Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Aug 15 2025 - The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome everybody to the Friday edition of the Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate you, Appreciate you. In fact,
I just leaned into that one. I don'tven know what's
going to happen. Appreciate you being with us, did it?
I said a Clay style there for a moment, there
you and we are excited to tell you about everything
going on, including this major summit, this major sit down

(00:22):
that is going on in Alaska with Trump and footin
that especially for a Friday in the middle of August,
that's going to be about as big time as it
gets for any one individual foreign policy news story short
of war breaking out somewhere or major terrorist attack. This

(00:42):
is a big deal and we're going to get into
some of the specifics here. I believe the meeting is
occurring post show, right, so we don't we don't.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Have three thirty Eastern time. It starts, which I believe
is eleven thirty am Alaska time, Alaska time.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
We had some very interesting deep dive with the Governor
of Alaska yesterday and to things that people might not
have known about the lovely state where we have a
number of fantastic or even fabulous radio stations up there
where we have a great listening audience.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
We appreciate you.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
It's pretty incredible that people that far away can hear
us on the old radio stations. It's great, we love it.
But we'll give you some of the details on all
this all sort of take a lot of your talkbacks
and calls.

Speaker 2 (01:31):
Today because it is a Friday. More on the DC
crime drama they're still going for. They're still pushing it.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
In fact, Clay something that you see today, DC files
a lawsuit challenging the administration's police takeover. This just happened
today and this is still breaking. So the District of
Columbia has filed an emergency motion challenging the Trump administration's attempt.
They're going to have a judge listen to this. The

(02:01):
issue is, I see it here. It's pretty cut and
dry that the president can do this. So you're gonna
have to find some and I know the Democrats have
a million ways. They'll say it violates the Administrative Procedures
Act or something. Don't even know who the Administrative Proscedures
Act is, So this is just what they say. The
people who say they know what it is don't even
know what it is. So I'm wondering where they're really

(02:23):
going to take this and what this judge is going
to say. And we still have the redistricting fight going on.
By the way, the governor California, Gavin Newsom, has kicked
off his campaign for a proposition, play your buddy, Gavin.
I think Gavin is still the leader. I think he
is the leading Democrat in the country right now. Bernie
Sanders gets more live hype from the tours he does,

(02:46):
but I think Gavin views himself as the alpha male.
We're gonna get into the alpha males Trump and putin
here in a second, but what do you think of
both the DC emergency order challenging this or emergency challenge
I should say to the crime takeover, Well, let's start
with that one. I'm I'm seeing this as they're just

(03:08):
making it worse for themselves. And at this point, all
Trump has to do is just keep doing what he's doing,
and everybody who's opposing him is going to look increasingly foolish.
It is indisputably the case that Trump has the constitutional
authority to act as he did in Washington, d C.
With that in mind, it is also possible that a
federal district court judge could in the DC area question

(03:32):
whether Trump has that power, particularly Boseburg and the anti
Trump contingent of the district court judges. So the media
will chase whatever the district court judges do. But remember
the Ninth Circuit. I believe one of the Federal District
Court judges, a brother of Stephen Bryer, if I'm not mistaken,

(03:55):
in the San Francisco area, said that Trump didn't have
the right to call in the guard in LA and
almost immediately that was reversed as it moved up the
legal hierarchy. But it wouldn't shock me if a judge
said that Trump can't do what he clearly can do,
because many of these judges are basically politicians and robes,

(04:17):
and so he can indisputably do this. Warriors everywhere who
have even spent a scintilla of time studying this not
a difficult case. But that doesn't mean that some judge
might not say, well, I don't think he could do it,
you know, for some reason, just to write an opinion
to get a lot of attention. This is what we're

(04:38):
going to see. Are the hashtag resistance judges in DC
willing to remember this is not an interpretation of like
a broad spectrum authority that the president has. This is
specifically in the District of Columbia and looking at a
law pass in nineteen seventy three that has been good

(04:59):
law for fifty year that deals exactly with this issue,
that says Trump can do this.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
This is Trump has thirty days he can do this.
It says it in the law.

Speaker 1 (05:10):
Are we going to have a judge that comes along,
I'm i'm I could go fifty to fifty Whether he
would just say that he can't do it. Eventually judges
will say he can, but there might be one judge
who says he cannot. It'll just It's fascinating though, because
you see this. Judges no longer when it comes to
Trump and the hashtag resistance judiciary, they're no longer. There's

(05:31):
no longer the fear of embarrassment at being completely slapped
down nine ozho. Remember when they tried to kick Trump
off the ballot in Colorado. I think they talked about
it in Maine, right, but they actually were moving forward
on her in Colorado Supreme Court nine to oh. Even
so do mayor even catangi Brown Jackson. We're like guys,

(05:52):
I mean, we gotta pretend. We gotta pretend at least, right,
this is not even pretending to care what the law says.
This is pretty close to that for me, based on
the reading of the nineteen seventy three Home Relact. If
a judge manages to come up with some way to
stop Trump on this, it's just a judge saying I
don't like Trump. They're not even pretending the law matters.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
I also think this is where there should be some
consequences when judges engage in behavior that's way outside the
bounds of what the law is. When you get lifetime tenure,
there's virtually nothing that happens to any of these federal
district court judges. Sure there's a measure of embarrassment on

(06:33):
some level for people who want to actually apply the law,
but I think in many ways that's canceled out by
other judges giving them pats on the back and saying,
way to stand up to that tyrant, Way to stand
up to that authoritarian. This is what judges should do.
And honestly, I think if you get overruled nine to zero,

(06:55):
I think you should actually have a consequence you know,
a good example, as you were just pointing out the
Colorado Supreme Court. Everybody wants to forget about it because
now they're saying, oh, redistricting is putting democracy on the
ballot and all these things. The state of Colorado voted
to pull Donald Trump off of the ballot and not

(07:16):
allow people there to vote for him, and the Colorado
Supreme Court said four to three, that's appropriate. We can
do this looking at the federal Constitution. And then the
actual Supreme Court looked at it and said nine to zho, no,
this is unacceptable. But all of those people in Colorado,
there were no consequences for them being wrong. There were

(07:37):
no consequences that we barely even talk about what they
tried to do. And what was it Maine that followed up.
There were multiple states that were willing to get in
line and say Trump was disqualified from being able to
be eligible for president of the United States. If that's
not an actual legal insurrection, what is, you know? That's

(07:57):
the phrase Kathy Hochel used to describe Texas redistricting. Pulling
a candidate off the ballot and not allowing your citizens
to vote is to me, a level of attack on
basic democracy in the process. I feel like it were
resident that maybe my.

