Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Sep 1 2026

The opening segment centered on dramatic developments in the Lindsay Clancy trial in Massachusetts after jurors informed the judge they were deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Clay and Buck analyzed the likelihood of a mistrial, debating whether the jury's division reflects broader national disagreements over the use of the insanity defense, criminal responsibility, and mental health claims in high-profile murder cases. The hosts argued that the facts of the case are largely undisputed and discussed concerns that a deadlocked jury could force prosecutors to decide whether to retry the case. They also examined public reactions to Clancy, particularly support groups and advocates who have rallied around her, and questioned the implications for future criminal cases involving mental health defenses. The conversation expanded into a broader discussion of public perception, social media influence, jury dynamics, and the challenges of finding impartial jurors in widely publicized cases.

The show then shifted to national politics and the continuing controversy surrounding President Trump’s White House ballroom construction project. Clay and Buck discussed a legal challenge seeking to halt the project and the court rulings that allowed construction to continue. The hosts argued that opposition to the ballroom is largely political and debated whether objections are rooted in historical preservation concerns or broader opposition to Trump himself. They also explored the constitutional and legal questions raised by presidential authority over modifications to the White House and examined the practical benefits of the ballroom, including security, logistics, and hosting official events. The discussion included commentary on modernization of the White House and the challenges of maintaining a historic building while adapting it for contemporary needs.

A major political segment examined Donald Trump’s priorities heading into the 2026 midterm election cycle. The hosts questioned whether Trump is as invested in midterm outcomes as he was in previous campaigns, suggesting he may now be more focused on shaping his presidential legacy through long-term projects and institutional changes. They debated the significance of congressional control, the future of Trump’s policy agenda, and whether Republican turnout could suffer when Trump is not personally on the ballot. The conversation also touched on polling reliability, lessons from previous election cycles, and the difficulty of accurately forecasting voter behavior.

Updates on both the Lindsay Clancy murder trial and legal proceedings related to the Charlie Kirk assassination case. Clay and Buck sharply criticized what they described as growing conspiracy theories circulating online regarding Charlie Kirk's murder, arguing that portions of conservative and alternative media have become distracted by claims involving hidden plots, ballistics speculation, and foreign actors rather than focusing on the evidence presented by prosecutors. They maintained that the available evidence points to the accused killer and emphasized that even the defendant's own legal team is not advancing many of the online theories that have gained attention. The hosts argued that the televised trial will likely provide a public examination of the facts and help address misinformation surrounding the case. They also discussed testimony expected from the accused killer's father, arguing that a parent taking the witness stand against his own child demonstrates the seriousness of the evidence in the case.

A major theme throughout Hour 2 was the influence of social media, internet communities, and true-crime culture on public perceptions of criminal cases. Clay and Buck examined what they see as a growing tendency for online communities to become emotionally invested in criminal investigations while developing elaborate alternative narratives unsupported by courtroom evidence. The hosts argued that conspiracy theories and social media speculation are increasingly influencing public opinion and potentially affecting the justice system itself. They specifically highlighted reactions to both the Charlie Kirk case and the Lindsay Clancy trial as examples of how online commentary can sometimes overshadow factual evidence and legal proceedings.

The conversation then returned repeatedly to the Lindsay Clancy case, where jurors remained unable to reach a verdict. Clay and Buck discussed listener emails and calls defending Clancy, particularly arguments that her husband may have been responsible for the murders, which the hosts strongly rejected. They argued that such theories are unsupported by the defense's strategy and by the evidence presented during the trial. The hosts examined broader questions surrounding the insanity defense, criminal responsibility, mental illness, postpartum depression, and accountability in m

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in, Tuesday edition, Clay and Buck.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
We are rolling in with all of you.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Hope that your Tuesday has been going well, and we
hope that the next three hours that we spend with
all of you will be a lot of fun.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
And also.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Somewhat interesting of a day here. Earlier, maybe about an
hour and a half ago, they had a hearing in
the Massachusetts courtroom where Lindsey Clancy is on trial for murder.
And basically the jurors sent a message to the judge
and said, yeah, we can't figure things out.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
We're at a log jam.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
We're not going to come to a consensus here. And
I bet that we have the audio of that and
what it sounded like in the courtroom. But essentially, the
judge comes back and he says, hey, guys, you all
need to go back and you need to continue your deliberations.
This is cut one.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
The question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are
unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you
back out because I know that this was a long trial.
I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over
300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask

(01:25):
you to go back out, keeping in mind all of
the instructions that I gave you, to go out and
to continue your deliberations at this time.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
All right?

Speaker 3 (01:36):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Okay, this doesn't surprise me, Buck.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
As I was talking about yesterday, when they didn't come
back with a verdict before they went into the weekend,
it was giving you an indication that there were probably issues.
If I were assessing what's likely going on here, I
suspect they said, hey, we're at a log jam. We
can't come to a conclusion. Let's all go home and
sleep on it. We'll then come back tomorrow and see

(02:11):
whether or not we agree or disagree on these details.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
They came back.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
They still can't render a verdict, reach a unanimous verdict.
There are three men and nine women. And I tend
to think that this is probably going to end in
a mistrial buck where we'll see what the actual math
ends up being, but it feels like people are digging
their heels in. And, uh, this is a mess of

(02:37):
a case. Uh, what's your take on this as you
see it? Well, because the facts are really not in
dispute at all, uh, What would be the thing that
somebody could say in that jury room at this point
that would sway somebody to their side? I think that
this has become, and we have seen this, Clay, reflected

(02:59):
online for really the whole time this case has been
a national news story.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
This has become oddly personalized by a lot of people.
who somehow see some of their own struggles in what
Lindsay Clancy did, and I can say did because she
admitted to what she has done. It's just a question
of her psychological state. I think that somehow there's been

(03:28):
a mobilization of emotions here overwhelmingly from female supporters of
Lindsay Clancy that are both irrational and very disturbing to
a lot of people who are observing this. There's No
question about what she did. There's no question that it
is about as heinous a series of acts, not just

(03:49):
one act, a series of acts that any human being
could ever conduct. And as we've discussed, there are people
outside the courtroom who are cheering for her. There are
people who very much want her to have a verdict
that essentially absolves her of a criminal state of mind.

(04:11):
mens rea, as you've often talked about here, and somehow
makes this an issue of the mental health system and
not a woman who murdered her three children in a
premeditated and brutal and horrific fashion, who was, I might add,
getting a lot of help and support from her husband,
from others. It was not like she was out on

(04:33):
her own in this process. So yeah, I have a
lot of Concern, Clay, I think it is also likely
heading to a mistrial. I think that's also where this
is going.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
And if it does head to a mistrial, then I
think the state of Massachusetts will have a real decision
to make. And if some of you are saying, OK,
what are the stakes at play? My understanding is, Buck,
if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, she
could be out of a mental hospital as soon as
40 days from now.

