Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Sep 2 2026

A Breakdown of the state of the economy and its impact on the upcoming midterm elections. Drawing from polling data discussed at a Tennessee political event featuring gubernatorial candidate Marsha Blackburn, Travis argued that voters remain overwhelmingly focused on affordability, inflation, and the rising cost of living. The hosts contended that economic concerns, including grocery prices and household expenses, remain the dominant issue for voters across the country. They framed the election environment as a referendum on economic conditions and debated how both parties are attempting to position themselves on inflation, consumer costs, and economic recovery. Battleground states such as Michigan and California were highlighted as examples of differing state-level political dynamics heading into the midterms.

The hosts also spent significant time discussing a recent Wall Street Journal profile of the Clay and Buck program. Beyond some lighthearted discussion about photographs used in the feature, the conversation turned toward broader media industry trends. Travis and Sexton examined the continuing evolution of talk radio, podcasts, livestreaming, and digital media. They argued that live radio retains advantages over recorded podcasts because of its ability to respond instantly to breaking news and current events. They also discussed the changing podcast landscape, the growth of conspiracy-driven content online, audience trust, and the importance of maintaining credibility in political commentary and news analysis.

Clay and Buck discuss Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the future of the Democrat Party. Travis and Sexton analyzed a widely circulated TMZ interview in which AOC discussed dating across political lines, family planning, and the costs associated with having children. The hosts argued that AOC has become increasingly effective at presenting herself as relatable and authentic to voters. They suggested that her ability to communicate everyday concerns, particularly affordability, housing costs, healthcare expenses, and family economics, could make her a formidable national political figure.

The conversation evolved into a broader assessment of potential Democratic presidential contenders for 2028. The hosts compared AOC's political strengths to those of Kamala Harris and other possible Democratic candidates, debating whether AOC could emerge as a future nominee or vice-presidential pick. They argued that modern campaigns are increasingly driven by personal connection, relatability, social media influence, and perceived authenticity rather than traditional policy expertise. The hosts suggested that AOC's communication style may resonate particularly strongly with younger voters, college-educated women, millennials, and voters concerned about affordability and quality-of-life issues.

The guys dive into the growing controversy surrounding Flock cameras, automated license plate reader technology increasingly used by law enforcement agencies across the country. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton explored both the advantages and concerns associated with the technology, framing it as a legitimate policy debate with reasonable arguments on both sides. The hosts discussed how Flock cameras assist police investigations, track stolen vehicles, and help locate suspects in violent crimes, while also acknowledging concerns about government overreach, privacy rights, data retention, and potential abuse by future administrations. They referenced opposition voiced by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, particularly his concerns that similar technologies could have been exploited during COVID-era lockdowns to monitor citizens’ movements. Throughout the discussion, the hosts repeatedly returned to Fourth Amendment questions involving unreasonable searches and how courts may ultimately define constitutional limits on surveillance technology.

The conversation expanded into a broader examination of privacy in the digital age. Travis argued that smartphones already provide government agencies and technology companies with extensive location data and personal information, often exceeding what Flock cameras collect. Both hosts noted that most Americans are routinely captured on surveillance cameras in public spaces, stores, banks, and businesses, raising questions about where society should draw the line between public safety and individual privacy. They emphasized the importance of legal guardrails and oversight rather than outright bans, while recognizing concerns among conservatives who fear the technology could eventually be used to restrict personal freedoms.

The most extensive discussion in Hour 3 centered on the Lindsey Clancy case, where jury deliberations remained deadlocked. The hosts analyzed repeated instructions from the judge directing jurors to continue deliberating despite their inability to reach a unanimous verdict. Travis speculated about p

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in, Clay and Buck. We appreciate all of you
hanging out with us on the Wednesday edition of the program.
We've got a lot to be tracking with all of you.
Right off the top, breaking news, Charlie Kirk's alleged killer,
Tyler Robinson. has been charged with seven different felony offenses.