Speaker 1 (08:17):
Force judicial overreach we've seen in the Trump era against Trump,
I could because it's I mean, you think about they
also were just deciding that there was no there was
no process to speak of. I mean they just said, yeah,
Trump did a thing I don't like, so he can't
be on the ballot. You can't and you can't even
point to that just being one judge, buck, which is
why I find it so troubling. The Colorado Supreme Court,

(08:39):
I believe there's seven Supreme Court justices in the state
of Colorado voted four to three, we're gonna do this.
So that actually went through the entire Colorado court system
and they said yes, and then they got slapped down
nine to zero. And I'm mentioning it now, and I
bet a lot of you are just now thinking, oh, yeah,
I totally forgot about that. Because there's so many legal
process and procedures that have been put in place since then.

(09:02):
I think that was, of all of them, the most egregious.
And so when you hear somebody like Kathy Hokele, Governor
of New York, say, oh, this is a legal insurrection,
referring to Texas or redistricting. I think it's important to
remember what they did legitimately in trying to take Trump
off the ballot, and it had to go all the
way to Supreme Court to put his name on the ballot.

(09:26):
I can't think of anything that's even remotely comparable that
any Republican has ever done that is a legal attack
of a similar nature on Democrats. Meanwhile, there are Democrats
out there. This is as somebody who's been in Baghdad
during a war. I gotta tell you, here's Tiffany Cross,

(09:47):
Democrat saying, I guess this is over at CNN, CNNMSNBC.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
You know, Tomato, Tomato, It's all the same these days.
Here she is saying, remember, she's upset, this has cut five.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
She's upset not because DC is dangerous, but because there
are too many people who are there to make it
safer on the streets.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
I mean, this is frightening. I kind of disagree with
you both. It's not a distraction, and the way we're
normalizing fascism is frightening. I left DC today it looked
like Baghdad, the way that the National Guard has taken over,
the way that they have militarized the police force there.
It is scary, and so the fact that he has
previously threatened to have Gavin Newsom arrested, he had the

(10:31):
Christy known the Homeland Security Secretary. I mean, for her,
killing puppies is business as usual. She's not in any
position to even be qualified to oversee a department with this.
Ice does not have the authority to arrest anybody. He
is deploying them, like you said, like it's his own
personal police.

Speaker 1 (10:49):
Force, just ignoring everything that's true, and just saying things
that are crazy and emotionally charged, and even a shot
about the Gnomes puppies.

Speaker 2 (11:00):
In the past, she did leave herself open to that.

Speaker 1 (11:03):
But I'm not defending it. I'm just saying working this
is a kitchen sink strategy. It's fascism, attacking Nome for.

Speaker 2 (11:12):
The dog thing, all this stuff.

Speaker 1 (11:14):
She's going all in on this instead of just saying
for a second, hold on. First of all, there are
I've seen plenty of There was an armory near where
I grew up in New York. You see people in
military uniforms. Why is it scary to see people from
the National Guard? Why would that be a bad thing?
This is a little bit like why police on your
block should make you feel safer, and if they don't,

(11:36):
you should ask why.

Speaker 2 (11:38):
I agree? And anybody out there who doesn't want more
police is probably doing something illegal. And here's a big question.
Worst case scenario, Trump does all this additional mobilization of
resources to help try to make DC safer and the
crime rate stays basically the same. That's the worst case scenario,

(12:00):
absolute worst case scenario. Has anybody really considered what happens
if it works? Imagine if Trump brings these resources to
bear on the district of Columbia and suddenly violent crime
drops by forty percent. Look at what he did on
the border, where basically nobody talks about the border. It's

(12:21):
important sometimes to remember stories that were big, Oh, Trump
can't be on the ballot, he's not a constitutionally eligible
to be president. Just vanishes. Nobody even mentions it the border,
nobody mentions it at all. Has anybody really thought? This
is why I love the move that Trump is making.
I don't see a downside. Democrats say, hey, we've got

(12:42):
too many police. Most people say, well we should. If
you're upset about too many police, you're probably a criminal.
The only person who's upset about a drunk driving a
test check is the person who's driving drunk, right, Like,
if you're driving, you know you know how the person
they can catch you because some guys are like uh oh,
and you turn and go the opposite direction and they

(13:04):
pull you over. If you see a drunk driving checkpoint,
it's probably a sign that you may have been drinking.
The only people upset about drunk driving checkpoints are people
that might have been drinking. To me, the only people
upset about more police on the streets are people who
are actually engaged in criminal behavior. But Buck, what if
it works? What if in two months we have a

(13:26):
fifty percent decline in violent crime in DC? What if
carjacking plummets. What if the number of murders plummet? What
do democrats do then? I and worst case scenario, nothing changes,
And the problems are so intractable in DC right now
that more troops and more police on the ground don't

(13:48):
impact things. But I just see this as brilliant when
you write when you analyze risk reward, if the risk
is zero and the reward is massive, that to me
seems like something you should do in all facets of life,
and that to me is this.

Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, and yet they're still going to scream about this
and say that it is fascism.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Have you written your will yet or done something as
important as establishing a trust. Here's a little inside tip
on both. They're no longer expensive or time consuming thanks
to our sponsor, Trust and Will dot Com. They can
help you create one or both without having to find
and hire an attorney. It's important to do this because
your trust or will will eventually become your voice. You
don't want your family scrambling after the fact, because if

(14:30):
there's no will or trust left behind, your estate can
be tied up in probate for months or longer, depending
on the state. Set your family up the right way
at the time it's needed most. The website to get
started is Trust and Will dot com slash Buck. When
you go there, you'll save twenty percent. That's Trust and
Will dot Com slash Buck. Trust and Will dot Com

(14:52):
slash Buck.

Speaker 4 (14:54):
Making America great again isn't just one man, It's many.
The team for podcasts Sunday's at noon Eastern in the
Klay and Buck podcast feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
President Trump, I believe still en route to Alaska. I
do not believe he has landed yet. Team, if you'll
let me know when he officially a lands. Big news,
of course, his meeting with Vladimir Putin's schedule to begin
at three point thirty Eastern, shortly after we go off
the air. We do not know how long that meeting
will go or what the joint press conference that occurs

(15:32):
afterwards will end up looking and sounding like. So that
will obviously dominate the news cycle as we head into
the weekend. But something that has been a huge part
of the new cycle prior to the start of this
week was the Texas redistricting battle. It immediately kind of
dove underneath the Washington, d c. Rise of troops on

(15:56):
the streets and an attempt to limit violence which Trump
put in place on Monday. And again, I think the
Putin Trump reaction and what comes out of this meeting
on Friday is certainly probably, I would say, going to
lead even this show on Monday, because I would assume
there will be multi days of reaction and fallout from
whatever this face to face meeting actually brings to bear.

(16:21):
But he has arrived in Alaska, by the way, So
just an update there. He is in Alaska and he
is waiting now presumably to meet with Vladimir Putin going forward,
so a aspect of that story will continue to follow.
We'll see if anything other further comes out of that.