Speaker 4 (05:06):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
In other words, as soon as they can demonstrate that
she is no longer insane by medication.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
So she's temporarily insane just enough to murder her own
three children in a brutal and premeditated fashion, but then
sane enough that maybe she should actually pay almost no
penalty for those crimes. killings in the state of Massachusetts
by the state of Massachusetts. It is insane. If that happens,

(05:32):
the only thing that strikes strikes me as clearly insane
about all of this is the notion that she may
escape a real punishment by the state. Those are three
human beings that were murdered, that they were her children
just makes it worse. But the state of Massachusetts has
an obligation to defend each and every one of those
lives the same way they would anybody else, an adult,

(05:53):
any other person, So, I mean, even more so for
children's clearly, but I am, I am troubled. And I
was out yesterday and you were talking about this clay.
I'm troubled that this has gone as long as it has,
because you may just have one person. What is it?
Three men and three men, nine women, nine women, right?
You may have just one woman who sees, she has

(06:16):
seen the Tik TOK commentary on this. She has seen
the online conversations and has decided that, I see something
of myself, my own struggles with depression in Lindsay Clancy,
and therefore I will not vote for a conviction here
on these murders. And if she has dug in on that,
if that juror has dug in, it only takes one,

(06:36):
and then you are heading to a mistrial.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
Yes, that is 100% accurate. And the challenge that I
think the state of Massachusetts would face if they get
a mistrial, let's assume the jury's deadlocked and we can't
get a unanimous verdict of 12th. Then how in the
world do you impanel a new jury and believe that
you're going to get a different verdict than the one

(06:59):
that you already have? Because every single person in Massachusetts,
for sure, but much of the nation has kind of
already made up their mind on this. It's a month
long trial that's been going on. I don't know if
she's willing to plead guilty to any lesser charge. I'm
not sure if the state would offer it. I'm not

(07:21):
sure if Lindsey Clancy's representation would allow it to occur.
But I do think, Buck, what you're going to see
coming out of this is I think way more people
are going to start using the insanity defense because. In
a case like this where you know exactly what happened, now,
some people are saying, oh, I think it was her

(07:43):
actual husband. Some of y'all, let me just say this,
they did the murder. That is a thing that is
out there on the Internet. Some of y'all need to
spend less time on the Internet. And I say that
as a guy who basically lives on the Internet. If
the defense isn't citing your argument as one of the
reasons why the defendant is not responsible for the murder,

(08:06):
we just saw this with Tyler Robinson, so many of
you coming up with different theories on who actually killed
Charlie Kirk other than the guy who all the evidence
points to actually killed him. Some of you, I dive
into the mentions, and it doesn't take very long for
somebody to say, well, I think it was actually the
husband who did all this, and she's taking the fall

(08:26):
for it. First of all, if there was any evidence
of that whatsoever, then you could make that argument, and.

Speaker 2 (08:36):
The defense would use it.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
The defense has to come up with whatever they can
to try to argue that the defendant is not responsible.
Do you think that you're coming up with better defenses
than the lawyers who sit around and and spend thousands
of hours investigating every scintilla of evidence and sit in
a courtroom all day trying to ensure that their client

(09:01):
is not convicted? Do you think that you cracked the
case by going on Reddit threads and sitting around with
a bunch of drunk moms on Facebook Messenger?

Speaker 2 (09:12):
I don't think so. Well, there are, unfortunately, a lot
of people online to whom the answers to all those
questions would be, yes, yes, yes, absolutely. I have figured
out the thing that nobody who is actually paid to
investigate this, and as a professional who has done it before,
has come up with. Clay, I will tell you, I
have a friend in Miami who approached me, and she said,

(09:32):
I think the husband did it. And I just said, honestly,
I can't have this conversation with you. I can't do it.
I can't do it. I cannot talk. There's no way.
Because you've already reached a level of crazy where anything
else that I say about this is just going to
fall on deaf ears. So this happened to you where?
In Miami. Friend of mine. On the street. Wanted to

(09:54):
talk to me. Straight up said it. She goes, what
do you think about the case? And she's obviously a woman.
so it's kind of a neighbor of ours. I said,
I don't want to really get into it. Instead, it's
too horrible, which it is, by the way. Which is what,
by the way, was our initial take on it. Until
I started seeing these crazy women cheering her arriving at trial,

(10:14):
it was just such a dark story that I didn't
really think Again, the story itself is awful, but the
fact that people are celebrating her in any way is,
to me, the thing that makes it a national story.
I also would want to know how anyone could explain
this to me. So we all agree, or I should
say every sane human being who relies on evidence and

(10:36):
not vibes or their gut instinct or feeling for things
like this agrees that she did these three killings, murders
from what I can see. And yet there are people
who would be willing to put this in a situation
where she might actually be released into the public at
some point. If a person cannot be trusted to not

(11:00):
suddenly go crazy and murder their own three children, would
you want to stand next to that person on a
subway platform? Would you want that person to be behind
the wheel of a car that you were in? Would
you think that this person is safe? In general society.

Speaker 3 (11:15):
Why?

Speaker 2 (11:15):
They'd say, oh, but she was fine before. She was
fine until she murdered her three children. And then we're
told now she's going to be fine again. She can
just have that break with reality one time, do the
worst thing a human being, certainly the worst thing a
mother could ever possibly do. But there's no public safety
risk based on what? Because a few state underpaid state

(11:36):
quacks at some mental facility are going to tell her, yeah,
you seem OK. We're going to let you out. That's
a just outcome here? Would you want to be this
woman's neighbor afterwards? People say, yes, I trust her.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
Why?

Speaker 2 (11:50):
You don't know her. All you know about her is
that she murdered her three children and now, and tried
to kill herself, and now we're told she should only
go to a mental facility. But why should she go
to a mental facility to give her a clean bill
of health? Why would she be... When you start to

(12:10):
actually play this out, none of the the Lindsay Clancy-ites
out there make any sense whatsoever. And I think part
of this is just that it's so troubling. By the way,
every angry email I get, and we've gotten a few,
and it's only women, I might add. There's something going
on there, folks. Not a single man has texted me,
called me, told me, you're so wrong, you don't get it.

