case is headed. Part of me
wonders buck whether this is partly just a exercise in
following through on promises. And if the jury declines to indict, politically,
(05:47):
the Trump team can just throw up their hands and say,
democrats won't indict democrats for committing crimes. We did everything
we could in this case, and then they think they
win politically because it retains the issue here. But they
did everything they could do from a legal process perspective.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Does that make sense? A boy?
Speaker 4 (06:07):
The way we can take calls on this because I
know it's complicated, but I think you've got the number
one question that has to be resolved is where is
this grand jury going to be? And for those of
you out there that don't know, usually indictments are handed
out by a grand jury. And if you have a
grand jury in DC that is ninety six percent or
(06:28):
ninety five percent or whatever the heck, the percentage is
maybe ninety seven percent inclined to favor Democrats. I don't
believe they're going to indict Hillary or former Obama officials.
Continue if it's.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
In DC, there's there's no there's I would say no chance.
I mean, which is what percent?
Speaker 4 (06:46):
It's just a political move because they can say we
took this to the grand jury, but the DC grand
jury would not indict. Remember, I give credit to the
President because he's also said this, but we were the
first show that I heard even talking about it. Obama
is going to be protected by presidential immunity the same
way that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. And there
(07:07):
are people out there that will tell you that that's
not true. And maybe you listen to some of them.
I believe they are wrong, and I believe they are
getting you fired up with the idea of Oh, Obama's
going to face charges. Obama I would be stunned beyond
belief if he face charges, and if he did, he
would immediately defend himself by saying, Hey, the same Supreme
(07:29):
Court president that applied for Trump related to twenty twenty
also applies for me.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
There's no chance, in my mind zero Obama's going to
face any And I'm just being honest with all of you.
I don't think anybody should think that that's going to happen.
It's just not going to happen. He has immunity while
he's president, and trying to prove something after people can
write in well what if we find something, Well, you
know what if a million different things you could say,
But the reality is that's not I think going to
(07:55):
now showing doing what Tulsa Gabbart has done and showing
the way that the Obama officials were clearly being disingenuous
and dishonest in all of this is important for people
to see. The Other problem is, with a lot of
this stuff, you're gonna run into any time it's an
interpretation of analysis. Trying to say it's criminal is going
(08:18):
to be very hard, even if anybody should have known.
I mean, you saw this with the FISA warrants they
ran against Carter, against Papadopolis, Carter Page, FBI stuff. They
can say, well, maybe it wasn't a lock, but we
thought that this was good enough that we should use
our authority for the following reasons. Now, there was that
one guy who lied. Now we're going back into the right.
(08:42):
This is the thing I've been covering for a decade, right,
so I got to go back in the memory banks.
Here there was that lawyer who lied and changed evidence
so that they could get the FISA on I think
it was Carter Page and removed that he had been
in good standing with the intelligence community previously, some thing
along those lines. He was prosecuted and nothing actually ended up.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Happening to him.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
So just remember, I mean, he did not get punished
at all. So it's this is a challenge, and it
was in DC.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
This is the point. It's in DC.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
To Clay's point, if they bring it in South Florida
or somewhere else, then things can.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Get a little bit spicier. That could be a little
bit more interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Here is another legal weeds analysis. I question whether all
of these things are connected so in order to have
a conspiracy and argue that it's an ongoing conspiracy, I
actually think there are different crimes, and I think they
have beginning and end dates. I think that what happened
with Russia is one crime, right, the Russia collusion, the hoax,
(09:46):
everything associated with that, and it lasted for several years,
and I think that is one thing. I actually think
that's different than the mar Lago raid, and also the
twenty twenty and investigations and all those things. So I
think connecting all of those issues to argue it's one
(10:06):
grand conspiracy is actually a challenging legal proposition because usually,
and I'll just give you an example, if you and
Ibuck engaged in a conspiracy to rob a bank and
then the bank robbery ended up happening one day and
that was a finite finished scenario, and then we engaged
in an additional conspiracy and we decided to steal a boat,
(10:31):
I would argue that those are you know, hopefully we
don't do either of those things, but I would argue
that those are two distinct crimes. And our partnership, even
though we're involved in the same thing, would not necessarily
be a conspiracy because they have an open and shut,
closed date. I think that's going to be a challenge
to argue that all of this is interconnected continue matters,
(10:54):
because that would then give the that's the hook that
allows the jurisdiction to be outside of d C, because
otherwise I think most people would say, yeah, the Russia
collusion case should be DC, and and by the way,
I think the twenty twenty investigation into the election would
be DC. But mar Lago is different, so I see
(11:15):
those as distinct.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
I also think part of the frustration, and that's why
I believe it's necessary for us to all set our
expectations within what is likely. Like I said, I could Pambondy,
there could be an announcement, there could be a press
conference in a couple of in a couple of weeks, whenever, Hey,
you know this guy, that guy who worked for Obama's
facing falling charges.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
I'm not saying that's impossible or not on the table.
I think it's highly unlikely.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
But I think that part of the frustration, and it's
unlikely for procedural reasons. Right, I don't. I don't need
anyone to email me and remind me. I lived eight
eight rather eight and breathed Russia collusion, conspiracy for years
of my life.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Alright, do a Costolo radio show?
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Before I teamed up with Clay This, day in and
day out, they were spying, They lied this, there's nothing
with Russ So trust me, I'm well aware of all
the nasty and evil things they did. But we have
a system, and within that legal system, there are some
challenges to going after these individuals, even knowing what they did.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Now.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
I think part of the frustration on this play is
we've all seen that when the shoe is on the
other foot, and when Democrats are in a position to
do so, whether it's the mar Lago raid or the
FISA warrants, or the Special councils, or the impeachments or
the four Criminal prosecutions or all the they abuse their
authority in bad faith as a political weapon against their opponents.
(12:38):
And the real question for Maga, I think in this moment,
for everybody who supports the president, is do we play
within this system as boy scouts, no offense boy scouts,
or did the brass knuckles come out and what we
can justify, what we can get away with justifying we
do through the system instead of reading in the best
(13:00):
possible faith within the system. I think that's a real
discussion or a real thought process that's going on here, Meaning,
you know, do you bring a charge even if you
know you can't prove it because you're gonna make them
lawyer up and mess them up, and the processes the
punishment that remains to be seen.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
I think that's important too, because you could get indictments,
and then the indictments are the underlying crimes are going
to be litigated for years. Remember they got indictments on
all the Mara a Lago raids, and then before Trump
won re election, the judge down there tossed that entire case,
I believe in July of twenty twenty four, if I
(13:38):
remember correctly. So my concern would be, just because you
get an indictment doesn't mean that you've got a valid
upstanding going to withstand all of the criminal challenges that
will be coming. So this is complicated. We'll take calls.
We're not talking about what should necessarily happen as much
as the challenges that have to be followed in order
(14:01):
to put something in place. I think, beyond the shadow
of a doubt, they have to do it in Florida
if they're going to even hope to get an indictment.
And I also think that as all this unfolds, I
get it, a lot of people want an eye for
an eye attitude now that Trump and his team runs
the system.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
It's an chin.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
You know.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
We used to say, I'll just point this out, conservatives,
Clay used to be, we don't want the other side
to get canceled. We just don't want anyone to be canceled.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
That didn't work until all of a sudden, you had
the bud light effect, until you had people that were
suffering consequences for their their bad actions. Yes, they kept
doing it and doing it and doing it. An eye
for an eye within the system, as long as it's
within the system and you can justify it. I think
some people want to see that, and that's where a
(14:48):
lot of the frustration comes. And I'm aware of that,
all right. Look, every day, thousands of women across our
nation are contending with an unplanned pregnancy with so few
options in front of them. At least that's what they're
told but thanks to Preborn there are options, there's hope.
The preborn clinics offer life and support for that child
and that mother, and they have a level of understanding
(15:09):
and compassion for pregnant women that is just so incredible,
and it's saving so many lives day in and day out.
Over three hundred and fifty thousand babies have been saved
through this life giving work. Mother's like Valeria, who thought
she didn't deserve to have a child until her search
led her to a Preborn Network clinic. Now she has
a beautiful baby daughter. This is happening every day. That's
(15:29):
why your support is so critical. Just twenty eight dollars
a month can save a life. That's the price of
a preborn ultrasound, which they give to any pregnant woman
who walks in for free. They introduce mother to child
through that ultrasound, and then the conversation about life becomes
so much easier. Dial pound two fifty say the keyword baby.
(15:50):
That's pound two five zero, say the keyword baby. Or
go to preborn dot com, slash buck preborn dot com
slash b u c K.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
America.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
One thought at a time.
Speaker 7 (16:03):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
We're talking about the impaneling of a grand jury to
look into the Russia collusion conspiracy that has spanned a
decade now and was really the original ultra dirty trick
used against Trump to try to stop him before MAGA
could even get going. It was meant to, you know,
(16:35):
smother Maga with a pillow. It was really an insidious
effort using the media, elements of the deep state, within
the intelligence community, and yes, the White House in the
control of the Obama regime at the time. And we're
just trying to tell you where this stands now, where.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
It's likely to go.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
And with that in mind, let's let's dive into some
of these emails and some of these calls. Clay, we
have Mike in North Carolina. He's a caller, right, Let's
hear from Mike. What's going on?
Speaker 6 (17:08):
Hey, Bellas, thanks a lot, you guys are doing a
great job.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
Almost a fifty year veteran of law enforcement. I've got
lots of contacts that are federal prosecutors that have wrote
that have risen to just about the highest position short
of Pam Bondi's office and I've discussed this whole issue
with them and it's not good. So everybody probably shouldn't
(17:37):
get their hopes up too high. The statue of limitations
is going to be a problem once they get into
court because they don't believe that the recent axe clause
in the conspiracy will will hold up. They don't think
that they can use it. Rico is going to be
(18:00):
lacking the myriad of minor crimes. Minor but the lesser crimes,
and uh, wire fraud is probably gonna get a real
tough one to do too. The good point is is
that perjury will definitely be in play because once once
(18:20):
the conspiracy and the lies came out, they continue to
push it while under oaths.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
So that's a good thank you for the thank you
for the call.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Let me let me dive into this a little bit,
buck and I'll start in reverse, because he finished with perjury.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Perjury is really hard to prove. It is just really
hard to prove, especially if you're dealing with someone who
is actually smart. Uh.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
And I'll go back to uh. You know that depends
on what the meaning of the word is is. For
those of you who remember the Clinton era. You know,
remember when he came in perjury. But that's okay, he
actually committed perjury, right, But the way that he would
answer questions, he said, you know, there is no relationship.
(19:08):
There are lots of angles where you're able to dodge around.
The only reason, by the way, Bill Clinton got caught
for perjury, correct me if I'm wrong, is because Monica
Lewinsky saved the dress and they were able to prove.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Yeah, I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.
I mean, he was a liar. He committed perjury, black letter,
clear obvious perjury, but only I think because she kept
that dress.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
If that dress had not existed, I think it would
have been hard to prove it would have been a
he said, she said, and it would have been hard
to prove whether or not Monica Lewinsky was being honest
or he was.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
I will say a great example of somebody who has
not faced any charges and will not face any charges
despite being a liar. But he's a creature of the
bureaucracy is fauci. Everything he says, he goes. You know,
the data was coming from multiple sources, and I looked
(20:06):
at this, and I looked at that and it was complicated,
and it was if someone can turn your brain to
mush with kind of vague non answers on it's very
hard to get them with perjury unless you have a thing.