(16:42):
In the meantime, yesterday afternoon, Governor Gavin knew Some announced
that California is going to try to redistrict yet again,
in response to Texas potentially adding five Republican seats. Typically
redistricting happens earlier in the decade. States like California and

(17:04):
Texas and Illinois sorry California, New York and Illinois that
are blue states aggressively redistricted. Already, states like Massachusetts have
eliminated all Democrat congress people. There are almost no Republican
congressmen from state like Illinois, and the analysis from the
New York Times shows that so far Democrats have benefited

(17:27):
the most from redistricting. They are fed up with what
Texas might do. And now the talk is that Gavin
Newsom says he's putting redistricting on the ballot this November,
and that would allow California to cancel out Texas's actions.
And more. This, of course, is Gavin Newsom attempting to
interject himself into the national political arena so that he

(17:51):
can potentially be president in twenty twenty eight. This is
very easy to see what is going on here. My
question for you, Buck, I'm not evince that Californians are
going to show up and vote in massive numbers for
this redistricting to happen. And some of you can say, Okay,
well you disagree, the data actually reflects that so far

(18:13):
about two thirds of Californians, according to polling, do not
agree with this idea that Gavin Newsom is putting forward.
And also, some of these ballot referendums in general have
tended to trend more conservative in nature than many might expect.
For instance, they've been trying to put back in place
affirmative action policies and Californians have overwhelmingly said no. Therefore,

(18:39):
I'm not sure that Gavin Newsom is going to get
this massive wave of support that he is expecting in
the event that this actually goes up out as a
referendum in November. What's your take on California's attempt to
try to redistrict. And they've already got a huge advantage
outside of the bounds of what would be expected based

(19:01):
on the Republican voters already, so they're just going even
further blue than they've already gone.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think it's part of the overall trend we see,
which is Democrats doing things that will either have minimal
impact or maybe even have some blowback. But they have
to look like they aren't just letting Trump have his
way or letting the Republicans run rough shot over them.
That's what I mostly see from this. I don't see
this as likely to and correct me if I'm wrong.

(19:29):
The redistrict in California, how much more do they think
they can already squeeze out of it if they were
to go through this. I think Gavin Newsom is much
more concerned with the press attention that he gets from
this and the fact that he just he needs to
keep his name in his mind. I'm thinking about this
now if I were Gavin Newsom, he wants to be

(19:50):
in the headlines. He wants people to be thinking about
how Gavin Newsom is one of the biggest names in
Democrat politics because I don't think he views himself as
having to do very much to be the only real option,
or rather the most palatable option to the overall Democrat

(20:13):
base and the Democrat Party. And then the next election,
which crazily enough, is going to be kicking off in
a sense in what eighteen months, basically not that far
off from when real presidential politics starts again. This is
one of the only things about Trump's second term that
I think is going to require a lot of adjustment,
even for his own side, is he doesn't have We're

(20:34):
used to a president being in office and the perception
is that they'll have eight years, or at least that's
what their party wants this time around.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
This is going to move pretty quickly.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
How many seats does Gayvenustam even think they could squeeze
out if they did more redistricting? I mean, how many
more drops of juice can they get from the lemon here?

Speaker 2 (20:51):
Well, I think that's a fantastic question, because again, around
forty percent of Californians vote Republican. And I know we
have this idea painting with a broad brush red state,
blue state, but if you look geographically at California, it
actually becomes somewhat difficult to alienate some of these Republican

(21:14):
districts because huge swaths of California are actually ruby red.
Now they think they can get five. That's the number here.
They think they can get five. They're basically trying to
cancel out what Texas is doing. But see, this is
why it's it's a media it's a media play more
than anything else. It's Texas is you know, the.

Speaker 1 (21:36):
You know, Texas and Florida go back and forth on this,
but Texas is a bigger state.

Speaker 2 (21:41):
And you know, sorry, I have a little loyalty to
Florida over here.

Speaker 1 (21:43):
But Texas a great state and a red state and
really still I think for a lot of people the
red heartland, and you know, it is our California, although
maybe we should think of it as it is their Texas.
And they're viewing this as Gavin Newsom is viewing this
as this this is how I show that we're not
just gonna lay down and let this happen, right.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
We're gonna do more here in California. Now. It's funny.

Speaker 1 (22:07):
Of course, the irony is that this undermines the argument
that's being made about Texas. So they're saying, you know,
it's like they're saying, you know, the refs are paid off.
And then they're turning around saying, and we're paying off
the refs in this other game because we're not gonna
let the refs get paid off in this game as well.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
You're saying that paying off refs is bad.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
This is the argument. Is not that you do it
and we don't do it. That's not what Democrats are saying.
Democrats make this claim that jerry mandering is bad. Yes,
but it's only jerry mandering when the other guys do it.
So this is why the whole thing is preposterous. This
is why sometimes I just throw my hands up. With politics.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
It is almost impossible to point to something that one
side does that the other side never does. It is
it is, that is the game. And so what Texas
is doing is reacting later to what Democrats have already done.
And again I point to the New York Times. Basically,
if we were being one hundred percent reflective of the

(23:07):
will of the voter, the math would directly correspond to
a nationwide popular vote when it comes to seats in
the House of Representatives. So strip away the four hundred
and thirty five electoral votes, strip away straight state boundaries,
you would see that the percentages should roughly reflect what

(23:30):
the actual voter will is. In twenty twenty two, Republicans
won the nationwide popular vote in that midterm election, and
Democrats did better in terms of congressional seats than they
would have based on the nationwide vote. And we talked
about this. We expected a red wave, red tsunami. You

(23:51):
got it in New York, you got it in Florida.
It petered out as it went across the country. It
didn't end up existing to a certain extent. New York
Times went and looked and they said, well, that's because
Democrats have been really successful in their redistricting and drawing
the line's efforts. Twenty twenty four, Republicans won the House
again and won the nationwide popular vote for President of

(24:12):
the United States, and Democrats actually did better in terms
of the majority of the minority party that they got
in the House. My point on this is, if the
New York Times is pointing out they've got an advantage,
then they've got an advantage. And here is the huge
structural If we really want to have a conversation about
redistricting and the four hundred and thirty five congressional seats,

(24:36):
Democrats by letting in ten million illegals continue to benefit
immensely from illegal immigration populations because they're counted for purposes
of congressional seat allocation. So a state like California, if
they didn't have millions of illegal immigrants, would actually have

(24:57):
lost congressional seats. Illinois, same way, New York, same way.
If you want to talk about the big, transformative, unfair
political advantage that Democrats have from a districting perspective, it's
that they count twenty million illegals. At least Tom Holman
tells me there's twenty million, So I'm using his number.