(12:32):
It's only women who seem to want to take this position,
which tells you something. This is about emotion. This is
not about the logic or the facts of the case.
But every time they send me the email, the second
you tell me that you don't blame this woman for
what she did, I don't care what you have to
say about the case. Like there's no, there's no, there's

(12:55):
nothing else that can be, it would be like someone
telling me, yes, OJ did it, but race relations require this. No, no,
I don't want to, I don't, I'm never, you're never
going to convince me of that. You're never going to
convince me that OJ should have been able to murder
someone Nicole, you know, Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife and
the innocent stand bystander, Ron Golden. And you're never going

(13:18):
to convince me. And I don't think you're ever going
to convince Clay either that this woman shouldn't spend the
rest of her life in prison.

Speaker 5 (13:24):
I don't.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
This is as straightforward as it gets from what I
can see.

Speaker 4 (13:27):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (13:28):
And again, if this were just a dispute about insanity
and how it's going to be applied in a court proceeding.
That story is different to me than I'm going to
go stand on the side of the road, wear pink
like we're a member of a favorite sports team and
cheer for her. Look, guarantees are tough. I would be

(13:50):
stunned if the three men, to your point, Buck, on
this case are in any way considering a not guilty verdict.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
Maybe we'll be wrong. I would be very surprised. I would.
I mean, not that I don't want to turn this into.
It's not like when we're talking about some far less
serious thing.

Speaker 4 (14:03):
Right. But.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
I am certain that it is not the men on
this jury.

Speaker 4 (14:07):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Can you, by the way, this is comedic. So it takes,
can you imagine, take it outside of this, that you
have to convince nine women. You're the three guys that
it's like the most miserable.

Speaker 2 (14:20):
Can you imagine?

Speaker 1 (14:22):
In a highly charged emotional case, take it outside of
this scenario, you're on a jury, there's three dudes, and
you have to tell the nine women all day long,
every day for hours in a jury deliberation room.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
No, you're wrong, no, you're wrong.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
Because to your point, Buck, there is no factual dispute
really here. This isn't like, oh, was the bank robber,
was it actually the right bank robber?

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Are we sure we got the right guy? There was
actually far more reasonable doubt in the oj case oh
and there was not a lot but yes yeah and
there was basically none but there was more yes so
what does that tell you uh we'll take your calls
and your emails send us the angry ones if you
want but it is uh you know when you're getting

(15:08):
it when you're getting attacked by crazies it's kind of
a badge of honor i'm just going to tell you
all right uh guys talking to guys here for a
We all face at one time or another in our lives.
It's when you no longer have all that energy that
you used to have and you're getting slowed down quite
a bit. There's a solution to this, though. Of course,
proper sleep, diet, exercise. You got to get everything dialed in.

(15:29):
But as you're going, proper supplementation is critical. And trust me,
I know about this because I am a chalk daily
guy myself. They're a best-selling product. Chalk makes all these
incredible supplements. The Chalk Male Vitality Stack is specially formulated
to provide you with more energy. And Chalk's Male Vitality
Stack's primary ingredient has proven in studies to restore 20%

(15:52):
of your body's T-levels within three months. Sign up today
at Chalk.com, C-H-O-Q.com. They have a whole bunch of fantastic products,
and they're all top of the line, made right here
in the USA, a company based out of Texas. When
you subscribe for a monthly delivery and use my name, Buck,
You'll get their free $ 99 bag of chalk lit powder
with your first delivery. That's choq.com code buck, choq.com code buck.

(16:17):
Looking for normal in a world of crazy? Clay and
Buck have your back. We had some things breaking yesterday.
Like I mentioned, the White House ballroom, the Supreme Court
having to come in over the top and say that
the White House ballroom construction is can continue Kavanaugh on

(16:38):
the side of the angels, John Roberts on the side
of the communists on this one, not a surprise. So
just able to continue. Think about this though. If they
kept it where it was, it would be rubble. Like
it's already under construction. So now is, is it the

(17:00):
contention of the people that want the Trump ballroom to
stop and that he's not allowed to finish it, but
he should undo it and go back and restore what
was there before. I mean, you want to talk about
a waste of money and going crazy. The whole the
whole thing seems to be pretty nuts to me that
there's such intense opposition to it, especially because, as we've said,

(17:23):
this is a fundamentally sound idea. Clay, you were at
the first White House Correspondents Dinner. which was disrupted by
a lunatic running in with a gun. And that's at
a hotel. And yes, Secret Service tries to secure it.
But as we know, this president is the president under

(17:45):
most threat in our lives. I mean, I think you
could say, I mean, Reagan would be the next closest.
And you could say, well, very, very close. You know,
they both were shot. So obviously both of them under
tremendous threat. I think ideologically, in many ways, this president,
President Trump, is under even considerably more threat. So having
that ballroom makes sense from a security standpoint, makes sense

(18:08):
from a logistics standpoint. And yet, because Trump is doing it,
they have decided that they would rather it sit there,
I guess, a pile of rubble than allow the ballroom,
which no one is suggesting Trump would take with him.
And it's not portable. So it would be there for
whoever wins the next election in 28 to use and

(18:30):
to have their dignitaries and donors and whoever come through.
I just, to me, it's one of these classic Trump
derangement syndrome moments where there's the only reason to really
want to do this or rather to stop him from
doing this is because it's Trump and stopping Trump makes
them feel good. It doesn't matter what it is, even

(18:51):
if it's a dumb thing to stop. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
The legality on this, I will dive into for a moment. But, Buck,
it feels like every single news story is event happens
and then we.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
Wait to see what a judge is going to say.

Speaker 1 (19:10):
Doesn't it feel like that for the last several years
that almost everything is a, okay, we'll see you in court.
We'll see what a judge says. And then a district
court judge says something. And then a circuit court judge
says something. And people argue about what they said. And
then a Supreme Court says something. And then you go
right into the next cycle of what can and cannot occur.