I brought this up in the context of counter terrorism cases.
Why did guys who were and it was guys who
(20:26):
were raising money for al Qaeda or you know, bought
a weapon illegally for a guy who was an anwar
Alackey sympathizer, things like that, why did they get nailed
on perjury charges? Because they would the investigators, usually FBI.
The investigators would sit down with them and ask them
answers to questions they already knew, and hammer them on
(20:48):
a few times, and they didn't realize because they didn't
have a lawyer with them. It's very illegal to lie
to the FBI about whether you bought explosives material for
somebody or something like that. Right, so, even if you
couldn't prove the criminal terrorist cans smpiracy, you had them
dead to rights on the lie. And then they end
up pleading and they take for five years or you know,
seven years with the Terrorism Enhancement something like that. You're
(21:08):
not going to get that with these guys. This is
kind of remember you know, I know that we think
of them as as bumbling buffoons, and they are at
some level, but they're also creatures clay of the intelligence
community and the bureaucracy, people like Brennan and Clapper. They've
been mumbling through testimony for as long as I've been alive.
This is what these guys do. So thinking that they're
(21:31):
going to say, you know, oh, I'm telling a big
obvious lie. You can prove. Maybe you get them on this,
but very unlikely you haven't. We haven't got them on
it yet.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
I would also, usually perjury has a very set statute
of limitations, and much of the testimony relating to Russia collusion,
I believe would be past the perjuries.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
It's all five years. It's all that that perjury is
all five years. And I just say this. People are saying, now,
put them through the pros and get them to lie.
They don't have to testify. Everything will be through lawyers.
They're not more they're not. I mean I say things
sometimes like they're you know, there's different levels of moron,
but you're not going to get John Brennan to perjure
(22:14):
himself when he doesn't even have to testify about one
of these matters. You know, this is we just need
to keep this in the realm of reality a little bit.
That's that's what I think is important. I mean people,
by the way, a lot of people call in and
Clay they you know what, and this this I get.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
They just want the process to be the punishment I am.
There is a let me say this, by the way,
on the conspiracy element. When I was in crimlaw class,
we had a great professor, Don Hall, and he used
to say, this is the reality inside of criminal prosecutions.
They will say, boy, we don't have them on hardly anything.
(22:49):
Let's just get them on a conspiracy, right, So this
is a very broad based charge. My concern on the
conspiracy again, this is where we started the show, is
how do you locate the conspiracy charges in Florida. The
only way to do that with the Russia collusion case
is to argue it's one grand conspiracy. I think that's
(23:10):
a very hard put to sink. So my concern is
getting Russia collusion charges to me would almost certainly require
a DC grand jury, which I don't think a DC
grand jury is willing to indict. So you have to
get it to Florida. But then you get the challenge
of is the conspiracy actually the appropriate venue in Florida.
(23:31):
I understand this is complicated, but I'm trying to tell
you where we are headed from a legal process and procedure.
And this is why it's complicated. Now to your point, Buck,
some people are just like, screw it, bring the charges,
get the story out there. Who cares what happens.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
This is the eye for an eye approach, which, by
the way, I understand I'm not discounting it. I'm just
saying that that's a different thing than I think we'll
be able to take this all the way, get criminal
convictions that will be upheld on appeal, and that people
are going to go to prison. That's a different thing
than screw it. Let's just make these guys pay whatever
price we can. We know that they're scumbags. That's also
(24:08):
that's also a valid philosophical position. Let's get Roger in
a story of Queens.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
What's going on? Roger?
Speaker 5 (24:17):
Hey, guys, you just stole my thunder there. Uh oh,
what I was going to say is what I was
going to say is I think it's what's going on now?
Speaker 6 (24:27):
Is a success.
Speaker 5 (24:29):
You know, uh, you've got uh Obama, You've got Comy,
You've got Brennan. And to them, their egos are so
large that you know that they want to be thought
of as gods. And this is bringing them down. This
is showing the people just you know what type of
political hacks they were, and.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And you know, yeah, that's the Thank you, Roger.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
This is the political Yeah, this is the political accountability
part of it, which I think I do think is
important and valid. So thank you for calling in on that.
I think that's Clai. I think that's real. The more
people know how gross and underhanded these efforts were, it
stays with them longer. And some of these people still
think they should have a say. I mean, certainly Obama
does in our public, public discourse and in national elections.
Speaker 4 (25:17):
I also think this is important to build on what
he said about the process and having some sort of
public hearing on this and a reckoning for lack of
a better way to say it. You know, when Trump
got charged, we told all of you four months they're
going to charge him.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
This is coming.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
We don't think it's legitimate, but we're laying out all
of the different parameters associated with it on the left,
if charges come down, does that audience have any idea
that there's enough legitimacy for charges to be brought here?
Because they've been told all of Russia collusion was true.
They've been told everything that Tulsea Gabbard said is made up.
(25:57):
There's no legitimacy to it.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
What's so aver?
Speaker 4 (26:00):
You, guys, meaning everybody listening to us right now, you
are super well informed. We covered it aggressively on New
York City, on Atlanta, on South Florida, on DC, and
we really kind of told you where we were headed,
what was likely to come. I don't think any of
you were shocked by what you saw transpire there. What
is the average MSNBC viewer or New York Times reader
(26:24):
going to think if suddenly indictments come down for lies
associated with Russia collusion? I think that's a real Now.
They're probably going to say, oh, this is unprecedented, this
is a president in valid. But I think the point
you're making is they will be completely blind shot.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Out of nowhere lighting that this could occur. Yeah, Yeah,
I think I think that's right. Greg and Orlando, Florida,
what's going on?
Speaker 1 (26:48):
Greg?
Speaker 8 (26:50):
Well truck drivers. So my favorite time of the day
is twelve to three here in Florida.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
But I love our truck drivers. Thank you, Greg.
Speaker 8 (26:58):
No problem. What's that quo all stairs, love and war?
I think it should be love, war and politics. I
think we should go blow to blow with them, and
if we can't get them legally at least well at
least try to get them on accountability a little bit
more and like Clay saying, bring the light to what
they're doing, more people will know. And if we can't
get them legally, at least morally and ethically, people have
(27:20):
a little bit bigger open eyes and realize what they've
done and remember that with future elections and anything else
that comes up.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
I think that's a great call.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
And I think that's really what you should expect and
hope to have occurring here is just a public reckoning,
even if we don't get a criminal court reckoning, because
I'm telling you this is going to get bogged down
by the way, a lot of three and four thousand
dollars an hour criminal defense attorneys in DC buck that
are just rubbing their hands with glee because they want
(27:52):
charges to come down. Because you know who the real
winner here is criminal defense lawyers because Democrats are going
to pay them tens of millions of dollars in legal
defense fees that all their rich benefactors, the Soroses of
the world, are going to fund, and those guys are
just like, it's bonus seasoned baby, I'm going to go
buy a new house. I'm telling you right now. That's
(28:12):
exactly the conversations they're having Ruth and Cape Coral, Florida.
A lot of Florida representatives representation rather on today's show.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
What's going on?
Speaker 9 (28:20):
Ruth, Hi, good afternoon. Clay in back, Yeah, I was
calling about presidential immunity, but before I get into my
points on that, just wanted to make a quick observation
about Grand Conspiracy. You were indicating that you felt that
the parts of the Grand Conspiracy were all separate. But
(28:41):
I think if they have evidence showing that the same
people coordinated all these efforts, jam clear Clay.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Just to be clear, Clay thinks that it's very hard
to prove the I'm buck, He's Clay. He thinks it's
very hard to prove the Grand Conspiracy all ties to get,
so you're saying you think it'll be easier than he
maybe thinks.
Speaker 9 (29:04):
If they have evidence showing that the same people perpetrayed
the conspiracy that I think.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
My argument with that is, let me just say, like
Barack Obama was definitely involved in the Russia investigation and collusion,
I don't think Barack Obama was involved in the decision
for the FBI to raid the Department of Justice, right, so.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
All, yeah, sorry to raid mar Lago.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
He was not in office at that point, so for
him to be involved in that, I think it's hard
to have conspirators that are part of a conspiracy for
one conspiracy and not for another, and so I think
it's separate. Ruth, you had another point, though we got
only about thirty seconds, but go for it.
Speaker 9 (29:50):
Yes, I do. I do, okay with absolute presidential immunity.
There were two parts to that Supreme Court decision. One
was absolute immunity, the other was presumed immunity, and they
kicked it back to the lower courts so that they
would have to determine which were official acts in which
were not. But if you remember, it was one of
the liberal justices Kanji Brown or Tagan or so money
(30:13):
or that says, oh, what if he ordered somebody to
go out and kill somebody, you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
So you're saying that this wouldn't be covered under official acts,
I am.
Speaker 9 (30:25):
Saying yes, I am saying they have some emails right now,
as far as I understand that the Russians had hacked
into either the DNC or Hillary's computer that show that
Obama and Hillary knew that they were contriving the Russia conspiracy.
And that's not an official presidential act.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
We'll see, we'll see. Thank you, thank you, Ruth.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
I don't think that there's any Obama emails where he's like, hey,
those fake emails, let's pin them on Trump.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
I'm not saying that that he didn't do it.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
I'm just saying I don't think there's any emails that
will show it with that level of clarity. Here's the problem, Clay,
any conversations that Obama, as president at the time, is
having with the FBI director, with the CIA direct any
of that is going to be considered under his official
duty in terms of decisions made within their purview, of surveillance,
of contact with the press, all of that. You're never
(31:18):
going to get around that. What Ruth said is there
was a hypothetical. My recollection is what if the president
just decided he wanted to assassinate someone could have If
the president killed a maid in the Oval office because
he was in a bad move, that's not an official act.
That's clearly not covered. But talking to the FBI director
about surveillance that's going to be covered, or ordering Seal
Team six to take out somebody in a foreign country,
(31:41):
arguably that's within the presidential provinces too, Right, So I
think Obama just you got to take him off the table.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
It's unlikely to happen.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
I know, people don't you know, I get it. It's
frustrated to hear. But I'm just telling you the truth.
And Clays is it the same way. If we're wrong,
we will show up on the air and maya kulpa
and you know, we'll take our lumps. Look, part of
my health journey has involved this. Right here, I'm holding
up on the video. You can see chalk daily. I've
got it in my hand here. Boosts free and total
testosterone contains four hundred five hundred mega milligrams rather prima
(32:12):
vi shi legit and supports lean muscle mass. This stuff
is awesome. I take it every day. I got to
hear my desk doing the show. Proper supplementation along with that.
An exercise is critical for your health, and Chalk is
there for you. The Male Vitality Stack, by the way,
that's where I would start. It helps with so many
things energy, drive and yes, boosting testosterone. Go to Chalk
dot com today see what they've got. Choq dot com
(32:34):
get set up like I am. Massive discount when you
use my name Buck as your promo code. Go to
Chalkcchoq dot com use promo code Buck.
Speaker 7 (32:44):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sex to them. Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Clay, have you heard of the Rio Reset?