(25:17):
Some of you like a bigger number. Fuck. They count
all of these people that are overwhelmingly clustered in blue
cities in blue states, and that allows them to take
an additional ten to fifteen seats, which would one hundred
percent be likely to swing the difference probably in twenty
twenty six if they were to take back the House.

(25:39):
So that is the big structural advantage. They're not the
victims here. They actually benefit by jerrymandering and redistricting, to
say nothing of the fact that they actually screwed up
the twenty twenty census and misallocated there in a substantial way,
which Democrats are going to benefit from in twenty six
and twenty eight. So this is like the bank robber

(26:01):
claiming that they're the good guy.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Yes, and they're gonna keep doing it because their other
argument is what they don't really have one, So they
just have to hope that they can make arguments that
are self refuting but are full of a lot of emotion,
and a lot of Republicans bad or Trump bad, really
Trump Republicans the same. You know, Trump is a stand
in for all Republicans, and I think that Trump is

(26:26):
more of a mobilizer of Democrat rage than anything else.
So even though it's the Texas this is the thing,
is the Texas state legislature that's handling this issue, it's
Trump's fault. Right, You've noticed that it's anything that's bad
that Republicans do anywhere. To get Democrats to pay attention,
they have to make it seem like Donald Trump has
rolled his sleeves up and is in the back room

(26:48):
pulling all of the strings and doing everything necessary to
get this thing forward.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
I'm laughing a little bit because I'm just thinking, because
Trump is the ultimate villain, what are all those people
with Ukraine for in their bio, gonna do if Trump
actually gets peace in Ukraine. I do think that the
the the cognitive dissonance of Trump bringing peace to the world,
they expect them to bring World War three.

Speaker 1 (27:13):
If we played the Hillary Clinton can I tell you,
Can I tell you what I think they'll do. You're
again you're you're asking the rational question, yes, which is
if Trump, if Trump has clear success in this negotiation,
if the pressure on Russian oil got putin to the table,
cease fire happens. And I think laying this out. Laying

(27:34):
this out is you know important now, because they're gonna move.
They're gonna change up everything, right, They're gonna change up
the situation no matter what, because they don't want to
give Trump the credit for it. But I think that
if he does get an irrefutable win, like if we
lay out what the win looks like, he gets the win,
what they will say is, well, it was really all Zelenski.

(27:56):
I think that's probably the move. That Zelenski is the
one they just they shift the focus to he was
doing and remember, look, is that what happened? Should the
lens Ga get credit for standing up for Russian aggression? Sure, yeah, absolutely,
But they'll just use the focus shift, so they'll make
it seem like Trump was almost like a waiter bringing
them bottles of Perier during the negotiation.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
I think that's a possibility to do. I think they'll
claim that the settlement actually favors Putin and Trump did
it because he's a Russian stooge. I think they'll just
pretend Ukraine never happened, they never had the bios, and
I think their brains are broken. They will say, oh,
of course Putin negotiated with Trump, That's what you would

(28:37):
expect a Russian asset to do, and he sold Ukraine
down the river and Ukraine didn't have options otherwise. That's
probably where I think they're going to have to go,
because otherwise they would have to acknowledge that their chosen leader,
Biden was an impotent failure who allowed Ukraine to be invaded,
and Trump was the one who protected them, and their

(28:58):
brains won't allow them to do it. Speaking of protection,
a lot of you out there right now kids are
going back to school. My two oldest go back to
school on Monday. Many of you out there with kids
going off to high school, college. Maybe they're driving for
the first time grandkids as well. Do you have protection
for them that's non lethal pepper sprays? How about alarms
in the house, how about alarms for the dorm rooms,

(29:20):
for the apartments, some of those places that your kids
could end up living a little bit sketchy, a lot
of those college towns. Maybe you want to provide them
a little bit of protection, but you want it to
be non lethal because everybody's got friends coming in at
all hours in college towns. When your kids going out
living on their own, probably not living in great neighborhoods
those first few years. Check out saber. They can provide

(29:42):
non lethal protection. You can hook your kid up, You
can hook your grandkid up with a lot of awesome devices.
We have every single one of them in our own house.
You can get them for your own house as well.
It's a family business. They take care of you. The
pepper Gel projectile projectile launcher, shaped like a pistol or
rifle depending on model, fires off. Peppergel projectiles targeted long

(30:03):
distance and effective to end any intruder, but also non
lethal so you don't have to worry about somebody being injured.
Decide together, what's your most comfortable coming and relying on
Check it out today at saberradio dot com. That's SA
b r E radio dot com. You say fifteen percent
there at saberradio dot com. That's sa b r E

(30:24):
radio dot com. You can also call eight four four
eight two four safe. That's eight four four eight two
four safe.

Speaker 5 (30:32):
Stories of Freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
Each day, spend time with Clay and buy.

Speaker 6 (30:41):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (30:46):
Awaiting more news from Alaska, where President Trump and Putin
will meet up in the On the flight the way there,
Trump said Buck that he would be upset if Putin
didn't know Rea to an immediate ceasefire. So on the
gambling markets there is a two percent chance that the

(31:08):
immediate cease fire comes to pass. So for those of
you out there have not been paying a lot of
attention to the negotiation elements associated with Ukraine and Russia,
Ukraine's position has been, in order to actually negotiate an
into the war, we need to have a guaranteed cease
fire in place. Both sides stop firing, put down their arms,

(31:29):
and then the negotiation starts. Here's a question for you, Buck,
because I think this is the thing that Ukraine is
going to most care about. They're going to have to
give up some territory. I don't think there's any doubt
about that. Where exactly that territory line is will be
negotiated extensively. What kind of guarantees, if any, should the
United States make to Ukraine when it comes to providing

(31:54):
security for them going forward? We know the mineral Rights
deal is there. Ukraine's biggest concern is Russia will agree
to a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement here, and then
they'll just invade again somewhere down the line, probably after
Trump is out of office, maybe when we get another
weak Democrat in office that putin feels like he can exploit.
To What extent should America provide security guarantees over and

(32:18):
above the mineral Rights agreement that has already been put
in place. Does that make you nervous? Ukraine obviously wants NATO.
Russia is very opposed to Ukraine being allowed to be
in NATO, which would provide more of the European security guarantee.
What American involvement should there be, if any, in negotiating
a ceasefire not only for this situation, but to allay

(32:43):
Ukrainian concerns that Putin will just invade again in another
couple of years.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
I think it's going to be economic and materiel support.
But you know, we can't get into a situation where
we have some tripwire for US military. Basically we can't
offer them, which really goes to the heart of a
lot of the initial conflict here, which is membership in
NATO an Article five protection. Can't do that, I mean,

(33:12):
that would destroy the If Putin even thought that that
was something we were going to ask or demand, there
would be no negotiation at all.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
Right, that's a total.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Red line for him, and so getting to that through
another through other means, I think is just as much
of a red line. So how do we guarantee it?
We say, you know, one, Clay, I think we probably
end up saying in new guarantees in life. And second
we say that there'll be economic consequences and pressure and
sanctions and things like that.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
But unless we.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
Want to start having our planes blow up Russians and
our boys in trenches, you know, having these little anti
personnel drones flying at people, which we don't want, by
the way, to be very clear, it completely oppose this.
There are limits to what we can do, right, this
is the thing. We're not willing to go to war.
We're not willing to fight a war on behalf of Ukraine.