(19:33):
To me, the ballroom legal dispute is actually pretty intriguing
from a legal perspective because and this gets really into
the weeds. But the entire case was based on someone
who objected to the aesthetics of the ballroom dispute. as
a citizen who was interested in historical preservation.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
It basically like offended his sensibilities as he walked by,
I think, was more or less the objection.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
And typically there is a standing requirement. And the standing
requirement of I'm a citizen and I'm upset by something
like a ballroom is typically not going to rise to
the level. What was intriguing to me was so that
they basically dismissed it on that ground, which is going
to allow Trump to get it done. What was interesting

(20:22):
to me was there was an underlying 5-4 decision there.
where essentially the three liberal justices plus John Roberts all
said they don't think that Trump has the legal authority
to be able to undertake this construction. I do think,
I agree with you 100%, the ballroom is going to

(20:42):
be awesome, and it's going to benefit Democrat, Republican, political
parties that we may not know for the next, for
far beyond the life of anyone here going forward. I
do think as a total procedural question, What if the
president just decided to tear down the whole White House?
I mean, there is an argument at some point in time,

(21:06):
and I think it's a fair argument to say, and
many of you may have been involved in this yourselves,
at some point a renovation becomes something different than a teardown, right?
And I know that there is often legal artifice involved
as to the structure and what can be and can't

(21:27):
be done to it. And I know the history, was
it Truman who came in and basically... rip the White
House out from its studs because the whole thing was
in danger of falling apart. And I will say, and
I know this is going to get clipped, people are
going to be mad at me, White House is a little.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Bit shabby sometimes, Buck. Yeah, it is. It's true. And
if you've been there, have you ever been to a
musty old country club? Sometimes it sort of feels and
smells a little bit like the country club from Caddyshack
where Judge Smales could appear in it and be like,
you know.

Speaker 1 (22:02):
Randolph i mean if you've been in most houses that
were constructed in the 1800s most of the time you
don't walk in and think my goodness this house is
a work of art um the white house looks like
it's been what it is a place that has been
well worn and so it doesn't feel um like an

(22:26):
ornate place necessarily and so I do think it needs modernization.
I can't even imagine how difficult, for instance, for any
of you who have built a house or tried to
add in modern tech to a house, you would think
about this quite a lot from a national security perspective.
Think about all the details that have to be put

(22:49):
onto this house from the 1800s. There's a lot to
be done to make it habitable. And I do think
Trump is trying to look forward. I also think this
ties in with the question that I asked. What does
Trump care more about right now? The arch that he's building,
the ballroom that he's building, remaking. I think he put

(23:11):
in marble in one of the bathrooms upstairs. Does he
care more about the legacy work that he is doing
on the White House or who controls the House of
Representatives in January? I think the Senate matters, and I
think he would know because for Supreme Court appointments, which
are so incredibly significant. But do you feel like Congress

(23:34):
is going to get anything done no matter who's in control?

Speaker 2 (23:38):
I really don't.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
I don't have a lot of faith in Congress to
get very much done at all. And so I think
Trump largely feels vindicated by the spectacular win that he
had in 2024. He sees that as his historic legacy,
his moonshot, so to speak. And I don't know that
who wins the midterms. I mean, most of us don't

(23:59):
remember who wins the midterms after. I also think this
ties in with Trump. Trump voters often don't show up
without Trump on the ballot. I know you're pessimistic about
how all this is going to go, but I just
feel like Trump doesn't have the same fire in his
belly for this midterm as he did in 18 or

(24:19):
as certainly he has in 16, 20 and 24 when
he's been on the ballot himself.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
Well, I think I think that's all true. I do
think that legacy building for Trump is going to increasingly
take And that's when you're looking at things like the
arch and the the ballroom and and other things, the
beautification of D.C., the monument building and these things. I

(24:45):
think that Trump is no longer much bothered, if at all,
by the notion of Democrats. If you're Trump at this point,
are you quaking in your in your loafers? when you
hear that Democrats in the House are going to launch
an investigation or even impeach you again, do you care?
You do not care. They're not going to have the

(25:06):
votes in the Senate for removal, so they're not going
to be able to stop him from his last two years.
So what really is the downside for Trump? Now, I
do think that he would like to see his agenda
continue to go through. I'm not saying Trump is hoping
for a loss here, but I don't think he is
as concerned about this as he has been at other times.

(25:30):
And there seems to me to be plenty of cause
for concern if one cares very deeply about how things
are looking in the House and the Senate based on
the data, the polling that we have so far. You
can say all the polling is wrong, but some of
this stuff seems to line up and make sense. I
would just note, sometimes the polling is wrong and we

(25:50):
all know. The perfect example of this was the Seltzer
poll in Iowa for Kamala versus Trump. Kamala was going
to be Trump by three, I believe, was the math
that she had. Was Kamala going to win by three? Yeah.
I thought it was much more than that. Oh, no,
I'm sorry. She was off by like 16. Off by

(26:10):
like 16. Yeah, so that's right. But no one saw
that poll with Kamala winning Iowa and thought, oh, wow,
Kamala's going to win Iowa. We all knew. And that
was the end of that pollster's career, truly was the
end of that pollster's career. I'm not seeing things that
make me think that the current state of the electorate

(26:32):
is poorly reflected. Now, in tight races, a tight race
is a tight race. So you're up, you're down, one point,
three point, whatever, we can't necessarily know. But if Beto
O'Rourke can take it to within three points against Ted Cruz,
I think you have to take seriously that Paxton– has
a real race on his hands with talarico i think

(26:53):
that the tale of two sullivans up in alaska is
concerning just because that will also be tight and the
only need people say oh alaskans figured it out okay
basically all alaskans did but even if a few hundred
get confused or older people they're trying to read.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
This you know it doesn't 3 000 people voted for
the wrong uh sullivan Well.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
That's the whole number that voted for that. Maybe some
of them wanted to vote for him.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
Well, and there could be some truth that otherwise they
would have been Democrat voters. And so they made that choice.
But my point is, I think this race could come
down to 3,000 votes.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
Well, this is the thing. And so that's why the
dirty trick is concerning. And Susan Collins, I think has,
I was very confident that Susan Collins was going to
come out the victor. against, and now in real time
I'm blanking on his name, but the guy that got
pushed out. Floyd Jackson, the new guy. No, no, no.
The guy before that, I'm saying. Graham Platner. Platner, thank you.

(27:53):
Against Platner, I thought that she was looking really, really strong.
She's got more of a challenge on her hands. So
you start to look at some of these tighter Senate seats.
I don't know if I believe the Al-Sayed polling that
I've seen. That's the only one where I start to say, really?
Up by... Because I've seen some that have him up
by a few points. Although it's... It's within the realm

(28:14):
of possibility. That much is for sure.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
I think the polling has been atrocious so far in
the majority of these midterm races. What I would say
is just go vote. And it's ultimately going to come
down to, I think, a handful of people, frankly, just
like 2024 did, and what the actual turnout is. I
will say this if you want a positive. The Democrat

(28:39):
Party as a whole, is actually less popular than the
Republican Party. And there are a lot of people who
are just a pox on both their houses, people who
are just fed up with the political process, which I understand.
Some of them are in this audience and they're saying,
why did I show up and vote if they can't
even pass the SAVE Act? And I understand that perspective