(00:20):
He has pled not guilty. That trial will be televised.
And we will, I think, see that there is overwhelming
evidence that this guy, motivated by left-wing anger about trans-related
issues in particular, decided he wanted to murder Charlie Kirk
about a year ago. And despite all of the crazy

(00:42):
conspiracies that have been underway, I think the evidence is
going to be overwhelming. And I think many people out
there who believe that someone else was responsible are going
to feel like morons as all of this evidence, which
is overwhelming in its capacity, is brought to bear against
Tyler Robinson in a Utah courtroom. We are continuing to

(01:05):
track all of the big midterm races, as we said,
about 60 some odd days away from the midterms. I
got a good update this morning. Buck, I was running
around here in Nashville. Marsha Blackburn is going to be
the next governor of my state. And they had a big.
breakfast for her this morning laying out what they saw

(01:28):
as the major agenda items of this midterm election and
it's not going to shock you buck but in tennessee
in particular their polling demonstrates that it's basically all the
economy it is overwhelmingly cost of goods it is overwhelmingly
economic pocketbook issues, which is in Tennessee and obviously can

(01:51):
be different in different states. Every state is its own
microcosm in many ways. But in Tennessee, I would imagine
what is true here is also true everywhere, where there's
basically not a close second in terms of what people
are most concerned about. And as I was watching those
results come in and and looking at all of that,

(02:14):
What stood out, I think, to me in a really
significant way as I watched those results come in is
Democrats are now in a position where they caused the fire.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
Right.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
The Biden administration's awful economic policies that took us to
nine point one percent inflation that led us into the
position where we are now, where things are much better. Remember,
in June and July of 2022, gas was on average
over five dollars a gallon. That was only four years ago.
But Democrats are now the arsonists who are saying, look

(02:49):
at how bad the fire is. We will fix it.
And that is the argument they're making. Now, I do
think there are some states out there. Our buddy Steve
Hilton in California, it's an interesting example he's in, where
the federal government may be in Republican control, but many
of these states where candidates are running, whether it's Mike
Rogers in Michigan or Steve Hilton in California, are overwhelmingly

(03:14):
run by Democrats. And so the current situation on the
ground in some of these battleground states where Democrats are
in positions of power, the existing power structure is a
bit different when you look at state and federal. But
all this morning did for me, Buck, was reinforce the
number one concern by far is cost of goods. And

(03:35):
Democrats are the arsonists who are saying we'll put the
fire out effectively as part of their campaign.

Speaker 3 (03:41):
So I want to get into that problem. But I
have to say, Clay, for once, I'm going to be
the Barnum and Bailey here. I'm going to be the
promoter on this program and just point out to everybody,
in case you missed it, there is a piece in
the Wall Street Journal from this morning, the conservative radio

(04:02):
hosts dominating the airwaves, which I highly recommend to you,
the esteemed and beloved Clay and Buck audience. Yeah, it's
a great profile, guys. We really love it. And the
Wall Street Journal talks about our origin stories, how the
show came together, all the stations that we've been adding,
all of our wonderful affiliates across the country, the podcast network,

(04:24):
Clay's Projects, all kinds of cool stuff. So please go
check it out. It's nice to get a shout out
from what I think is the best newspaper in the country,
no question. So it's cool. And we very much appreciate
appreciate the way that they wrote it up and everything else.
So yeah, the conservative radio host dominating the airwaves. We'll

(04:46):
put it up at clay and buck.com. So you can
check out that story. What do you think of the photos?
Are you happy with the photos? We didn't talk about this.
Was this in June that we did the initial interview
with the wall street journal? Am I remembering the math
roughly accurately there? I think it was sometime in June.
They had their own photographer in his own studio at
the wall street journal. And what I would point out

(05:06):
is that, uh, one in the photo that they used,
It is– they have managed to make my head look
bigger than yours, which is a– I think– That's what
you take from this incredible profile?