(34:03):
So our guarantee of whatever the settlement is is going
to have to be something along the lines of We'll
give you a lot of guns, weapons and money and
will be very mad at Russia, or we're not rolling
in like the cavalry to clean up the mess.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
Here's another aspect of this that I think is significant,
and this is where the intelligence agencies would actually be useful. Unfortunately,
I'm sure there's forty eight different explanations of this question
or analysis of this question. How many more years is
Putin going to have control of Russia? How healthy is
he actually because one of the downsides of any negotiation

(34:38):
between Trump and Putin is, unfortunately we've only got Trump
for about three and a half more years as president
of the United States. Now, hopefully he's followed up by
someone who is of a Trumpian ilk and not someone
who is like Joe Biden. But Putin can play the
long game because he's in a position of power, presumably
maybe for another generation. What is Putin sixty eight, seventy

(35:01):
years old, something like that. I think I would think
he probably has another decade again, you don't ever know
about health, maybe a generation of leadership, so he can
afford to play the long game and presume that at
some point in time there's going to be another American
president and maybe that president's going to be weak like
Biden was. Because I don't think it's any coincidence that

(35:23):
Putin waited until Biden was in office to invade Ukraine,
just like I don't think it's any coincidence that Gaza,
the Hamas occupants of inside of Gaza went after Israel
while Biden was in office either. I think they knew
weakness when they saw it. I think they were right
to strategically take advantage of the Biden administration's weakness and

(35:45):
effeckless inability to protect us and those around the world.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
Yeah, I think that my expectations for this, just to
be very clear, are pretty low. I think that it's
very likely that you'll see is some desire on both
sides to suggest there's progress, which is completely understandable, certainly
on the side of Trump, because Trump really does want progress.

(36:11):
We want this thing over with, right, There's no part
of Trump, there's no part of Maga. I really think
there's no part of most of the Republican Party. You know,
Democrats on this one they want very clearly. Isn't weird
how this has become a partisan thing too? Yes, it
really shouldn't be partisan because you're getting beyond the normal

(36:34):
party lines here other than what Trump has said about
it and what Biden has said about it. You know,
because Democrats are generally like to think of themselves, at
least as anti war of thows, we know that's not true.
They just tend to be more interested in wars that
have no benefit to the American people whatsoever, but make
them feel good about themselves. Now, Republicans, I'm not saying,
have done a great job. You go back to the

(36:55):
Bush administration with why and how they're you know, running
running the war machine. But that's exactly the point, though,
is that you can see these things usually outside of
or a wise enough person can see these things outside
of just a straight partisan lens. But the Ukraine flag
thing was just it was almost comedic for a while there,

(37:16):
where you had all these people who were just switching
out their Fauci syringes and masks for Ukraine flags all
over social media.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
And this is real. You could see this happening.

Speaker 1 (37:26):
Sometimes they have them both at the same time as
part of the transition. But we should just all want
this thing to end as quickly as possible. There's zero
benefit to America of this continuing. And this is what
I've said all along too. There's no way that Ukraine
can win, meaning kick Russia out of everywhere, so it's

(37:46):
going to have to give up some stuff. The question
is what it's going to have to give up. So
negotiation is the only way this ends, because the idea
that Russia is going to just lose is not a.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Real idea at all. But you got you know, was.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
A Pelosi said this, this is, this goes to this
has cut fifteen guys. Play this for a second. They're
fighting for our democracy. This is Nancy Pelosi play it.

Speaker 7 (38:08):
We want that people of Ukraine, as we command them
for fighting for democracy, and in fighting for their democracy too,
their fighting for ours as well. They are fighting to
democracy writ large.

Speaker 2 (38:24):
This is why I think it's so amazing to contemplate
if Trump actually gets peace and Vladimir Zolinsky comes out
Vladimir Putin. The Zolensky and Putin press conferences, presumably Trump
would be involved with one in Ukraine and one in Russia.
I can't imagine they would have a joint press conference,

(38:44):
although maybe they would. But if Zolensky comes out and
says President Trump was instrumental in bringing peace to Europe,
we could not have done this without him. What in
the world are all the Ukraine bioflag people going to do.
I don't even know what flag they're going to put
up next. They can't wear masks now because they're concerned
Ice is wearing masks, after wearing masks themselves for years.

(39:07):
They can't fly the Ukraine flag. They can't fly the
American flag because it's racist. I don't even know of
the Palestine flag, I guess. But what if Trump brings
peace and gods it to They're running out of things
they can stand on, and I think it's funny, but
I do think it goes to the essence of the
Democrat Party. I can tell you pretty simply what someone

(39:30):
who voted for Trump believes. America is the greatest country
in the history of the world, and we can be
even better than we have been in the past. I mean,
that's a story and a sentence for what a Trump
voter would believe. What does a Democrat believe? What does
the party? You asked this question? I think it's such
a good question because I think it goes to the
essence all the Democrat believes is the opposite of whatever

(39:52):
Trump says. That's not actually a foundational party, because what
we're seeing here is a lot of what Trump says
is postpart meaning Trump's supposed to supposed to more murder
in VC, Democrats are now aligned against it. Trump is
opposed to the war in Ukraine, continuing, He's painting Democrats
into an incredibly tiny corner. Because when you make your

(40:15):
entire party predicated on opposing Trump, what if Trump is
doing as he is now a lot of things that
are very popular and aren't directly connected to traditional notions
of political parties.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
Well, I think it also it is a reminder of
what the mindset became openly at the Washington Post in
Trump's first term, where the way that they try to
hold on to were a news organization that objectively reports
the truth, but everything we say and do is geared

(40:46):
toward attacking Trump is that whatever is true is inherently
anti Trump. And I want to be clear, if that
was their philosophy, I mean this was You can hear
people writers, people the Washington Post would say this that
the problem, the roots of anti trump Ism in the
reporting were directly from the fact that all truth truth

(41:10):
must be anti Trump because he's so bad. But Clay,
what you're raising here is, well that first of all,
that that's obviously an insane belief. But just put this
aside for a second. What then happens Whenever Trump does
something good, if you're unwilling to tell the truth about it,
you have to lie. So you have no room to
go with right, if everything that Trump does, if all

(41:31):
truth is bad for Trump, and Trump does a good thing,
how can you tell the truth about Trump?