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Sounds like a trendy new workout, Buck, It does, but
it's actually a big summit going on in Brazil. The
formal name is BRICKS, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa. But they've just added five new members.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Smart move to stick with Bricks. We know what happens
when acronyms don't end. They confuse everyone.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Well that's an understatement.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Bricks is a group of emerging economies hoping to increase
their sway in the global financial order. Now that sounds
like the plot line of a movie. I'm listening. Philip
Patrick is our Bruce Wayne. He's a precious metal specialist
and a spokesman for the Birch Gold Group. He's on
the ground in Rio getting the whole low down on
what's going on there. Can he give us some inside intel? Absolutely,
(33:38):
He's been there since day one. In fact, a major
theme at the summit is how bricks nations aim to
reduce reliance on the US dollar in global trade.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
Yikes, that doesn't sound good. We got to get Philip
on the line.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
Stat already did and he left the Clay and Buck
audience this message.
Speaker 10 (33:54):
The world is moving on from the dollar quietly but
Steadilyations are making real progress towards reshaping global trade, and
the US dollar is no longer the centerpiece. That shift
doesn't happen overnight, but make no mistake, it's already begun.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Thank you, Philip. Protect the value of your savings account,
your four oh one k r ira, all of them,
by purchasing gold and placing it into those accounts, and
reducing your exposure to a declining dollar value. Text my
name buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight. You
get the free information you'll need to make the right decision.
You can rely on Birch Gold Group as I do
to give you the information you need to make an
(34:34):
informed decision. One more time, Text my name buck to
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
Speaker 4 (34:39):
We have been discussing the potential on the Grand Jury
investigation on Russia collusion. Lots of you still weighing in
on that. We will continue to break down more on
that as we move forward. But there also is additional
ridiculous ongoing outcome associated with the Epstein fallout, the Epstein
(35:04):
continued investigation, so I figure we should go ahead and
give you the latest on this as well. Representative James
Comer has subpoenaed the following people, President Bill Clinton, Secretary
of State Hillary former Secretary of State obviously Hillary Clinton,
(35:25):
and others. Let me hit you some of these. Merrick Garland,
James Comy, Bill Barr, Alberto Gonzalez both these are both
Republican and Democrat Attorney Generals, Robert Mueller, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder.
All of these people being called for deposition through subpoena
(35:50):
Bill Clinton October fourteenth, Hillary Clinton October ninth, and then
basically every attorney general. It looks like nearly of the
past twenty years, all of them being put under oath.
Relating to the Epstein case. I guess the one detail
that we really haven't talked very much about. We don't
know what the only person ever convicted in the Epstein case,
(36:13):
Julane Maxwell, told the Deputy Attorney General when she was interviewed.
We do know that they have moved her from Tallahassee
to a lower security prison in Texas. I believe that
is the latest on Epstein. I don't know what the
(36:33):
expectation is at this point, but they're going to put
everybody under oath and probably ask them what they knew
about Jeffrey Epstein. And that is now scheduled to be
happening in September and October on Capitol Hill. What's your
take on this buck not gonna happen, meaning no additional
(36:56):
charges are coming.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Yeah, not gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
And should I start just saying it's gonna happen just
because people a gonna get mad at me?
Speaker 1 (37:03):
Maybe it just started. It's all gonna the justice will
be done.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
I mean, I just don't think that you're gonna get
these these the kind of people you're talking about, these names, Yeah,
this is It's just I don't see it.
Speaker 4 (37:18):
My concern on Epstein is I feel like we are
trending towards a place where it's more likely that Julaane
Maxwell is pardoned and nobody ever goes to prison for
anything related to Epstein than there are other people who
are charged with crimes.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
What is the rationale for even a conversation about her
being pardoned? So it's a fantastic question, and I think
what the pardon would potentially entail is, Hey, we're gonna
pardon you from all crimes, and then we will bring
you in and put you in front of Congress of
(37:57):
a committee, and you will answer every question under the
sun about Epstein. So I have a question about that rationale,
which I think you've just established what it is. She
didn't do that before.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
She was facing twenty five years in federal prison.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Everybody, she wasn't willing to give up the goods to
avoid going away for a few decades previously. Come on, everybody,
let's you know, let's let's let's be real on this
one now. All of a sudden, she's got all the
stuff and she's gonna lay it all out there. The one, now,
the only one.
Speaker 4 (38:29):
I think you agree with me that that's the rationale
for the only reason that there would be any reason
to give her a pardon. The other one would be
some people would say she did no crimes and she
was the fall girl in this context, But she was
convicted by a jury after a criminal trial of sex
trafficking on behalf of Epstein. So you're then tossing the
(38:50):
jury's conviction out the window and saying, oh, the jury
got it wrong if you are saying that she was
the fall girl, as it were, for the larger Epstein crimes.
Speaker 10 (39:02):
Right.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
So this is something buck that I think nobody ever mentions,
and I do think it's significant, and we talked about
it on this program, and I haven't heard anybody else
even talk about it. People say, well, what about all
the victims, what about all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
Don't they deserve justice? All those things I think are
very true.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
Around one hundred and twenty five or one hundred and
thirty Jeffrey Epstein alleged victims in civil court sued and
got paid almost five hundred million dollars. So it's like
the civil cases settlements, no one ever mentions. So for
people out there who say, wait, what about all these
people that were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, they allowed all
(39:40):
of them to come forward tell their stories, and nearly
five hundred million dollars in settlements from Epstein's estate and
other banks that had advised him were paid out. So
I just think when you look at this larger mushroom cloud.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Epstein is dead. We all agree on that. So then
what we know.
Speaker 4 (40:01):
I don't think there's very many people who think Epstein
stile alive, although I do sometimes here for people, you know,
he's not really dead.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
I don't know what. I haven't heard that, but I
haven't even heard on the internet.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (40:15):
You know.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
I just the other thing is, if you have Gilenn
Maxwell and she's going to testify in some way, it
would just you know, what is the process here through
which she's going to say things about people that will
then be considered So is her word credible enough.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
To indict or destroy a person?
Speaker 3 (40:36):
I mean, that's really what we're talking about here, and
we're going to believe that this person who has been
convicted for sex trafficking, who then is pardoned on the
idea that she's then going to tell us the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. That's a tremendous amount
of power. You're giving this woman then to decide who
gets destroyed and who doesn't based on her word that
(40:56):
they did something, that someone did something illicit as part
of Epstein ring.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (41:01):
No, I get it. So I just to me, we've
we've looked at we went down this pathway, and there
was an opportunity for her to avoid any prison time
I would assume, or at least far substantial farce reduced
from what she got if she would just name the names.
And then there's the opportunity to go get evidence and
(41:23):
bring indictments. But what is supposed to I don't see
how this is supposed to work. That you're gonna someone's
gonna Trump is gonna pardon her. Then she's gonna come
forward and she's gonna say, Okay, guess what, Epstein's the
only person who committed any sex crimes.
Speaker 4 (41:39):
And then what I just come back, And again I
don't know why this. I think probably because it's sealed,
but for everybody out there, because I do think this
is the most compelling argument. If you're out there and
you're saying, Hey, what about all these people who were
victims of Epstein? Do they not deserve justice? I think
that's a.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Very They got a lot of money, so that's part
one of it.
Speaker 4 (41:57):
They got five hundred million dollars. I'm assuming all of
that is sealed. But as part of the way that
they distributed the five hundred million dollars, they had to
determine why some people were paid some amounts and others
were paid lesser amounts. Right, they didn't all get the
same amount, So in theory there was a culpability associated
with that, and if there were criminal charges that could
(42:19):
have come. They did a court investigation on the civil
side that I would think would be accessible and able
to be reviewed, and I can't imagine they just didn't
charge people. So the reason why I bring all this
up is it basically feels to me, you tell me
if you disagree on this buck. As we are now
in the summer of Trump two point zero, Democrats really
(42:44):
don't have anything to attack him on on the economy.
They don't really have anything to attack him on on
the border. They can say, hey, Ice, is you know,
taking too many people out of the country, But that
hasn't really worked. Crime is plummeting nationwide. I mean, this
is a very good thing. And so it seems like
we're just engaged in a lot of legal procedural battles.
(43:05):
That is the resistance two point zero Epstein's part of them.
There's punches being thrown on the other side related to
Russia collusion. There's the ongoing battles over birthright citizenship and
what exactly are the limits of the president's powers when
it comes to tariffs. It feels to me, tell me
if you disagree, like every day when it comes to
Trump opposition, it's just some federal district court judge or
(43:28):
some older criminal related conspiracy examination that is largely being examined.
Almost nothing is present day. Does that make sense. It's
like we're relitigating all of the controversies of the Trump
era now in real time, and much of the actual
(43:49):
work that's being done on a day to day basis
isn't really being talked or acknowledged in any kind of
substantial way.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
I think part of this is because the Trump administration
has been so sick sucessful so far that they've had
to get very creative in the ways that they creative
is a kind way of saying it. Attack the administration.
I think also the administration stumbled here with the pete,
with the public relations aspect and the transparency aspect of
(44:17):
promising big rep We've gone over this a million times, okay, already,
the public relations component of the full you know, the binders,
the influencers, the big stuff is coming, It's on my
desk and everything else. And then actually, no additional charges
and really no additional information is going to be released.
That was a that was a bait and switch, and
people recognize it as such. Whether I mean, do you
(44:40):
even think that these individuals are going to some of them,
you're going to sab poenal Loretta Lynch, I mean, what
do you think is going to be said by her
about this?
Speaker 4 (44:49):
I just I think they're all going to Here's what
I would advise. I mean, I would tell them all
to take the fifth. I don't see how they gain
at all by even answering questions, you know.
Speaker 1 (44:58):
What I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (44:59):
Well, so Retta Lynch, like you're gonna you think she's
gonna sit there and be like, you know what, I
was part of a big conspiracy to cover up the
Epstein stuff because of the high level democrats that were
you know, implicated in the in the sex ring. No,
it's not going to happen. So to your point, people
are now doing things to do things. They're doing things
to say I'm doing a thing. What is the end
(45:20):
result of that thing going to be? Unless the people
that they're subpoenaing are total morons, nothing, that's what's going
to happen.
Speaker 4 (45:28):
Like, do you think that Bill Clinton's going to say
under oath, I love sleeping with fifteen year old girls
that Jeffrey Epstein provided for me. I think that's highly unlikely.
Do you think that Hillary Clinton's gonna say, Hey, we
knew that there were tons of really powerful people who
had relations with Jeffrey Epstein in some way, and we
(45:48):
covered up all their crimes. I suspect that they will
have a written statement prepared by their four thousand dollars
an hour attorney that represents whatever they want to put
on the public record. They will read it and then
they will say this is all I'm going to say,
and maybe they fight whether the subpoena is even valid.
By the way, every Attorney General Bill Barr, you think
(46:12):
Bill Barr was covering up Epstein related crimes. I mean,
they got every attorney general Democrat and Republican basically of
the last twenty years, and they're going to call them
in and aggressively question them on Epstein. I mean, I
think Epstein was to be fair. When you're the attorney general,
there are so many cases that you are monitoring on
a day to day basis that I bet Bill Barr
(46:34):
spent like zero point one percent of his time as
attorney general. If that relating to anything having to do
with Epstein, that would be my guess. And so anyway,
I think the result of the mis communication is now
that there is a flood the zone strategy where you
try to get as much information out as you possibly can.
(46:56):
But I just don't think there's much there there.
Speaker 3 (46:59):
But I do you want to?
Speaker 4 (47:00):
I mean, this is getting a lot of attention today.