Speaker 1 (05:20):
The article is amazing. The article is amazing. But Carol
Markowitz got in my head a little bit. She said
they gave Buck the soft focus lighting to make him
look 25 and Clay's blurry. And then I went back
in because I read the article and I was like,
this is an amazing piece. I can't wait for people
to be able to read it over the weekend. It

(05:41):
accurately reflects the last five years or so. And then
I went in and I saw, you know, in my
for you tab that Carol Markowitz was reacting to it.
Nothing about the language in the piece and all about
the fact that you look great and I look blurry.
And I was like, wait a minute. I was nervous
about this guy, this photographer, because it was very artsy.
And I thought we might end up with like the stepbrothers,

(06:03):
you know, like back in the day, the Olin Mills
photograph where, for those of you who remember Olin Mills,
the photographer that you probably got for graduation if you're
in the South or your mom and dad put it
on the wall when you were 12 or 13. And
then Carol got my head. And I'm like, the headline
is amazing, first of all. And I'm obviously not used

(06:24):
to actually having nice things ever said or written about
me in any sort of mainstream media outlet. And the
headline is the conservative radio host dominating the airwaves. I
think that's hard. I mean, that's a great headline. I'm
happy with that. I think it's accurate. But then now
I'm looking at the photo and I'm like, did have

(06:45):
I been led over the middle and wrecked? This is
really based on Carol's criticisms.

Speaker 3 (06:50):
This is really funny. Carol just got in your head.
We love Carol Markowitz, one of our excellent Clambuck podcast
network hosts. which is doing now millions of downloads as
a network, and all of you are checking out those
shows because we handpick every single one of them. They're
people that we know, we trust, we think do great work,
and that's why they're part of the network, whether it's

(07:10):
Nation States with Yates or Carol or David Rutherford or any–
I can't name them all. Ryan Groduski, there's a bunch
of them, but they're all doing great shows. Clay– So
I will say this. First of all, you look good.
I think Carol's being– I think that's totally– I mean,
do I look like an 80s teen heartthrob? Maybe. Maybe.

(07:31):
I was going to say.

Speaker 1 (07:33):
Carol is– Carol's honest. And I obviously– I don't know
how to do filters. I don't know how to do
any photos. And so if I don't look like absolute death,
I just presume the photo's fine. But is everybody else
reacting like Carol did, which is Clay looks like a zombie.
Clay looks like he's just survived the apocalypse. Meanwhile, Buck

(07:55):
looks like he just came from Charles in Charge. I
don't know. You were a guest star on Growing Pains?

Speaker 3 (08:02):
I would just say the only fair gripe, I think
you look good in the photo. And again, clayandbuck.com, guys,
we'll put the article up there. I can't believe we're
talking about this. We're going to talk about affordability in
a second. But the one funny thing, is because you
are a little bit in front, you know, you're in
the foreground a little bit, there's an optical illusion whereby

(08:25):
your head is about, your head actually does look bigger
than my head, which is not true. That's the part
of it I think is so funny. They're like, who's
this Clay guy with his giant head? Clay's been wearing
normal size hats his whole life. I'm the one that
has to get special order hats, not Clay, but you
wouldn't know it from this photo. But no, the rest
of it, I think you look good. I think they
did a very nice job. And now, Clay. that we

(08:47):
have talked about this. Oh, also, the favorite line that
I've been getting texted all morning is that the Clay
and Buck show is buddy cop movie energy. That's what
people are really.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
That was good. That was your line. I mean, to
the reporter who was doing the interview. And, you know,
the other thing I would say is, you know this,
I don't know that audience necessarily thinks about it. You
talk to somebody for hours and they might take 25
words and sometimes they're representative of the conversation. Other times
you look at it and you say... That really was
not representative. I think the article in general represented a

(09:21):
long form conversation that they are synthesizing in some way.
And I thought that line was a good one.