Speaker 2 (41:39):
You can't. This is where we are with that. This
is why you're seeing on the foreign policy stuff.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
Well, they better hope that he doesn't pull off something
good here, because this is like the old If Trump
cured cancer, they'd be pro cancer, Yeah they would.

Speaker 2 (41:53):
Or they would come up with some way.

Speaker 1 (41:54):
I mean there's maybe a little bit of a more
sly way for them, which is what I was alluding
to with with Zelenski, which is just to say, even
if it's even if Trump is the point man on
something and gets the win, they'll find a way to
make it someone else if they if they can't say
it's bad, it's someone else's win. Or Trump didn't really
do that, you didn't build that, you know, that's that's

(42:14):
the real move.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Well, and again this is I think there is a
huge world to examine of of groups that Trump broke
because their only position was reflexively anti Trump. There was
no nuance to it. I think the legacy media is dead.
I think it's finished. I think that the Democrat Party

(42:37):
right now as we know it is dead and buried.
It does not exist. I think the woke universe that
surrounded Trump in opposition has crumbled in essence around him too.
You cannot define yourself as being opposed to someone else
because at some point they checkmate you. And I think

(42:59):
every day we are seeing Democrats getting checkmated. I mean,
let me play this cut for you. Eric as we
go to break. Eric Swallwell Buck is now saying there
are no criminals in d C outside of politics. It's
just transparently ridiculous. Listen to this.

Speaker 8 (43:17):
Federal troops and federal law enforcement are coming to a
federalized Washington, d C. The stated reason crime is on
the rise. Well, I don't know if that's true, but
I know there are way more criminals in Washington, d C.
Today than there were back in early January. And there's
a direct line between a thirty four count convicted felon

(43:37):
coming to a Northwest neighborhood having other cases that disappeared
that he should have been held accountable for bringing his
seven bankruptcy and his network of other convicts and thieves
and thugs into our community. Yes, there are more criminals
in Washington, d C. Most of them are in the
Trump administration.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
Most of them. I mean, it's so ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
Well, I got a fever as a Republican and the
only prescription is more Swallwell.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
More of this guy.

Speaker 1 (44:07):
We need Swalwell twenty four to seven out there in
the media being the He should be the guy that
Democrats turned to on everything because they will never win
another national election for the rest of their lives.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
I think this is fantastic. We need more Swalwell.

Speaker 1 (44:21):
I have I'll tell you this, I have never met
a Democrat that liked this guy, that like would go
that would go out of their way. Now maybe they
defend him or whatever because he's a Democrat sometimes, but
none of them.

Speaker 2 (44:32):
Are even vaguely uh you know pro Swallwell.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
I know, I know people were big Bernie people, Hillary people,
Obama people, everything else, now AOC people. There's all these
but Swalwell is uh. We just need more of him,
We need we need him making the case all the time.
It would be a great thing for America if whenever
somebody thought what's a Democrat, it was this guy and
his uh, his esteemed record.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Which I think Hejamin Crockett should pair up. I think
that's the best possible. They should go on together. They should,
They really should.

Speaker 1 (45:03):
Yeah, it would be a good move. I think that
would be excellent because I don't I agree. I don't
even know what he thinks he's saying. It's so dumb
that I'm not sure that he even understands the point
that he's trying to make. It's so dumb, it's not
even wrong, Clay, I don't know what it is. That's
where Swowell is, all right, we got to talk about
preborn here for a moment, Preborn is in a league
of its own. This is a nonprofit saving the lives

(45:25):
of tens of thousands of babies every year. In fact,
they've saved thirty seven thousand unborn babies this year alone.
Preborn's mission is to save lives every day by offering
pregnant moms support, love, and the option of life for
their child. The team of people working at Preborn provide
these pregnant moms with all that assistance, and the ultrasound
that they give for free to these pregnant mothers is

(45:48):
the beginning of saving so many lives. The ultrainic experience
costs twenty eight dollars per ultrasound. If you can donate
twenty eight dollars today, you'll be helping Preborn save a
tiny baby's life in the womb. Some mom is going
to have a little boy or a little girl, and
it's going to be a huge part of it is
that this ultrasound happened and that you funded it. Preborn

(46:08):
operates clinics and communities across our nation where abortion rates
are highest. To donate securely pound two fifty and say
the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty, Say baby or
go to Preborn dot com, slash Buck Preborn dot com
slash b u c K sponsored by Preborn.

Speaker 5 (46:25):
Stories of Freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you unite.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Us all each day.

Speaker 6 (46:31):
Spend time with Clay and find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
Clay, have you heard of the Rio Reset? Sounds like
a trendy new workout Buck.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
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 2 (46:53):
Smart move to stick with Bricks. We know what happens
when acronyms don't end. They confuse everyone. Well, that's an understatement.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
Is a group of emerging economies hoping to increase their
sway in the global financial order.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
Now that sounds like the plot line of a movie.
I'm listening.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
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.

Speaker 2 (47:19):
Can he give us some inside intel?

Speaker 1 (47:20):
Absolutely? 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 2 (47:29):
Yikes, that doesn't sound good. We got to get Philip
on the line.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
Stat already did, and he left the Clay and Buck
audience this message.

Speaker 9 (47:37):
The world is moving on from the dollar quietly but steadily.
These nations 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 1 (47:55):
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

(48:17):
informed decision. One more time, Text my name Buck to
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight. Welcome back into Clay
and Buck. Big news of the hour of the day
of the moment is this high stake summit of Trump
and Putin meeting in Alaska. And I would say one
part of this, as we're looking to see I really

(48:40):
everybody the same way that Clay has taken a very
brave stand recently that he is anti murder.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
I am he you know, it was bold. It was bold.

Speaker 1 (48:51):
Clay does not like the the killing of somebody in
a crime for no reason.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
That's bad. It's bad.

Speaker 1 (48:58):
And I know what I'm gonna I co sign with
him on that one. I'm not going to leave him
out on there alone. I think also, ending a a
war over territory that is killing hundreds of thousands of
people is something that any human being could just.

Speaker 2 (49:13):
Very much be in favor of. Right.

Speaker 1 (49:15):
This is very obvious, very easy stuff to root for.
It's not controversial. It's one of those rare things that
really isn't or I should say shouldn't be partisan, even
though in this case it has been made very partisan.
And I'm hopeful of this will come to an end.
I would also say, though Clay, the possibility here of

(49:35):
I think a really nice again, most important, I just
want to say all that stuff because the most important
thing is that you know, young Ukrainian men, young Ukrainian,
young Russian men are are not just just getting blown
up for what right this is happening every day.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
It's horrible.

Speaker 1 (49:53):
But something else that could be an additional benefit of
all this is it'd be good for business and the
which matters for.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
A whole lot of people all over the world too.