(29:02):
as well. I think there's just a lot of frustrated
Americans at the political representation that we have in congress
and in the senate.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
Period yesterday clay got to introduce you to ben spell
the co-founder of good ranchers sorry i missed the chance
to be here for that conversation it was excellent ben
and his wife corley have built a way for you
and your family to improve the quality of the meals
you eat at home their good ranchers business connects you
with american ranchers and farmers that raise their livestock the
right way pasture raised no antibiotics and no added hormones

(29:33):
imagine your beef selections your chicken and the pork you
eat all raised by those criteria Good Ranchers. partners with
over 100 local farmers and ranchers to deliver 100% American
meat straight to your door. I'll save you the step
of taste-testing their products by telling you it is phenomenal,
because I've had it so many times myself. For a
limited time, you can get free ground beef with your

(29:56):
first Good Ranchers order at That's four pounds of 100%
American Angus ground beef to stock in your freezer. Visit
GoodRanchers.com slash buck to claim your free ground beef bundle. Plus,
when you start a plan, you'll get free meat with
every order. That's GoodRanchers.com slash buck for your free four-pound
ground beef bundle. GoodRanchers.com. Use code buck. American meat delivered.

Speaker 4 (30:22):
Laugh.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
Learn.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Hang with the guys. Right there when you need them most.
Clay and Buck. Just preset them on the iHeart app.

Speaker 1 (30:30):
For number two, Clay and Buck, we appreciate all of
you hanging out with us as we are rolling through
the Tuesday edition of the program.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
Couple of updates.

Speaker 1 (30:41):
The Lindsey Clancy jury said that they could not reach
a verdict a few hours ago. The judge said continued deliberating.
We also have another court hearing going on in Utah
surrounding the Charlie Kirk murder. And Buck, I would just

(31:01):
continue to reiterate that one of the biggest failures in
I would say right wing media as it pertains to
Charlie Kirk's assassination is that case rapidly descended into right
wing conspiracy media rabbit holes. And instead of sitting around

(31:25):
and pointing out that yet another crazed trans inspired killer,
killed Charlie Kirk, the question has been, did his microphone explode?
Why didn't the bullet fully exit? And not look at
the motivations of the guy that was on the bullet

(31:47):
shell casings writing Antifa slogans and far left-wing talking points
and was involved in a relationship with a man pretending
to be a woman and and was motivated based on
trans ideology to kill Charlie Kirk instead has turned into.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Israel killed them. Have you really looked at ballistics?

Speaker 1 (32:13):
And it's not dissimilar in some ways to the Lindsay
Clancy case where people have gone down these crazy conspiracy
rabbit holes. But in the Charlie Kirk case in particular,
His killer was actually the kind of person that many
of you would expect for him to be killed by.
Someone who had left-wing ideals and wanted to silence Charlie.

(32:34):
And instead of having that conversation as the trial moves closer,
much of the conversation has centered around that some nefarious, under-discussed,
entity actually killed him and that Charlie Kirk's killer, Tyler Robinson,
is just the fall guy.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
And a lot of people out there listening to us
right now believe that.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
And they're shaking their heads at me and saying, oh,
you're probably getting paid to say that. Yes, I definitely
want to cover up the Charlie Kirk killer. But unfortunately,
and that's sarcasm for people, unfortunately, that's the world in
which we live now where I think much of the
plot has been lost as it pertains to that killing.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
How many times in the five-plus years now, going on
year six of this program together, Clay, have we both
been completely wrong on a matter of, factual analysis such
that we've had to come back and say, wow, we
missed that. Don't tell them, what about an election? No

(33:41):
one can predict every election. That's not what I'm talking about.
But I'm saying we're telling you this is the case.
Not I think this might be or I think this
will be the case. We're telling you this is what happened.
And we then had to come back and say, you know,
it turns out we're wrong. That isn't what happened. That
isn't a thing. I can't think of a single thing.

(34:01):
I'm telling you guys that Tyler Robinson is the only
person for whom there is any evidence whatsoever shot Charlie Kirk.
I'm telling you that is the current state of play
and an enormous amount of evidence on top of that.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
And then a positive, it is going to be televised,
that trial. And I would just point out that many
of the conspiracy theories that some of you believed or researched,
or read about, they are not even being cited by
the Tyler Robinson defense team. That's how outrageous they are.

(34:39):
That even his defense attorneys, who are trying to come
up with anything to absolve him of culpability, even they
are not citing some of the crazy, harebrained conspiracy theories
that you can find on the internet as potential exculpatory
evidence for Tyler Robinson.

Speaker 2 (35:00):
So we are trying to bring you the best factual
analysis on all of this, always. Best factual realities, best facts,
and the best analysis, of course. The fact that it's televised, though, Clay,
I think a few things are going to come from this. One,
it will be a reminder to some people, based on

(35:22):
even who is maybe in the courtroom and some of
the conversations here, that Charlie Kirk's real friends... his friends
who he was actually very close with at the time
of his assassination. You will not hear a single person

(35:44):
who has Charlie's legacy and family's best interests at heart
who will say that this is a sham trial. And
I'm talking about Donald Trump Jr. I'm talking about J.D.

Speaker 5 (35:55):
Vance.

Speaker 2 (35:56):
I'm talking about people whom all of you, I think,
would trust on a critical issue of character like this
and something as important as this on anything else. So
I think that's part one of it. Just a reminder here.
If Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica, was saying there's a broader conspiracy,

(36:17):
they don't have the wrong guy, anything like that at all,
that would be a signal that something is up. I'm
not saying that that would be proof on its own,
but that would be nobody who was truly concerned invested
in charlie as a human being and as a friend
and had his best interests at heart thinks that this
this trial is a sham or that that there was

(36:38):
an exploding microphone or any of these things that you're
hearing that are along on the internet clay part two
in this just real quick as the trial unfolds you
know what people are going to start saying more and
more online i just wanted to wait and see the
facts presented at trial well i'm telling you right now
people aren't going to like this But that's kind of

(36:59):
a Fauci moving the goalpost thing. You know, Fauci, it
turned into, I know COVID is very different, but Fauci, Clay,
it turned into, oh, nobody really knew. And now we
know more. But that's not what Fauci was saying when
he was making us do all the terrible, stupid things.
It was, I know and I'm certain. There's a lot

(37:19):
of certainty in the conspiracies around Charlie that are out
there right now. A lot of, oh, it's not Tyler Robinson. Oh,
it was some foreign country. Oh, it was an intelligence
or whatever it may be. People are making declarative statements.
They're not just asking questions. And they're going to walk
back the declarative statements when the facts are actually presented
at trial and say, oh, I was just curious. Also,