Speaker 3 (09:27):
And I think so. Buddy cop, buddy cop, movie energy,
but also something that came across. And this was, we
were asked about this. is in an environment, people call
it podcastistan right now, where things get really crazy and
there are people who are pushing wilder and wilder stuff,
a lot of conspiracy theories, a lot of just either
salacious or whatever. How do you guys feel about that

(09:49):
media landscape? We just say, we just show up every
day and do it the right way. And the people
that want things done the right way come and they listen.
And there's millions of them. And people that want lunacy
and lies and nonsense, it's a free country. They're allowed
to choose that. But we don't change one inch based
upon what seems to be the flavor of the moment

(10:10):
in the particularly the podcast market. You know, radio remains
a more a more adult thing. uh, medium, shall I
say an adult in the sense of like the adults are,
are running things and the adults are still on, on
the airwaves. It is podcasts that are just totally the
wild West. It's totally like.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
I do think podcasts are start. You may have a
different take on this. And we love the fact that
you can download this show on podcast. You can watch
us on video. We set an all time record for
live streamers. I think yesterday, uh, or the day before
that continues to grow every day. We'd like for you
to subscribe and follow us on YouTube. We had a
video yesterday, last week, I believe, Buck, that did 460,000 views,

(10:52):
which is our all-time record high. So we want you
to find us everywhere. I do feel like podcasts are
starting to fade a bit because a lot of them
are very based entirely on the guests, and there's only
so many interesting people that are guests, right? And so
I think you're cycling through and hearing a lot of
the same people as guests on podcasts, and they're not live.

(11:14):
And so much is happening in real time. As you
all know, while we're live on this show, anything could happen.
We're going to react. We're going to pivot. We're going
to bring it to you right now as it happens.
I think a lot of podcasts, when they're taped, they
feel old if they're not being done in a way
that is, especially when you're talking about news, it's hard
not to be behind the curve when you make a

(11:37):
podcast that is taped.

Speaker 3 (11:38):
I would also say, I think that there was a
peak that we've hit podcasting has now turned. Now we're
just talking about the media marketplace, everyone, but it's interesting stuff. Uh,
and it affects politics and it affects the national conversation
about really everything. But podcasting went through a phase recently,
I would say of, uh, well, first of all, COVID
for podcasts was an absolute gold rush. Uh, so that

(12:02):
all of a sudden people had a lot of time
to listen and find shows. A lot of people grew
really big during that era who hadn't even been, um,
really known before. Uh, but beyond that, There's a lot
of self-help, self-improvement stuff where like here are the five
things you need to know for a better life. And
it's good to have some of that, but you can
actually overindulge in that really where it's just you know

(12:25):
all the things you need to be doing. You know
what's something we all need to do? Know what's going on.
know smart things, learn more stuff. And that's a day-to-day thing.
And that's what we try to do here on this show.
We do it with you. We do it for you.
And people come away from the show having fun.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
But also knowing more about what's happening day-to-day in the
world around them. You know what I'm saying, Clay? There's this,
there's been a real, a divide, I think, into a
lot of podcasting that here's how you become a millionaire
or a billionaire. And it's like, okay, well, Sure, telling
me to work hard is great, but I also need
to just do the work every day. A lot of
podcasting about health and wellness, a lot of podcasting about self-improvement,

(13:05):
and then conspiracies. But also just what's happening every day
still really matters and what's going on in the world
around you. And so that's really what we focus on,
and that's what the article gets to. I think the
Wall Street Journal piece was fantastic, and we really appreciate
the reporter who pulled it all together and sat down
with us for hours to talk to us. And with that, AOC, affordability,
Republicans in advance of these midterms, many, many things, many

(13:29):
things to dive into, to discuss, to make sense of today.
And we shall absolutely do so. That is where we are.
That is part of the mission. Also, we'll be taking
your calls. By the way, any of you ladies out
there in particular, if you want to call in and
say Clay looked handsome in his Wall Street Journal photo,
I think he would appreciate that right now.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
Just because Carol got it in his head on this one.
Carol's in my head. I also just got a text.
Buck looks like a superhero on the cover photo.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
You got to throw some peptides in the mix. You
got to get some chalk going. You got to do
some stuff. You know what I mean? What can I
tell you? What can I tell you? Game respects game.
All right. A superhero, I wish. All right, now I
have a little bit of a hard turn here, but
it's a really important message and something that I'm proud
to talk to you about every time we do, and
that's pre-born. It's about saving little babies. It's a straightforward mission,