Comber has subpoenaed all these people, and they're all going
to be brought in over the next couple of months,
and I imagine every day that they talk there will
be in some way big stories about the fact that
they're going to talk, and then I think that there's
likely to be very little that is actually newsworthy that
comes out of their under a testimony.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
That's my prediction.
Speaker 4 (47:21):
Maybe I'm wrong, and we shall see perhaps something big breaks.
This is where I do think I never would have
believed Buck that I would go to law school and
basically every case that now we just talk about is well,
that depends on what the courts are going to do.
That depends on what the judges are going to do.
This is basically Trump two point zero. There is no
(47:43):
overarching opposition to him outside of the existing court systems. Indeed,
I want to tell you as we go to to
break here by the way, you guys are welcome to
weigh in. I don't think there's anything else out there
that we are missing. But I did want to both
of these big stories because again it is the DOJ
(48:04):
grand jury relating to Russia collusion and the subpoenas going
out relating to Epstein are receiving massive amounts of attention
out there. But I don't know that there's some huge
revelatory moment that's going to come. But you guys are
alleged to you. Guys can dive in and figure out
whether or not you think there's something that we're missing here.
(48:27):
So eight hundred and two two two A A two.
In the meantime, I want to tell you all about LifeLock.
Someone wanted to steal your identity, they wouldn't have to
lift your wallet. They can get everything they need by
hacking a database. Think of all the things you register
for by online, like having one hundred wallets out there.
As convenient as technology has made life, it's also got vulnerabilities,
and it's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft
(48:48):
are affecting our lives, just like it's important to remember.
Lifelock's online identity theft protection is your best defense. They
will detect and alert you to potential identity threats you
may not spot on your own taken out in your name.
If you become a victim of identity theft and you're
a LifeLock member, you can rely on a dedicated US
based restoration specialist to work to fix it guaranteed or
(49:10):
your money back. Become a LifeLock member if you aren't
already join now, say forty percent off your first year
with promo code Clay. Call one eight hundred LifeLock or
head to LifeLock dot com. Use my name Clay as
the promo code for forty percent off. That's LifeLock dot
Com promo code Clay.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
Want to begin to know when you're on?
Speaker 7 (49:32):
To go the Team forty seven podcasts Trump highlights from
the week Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clayan Buck
podcast Feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (49:45):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Go subscribe
to the YouTube channel. Go subscribe to the clay In
Buck podcast feed, which has a collection of fabulous members.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
It's a larger network, And.
Speaker 4 (49:58):
Go to Crockettcoffee dot com and sign up today used codebook.
You get an autograph copy of my book. And these
things are almost gone, and then we'll be into the
new book season. Let's have some fun. I have not
even heard this full yet. I saw the headline and
I said, oh my goodness, this is going to be fun.
(50:19):
Texas State Representative Joe Landa Jones, who has fled the
state to Illinois.
Speaker 3 (50:25):
Rather than have Joe Landa joh Yolanda usually I think
is how you know?
Speaker 1 (50:32):
Is it Joelnda?
Speaker 4 (50:34):
According to our team, it is Jolanda, so Yolanda is
typically a is typically a name that would be popular.
But this, according to our team, is Joelanda. I'm maybe
it's pronounced no. No, you're probably right, You're probably right. She
has fled the state to protest redistricting in Texas. She says,
(50:56):
this is just like the Holocaust, cut twenty nine.
Speaker 11 (50:59):
And integration happen and everybody thought they accept this. They
don't accept this. They are showing us who they are.
We should believe them, and we better have the courage
to stand up otherwise we will fall for anything. And
in this country we will be defeated, deported, I mean,
we will lose all of our rights. And if you
think it can't happen, it can.
Speaker 3 (51:17):
And I will liken this to the Holocaust.
Speaker 11 (51:18):
People are like, well, how did the Holocaust happen? How
is somebody in the position to kill all their people? Well,
good people remain silent, or good people didn't realize that
what happens to them can very soon happen to me
or somebody I love.
Speaker 3 (51:32):
And so you and even so.
Speaker 11 (51:33):
Even if you made it, man, you have an obligation
to help people who came, because God forbid, they end
up targeting you and your family.
Speaker 3 (51:43):
So Joe Wanda, it is the jay Joe Wanda.
Speaker 4 (51:49):
They are saying, boy, if Texas redistricts, next thing it's
going to happen is concentration camps.
Speaker 3 (51:56):
These people. How far are democrats from? I had to
wait in line at the DMV for too long. It's
basically the Holocaust. I just want to know what is
really the like, what is the barrier, what is the
the the the.
Speaker 1 (52:10):
The level that you have to reach for a Holocaust comparison?
Speaker 3 (52:13):
Now, you know they didn't they didn't have my favorite
you know, my favorite sneakers at the store I went to.
Speaker 1 (52:19):
It's basically the Holocaust.
Speaker 4 (52:20):
Yes, I mean, that's that's where we are, and this
is what we were having jokes about. But no one in America,
Joe Wanda included as a general rule, has any knowledge
whatsoever of history. So everything has got to be analogized
to the Nazis.
Speaker 3 (52:36):
Imagine if I can, if I can, if I just
if I compared everything to like the like, imagine if
I compared it to another genocide, you know, and it's like, oh,
you know this is it's like the Cambodian It's like
the Cambodian genocide. Out here man, Like it's I've had
to wait, you know, fifteen minutes for my my takeout order.
Speaker 1 (52:53):
People would be like, you're a sick weirdo.
Speaker 3 (52:55):
Like why would you you know, it's nothing like the
Cambodian genocide million people plus, you know, brutal mert. But
you can say you can do.
Speaker 1 (53:02):
This thing now.
Speaker 3 (53:03):
Among among Demo I will say, Republicans, don't, don't.
Speaker 1 (53:06):
I don't see this. I don't see our.
Speaker 3 (53:08):
Side going oh you know, I had to wait in
traffic too long. It was basically the Holocaust, Like Democrats
will do this now. Yeah, they totally do.
Speaker 4 (53:16):
And by the way, that is, as you were just
laying out, that's their standard go to because we'll play tomorrow.
They're still trying to call Trump hitler, which is funny
in and of itself. But I think we're representative of
how they have continued to fail. And I think we
have a funny talk back, We have a good talk
(53:38):
about We've got some good VIP emails. Do the talk
back first, but I got some emails lined up for
you of the sartorial variety. Oh no, oh no, what
did we have? We had somebody who wanted to talk
about sat Sweeney.
Speaker 1 (53:48):
AA. That's one good one, I think.
Speaker 12 (53:52):
A claim Bucks Brian from Jacksonville love your show, But man,
today's not a good one. First hour and a half
spent on two topics that are going to lead to thing.
Let's talk about something important like Sidney Sweeney's boobs.
Speaker 4 (54:04):
There you go, try to try to break down the
huge complexity everybody Russia collusion.
Speaker 3 (54:12):
Yet all this stuff last week about too much Clay
boobs talk and now we get not enough boob I
don't know what to do.
Speaker 1 (54:19):
I'm trying to trying to just keep it flowing, keep
it moving.
Speaker 4 (54:22):
I didn't even know we got any negativity about that.
I got, hey, talk about boobs more. What do you
got talk back on clothes? Oh?
Speaker 3 (54:30):
I got VIP emails on clothes. Melanie writes in saw
Clay on the Will Canshow yesterday I actually ran into
the room just to see what he was wearing. Much
better exclamation point. So Melanie thinks you're taking notes and
you're doing a good job. Unlike Deborah, who says, Buck,
I love you, but that pale yellow jacket looks terrible.
(54:53):
It doesn't flatter your complexion. Ask your wife for color advice.
You have a cool or maybe neutral skin tone and
need more vibrant or cooler colors. Pale yellow ain't working.
How about blues or greens? Love you, Deborah, Love you too. However,
it is a cream colored jacket. And I am here
in South Florida, in Miami Beach, no less where we
(55:14):
wear these kinds of jackets. And I don't want to
always look exactly like the host, because I have a
closet full of navy blue jackets that I can wear.
But you know, sometimes we like to spice it up
a little bit on the air. So I will take
how about this? I will take it under advisement and
bless your heart. I like to bless your heart. Just
sounding very much like a Southerner here. Most people would
(55:38):
just prefer that you only be a navy or black
in this audience.
Speaker 4 (55:41):
I think I know, but that I'm knowing a disservice
to the beautiful color palettes across the rainbow. Here is
Josh and Oklahoma. To close this out, more fun, what
you got, Josh?
Speaker 1 (55:51):
This question is for Clay.
Speaker 3 (55:53):
Why do you decide to die on these hills?
Speaker 13 (55:55):
Firsts the leaf flowers, then it's the flute players, and
now it's the attractive Kamala Harris take. I respect the
fact that you stand by your decisions and you're not
swayed by any opinion at all, But I just got
to ask, man, why the dedication of these things.
Speaker 3 (56:13):
I can't believe you're controlling with your Kamala take. I think,
but you're not.
Speaker 4 (56:18):
Sixty year old Kamala Harris is far better looking than
the average sixty year old woman in America's.
Speaker 3 (56:25):
I don't even understand. That's a crazy take at all.
I don't even understand how we're still talking about it.
I was just even getting anyone's attention out there, But.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
Here we are. I am being super kind to the
beautiful Kamala
Welcome everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Tuesday edition of the Klay, Travis and Buck Sexton Show
kicks off right now, and we've got a lot to discuss,
including the referral to the DOJ of those names from
the Russia collusion soft coup attempt of years past, and
(00:21):
now the impaneling of a grand jury.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
A grand jury is now in the mix on this.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
We shall give you the latest on it and where
we think that this is going. Prosecutors are starting that
grand jury probe into the Obama era officials of the
Russia collusion investigation. Interesting note, Clay, you know, I talked
to our friend Miranda Devine on also our friends legitimately
these are friends of ours, are also our friend Will
(00:51):
Caine's show yesterday? Were you and Jesse last night? Was
that right where I see you were somewhere? You're Hannity.
You were on someone's show last night? Oh god, I
don't know one of them. I was on. I was
on what I don't know Will. I was on Will
Show too, Oh okay, Will Show.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I saw a clip. Okay, there we go. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
So yeah, but in point point being we're talking about this,
Clay's Clay's omni prison. You know, what I mean those
jackets that he wears. You guys have demanded more.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
News has got me basically on every day somewhere. So
when you asked me, I was like, I couldn't even
remember there for a sec where I was on America's
newsroom this morning.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
That's okay, I saw you there, and then your Will Show.
My point being he's talking about the Pam Bondi stuff.
I'm talking about the Pam Bondi stuff. Everybody's talking about
what's going to happen here in this Russia era Russia
collusion investigation, and part of it is I spoke to
Miranda Devine on Will Show and she said something I
thought was interesting, and maybe we should ping Miranda to
(01:46):
come talk to us more about this because she raised
this and I hadn't heard this before, So I'm just
putting this out there.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
You know, that's the thing. You get to do a
hit with some some great people. You know, a hit
is our shorthand for TV appearance. But it was wondering
and sometimes we'll even learned things in the process. She
said Clay that the Statute of limitations issues that clearly
would come up in some cases because five years five years.
When you're talking about something happened ten years ago, this
(02:14):
is not a tough call. Ten year statute of limitations
also applies to some things federal crimes that would have run.