(37:41):
We're curious people. Why aren't we curious about whether, you know,
some foreign country had Charlie assassinated? Why are we asking
that question? Oh, because we're in their pocket. You know,
they're paying us or something.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
I would also add this. All of I co-sign everything
you said. Let me add this. And I mentioned this before,
but I think this sometimes can cut through the noise.
You're a dad now, Buck. I'm a dad of three.
Tyler Robinson's dad is testifying against him at his criminal

(38:14):
trial for killing Charlie Kirk. For all the dads and
moms out there, is there a dollar figure that you
could be paid to testify against your son or your
daughter and say they committed a murder if you didn't
know to the absolute utmost degree scintilla of your soul

(38:40):
that they were 100% guilty. I'm not sure, Buck, even
if my kid was 100% guilty, that I would be
able to go on the witness stand candidly and testify
against them because it's just so hard to even comprehend.
Tyler Robinson's dad is doing that. Just if you don't

(39:00):
want to believe any of the other things, just think
through what would it have to be the situation for
you to go on the witness stand and lie that
your son or daughter was a murderer. If you had
any doubt at all, would you ever even comprehend or

(39:23):
consider doing that?

Speaker 2 (39:25):
I just I'm glad this is going to be televised.
If somebody said, yeah, yeah. If somebody said, uh, you
have to testify that your son is a murderer when
you did not know 100% that that was the case,
put aside whether even then you would want to do
it or not as a father, Clay. Um, if somebody
sent me that or somebody told me rather, uh, you're

(39:47):
going to have to testify against your son or, you know,
your life is forfeit, right? I'm going to take you out, basically.
I'd say, let's see. No way. Yeah. No way I
would testify against my son. Someone could literally say, I'm
going to kill you if you don't do this. And
I would say, well, I'll take my chances.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
I just think that is the most compelling of all
the evidence that is out there. It is that his
own dad is saying he did it with grandpa's rifle.
the rifle that he knows well. Again, I think, again,
the fact that it's going to be televised. We've got
loaded lines. Tons of people want to weigh in on
a variety of topics so far. Also, people are angry

(40:29):
at us.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
I like that.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
Every time we mention the Lindsay Clancy trial, we get
crazy women emails, and they're furious with us.

Speaker 2 (40:37):
I have friends on this who are personal social friends
of mine, I will admit this, who are in the– One,
I told you I have a neighbor who says that
the husband did it, which is just crazy. Well, this
is the email. That's great. VIP email from Chris.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
First of all, let me say I'm in no way
saying she should be persecuted for not being prosecuted for
a crime. I just want to let you know most
people who are cheering for her acquittal are doing so
because they think she didn't do it. They think her
husband did it. Then her defense would say it.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
I just, when I hear people make these arguments. If
they had any prayer of raising that as reasonable doubt,
they would do it.

Speaker 1 (41:19):
I'm sorry for screaming. I have been a defense attorney.
If there were any evidence at all that someone.

Speaker 2 (41:26):
Other than her murdered.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
The children, it would be their primary defense. They aren't
saying it.

Speaker 2 (41:34):
Because they didn't do it. They have him on the
phone calling the 911 operator when he found her. I mean,
the people in the trial have heard the father. It's
like the most horrific thing, just reading it, by the way.
Just reading the transcript is haunting. And I know because
I read some of it. But the... Audio. They have
the audio of this guy on the phone call. I

(41:54):
know you say, oh, he could fake it. He's a
talented actor. Now you're just going to be crazy. This
is like somebody saying, how do I know North Korea
is a bad place? You've never been there. I don't know.
I trust all of the mountains of evidence that everyone
has ever seen that tell me that it's a rough
place for freedom over there.

Speaker 1 (42:10):
You don't have to physically experience everything. This is like,
and I understand that a lot of you have not
done this. Imagine putting every fabric of your soul into
the job of defending someone at trial and not using
the most useful evidence to keep your client from being

(42:34):
found guilty. It's so unfathomable. First of all, it would
be a, arguably, it would be a disbarable offense if
someone You're not providing adequate counsel, which is what this
would be, and you're ignoring this exculpatory evidence. It did

(42:57):
not happen. If you're believing this, you are, frankly, you've
lost the plot.

Speaker 2 (43:03):
There's something going on here, Clay. There is a real
surge in the true crime online commentary and obsession, folks. who, one,
seem to think that they can figure out from chat
rooms and Google searches more than all the different FBI investigators,

(43:27):
state police, local police, all this. But also they get
particularly deeply emotionally invested in things in which they're really,
really wrong. And that's troubling because– There at some point,
it's it spreads far enough where it can start to
actually undermine the justice system, as we see here, where
I think that some of the jurors have been influenced

(43:48):
in the Lindsay Clancy case by some of the nonsense
that people were saying online. But I'll give you another
example of this. I was just in New York visiting
my family in New York City. A woman was just
stabbed to death in Times Square.

Speaker 4 (43:58):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
Stabbed to death by a lunatic in Times Square. And
the woman with the knives out who had just stabbed
a young female banking executive who I think had either
just gotten engaged or just gotten married. It's a horrible story.
No reason at all. Just lunatic stabbed her to death
in Times Square, broad daylight. And then she runs at

(44:22):
the cops with the two knives and the cops are saying,
drop it, drop it, drop it. And they shoot her.
And there are people online who are saying this is
excessive force. If you think that a person who stabs
someone to death and then runs at a cop with
the same knife that they just stabbed a stranger to
death with, getting shot is excessive force, you are a moron.
And should never think about criminal justice matters again until

(44:43):
you learn something about what you are talking about. But already,
there are all these commenters, oh, it's excessive force, it's
excessive force. It is the definition of Of lawful force.
And if you can't start... When people forget, Clay, that
at the end of the day, we have to have
people able to enforce our laws, enforce them, there is

(45:05):
that word, using force, everything starts to crumble. And whether
it's a proper verdict in the Lindsay Clancy case or
the use of force in this woman, this lunatic in
Times Square, if everything is just kind of up for
a constant... relativistic how i feel today debate then no

(45:26):
one is capable of being held held accountable for anything
and if we have a society without accountability we have
a society that is falling.

Speaker 1 (45:32):
Apart i think you hit on something we should talk
more about which is this true crime obsession that women
have it's not healthy i think the podcast world has
taken it to a completely different level and it I
think we should dive into this and the Internet subculture
surrounding it all. This is uniquely female in.