Speaker 1 (50:04):
If Russia wasn't doing this, if Russia's war it's aggressive
war here and the sanctions that are in place and
all the rest. So oklay, I think there's a possibility
that this could have some nice movement in the markets too,
if it comes to what feels like a real move forward.
It can't just be some empty words from putin this time.

(50:26):
But if it looks like it's really going in the
right direction, you know, we're heading to a place where
the Iran nuclear program is not something anyone cares about
right now. I mean, in general, I know there are
people in the Pentagon and stuff youal care, but it's
not something that is worrying anybody.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
I think we're reaching the end.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
Here pretty soon of Israel's counter strike against Hamas in Gaza.
I think that's going to be everyone can see it's
coming to a final phase. And now you have this,
and if this were to be taken off the table
as just a geopolitical flashpoint, as a point of instability

(51:06):
for national security, but also on the economic front energy, how.

Speaker 2 (51:11):
It effect the energy prices. It just to be a
huge win all around.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
It's such a big win that if he pulls it
off Hillary, I know, she said in a snarky way,
but she would even I think she should be held
to this. If he pulls us off, he should get
the Nobel Piece price.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
I don't think there's any doubt. Some news on the meetup,
it was unclear who exactly would be in the room.
The room is a trio from the United States, reportedly
Steve Witkoff, who is Trump's friend, billionaire advisor who has
been trying to negotiate peace around the world. Marco Rubio

(51:47):
obviously Secretary of State, and Donald Trump. We know putin
on the Russia side. We don't know the exact three
v three setup that will be taking place, but that
Whitcoff is a Miami beach guy. By the way, he's name, Yeah,
he's my neighbor.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
I could I could walk to Wick Coff's house in
like a couple of minutes.

Speaker 2 (52:09):
He's been all over the world trying to bring peace.
I mean, he's basically Trump's global emissary for peace. So
you've got that trio. I do think this is smart
strategically because if it were Trump putin one on one,
then there would be a lot of discussion about, oh,
they're you know, trying to Manchurion Canada, Trump all these

(52:31):
different things. Rubio has been one of the best. There's
been a bunch, but one of the best cabinet secretary picks.
I think it's fair to say of Trump. I mean,
I think Marco Rubio has been just just fabulous, just incredible.
Steve Witcoff obviously, but I think three v three is
not a bad It's not big enough number where there's

(52:51):
tons of people talking and there's lots of conflicting voices,
which is always a challenge in these negotiations, but it
lets you know, Okay, here are the guys, and I
presume it'll be six men. Here are the guys that
are going to be determining what the parameters of a
potential peace deal could be. Now you know, it's just
as a bat I'm sorry go ahead. No, I was
just gonna say, We've talked a lot about the Trump side.

(53:15):
I think Trump's motivations are pretty clear. Hey, let's have
less people dying. To your point, I think it's very
hard to say something negative about Trump as it pertains
to this story, even if you're trying. Why would Putin
go all the way to Anchorage, come to the United
States and not have the intent of advancing talks in
some way. It's not like Trump and Putin meet face

(53:37):
to face all the time. I don't think Putin has
met with a president in years and years. He hasn't
been to the United States and eight years or something.
Seems a little bit unlikely to me that he would
travel all this way and spend all this time with
no intent to advance towards peace or a negotiated settlement
in some way. Just trying to analyze it from his perspective,

(53:58):
it doesn't add up to me that he would go
all the way face to face to tell Trump, hey,
screw you, we're not gonna come to any kind of agreement.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
At some level, I think you could arg I think
people might argue Clay on that one. I tend to
agree with you. That there's clearly some motivation here for
Putin to he's feeling some pressure and there's a desire
to at least look like he wants to have some
kind of a conversation about this. But I also think
that there's the he's legitimized on the world stage as

(54:29):
not just like the Russian bad guy, but ahead of
state he's meeting with Trump. You know, it goes to
the propaganda of oh, well, like Putin's actually he's trying
to you know, he's reasonable.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
Russian.

Speaker 1 (54:41):
Russian aims in this war are not are not beyond
the pale. It is kind of funny though, that the
the venue for this negotiation is the place where America
made the second best land.

Speaker 10 (54:57):
Deal in its history was eighteen sixty seven seven million
bucks Seward's Folly they called it, right is so Alaska
is after the Louisiana purchase YEAP, which was really just
because of all time.

Speaker 1 (55:14):
Yeah, the number one, number one greatest land deal ever done.
I'm sorry Trump. I know Trump's done some great deals,
but I think Louisiana purchase, I think we got to
give credit probably the greatest, probably the greatest deal for
land of all time. But buying Alaska from the Russians
for seven million bucks.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
That one.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
In retrospect, that was quite a deal. That's quite a move.
We want to talk to the art of the deal.
You get all that now. Of course, this is before
the discovery of oil, right, so there's that people didn't
recognize that oil was going to be the you know,
most valuable in some ways, or one of the most
valuable natural commodities in the world, natural resources in the world.

(55:55):
But yeah, America really showed Russia what's up back in
eighteen sixty seven.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
All right, there's gonna be some I love the We're
gonna get the history NERD contingent firing away. The purchase
of Manhattan for some trinkets probably a pretty good deal,
was it. Twenty three dollars in trinkets turned out to
be a pretty good value back in the seventeen hundreds
if I'm remembering correctly. Eighteen oh three Louisiana purchase. Can

(56:22):
just throw out there though, that was that's the Dutch, right,
the Dutch did it? Oh we want a country yet,
So yeah, that's a good distinction for what I says, too,
pulled that one off. So we're talking about American land
deals here. Baby.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
That was the Dutch who were like, you know, they
kind of faded after that. That was their high that
was their high point.

Speaker 2 (56:41):
The by the way, one update on the meeting, I said,
I'm reporting this is Caitlin Collins from CNN who put
this out three v. Three. Uh. They're also then going
to expand at a working lunch. This is I mean,
I think the psychology on this is do you really eat?
I mean, are people like working? Can you imagine you're

(57:03):
trying to hammer out the biggest peace treaty since World
War Two and they're standing in line at a buffet
or maybe they're getting delivered food on the base. Do
you really eat? The working lunch element to this is
really kind of they're like, hey, guys, maybe we don't
have the hamburgers. Maybe we just kind of focus on
trying to hammer out the peace deal. But the bilateral

(57:25):
working lunch is going to be Trump Rubio, Hegseeth Bessant.
So that's the Secretary's of State, of the Defense and
of the Treasury, as well as Scott Lutnick, who is
Secretary of Commerce wit Cough and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

(57:46):
My point again on this that I would reiterate is
that's basically everybody who matters at the top levels of
the United States government, all of them have traveled all
the way to Anchorage, Alaska for this meeting. We don't
know exactly who Puton is bringing, but that's not the
kind of crew you roll with if this is supposed
to be some sort of formality and not a significant discussion. Again,

(58:10):
we don't know what the outcome is going to be,
but Trump basically is bringing the five or six most
significant people in the administration to meet face to face
with Russia's leadership as well, and I presume Putin must
be bringing all of his top guys as well, uh,
in order for this meeting to take place. But yeah, lunch,

(58:31):
working lunch. I mean, that seems kind of hard. It's
just it's weird.