But if the conspiracy was continued and there was cover
up and it even endured during some of the Trump
years and beyond perhaps into the Biden years, that would
Now I hadn't heard this before, but she indicated this
(02:34):
on TV that that could be a part of all
of this. Because short of that, I look at this,
Clay and I say, I don't understand what the statutory
framework would be for the charges yet. I'm not a lawyer,
but Play's a lawyer. We're going to get into this.
I think the grand jury probe into Obama officials is
(02:56):
an interesting step. I am still not convinced it is
likely that any of them will face even with a
grand jury looking at them criminal charges, but I'm certainly
open to and know I could be wrong. What do
you see given where this is right now?
Speaker 4 (03:13):
There are so many different angles that you can analyze
this report from the one that I think is paramount
and matters more than anything else, is where is the
grand jury going to be impaneled, And I haven't heard
this widely discussed because to me, it's the only thing
that matters, because if they did a DC based grand jury,
(03:36):
I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration
getting indicted for anything related to Russia collusion or virtually zero.
And so I think you would have to find a
hook to move the grand jury out of DC and
put it somewhere else. Now, what I've heard being discussed
is because of the mar Lago raid, maybe the grand
(03:59):
jury is going to be I paneled in somewhere in
South Florida as the mar a Lago case was. Here
is the challenge with that.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Do you think I could put on like one of
those glasses with mustache outfits and be like, hello, fellow citizens,
put me on this grand jury.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, it would be funny because in theory you could
be impaneled as a South Florida resident on one of
these grand juries. But I imagine that you would be stricken
from the jury pool quite quickly.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
I would imagine so too. Yes, But.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Here is the challenge.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
So one everything else, all I think that matters is
where's the grand jury located?
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Two?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Is there a is the grand jury if it were
located in Florida, is that a valid grand jury? And
that's where you try to argue, oh, this is all
part of one grand conspiracy to get Trump and it
includes even the mar A Lago investigation and raid from
the FBI. I would imagine that almost immediately you would
(05:01):
see where the grand jury is located as a major
part of any defense that was offered. And remember this
became an issue because initially Jack Smith tried to impanel
the Florida Classified Documents case in DC and then up
at the last moment and recognize that he had a
(05:22):
jurisdiction issue, a venue issue, and he suddenly moved into
South Florida. This is me being a legal nerd and
telling you where this case is headed. Part of me
wonders buck whether this is partly just a exercise in
following through on promises. And if the jury declines to indict, politically,
(05:47):
the Trump team can just throw up their hands and say,
democrats won't indict democrats for committing crimes. We did everything
we could in this case, and then they think they
win politically because it retains the issue here. But they
did everything they could do from a legal process perspective.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Does that make sense? A boy?
Speaker 4 (06:07):
The way we can take calls on this because I
know it's complicated, but I think you've got the number
one question that has to be resolved is where is
this grand jury going to be? And for those of
you out there that don't know, usually indictments are handed
out by a grand jury. And if you have a
grand jury in DC that is ninety six percent or
(06:28):
ninety five percent or whatever the heck, the percentage is
maybe ninety seven percent inclined to favor Democrats. I don't
believe they're going to indict Hillary or former Obama officials.
Continue if it's.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
In DC, there's there's no there's I would say no chance.
I mean, which is what percent?
Speaker 4 (06:46):
It's just a political move because they can say we
took this to the grand jury, but the DC grand
jury would not indict. Remember, I give credit to the
President because he's also said this, but we were the
first show that I heard even talking about it. Obama
is going to be protected by presidential immunity the same
way that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. And there
(07:07):
are people out there that will tell you that that's
not true. And maybe you listen to some of them.
I believe they are wrong, and I believe they are
getting you fired up with the idea of Oh, Obama's
going to face charges. Obama I would be stunned beyond
belief if he face charges, and if he did, he
would immediately defend himself by saying, Hey, the same Supreme
(07:29):
Court president that applied for Trump related to twenty twenty
also applies for me.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
There's no chance, in my mind zero Obama's going to
face any And I'm just being honest with all of you.
I don't think anybody should think that that's going to happen.
It's just not going to happen. He has immunity while
he's president, and trying to prove something after people can
write in well what if we find something, Well, you
know what if a million different things you could say,
But the reality is that's not I think going to
(07:55):
now showing doing what Tulsa Gabbart has done and showing
the way that the Obama officials were clearly being disingenuous
and dishonest in all of this is important for people
to see. The Other problem is, with a lot of
this stuff, you're gonna run into any time it's an
interpretation of analysis. Trying to say it's criminal is going
(08:18):
to be very hard, even if anybody should have known.
I mean, you saw this with the FISA warrants they
ran against Carter, against Papadopolis, Carter Page, FBI stuff. They
can say, well, maybe it wasn't a lock, but we
thought that this was good enough that we should use
our authority for the following reasons. Now, there was that
one guy who lied. Now we're going back into the right.
(08:42):
This is the thing I've been covering for a decade, right,
so I got to go back in the memory banks.
Here there was that lawyer who lied and changed evidence
so that they could get the FISA on I think
it was Carter Page and removed that he had been
in good standing with the intelligence community previously, some thing
along those lines. He was prosecuted and nothing actually ended up.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Happening to him.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
So just remember, I mean, he did not get punished
at all. So it's this is a challenge, and it
was in DC.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
This is the point. It's in DC.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
To Clay's point, if they bring it in South Florida
or somewhere else, then things can.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Get a little bit spicier. That could be a little
bit more interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Here is another legal weeds analysis. I question whether all
of these things are connected so in order to have
a conspiracy and argue that it's an ongoing conspiracy, I
actually think there are different crimes, and I think they
have beginning and end dates. I think that what happened
with Russia is one crime, right, the Russia collusion, the hoax,
(09:46):
everything associated with that, and it lasted for several years,
and I think that is one thing. I actually think
that's different than the mar Lago raid, and also the
twenty twenty and investigations and all those things. So I
think connecting all of those issues to argue it's one
(10:06):
grand conspiracy is actually a challenging legal proposition because usually,
and I'll just give you an example, if you and
Ibuck engaged in a conspiracy to rob a bank and
then the bank robbery ended up happening one day and
that was a finite finished scenario, and then we engaged
in an additional conspiracy and we decided to steal a boat,
(10:31):
I would argue that those are you know, hopefully we
don't do either of those things, but I would argue
that those are two distinct crimes. And our partnership, even
though we're involved in the same thing, would not necessarily
be a conspiracy because they have an open and shut,
closed date. I think that's going to be a challenge
to argue that all of this is interconnected continue matters,
(10:54):
because that would then give the that's the hook that
allows the jurisdiction to be outside of d C, because
otherwise I think most people would say, yeah, the Russia
collusion case should be DC, and and by the way,
I think the twenty twenty investigation into the election would
be DC. But mar Lago is different, so I see
(11:15):
those as distinct.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
I also think part of the frustration, and that's why
I believe it's necessary for us to all set our
expectations within what is likely. Like I said, I could Pambondy,
there could be an announcement, there could be a press
conference in a couple of in a couple of weeks, whenever, Hey,
you know this guy, that guy who worked for Obama's
facing falling charges.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
I'm not saying that's impossible or not on the table.
I think it's highly unlikely.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
But I think that part of the frustration, and it's
unlikely for procedural reasons. Right, I don't. I don't need
anyone to email me and remind me. I lived eight
eight rather eight and breathed Russia collusion, conspiracy for years
of my life.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Alright, do a Costolo radio show?
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Before I teamed up with Clay This, day in and
day out, they were spying, They lied this, there's nothing
with Russ So trust me, I'm well aware of all
the nasty and evil things they did. But we have
a system, and within that legal system, there are some
challenges to going after these individuals, even knowing what they did.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Now.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
I think part of the frustration on this play is
we've all seen that when the shoe is on the
other foot, and when Democrats are in a position to
do so, whether it's the mar Lago raid or the
FISA warrants, or the Special councils, or the impeachments or
the four Criminal prosecutions or all the they abuse their
authority in bad faith as a political weapon against their opponents.
(12:38):
And the real question for Maga, I think in this moment,
for everybody who supports the president, is do we play
within this system as boy scouts, no offense boy scouts,
or did the brass knuckles come out and what we
can justify, what we can get away with justifying we
do through the system instead of reading in the best
(13:00):
possible faith within the system. I think that's a real
discussion or a real thought process that's going on here, Meaning,
you know, do you bring a charge even if you
know you can't prove it because you're gonna make them
lawyer up and mess them up, and the processes the
punishment that remains to be seen.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
I think that's important too, because you could get indictments,
and then the indictments are the underlying crimes are going
to be litigated for years. Remember they got indictments on
all the Mara a Lago raids, and then before Trump
won re election, the judge down there tossed that entire case,
I believe in July of twenty twenty four, if I
(13:38):
remember correctly. So my concern would be, just because you
get an indictment doesn't mean that you've got a valid
upstanding going to withstand all of the criminal challenges that
will be coming. So this is complicated. We'll take calls.
We're not talking about what should necessarily happen as much
as the challenges that have to be followed in order
(14:01):
to put something in place. I think, beyond the shadow
of a doubt, they have to do it in Florida
if they're going to even hope to get an indictment.
And I also think that as all this unfolds, I
get it, a lot of people want an eye for
an eye attitude now that Trump and his team runs
the system.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
It's an chin.
Speaker 6 (14:19):
You know.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
We used to say, I'll just point this out, conservatives,
Clay used to be, we don't want the other side
to get canceled. We just don't want anyone to be canceled.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
That didn't work until all of a sudden, you had
the bud light effect, until you had people that were
suffering consequences for their their bad actions. Yes, they kept
doing it and doing it and doing it. An eye
for an eye within the system, as long as it's
within the system and you can justify it. I think
some people want to see that, and that's where a
(14:48):
lot of the frustration comes. And I'm aware of that,
all right. Look, every day, thousands of women across our
nation are contending with an unplanned pregnancy with so few
options in front of them. At least that's what they're
told but thanks to Preborn there are options, there's hope.
The preborn clinics offer life and support for that child
and that mother, and they have a level of understanding
(15:09):
and compassion for pregnant women that is just so incredible,
and it's saving so many lives day in and day out.
Over three hundred and fifty thousand babies have been saved
through this life giving work. Mother's like Valeria, who thought
she didn't deserve to have a child until her search
led her to a Preborn Network clinic. Now she has
a beautiful baby daughter. This is happening every day. That's
(15:29):
why your support is so critical. Just twenty eight dollars
a month can save a life. That's the price of
a preborn ultrasound, which they give to any pregnant woman
who walks in for free. They introduce mother to child
through that ultrasound, and then the conversation about life becomes
so much easier. Dial pound two fifty say the keyword baby.
(15:50):
That's pound two five zero, say the keyword baby. Or
go to preborn dot com, slash buck preborn dot com
slash b u c K.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
America.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
One thought at a time.
Speaker 7 (16:03):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
We're talking about the impaneling of a grand jury to
look into the Russia collusion conspiracy that has spanned a
decade now and was really the original ultra dirty trick
used against Trump to try to stop him before MAGA
could even get going. It was meant to, you know,
(16:35):
smother Maga with a pillow. It was really an insidious
effort using the media, elements of the deep state, within
the intelligence community, and yes, the White House in the
control of the Obama regime at the time. And we're
just trying to tell you where this stands now, where.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
It's likely to go.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
And with that in mind, let's let's dive into some
of these emails and some of these calls. Clay, we
have Mike in North Carolina. He's a caller, right, Let's
hear from Mike. What's going on?