Speaker 2 (45:51):
Nature, by and large. And I think we should talk
about it. Almost two years ago, we got introduced to
a device and a technology that proved to be really
helpful to a whole lot of people to date. The
device is called a rapid radio. It looks like a
smaller version of a walkie talkie, the kind that we
grew up playing with. Only now in 2026, these aren't toys.
They're actually great communication devices that can connect with anyone

(46:14):
anywhere in the U.S., Think of them as a modern-day
version of the walkie-talkie. Now they have nationwide range. They
operate over an LTE network ready to go right out
of the box with five days of battery power. When
Hurricane Aline descended on the Carolinas two years ago, some
of our relatives were left without power or a way
to communicate. Rapid radios came through for us, keeping us
in touch so we could be in constant communication. That's

(46:38):
why owning rapid radios are so helpful. Weatherproof, they've got
a long battery life, clear audio, and dependable range. Whether
coordinating with neighbors or checking on family states away, connection
is instantaneous. There's no contract to sign, no monthly fees
with Rapid Radios. For a limited time, go to rapidradios.com.
You'll get up to 60% off and free shipping from Michigan.
Add code BUCK and get an extra 5% off. Pre-set

(47:01):
your towels. Clay and Buck on the iHeart app. Third
hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now. Thanks
for being here with us, everybody. And as part of
our discussion today, of course... We have the latest from
President Trump in his showdown with Iran. There have been

(47:22):
more strikes going on. We can give you some of
those updates. The bottom line here, I think, is the
pressure campaign from the Trump side continues. Clearly, the Iranian
regime is hoping to at least push things into the

(47:44):
midterms and use the political leverage that they have. But
the U.S. struck Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island in
the Strait of Hormuz. Iran hit U.S. bases in Jordan,
and there are reports about the UAE being hit as well.
Trump called Iran a failed nation with 300... You know what? Actually,

(48:04):
we have Trump saying this. This was just yesterday. This
is cut to... Here is the president, the commander in
chief saying exactly what he thinks of the situation.

Speaker 4 (48:13):
They're a failed nation. They've got 350 percent inflation. They
have no currency. They're not paying their soldiers. Their leaders
are largely dead. Their Navy is gone. Their Air Force
is gone. Their surveillance equipment is almost entirely gone. That
doesn't mean we won't smack them. We'll see what happens.
But we have the Strait of Hormuz in extremely good shape.

(48:35):
You know, we're taking over. Many, many ships got through
last night, as you know, with the Navy's assistance. And
we've been averaging 30 ships a night.

Speaker 2 (48:44):
That's a lot.

Speaker 4 (48:45):
And a lot of oil is coming out. That's why
you haven't seen the price of oil go like they
thought it might have to go. And the main thing,
when I say it all, I could go on for
an hour about what a great job we've done.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
So, Clay, Trump, once again, saying that we've got the
Iranians More or less right where we want them and
that this has gone the way that we have needed
it to and that we are in a good spot here.
There's certainly Trump's willingness to hit the enemy is something
that no one is questioning. He has done that. many,

(49:20):
many times now. Um, where are we with the price
of gas in the midterms? Cause that is what this
always translates into right away. $ 88 a barrel at this
exact moment in time.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
I was looking it up to see if there was movement.
There is some movement every time there is, um, some
additional firing back and forth, the price of oil and
gas usually goes up a little bit.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
I will say, I think even people.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
Who thought Trump was crazy for going into the Middle
East expected oil and gas prices to move more than
they have. I think there has been an ability to
get a lot of oil and gas out of Iran,
and I do think that the president's decision to put
additional economic sanctions on Iran is partly based on the

(50:11):
fact that there has been an ability to keep the
global economy moving without having to rely on the oil
and gas that Iran produces. And ultimately, I know everybody
thinks in terms of, hey, what are the next 90
days going to be? How are we going to meet
our quarterly numbers? What's going to happen next? The reality is...

(50:32):
This decision, and we haven't even talked about this on
the program because I didn't mention it yesterday. If the
Venezuela oil deal works as it is being talked about working,
it's a decision that makes sense for years into the future.
It would get us $ 30 a barrel gas.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
Well, this is the next thing I was going to
ask you about, which is, so you are reading my mind, sir,
which is let's talk about Venezuela and their oil and
what's going on. This is cut for listen to what
the president said just yesterday. Hit it.

Speaker 4 (51:05):
We have a great relationship with Venezuela. It's you know,
it's a it's a team in a sense. And we're
taking out millions and millions of barrels of oil going
to Houston, going to Louisiana. going to lots of different
places in the United States and all over the world.
And we're doing, we're making a fortune, and they're making
a fortune. They're starting to make real money. And we

(51:26):
have Exxon going in. We have Chevron going in. We
have our big oil companies going in. And everybody's bidding. And,
you know, there are those that say it was the
greatest deal ever made. Let's see what happens.

Speaker 2 (51:39):
President Trump said, Clay, the U.S. has secured majority control
of over 65 billion, would they be, barrels of Venezuela's
proven reserves, which is about one-fifth of the country's total,
more than the current U.S.-approved reserves, 46 billion barrels, at
no cost to the American taxpayer. That is a quote.
Through a partnership with private business, the announcement was framed

(52:03):
as the biggest oil deal in history. And Venezuelan interim
president Delcy Rodriguez has confirmed it, said that it covers
17 strategic fields lasting at least 25 years, targeting a
higher output, $ 100 billion in investment and roughly $ 209 billion
in royalties and taxes for Venezuela. It is a, to

(52:24):
put it mildly, big deal. Now, the gas still has
to get out.

Speaker 1 (52:31):
The Venezuela ability to produce gas has been severely damaged
over the last generation or so as Maduro rose in power.
I believe the last numbers that I have seen is
Venezuela is producing around 1.2 million barrels of oil and
gas right now and has been as high as 3

(52:52):
to 4 million barrels of oil and gas in the past.
These reserves would suggest that if things start to fire
on all cylinders in the years ahead, they will be
producing millions and millions of barrels of oil and gas,
which will make American consumers hopefully have to pay less
and less for gas in the years ahead. I don't

(53:14):
think the Venezuela plan actually is likely to have that
much impact on President Trump's tenure because I believe what
is necessary to be done is a multi-year process. So
this is actually, and I think you could put the
ballroom in this category. I think you can put the arch.
I think you can put a lot, even the Iran
decision in general. For all the talk about how President

(53:37):
Trump only cares about himself, he's actually making many legacy-defining moves,
which will primarily benefit the country itself. after his tenure
is over, a lot of presidents kind of make decisions
that are going to look really good for them in
the four or eight years that they have in office.
And then the legacy of history is a secondary thought.