Speaker 1 (58:35):
Ian Trump is gonna think they brought some some big
Max and Diet Cokes for Trump.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
He's a fan. I think he's probably gonna just roll out,
you know, quarter pounders, although that's a cultural statement as well,
since McDonald's had to pull out of Russia. That's one
thing that I think is actually very interesting about all
of this. How do we desanctify Russia. We took all

(59:00):
Western assets effectively out of the country. They gave them
all to interior. How do we de sanction? How do
wed sanction them? Take the sanctions off at this? Yeah,
how do we How do we like, do they go
back to McDonald's in Subway instead of the Russian You know.

Speaker 1 (59:13):
Not not to open it, not to open up the
tennis conversation again, but I will say this, I've seen
this because there are a lot of great Russian tennis players.
It's a sport where Russians are. I think that and
probably ice hockey are the places where you got the
highest Russian uh, you know, Russian level athletes at the
top level.

Speaker 2 (59:30):
Am I missing one?

Speaker 4 (59:31):
No?

Speaker 2 (59:31):
I was just gonna say to your point, it's a
good one. Remember we're hosting the Olympics in twenty eight.
Russian involvement could be significant. Historically, Russian American competition in
the Olympics has been a very significant geopolitical flashpoint. So
I wonder if I might get mentioned here.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
And and and beyond that, though, I just think this, uh,
not having the Russian flag for Russian players in tennis,
but having this little empty square is ridiculous, It's dumb.
It's not the players fault, that's their nationality. This is
this is like virtue signaling, you know, idiocy.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
Okay, it's agree, you're.

Speaker 1 (01:00:07):
You're you're identifying the nationality of the player. You're not
bowing down and saying Russia is great and playing the
Russian national anthem before every tennis match.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
So I just think that this but this goes to this.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
Mentality where people a lot of the stuff you see
around the Russian Ukraine War in this country is just
posturing by people who like to think that they're braver
than they are on issues where they're not taking any stand. Really,
they just want everyone to think they're taking some kind
of a stand. I mean, what, like what why punish
the Russian players they're not, they didn't do anything.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
Maybe don't put in racism in the end zone for
NFL stadiums, like right. I mean, I think all of
this political posturing in the world of sports is absurd.
I sign off on that. I mean, the idea that
you can't have the flag. By the way, breaking news
coming down, Trump told Brett Baher, I won't be happy
Fox News is Brett Bayer, I won't be happy if
I walk away without some form of ceasefire. So I

(01:01:03):
would just say he's raising a bit expectations for what
this meeting will actually result in. So heck, I mean
stay tuned. I mean obviously Sean Hannity is in Alaska
and will be live right after us. I don't know
when this is going to officially we'll get breaking news
on this, uh, but headed into the weekend, this is

(01:01:25):
potentially gonna be good. I'm gonna throw producer ally under
the bus again, by the way, you know, I hate
to do this before the weekend. Clay twice harsh within
the same hour. Producer, Ali, do you want to come
up on the mic? You told us that Air Force
one landed like an hour and a half before Air
Force one actually landed. Thankfully, air Force one has landed safely.

(01:01:45):
Would you like to apologize to this massive audience for
your failures not only here, but also forgetting me to
say kfab.

Speaker 4 (01:01:51):
Yes, I am crouched in the fetal position under the bus.

Speaker 2 (01:01:56):
I said. During a break, I was like, Ali, they are.
Brett Baird just tweeted, Hey, we just landed in Alaska
and we said it. I thought, because I saw Trump
taking off. How did they get there that fast? So
producer Ali, I mean, all right, I blame a I.
You know, we're trying to try to find this information
for you fast. I relied on AI and it failed me.
There you go, Rock, Rock Letter Astray come back.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Rock dramatically underestimated the speed of the Bucksters serve for
any of you who tried that one. Not even close,
not even close. Some people are saying, Rock.

Speaker 2 (01:02:27):
I don't know. Elon got to look at it a little
more closely. Uh, we're shareholders, so I hope he looks
at it very closely and gets it fatally. X AI,
great company. We love it. When we come back, we'll
close up shop on the on the week and give
you the absolute latest, hopefully while being accurate. But in
the meantime, I want to tell you Rapid Radio has

(01:02:50):
got an incredible offer for you can get hooked up.
I mentioned this. It's actually pretty fabulous for everyone in
my family. We've been able to get hooked up with
my mother in law, who lives in a home that
does not have consistently great cell phone service. She's been
frustrated by it. My wife has been very frustrated by it.
The other day. Guess how they're communicating straight to rapid

(01:03:11):
radios when my mother in law is in her home.
This is in the Nashville area. Shouldn't be an issue.
She doesn't have Cure talk, by the way, but there
is a cell phone not working very well. If you
have a situation like this and inevitably that can be
very frustrating. It suddenly has happened in your neighborhood. Maybe
it could sell towers now, maybe something's going wrong. You

(01:03:31):
can communicate using this as a good backup for that
rapid radios. We've also got my ten year old. He
likes to go down to the grocery store and just
buy himself a little snack sometimes with his friends. He
doesn't have a cell phone yet, but if we want
to let him walk into the neighborhood grocery store. Sometimes
we will say, hey, just take this walkie talkie so
we know you're okay. You can just hop on. They

(01:03:52):
think it's cool because kids love walkie talkies. Maybe you're
gonna be on a car trip and you were going
to be in multiple different cars. You just want to
be able to stay in touch with somebody else. And
also maybe you're worried about what might happen when it
comes to hurricane season, which we're in the middle of
right now, or tornado season, which is always going on
here where I live in the Nashville area. You can

(01:04:12):
get hooked up right now with the Rapid Radio's fabulous offer.
Get everyone hooked up two hundred team members simple click
of a button, or just your family, only a few people,
whatever you want. Rappit Radios connects to a nationwide LTE network.
They don't require any setup. They're compact in size, five
day battery charge, one hundred percent private, no monthly fees,

(01:04:34):
sixty percent off right now if you go to rapid
radios dot com. That's rapid radios dot com. Code radio
for an extra five percent off rapid radios dot com.

Speaker 6 (01:04:46):
Keep up with the biggest political comeback in world.

Speaker 2 (01:04:49):
History on the Team forty seven podcast.

Speaker 6 (01:04:52):
Playin Buck Highlight Trump free plays from the week Sundays
at noon Eastern. Find it on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.

All Episodes

Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Aug 15 2025

Episode Transcript

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Clay Travis

Buck Sexton

Show Links

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Aug 15 2025