Speaker 6 (17:08):
Hey, Bellas, thanks a lot, you guys are doing a
great job.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
Almost a fifty year veteran of law enforcement. I've got
lots of contacts that are federal prosecutors that have wrote
that have risen to just about the highest position short
of Pam Bondi's office and I've discussed this whole issue
with them and it's not good. So everybody probably shouldn't
(17:37):
get their hopes up too high. The statue of limitations
is going to be a problem once they get into
court because they don't believe that the recent axe clause
in the conspiracy will will hold up. They don't think
that they can use it. Rico is going to be
(18:00):
lacking the myriad of minor crimes. Minor but the lesser crimes,
and uh, wire fraud is probably gonna get a real
tough one to do too. The good point is is
that perjury will definitely be in play because once once
(18:20):
the conspiracy and the lies came out, they continue to
push it while under oaths.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
So that's a good thank you for the thank you
for the call.
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Let me let me dive into this a little bit,
buck and I'll start in reverse, because he finished with perjury.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Perjury is really hard to prove. It is just really
hard to prove, especially if you're dealing with someone who
is actually smart. Uh.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
And I'll go back to uh. You know that depends
on what the meaning of the word is is. For
those of you who remember the Clinton era. You know,
remember when he came in perjury. But that's okay, he
actually committed perjury, right, But the way that he would
answer questions, he said, you know, there is no relationship.
(19:08):
There are lots of angles where you're able to dodge around.
The only reason, by the way, Bill Clinton got caught
for perjury, correct me if I'm wrong, is because Monica
Lewinsky saved the dress and they were able to prove.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Yeah, I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.
I mean, he was a liar. He committed perjury, black letter,
clear obvious perjury, but only I think because she kept
that dress.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
If that dress had not existed, I think it would
have been hard to prove it would have been a
he said, she said, and it would have been hard
to prove whether or not Monica Lewinsky was being honest
or he was.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
I will say a great example of somebody who has
not faced any charges and will not face any charges
despite being a liar. But he's a creature of the
bureaucracy is fauci. Everything he says, he goes. You know,
the data was coming from multiple sources, and I looked
(20:06):
at this, and I looked at that and it was complicated,
and it was if someone can turn your brain to
mush with kind of vague non answers on it's very
hard to get them with perjury unless you have a thing.
I brought this up in the context of counter terrorism cases.
Why did guys who were and it was guys who
(20:26):
were raising money for al Qaeda or you know, bought
a weapon illegally for a guy who was an anwar
Alackey sympathizer, things like that, why did they get nailed
on perjury charges? Because they would the investigators, usually FBI.
The investigators would sit down with them and ask them
answers to questions they already knew, and hammer them on
(20:48):
a few times, and they didn't realize because they didn't
have a lawyer with them. It's very illegal to lie
to the FBI about whether you bought explosives material for
somebody or something like that. Right, so, even if you
couldn't prove the criminal terrorist cans smpiracy, you had them
dead to rights on the lie. And then they end
up pleading and they take for five years or you know,
seven years with the Terrorism Enhancement something like that. You're
(21:08):
not going to get that with these guys. This is
kind of remember you know, I know that we think
of them as as bumbling buffoons, and they are at
some level, but they're also creatures clay of the intelligence
community and the bureaucracy, people like Brennan and Clapper. They've
been mumbling through testimony for as long as I've been alive.
This is what these guys do. So thinking that they're
(21:31):
going to say, you know, oh, I'm telling a big
obvious lie. You can prove. Maybe you get them on this,
but very unlikely you haven't. We haven't got them on
it yet.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
I would also, usually perjury has a very set statute
of limitations, and much of the testimony relating to Russia collusion,
I believe would be past the perjuries.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
It's all five years. It's all that that perjury is
all five years. And I just say this. People are saying, now,
put them through the pros and get them to lie.
They don't have to testify. Everything will be through lawyers.
They're not more they're not. I mean I say things
sometimes like they're you know, there's different levels of moron,
but you're not going to get John Brennan to perjure
(22:14):
himself when he doesn't even have to testify about one
of these matters. You know, this is we just need
to keep this in the realm of reality a little bit.
That's that's what I think is important. I mean people,
by the way, a lot of people call in and
Clay they you know what, and this this I get.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
They just want the process to be the punishment I am.
There is a let me say this, by the way,
on the conspiracy element. When I was in crimlaw class,
we had a great professor, Don Hall, and he used
to say, this is the reality inside of criminal prosecutions.
They will say, boy, we don't have them on hardly anything.
(22:49):
Let's just get them on a conspiracy, right, So this
is a very broad based charge. My concern on the
conspiracy again, this is where we started the show, is
how do you locate the conspiracy charges in Florida. The
only way to do that with the Russia collusion case
is to argue it's one grand conspiracy. I think that's
(23:10):
a very hard put to sink. So my concern is
getting Russia collusion charges to me would almost certainly require
a DC grand jury, which I don't think a DC
grand jury is willing to indict. So you have to
get it to Florida. But then you get the challenge
of is the conspiracy actually the appropriate venue in Florida.
(23:31):
I understand this is complicated, but I'm trying to tell
you where we are headed from a legal process and procedure.
And this is why it's complicated. Now to your point, Buck,
some people are just like, screw it, bring the charges,
get the story out there. Who cares what happens.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
This is the eye for an eye approach, which, by
the way, I understand I'm not discounting it. I'm just
saying that that's a different thing than I think we'll
be able to take this all the way, get criminal
convictions that will be upheld on appeal, and that people
are going to go to prison. That's a different thing
than screw it. Let's just make these guys pay whatever
price we can. We know that they're scumbags. That's also
(24:08):
that's also a valid philosophical position. Let's get Roger in
a story of Queens.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
What's going on? Roger?
Speaker 5 (24:17):
Hey, guys, you just stole my thunder there. Uh oh,
what I was going to say is what I was
going to say is I think it's what's going on now?
Speaker 6 (24:27):
Is a success.
Speaker 5 (24:29):
You know, uh, you've got uh Obama, You've got Comy,
You've got Brennan. And to them, their egos are so
large that you know that they want to be thought
of as gods. And this is bringing them down. This
is showing the people just you know what type of
political hacks they were, and.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And you know, yeah, that's the Thank you, Roger.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
This is the political Yeah, this is the political accountability
part of it, which I think I do think is
important and valid. So thank you for calling in on that.
I think that's Clai. I think that's real. The more
people know how gross and underhanded these efforts were, it
stays with them longer. And some of these people still
think they should have a say. I mean, certainly Obama
does in our public, public discourse and in national elections.
Speaker 4 (25:17):
I also think this is important to build on what
he said about the process and having some sort of
public hearing on this and a reckoning for lack of
a better way to say it. You know, when Trump
got charged, we told all of you four months they're
going to charge him.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
This is coming.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
We don't think it's legitimate, but we're laying out all
of the different parameters associated with it on the left,
if charges come down, does that audience have any idea
that there's enough legitimacy for charges to be brought here?
Because they've been told all of Russia collusion was true.
They've been told everything that Tulsea Gabbard said is made up.
(25:57):
There's no legitimacy to it.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
What's so aver?
Speaker 4 (26:00):
You, guys, meaning everybody listening to us right now, you
are super well informed. We covered it aggressively on New
York City, on Atlanta, on South Florida, on DC, and
we really kind of told you where we were headed,
what was likely to come. I don't think any of
you were shocked by what you saw transpire there. What
is the average MSNBC viewer or New York Times reader
(26:24):
going to think if suddenly indictments come down for lies
associated with Russia collusion? I think that's a real Now.
They're probably going to say, oh, this is unprecedented, this
is a president in valid. But I think the point
you're making is they will be completely blind shot.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Out of nowhere lighting that this could occur. Yeah, Yeah,
I think I think that's right. Greg and Orlando, Florida,
what's going on?
Speaker 1 (26:48):
Greg?
Speaker 8 (26:50):
Well truck drivers. So my favorite time of the day
is twelve to three here in Florida.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
But I love our truck drivers. Thank you, Greg.
Speaker 8 (26:58):
No problem. What's that quo all stairs, love and war?
I think it should be love, war and politics. I
think we should go blow to blow with them, and
if we can't get them legally at least well at
least try to get them on accountability a little bit
more and like Clay saying, bring the light to what
they're doing, more people will know. And if we can't
get them legally, at least morally and ethically, people have
(27:20):
a little bit bigger open eyes and realize what they've
done and remember that with future elections and anything else
that comes up.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
I think that's a great call.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
And I think that's really what you should expect and
hope to have occurring here is just a public reckoning,
even if we don't get a criminal court reckoning, because
I'm telling you this is going to get bogged down
by the way, a lot of three and four thousand
dollars an hour criminal defense attorneys in DC buck that
are just rubbing their hands with glee because they want
(27:52):
charges to come down. Because you know who the real
winner here is criminal defense lawyers because Democrats are going
to pay them tens of millions of dollars in legal
defense fees that all their rich benefactors, the Soroses of
the world, are going to fund, and those guys are
just like, it's bonus seasoned baby, I'm going to go
buy a new house. I'm telling you right now. That's
(28:12):
exactly the conversations they're having Ruth and Cape Coral, Florida.
A lot of Florida representatives representation rather on today's show.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
What's going on?
Speaker 9 (28:20):
Ruth, Hi, good afternoon. Clay in back, Yeah, I was
calling about presidential immunity, but before I get into my
points on that, just wanted to make a quick observation
about Grand Conspiracy. You were indicating that you felt that
the parts of the Grand Conspiracy were all separate. But
(28:41):
I think if they have evidence showing that the same
people coordinated all these efforts, jam clear Clay.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
Just to be clear, Clay thinks that it's very hard
to prove the I'm buck, He's Clay. He thinks it's
very hard to prove the Grand Conspiracy all ties to get,
so you're saying you think it'll be easier than he
maybe thinks.
Speaker 9 (29:04):
If they have evidence showing that the same people perpetrayed
the conspiracy that I think.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
My argument with that is, let me just say, like
Barack Obama was definitely involved in the Russia investigation and collusion,
I don't think Barack Obama was involved in the decision
for the FBI to raid the Department of Justice, right, so.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
All, yeah, sorry to raid mar Lago.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
He was not in office at that point, so for
him to be involved in that, I think it's hard
to have conspirators that are part of a conspiracy for
one conspiracy and not for another, and so I think
it's separate. Ruth, you had another point, though we got
only about thirty seconds, but go for it.
Speaker 9 (29:50):
Yes, I do. I do, okay with absolute presidential immunity.
There were two parts to that Supreme Court decision. One
was absolute immunity, the other was presumed immunity, and they
kicked it back to the lower courts so that they
would have to determine which were official acts in which
were not. But if you remember, it was one of
the liberal justices Kanji Brown or Tagan or so money
(30:13):
or that says, oh, what if he ordered somebody to
go out and kill somebody, you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
So you're saying that this wouldn't be covered under official acts,
I am.
Speaker 9 (30:25):
Saying yes, I am saying they have some emails right now,
as far as I understand that the Russians had hacked
into either the DNC or Hillary's computer that show that
Obama and Hillary knew that they were contriving the Russia conspiracy.