(54:00):
It feels to me increasingly like Trump in this second
term is reaching beyond the scope of January, 2029 and
trying to make decisions that he thinks are good decisions
for the 2030s and the 2040s. Um, And if anything,
you can criticize his overly ambitious scope in that way,

(54:21):
as opposed to being completely focused on the very particular
concerns of this day, of this week, of this month,
which is largely, I think, what the midterm is going
to be defined by. And, Buck, what I would say,
we talked about this a little bit earlier, is I
do think in the wake of winning the national popular vote,

(54:41):
winning all seven swing states... I think Trump feels like
he already won the Super Bowl, and the midterms feel
to him just kind of like another race, which most
people are not going to pay attention to. And I
don't know that he's that concerned about the House being
back in the control of Democrats. I'm just being honest,

(55:02):
because he's already been impeached twice. What are they really
going to do to him? They tried to put him
in prison for the rest of his life. People are
trying to kill him left and right. Do you really
think he's going to be afraid of subpoenas from Hakeem Jeffries?

Speaker 2 (55:15):
Yeah, he's been through more than what the Democrats will be.
I mean, he's been shot. He's been through more than
whatever the Democrats will be able to muster politically and
via lawfare and bureaucratic nonsense against him. That's certainly the case.
But they'll be able to slow down his agenda, and
they will be, unfortunately, in a position, even if they

(55:38):
just win the House, to direct House business and do
oversight investigations, things like that. That will be a distraction
and irritation and annoyance. And Trump has a lot that
he's trying to get done in just the next two years.
So all of this, I think, is.
Look, it's going to be quite a day in this midterm.
It's all coming together here. This Abdul El-Sayed character. This

(56:04):
is something... This is a guy who... He is far left,
for sure.

Speaker 4 (56:10):
And.

Speaker 2 (56:11):
He is, in some of the polls I'm seeing, even
ahead of Mike Rogers right now. Now, that doesn't mean
anything necessarily. But J.D. Vance said this, Clay. This is
cut seven. I wanted you to respond to this. J.D.,
really not holding back, specifically when he goes after this
Abdul El-Sayed guy. Play seven.

Speaker 5 (56:29):
There's something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil
and on fire. the rise in the United States of
America today. And it's people who see themselves not as
citizens of a common nation fighting for every single person,
whether they're Jewish or Christian, whether they're white or black
or brown, but see themselves as fighting for one group

(56:53):
at the expense of others. And that is how, ladies
and gentlemen, you destroy the United States of America. I
see in this crowd people from all walks of life.
I see white people. I see black people. I see
Jews and Christians. I see people who are united by
their love of the United States of America and their
desire to give all of our children.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
A better life. Abdul El-Sayed is coming at this race
as somebody who is, one, a socialist, but also still
very much adhering to the race communist ideology that has
been ascendant with the left for a long time. I
don't think he's going to win, Clay, but it would

(57:33):
be troubling, particularly if there is one set. In Texas,
it would be troubling politically. In Michigan, it would be
just because, guys, we can't lose a Senate seat in Texas.
Come on, right? If Republicans won a Senate seat in California,
Democrats would be apoplectic. But if you lose in Michigan
with this Al-Sayed guy winning, I think that that is

(57:57):
showing that the The radicalization of the Democrat Party has
moved even further and faster than people realize that this
is now where this is now where the leadership of
the party is going to be, or certainly the energy
of the party is going to be for the foreseeable.
This is not just some flash in the pan. It's
not just some one off.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
If he wins this Senate race, I think Abdul El-Sayed
will run for president in twenty twenty eight. He sees
himself as Mamdani. We've talked about the fact that Mamdani,
who would, I think, very likely be the nominee for
Democrats in 2028 if he hadn't been born in Uganda.
I think Abdul El-Sayed sees himself as Mamdani, but with

(58:41):
the presidential prerogative. And look, Buck, if you can win
statewide in Michigan, then you've got one of the big
swing states already in your back pocket. And so to me,
this is a little bit of an audition for El Sayed.
I don't think he wants to be particularly a senator
from Michigan. I think he wants to be president of

(59:03):
the United States. So if he can win a swing state,
now there's going to be a lot of people out
there battling in 2022. and i'm not saying he's going
to win but i think he sees himself as obama
like i think he sees himself as a transcendent political
figure that has all the answers to the problems that
he sees in america and i don't think his ambition

(59:26):
is going to be sated with being a senator from
michigan If he wins, how long was Barack Obama a
senator from Illinois? Four years before he ran for president
of the United States? I mean, remember, Obama came out
of nowhere. Nobody even knew Obama until he spoke at
John Kerry's convention. That's what launched Obama onto his sprint

(59:52):
to the presidency. And even if you talk to the
Obama team, They didn't really think that they had any
chance to be nominee. They didn't think they beat Hillary.
There's nobody as big of a favorite as Hillary is,
as Hillary was in the 2008 cycle, waiting in the
wings for Democrats.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
I think he'll run, flag it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
I think if he wins this election, I think he
will be a candidate in 2028. Certainly he's a vice
presidential candidate because he's in a state that a lot
of people have to win. Look, we got a brand
new sponsor. I'm excited to have them. They're a big
part of sport and state. But look, if you are
in Florida, Hard Rock Bet is the only sports gambling

(01:00:33):
app legal in the entire state of Florida. Think about
how awesome that is. If you're going down to Florida
for any reason, Buck lives there. I'm down there a
decent amount. If you're going for a sporting event, the
only app that you can legally use in all of
Florida is the Hard Rock Sports Bet app. They're also
available in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia.

(01:01:00):
And I apologize to everyone in Texas right now because
I think the Texas Longhorns are going to be your
national champion this year. College football week one kicks off
this weekend. I'm taking Texas at 8-1 on the Hard
Rock Bet app. They have an amazing offer. This is
for everyone, even if you are already signed up. You

(01:01:23):
bet $ 5, you get $ 100 in bonus bets in your account.
It's a hallelujah, football is back, incredible offer from Hard
Rock Bet. If you're in Florida, you can do NFL Survivor.
Just get hooked up right now if you haven't already.
Go to hard rock bet slash clay. That's hard rock

(01:01:46):
bet slash clay for this incredible offer. $ 5. You get
a hundred dollars in bonus bets in your account. That
is hard rock dot bet slash clay, hard rock dot
bet slash clay. Get hooked up today. We're excited to
have them. Amazing partner. Clay, along with us all season long.

(01:02:10):
Tell me your national champs.

Speaker 2 (01:02:12):
Hardrock.bet. Hardrock.bet. Clay. Level up your brain. Mental mugging with
Clay and Buck.