(14:22):
and what a beautiful and important mission it is. It's
an urgent mission, though, because you know what's happening every day.
Women are being encouraged, coaxed, sometimes pushed to Planned Parenthood,
to places where abortions are happening, and we want to
have people... supported.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
We want moms to know that the baby in their
womb is precious. It's a gift from God.

Speaker 3 (14:43):
And they have so many options and preborns there to
share that with them. So you so many of you
listening right now are active members in what we could
call broadly just the pro-life movement, the pro-life community. And
you might be wondering, other than just voting and other
than just how you live your own life personally and
how you tell loved ones and others to Cherish babies

(15:04):
and cherish the future. How can you do something? Pre-born.
You can support this organization. It provides an ultrasound as
soon as the mom comes to the clinic so the
mom can meet the baby in her womb. And then
the choice is so much easier and the numbers show
it for life. For $ 28, you can provide a life-saving
ultrasound at a pre-born clinic. Making a donation today. Dial

(15:26):
pound 250, say the keyword baby. That's pound 250-say-baby, or
visit preborn.com slash buck, preborn.com slash B-U-C-K, sponsored by Preborn.

Speaker 1 (15:39):
Laugh, learn, and hang with the guys.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
Clay and Buck, preset on the iHeart app.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck. We are rolling through
the Wednesday edition of the program. We mentioned that the
seven felony counts against Tyler Robinson in the Charlie Kirk
assassination murder trial have officially been filed and there will
be a trial coming soon there. And he has pled

(16:07):
not guilty to them. We are also still waiting. I
should update you as it is the lead story on
every single channel, every minute update. Still nothing additional on
the Lindsay Clancy jury since yesterday when they said that
they could not reach a verdict and that they were
hopelessly basically split. So many different moving parts on that.

(16:34):
We were talking about AOC when it comes to affordability.
And we have a couple of cuts on. Sorry, we're
talking about AOC and affordability. Let me go back to
AOC now. She had an interview, Buck, with TMZ, which
is now carrying and covering Washington, D.C.

Speaker 4 (16:52):
News.

Speaker 1 (16:53):
In the same way they typically have done celebrity news.
And AOC made a lot of news herself when she
talked about freezing her eggs. She broke up with the
ginger boyfriend. She was asked whether or not she would
date a conservative. This interview has, I think it's fair
to say, gone viral. Listen.

Speaker 2 (17:10):
Would you ever date a conservative? Is that anything you'd
ever entertain?

Speaker 3 (17:18):
I have to say it's... Probably not.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
No, you know, it's not to, you.

Speaker 4 (17:28):
Know, no foul to people who do.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
But and of course, how you define that is very
different person to person. Right.

Speaker 3 (17:35):
But I think a lot of politics sometimes, at least
for me, is about values and being aligned with in values,
I think, is tremendously important.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
OK, let me play. Well, let's just leave it with that.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
So.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
Buck, here is, and I can't believe I'm going to
sound like you, I think, on this. I watched this video.
She is walking across a parking lot. She gets asked
about having kids, the challenges of family planning. There is 0%
chance Kamala could do this interview, by which I mean
just look normal. I don't know if you buy this.

(18:14):
I think the 2028 cycle coming out of the Trump,
it's fair to say, hurricane-style chaos leadership, and I don't
mean that in a negative way. I just mean there's
an omnipresent sense that anything might happen at any point
in time. I think that the Biden team was able

(18:34):
to play into that in 2020, and that was COVID.
I think there's going to be a desperate demand for normalcy.
And I don't mean normal politics because we know that
AOC is not normal in terms of what she would
advocate for. But I mean, they can do an interview
and they just look normal. Chuck Schumer couldn't have done this, Buck.