And that's not an official presidential act.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
We'll see, we'll see. Thank you, thank you, Ruth.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
I don't think that there's any Obama emails where he's like, hey,
those fake emails, let's pin them on Trump.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
I'm not saying that that he didn't do it.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
I'm just saying I don't think there's any emails that
will show it with that level of clarity. Here's the problem, Clay,
any conversations that Obama, as president at the time, is
having with the FBI director, with the CIA direct any
of that is going to be considered under his official
duty in terms of decisions made within their purview, of surveillance,
of contact with the press, all of that. You're never
(31:18):
going to get around that. What Ruth said is there
was a hypothetical. My recollection is what if the president
just decided he wanted to assassinate someone could have If
the president killed a maid in the Oval office because
he was in a bad move, that's not an official act.
That's clearly not covered. But talking to the FBI director
about surveillance that's going to be covered, or ordering Seal
Team six to take out somebody in a foreign country,
(31:41):
arguably that's within the presidential provinces too, Right, So I
think Obama just you got to take him off the table.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
It's unlikely to happen.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
I know, people don't you know, I get it. It's
frustrated to hear. But I'm just telling you the truth.
And Clays is it the same way. If we're wrong,
we will show up on the air and maya kulpa
and you know, we'll take our lumps. Look, part of
my health journey has involved this. Right here, I'm holding
up on the video. You can see chalk daily. I've
got it in my hand here. Boosts free and total
testosterone contains four hundred five hundred mega milligrams rather prima
(32:12):
vi shi legit and supports lean muscle mass. This stuff
is awesome. I take it every day. I got to
hear my desk doing the show. Proper supplementation along with that.
An exercise is critical for your health, and Chalk is
there for you. The Male Vitality Stack, by the way,
that's where I would start. It helps with so many
things energy, drive and yes, boosting testosterone. Go to Chalk
dot com today see what they've got. Choq dot com
(32:34):
get set up like I am. Massive discount when you
use my name Buck as your promo code. Go to
Chalkcchoq dot com use promo code Buck.
Speaker 7 (32:44):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sex to them. Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Clay, have you heard of the Rio Reset?
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Sounds like a trendy new workout, Buck, It does, but
it's actually a big summit going on in Brazil. The
formal name is BRICKS, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa. But they've just added five new members.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Smart move to stick with Bricks. We know what happens
when acronyms don't end. They confuse everyone.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Well that's an understatement.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Bricks is a group of emerging economies hoping to increase
their sway in the global financial order. Now that sounds
like the plot line of a movie. I'm listening. Philip
Patrick is our Bruce Wayne. He's a precious metal specialist
and a spokesman for the Birch Gold Group. He's on
the ground in Rio getting the whole low down on
what's going on there. Can he give us some inside intel? Absolutely,
(33:38):
He's been there since day one. In fact, a major
theme at the summit is how bricks nations aim to
reduce reliance on the US dollar in global trade.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
Yikes, that doesn't sound good. We got to get Philip
on the line.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
Stat already did and he left the Clay and Buck
audience this message.
Speaker 10 (33:54):
The world is moving on from the dollar quietly but
Steadilyations are making real progress towards reshaping global trade, and
the US dollar is no longer the centerpiece. That shift
doesn't happen overnight, but make no mistake, it's already begun.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Thank you, Philip. Protect the value of your savings account,
your four oh one k r ira, all of them,
by purchasing gold and placing it into those accounts, and
reducing your exposure to a declining dollar value. Text my
name buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight. You
get the free information you'll need to make the right decision.
You can rely on Birch Gold Group as I do
to give you the information you need to make an
(34:34):
informed decision. One more time, Text my name buck to
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
Speaker 4 (34:39):
We have been discussing the potential on the Grand Jury
investigation on Russia collusion. Lots of you still weighing in
on that. We will continue to break down more on
that as we move forward. But there also is additional
ridiculous ongoing outcome associated with the Epstein fallout, the Epstein
(35:04):
continued investigation, so I figure we should go ahead and
give you the latest on this as well. Representative James
Comer has subpoenaed the following people, President Bill Clinton, Secretary
of State Hillary former Secretary of State obviously Hillary Clinton,
(35:25):
and others. Let me hit you some of these. Merrick Garland,
James Comy, Bill Barr, Alberto Gonzalez both these are both
Republican and Democrat Attorney Generals, Robert Mueller, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder.
All of these people being called for deposition through subpoena
(35:50):
Bill Clinton October fourteenth, Hillary Clinton October ninth, and then
basically every attorney general. It looks like nearly of the
past twenty years, all of them being put under oath.
Relating to the Epstein case. I guess the one detail
that we really haven't talked very much about. We don't
know what the only person ever convicted in the Epstein case,
(36:13):
Julane Maxwell, told the Deputy Attorney General when she was interviewed.
We do know that they have moved her from Tallahassee
to a lower security prison in Texas. I believe that
is the latest on Epstein. I don't know what the
(36:33):
expectation is at this point, but they're going to put
everybody under oath and probably ask them what they knew
about Jeffrey Epstein. And that is now scheduled to be
happening in September and October on Capitol Hill. What's your
take on this buck not gonna happen, meaning no additional
(36:56):
charges are coming.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Yeah, not gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
And should I start just saying it's gonna happen just
because people a gonna get mad at me?
Speaker 1 (37:03):
Maybe it just started. It's all gonna the justice will
be done.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
I mean, I just don't think that you're gonna get
these these the kind of people you're talking about, these names, Yeah,
this is It's just I don't see it.
Speaker 4 (37:18):
My concern on Epstein is I feel like we are
trending towards a place where it's more likely that Julaane
Maxwell is pardoned and nobody ever goes to prison for
anything related to Epstein than there are other people who
are charged with crimes.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
What is the rationale for even a conversation about her
being pardoned? So it's a fantastic question, and I think
what the pardon would potentially entail is, Hey, we're gonna
pardon you from all crimes, and then we will bring
you in and put you in front of Congress of
(37:57):
a committee, and you will answer every question under the
sun about Epstein. So I have a question about that rationale,
which I think you've just established what it is. She
didn't do that before.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
She was facing twenty five years in federal prison.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Everybody, she wasn't willing to give up the goods to
avoid going away for a few decades previously. Come on, everybody,
let's you know, let's let's let's be real on this
one now. All of a sudden, she's got all the
stuff and she's gonna lay it all out there. The one, now,
the only one.
Speaker 4 (38:29):
I think you agree with me that that's the rationale
for the only reason that there would be any reason
to give her a pardon. The other one would be
some people would say she did no crimes and she
was the fall girl in this context, But she was
convicted by a jury after a criminal trial of sex
trafficking on behalf of Epstein. So you're then tossing the
(38:50):
jury's conviction out the window and saying, oh, the jury
got it wrong if you are saying that she was
the fall girl, as it were, for the larger Epstein crimes.
Speaker 10 (39:02):
Right.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
So this is something buck that I think nobody ever mentions,
and I do think it's significant, and we talked about
it on this program, and I haven't heard anybody else
even talk about it. People say, well, what about all
the victims, what about all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
Don't they deserve justice? All those things I think are
very true.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
Around one hundred and twenty five or one hundred and
thirty Jeffrey Epstein alleged victims in civil court sued and
got paid almost five hundred million dollars. So it's like
the civil cases settlements, no one ever mentions. So for
people out there who say, wait, what about all these
people that were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, they allowed all
(39:40):
of them to come forward tell their stories, and nearly
five hundred million dollars in settlements from Epstein's estate and
other banks that had advised him were paid out. So
I just think when you look at this larger mushroom cloud.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Epstein is dead. We all agree on that. So then
what we know.
Speaker 4 (40:01):
I don't think there's very many people who think Epstein
stile alive, although I do sometimes here for people, you know,
he's not really dead.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
I don't know what. I haven't heard that, but I
haven't even heard on the internet.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (40:15):
You know.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
I just the other thing is, if you have Gilenn
Maxwell and she's going to testify in some way, it
would just you know, what is the process here through
which she's going to say things about people that will
then be considered So is her word credible enough.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
To indict or destroy a person?
Speaker 3 (40:36):
I mean, that's really what we're talking about here, and
we're going to believe that this person who has been
convicted for sex trafficking, who then is pardoned on the
idea that she's then going to tell us the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. That's a tremendous amount
of power. You're giving this woman then to decide who
gets destroyed and who doesn't based on her word that
(40:56):
they did something, that someone did something illicit as part
of Epstein ring.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (41:01):
No, I get it. So I just to me, we've
we've looked at we went down this pathway, and there
was an opportunity for her to avoid any prison time
I would assume, or at least far substantial farce reduced
from what she got if she would just name the names.
And then there's the opportunity to go get evidence and
(41:23):
bring indictments. But what is supposed to I don't see
how this is supposed to work. That you're gonna someone's
gonna Trump is gonna pardon her. Then she's gonna come
forward and she's gonna say, Okay, guess what, Epstein's the
only person who committed any sex crimes.
Speaker 4 (41:39):
And then what I just come back, And again I
don't know why this. I think probably because it's sealed,
but for everybody out there, because I do think this
is the most compelling argument. If you're out there and
you're saying, Hey, what about all these people who were
victims of Epstein? Do they not deserve justice? I think
that's a.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Very They got a lot of money, so that's part
one of it.
Speaker 4 (41:57):
They got five hundred million dollars. I'm assuming all of
that is sealed. But as part of the way that
they distributed the five hundred million dollars, they had to
determine why some people were paid some amounts and others
were paid lesser amounts. Right, they didn't all get the
same amount, So in theory there was a culpability associated
with that, and if there were criminal charges that could
(42:19):
have come. They did a court investigation on the civil
side that I would think would be accessible and able
to be reviewed, and I can't imagine they just didn't
charge people. So the reason why I bring all this
up is it basically feels to me, you tell me
if you disagree on this buck. As we are now
in the summer of Trump two point zero, Democrats really
(42:44):
don't have anything to attack him on on the economy.
They don't really have anything to attack him on on
the border. They can say, hey, Ice, is you know,
taking too many people out of the country, But that
hasn't really worked. Crime is plummeting nationwide. I mean, this
is a very good thing. And so it seems like
we're just engaged in a lot of legal procedural battles.
(43:05):
That is the resistance two point zero Epstein's part of them.
There's punches being thrown on the other side related to
Russia collusion. There's the ongoing battles over birthright citizenship and
what exactly are the limits of the president's powers when
it comes to tariffs. It feels to me, tell me
if you disagree, like every day when it comes to
Trump opposition, it's just some federal district court judge or
(43:28):
some older criminal related conspiracy examination that is largely being examined.
Almost nothing is present day. Does that make sense. It's
like we're relitigating all of the controversies of the Trump
era now in real time, and much of the actual
(43:49):
work that's being done on a day to day basis
isn't really being talked or acknowledged in any kind of
substantial way.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
I think part of this is because the Trump administration
has been so sick sucessful so far that they've had
to get very creative in the ways that they creative
is a kind way of saying it. Attack the administration.
I think also the administration stumbled here with the pete,
with the public relations aspect and the transparency aspect of
(44:17):
promising big rep We've gone over this a million times, okay, already,
the public relations component of the full you know, the binders,
the influencers, the big stuff is coming, It's on my
desk and everything else. And then actually, no additional charges
and really no additional information is going to be released.
That was a that was a bait and switch, and
people recognize it as such. Whether I mean, do you
(44:40):
even think that these individuals are going to some of them,
you're going to sab poenal Loretta Lynch, I mean, what
do you think is going to be said by her
about this?