(18:56):
Lots of Republicans can't do this. AOC is uniquely skilled
at these just normal human moments, which most politicians can't
pull off. And if I weren't, If I didn't have
opinions aggressively on these things, if I was a busy
mom or dad, I might watch AOC and just think.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
She seems normal.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
She seems like me.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
She's the future of the Democrat Party. I think that
that's quite clear. And look, if we are think of
it like a coach who is assessing the strength of
the of the other team.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Right. That's how I think we can do this. Clay
certainly used to doing that.

Speaker 3 (19:38):
When you look at AOC as a player on the
Democrat squad, she has– well, not the squad.

Speaker 1 (19:44):
That's a little confusing. But on the Democrat roster, if
you will.

Speaker 3 (19:47):
She has learned to be less shrill. She has learned
to be less, she made her name with the radical, screechy,
as she said, woke 1.0. But increasingly, AOC is going
to become the face of a rebranded woke. And this
is the way that I would describe it. You're going
to have an attractive, smiling face telling you why your

(20:13):
property is not yours and you should be sent to
the gulag. Basically, you're going to have somebody who is
appealing in public and to the masses pushing for the
exact same policies of the street communists as but doing
it with more Mamdani-esque flair and suave savoir-faire, if you will. Yeah.

(20:36):
They've learned something about this. And they have other people
who are the pipe swingers on the street. They have
other people who are the shock troops, that guy that
everyone's been talking about, Piker. They've got these people to
say the crazy things, to get the angry, purple-haired, septum-pierced
left out. will be represented by them and will be

(20:56):
mobilized by them. But AOC has now moved into more
of a, dare I say, statesman-like position for the Democrat Party. Clay,
I cannot think of, this is what I would say,
whether she's the top of the ticket or not, we
talked to our buddy Hannity about this, and Sean and
I agreed, you're off in crazy town.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
With your Kamala stuff. It's still going to be Kamala,
I think, but AOC scares me way more than Kamala does.
I think I think AOC is a far more formidable.
First of all, she's not a loser.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
Kamala lost.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
She can complain all day about how it was last minute.
But the problem with.

Speaker 3 (21:31):
Kamala running again in the general, I am your thing
about her in the primary, unfortunately, still makes sense, which
I'm I'm trying to find the Achilles heel of it
other than she's terrible. But terrible doesn't necessarily mean you
don't like voters are not going to abandon Kamala black.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
So you're particular.

Speaker 3 (21:50):
Your assessment on that, I think, is is very sound
as much as I wish otherwise. But in the general election, Clay,
I think an issue that Kamala runs into and anyone.

Speaker 1 (22:00):
Would see this is she was sitting there. She's going
to say, oh, but, you know, I didn't have a
full campaign.

Speaker 3 (22:07):
And that was OK.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
You were the vice president and you had a dementia
patient as the president and you didn't say anything about it.

Speaker 3 (22:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:14):
In fact, you were so silent about it.

Speaker 3 (22:16):
She was there. Kamala is uniquely responsible for the debacle
that was a dementia addled president, not only being president
for four years, but then trying to continue for another
four years because her job really it's like the vice president. Really,

(22:36):
you had one job applies. Your job is to be
there in case of in case of. Happened with Biden.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
He was not in a position to be president. And
she kind of got a pass on this because it
was all so sudden and quick and everything else, meaning
the 2024 election. Clay, I think that is a very
hard thing for anybody who's going to be open to
persuasion one way or the other to explain away the
next time. But the smiling... We're going to help you

(23:06):
pay for your groceries and pay for your health care stuff. Guys,
it's going to be very it's going to be very
effective in this midterm. It's going to be very effective
in the in the general election. And Clay, it really
comes down to this. People are frustrated. They want someone
who's going to fix the frustration. And it is hard
to tell people who are frustrated while you are the
person in charge. I'm actually doing well. And trust me,