Speaker 4 (44:49):
I just I think they're all going to Here's what
I would advise. I mean, I would tell them all
to take the fifth. I don't see how they gain
at all by even answering questions, you know.
Speaker 1 (44:58):
What I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (44:59):
Well, so Retta Lynch, like you're gonna you think she's
gonna sit there and be like, you know what, I
was part of a big conspiracy to cover up the
Epstein stuff because of the high level democrats that were
you know, implicated in the in the sex ring. No,
it's not going to happen. So to your point, people
are now doing things to do things. They're doing things
to say I'm doing a thing. What is the end
(45:20):
result of that thing going to be? Unless the people
that they're subpoenaing are total morons, nothing, that's what's going
to happen.
Speaker 4 (45:28):
Like, do you think that Bill Clinton's going to say
under oath, I love sleeping with fifteen year old girls
that Jeffrey Epstein provided for me. I think that's highly unlikely.
Do you think that Hillary Clinton's gonna say, Hey, we
knew that there were tons of really powerful people who
had relations with Jeffrey Epstein in some way, and we
(45:48):
covered up all their crimes. I suspect that they will
have a written statement prepared by their four thousand dollars
an hour attorney that represents whatever they want to put
on the public record. They will read it and then
they will say this is all I'm going to say,
and maybe they fight whether the subpoena is even valid.
By the way, every Attorney General Bill Barr, you think
(46:12):
Bill Barr was covering up Epstein related crimes. I mean,
they got every attorney general Democrat and Republican basically of
the last twenty years, and they're going to call them
in and aggressively question them on Epstein. I mean, I
think Epstein was to be fair. When you're the attorney general,
there are so many cases that you are monitoring on
a day to day basis that I bet Bill Barr
(46:34):
spent like zero point one percent of his time as
attorney general. If that relating to anything having to do
with Epstein, that would be my guess. And so anyway,
I think the result of the mis communication is now
that there is a flood the zone strategy where you
try to get as much information out as you possibly can.
(46:56):
But I just don't think there's much there there.
Speaker 3 (46:59):
But I do you want to?
Speaker 4 (47:00):
I mean, this is getting a lot of attention today.
Comber has subpoenaed all these people, and they're all going
to be brought in over the next couple of months,
and I imagine every day that they talk there will
be in some way big stories about the fact that
they're going to talk, and then I think that there's
likely to be very little that is actually newsworthy that
comes out of their under a testimony.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
That's my prediction.
Speaker 4 (47:21):
Maybe I'm wrong, and we shall see perhaps something big breaks.
This is where I do think I never would have
believed Buck that I would go to law school and
basically every case that now we just talk about is well,
that depends on what the courts are going to do.
That depends on what the judges are going to do.
This is basically Trump two point zero. There is no
(47:43):
overarching opposition to him outside of the existing court systems. Indeed,
I want to tell you as we go to to
break here by the way, you guys are welcome to
weigh in. I don't think there's anything else out there
that we are missing. But I did want to both
of these big stories because again it is the DOJ
(48:04):
grand jury relating to Russia collusion and the subpoenas going
out relating to Epstein are receiving massive amounts of attention
out there. But I don't know that there's some huge
revelatory moment that's going to come. But you guys are
alleged to you. Guys can dive in and figure out
whether or not you think there's something that we're missing here.
(48:27):
So eight hundred and two two two A A two.
In the meantime, I want to tell you all about LifeLock.
Someone wanted to steal your identity, they wouldn't have to
lift your wallet. They can get everything they need by
hacking a database. Think of all the things you register
for by online, like having one hundred wallets out there.
As convenient as technology has made life, it's also got vulnerabilities,
and it's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft
(48:48):
are affecting our lives, just like it's important to remember.
Lifelock's online identity theft protection is your best defense. They
will detect and alert you to potential identity threats you
may not spot on your own taken out in your name.
If you become a victim of identity theft and you're
a LifeLock member, you can rely on a dedicated US
based restoration specialist to work to fix it guaranteed or
(49:10):
your money back. Become a LifeLock member if you aren't
already join now, say forty percent off your first year
with promo code Clay. Call one eight hundred LifeLock or
head to LifeLock dot com. Use my name Clay as
the promo code for forty percent off. That's LifeLock dot
Com promo code Clay.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
Want to begin to know when you're on?
Speaker 7 (49:32):
To go the Team forty seven podcasts Trump highlights from
the week Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clayan Buck
podcast Feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (49:45):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Go subscribe
to the YouTube channel. Go subscribe to the clay In
Buck podcast feed, which has a collection of fabulous members.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
It's a larger network, And.
Speaker 4 (49:58):
Go to Crockettcoffee dot com and sign up today used codebook.
You get an autograph copy of my book. And these
things are almost gone, and then we'll be into the
new book season. Let's have some fun. I have not
even heard this full yet. I saw the headline and
I said, oh my goodness, this is going to be fun.
(50:19):
Texas State Representative Joe Landa Jones, who has fled the
state to Illinois.
Speaker 3 (50:25):
Rather than have Joe Landa joh Yolanda usually I think
is how you know?
Speaker 1 (50:32):
Is it Joelnda?
Speaker 4 (50:34):
According to our team, it is Jolanda, so Yolanda is
typically a is typically a name that would be popular.
But this, according to our team, is Joelanda. I'm maybe
it's pronounced no. No, you're probably right, You're probably right. She
has fled the state to protest redistricting in Texas. She says,
(50:56):
this is just like the Holocaust, cut twenty nine.
Speaker 11 (50:59):
And integration happen and everybody thought they accept this. They
don't accept this. They are showing us who they are.
We should believe them, and we better have the courage
to stand up otherwise we will fall for anything. And
in this country we will be defeated, deported, I mean,
we will lose all of our rights. And if you
think it can't happen, it can.
Speaker 3 (51:17):
And I will liken this to the Holocaust.
Speaker 11 (51:18):
People are like, well, how did the Holocaust happen? How
is somebody in the position to kill all their people? Well,
good people remain silent, or good people didn't realize that
what happens to them can very soon happen to me
or somebody I love.
Speaker 3 (51:32):
And so you and even so.
Speaker 11 (51:33):
Even if you made it, man, you have an obligation
to help people who came, because God forbid, they end
up targeting you and your family.
Speaker 3 (51:43):
So Joe Wanda, it is the jay Joe Wanda.
Speaker 4 (51:49):
They are saying, boy, if Texas redistricts, next thing it's
going to happen is concentration camps.
Speaker 3 (51:56):
These people. How far are democrats from? I had to
wait in line at the DMV for too long. It's
basically the Holocaust. I just want to know what is
really the like, what is the barrier, what is the
the the the.
Speaker 1 (52:10):
The level that you have to reach for a Holocaust comparison?
Speaker 3 (52:13):
Now, you know they didn't they didn't have my favorite
you know, my favorite sneakers at the store I went to.
Speaker 1 (52:19):
It's basically the Holocaust.
Speaker 4 (52:20):
Yes, I mean, that's that's where we are, and this
is what we were having jokes about. But no one in America,
Joe Wanda included as a general rule, has any knowledge
whatsoever of history. So everything has got to be analogized
to the Nazis.
Speaker 3 (52:36):
Imagine if I can, if I can, if I just
if I compared everything to like the like, imagine if
I compared it to another genocide, you know, and it's like, oh,
you know this is it's like the Cambodian It's like
the Cambodian genocide. Out here man, Like it's I've had
to wait, you know, fifteen minutes for my my takeout order.
Speaker 1 (52:53):
People would be like, you're a sick weirdo.
Speaker 3 (52:55):
Like why would you you know, it's nothing like the
Cambodian genocide million people plus, you know, brutal mert. But
you can say you can do.
Speaker 1 (53:02):
This thing now.
Speaker 3 (53:03):
Among among Demo I will say, Republicans, don't, don't.
Speaker 1 (53:06):
I don't see this. I don't see our.
Speaker 3 (53:08):
Side going oh you know, I had to wait in
traffic too long. It was basically the Holocaust, Like Democrats
will do this now. Yeah, they totally do.
Speaker 4 (53:16):
And by the way, that is, as you were just
laying out, that's their standard go to because we'll play tomorrow.
They're still trying to call Trump hitler, which is funny
in and of itself. But I think we're representative of
how they have continued to fail. And I think we
have a funny talk back, We have a good talk
(53:38):
about We've got some good VIP emails. Do the talk
back first, but I got some emails lined up for
you of the sartorial variety. Oh no, oh no, what
did we have? We had somebody who wanted to talk
about sat Sweeney.
Speaker 1 (53:48):
AA. That's one good one, I think.
Speaker 12 (53:52):
A claim Bucks Brian from Jacksonville love your show, But man,
today's not a good one. First hour and a half
spent on two topics that are going to lead to thing.
Let's talk about something important like Sidney Sweeney's boobs.
Speaker 4 (54:04):
There you go, try to try to break down the
huge complexity everybody Russia collusion.
Speaker 3 (54:12):
Yet all this stuff last week about too much Clay
boobs talk and now we get not enough boob I
don't know what to do.
Speaker 1 (54:19):
I'm trying to trying to just keep it flowing, keep
it moving.
Speaker 4 (54:22):
I didn't even know we got any negativity about that.
I got, hey, talk about boobs more. What do you
got talk back on clothes? Oh?
Speaker 3 (54:30):
I got VIP emails on clothes. Melanie writes in saw
Clay on the Will Canshow yesterday I actually ran into
the room just to see what he was wearing. Much
better exclamation point. So Melanie thinks you're taking notes and
you're doing a good job. Unlike Deborah, who says, Buck,
I love you, but that pale yellow jacket looks terrible.
(54:53):
It doesn't flatter your complexion. Ask your wife for color advice.
You have a cool or maybe neutral skin tone and
need more vibrant or cooler colors. Pale yellow ain't working.
How about blues or greens? Love you, Deborah, Love you too. However,
it is a cream colored jacket. And I am here
in South Florida, in Miami Beach, no less where we
(55:14):
wear these kinds of jackets. And I don't want to
always look exactly like the host, because I have a
closet full of navy blue jackets that I can wear.
But you know, sometimes we like to spice it up
a little bit on the air. So I will take
how about this? I will take it under advisement and
bless your heart. I like to bless your heart. Just
sounding very much like a Southerner here. Most people would
(55:38):
just prefer that you only be a navy or black
in this audience.
Speaker 4 (55:41):
I think I know, but that I'm knowing a disservice
to the beautiful color palettes across the rainbow. Here is
Josh and Oklahoma. To close this out, more fun, what
you got, Josh?
Speaker 1 (55:51):
This question is for Clay.
Speaker 3 (55:53):
Why do you decide to die on these hills?
Speaker 13 (55:55):
Firsts the leaf flowers, then it's the flute players, and
now it's the attractive Kamala Harris take. I respect the
fact that you stand by your decisions and you're not
swayed by any opinion at all, But I just got
to ask, man, why the dedication of these things.
Speaker 3 (56:13):
I can't believe you're controlling with your Kamala take. I think,
but you're not.
Speaker 4 (56:18):
Sixty year old Kamala Harris is far better looking than
the average sixty year old woman in America's.
Speaker 3 (56:25):
I don't even understand. That's a crazy take at all.
I don't even understand how we're still talking about it.
I was just even getting anyone's attention out there, But.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
Here we are. I am being super kind to the
beautiful Kamala
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.