(23:29):
those other people are going to screw things.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
Up much more. It's true in this case. Obviously, I
think so. You think so with Trump and the Republicans
in charge. But people, there's there's enough frustration in the middle,
in the middle, five to 10 percent of voters that
it's going to be volatile.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
I also think this on AOC. Kamala's base is black women.
I think black women are going to show up for Kamala.
It's why I think she's going to end up being
the nominee, because I think it's going to be hard
to get past her with the identity politics. I like
your line of attack. We'll see how aggressively Democrats deploy
it against her of you're responsible for Biden. Will they

(24:10):
do that in the primary? Will it land? How will
that play out? Here's what I would say about AOC.
And by the way, I think you said it well
on you have to assess what the opponent's strengths are.
Don't misunderstand when I say things that are positive about
AOC that I mean that I want in some way
to be supporting her. I totally understand that she's wrong

(24:33):
on everything. But a lot of people who are wrong
on everything get elected. In fact, COVID taught us that
being wrong on everything sometimes in the Democrat Party can
actually be an asset and an attribute when it comes
to getting reelected. OK, so here's the AOC angle that
I think when I think through what her base would be,
who's the most reliable people who vote Democrat right now?

(24:58):
Overly educated women struggling with career and life. That is,
to a large extent, the base of the Democrat Party.
That's the people out there who are telling you some
of them. Lindsey Clancy is completely innocent because she's just
a victim of all the depression and postpartum and all
the incredible pressures that we put on to mothers and working.

(25:23):
And some of you, lots of you, are saying, I
don't agree with that. But there's a lot of Democrats
who do. And when AOC did that TMZ interview, in
conjunction with her freezing her eggs... She is she is
the base of the Democrat Party, and they are going
to like her because they like to see themselves reflected

(25:43):
in media. I'm just telling you, watch out.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
Also, she is an avatar in many ways for the
frustrations of the millennials that she represents. To me, she
is a a a shoo in or no brainer VP pick.
At a minimum for who I agree with. I don't
care if it's Andy Beshear, if it's Kamala Harris, if

(26:07):
it's Gavin. You go through anybody, Wes Moore, whoever the Democrat.
Who's the who's the nerd from Arizona? The senator. What's
his name?

Speaker 1 (26:15):
Mark Kelly.

Speaker 3 (26:16):
Thank you, Mark Kelly. You know, I don't care. Any
of them. AOC makes sense as a VP for them. Also,
look at look at the paradigm shift with J.D. Vance
as Trump's VP. bringing in that youthfulness, that sort of
younger understanding of social media. And Trump is a media
phenomenon unto himself. But understanding that peer group, which is

(26:40):
now going to be people who are basically turning 40,
that's very powerful for her. And I also think, Clay,
there's a difference between Kamala likes to pretend that she's
a policy wonk.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (26:55):
She likes to talk about how I was a prosecutor
and basically she says I'm really smart. AOC used to
do that for sure and had some embarrassing moments. But increasingly,
you have her just smiling and focusing on health care,
cost of living, helping people with their lives. And that's
what people are going to hear. They're not going to

(27:16):
care that she doesn't know who the prime minister of
Thailand is or be the king and probably a prime minister.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
But you get what I'm saying. I don't even know
who it is. The answer she gave where I was like,
that's really good. Again, walking in a parking lot, unscripted.
She got asked about having a baby, and she said, comparatively,
I make a good salary. I don't know that I
can afford to have a baby right now. And I
was like, that's a really great answer. For every woman

(27:46):
who's going to vote Democrat, she is speaking in their language.
And some of you out there are going to say,
she doesn't understand tax policy. She doesn't even, to Buck's point,
she doesn't even know who the leader is of this country.
That's not what the election is going to be decided on.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
Correct. It's not.

Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yeah, it's not. And she can also say.
She could even turn this around and flip it on Republicans.
Did anyone think Trump was a foreign policy expert when
he was elected?

Speaker 1 (28:09):
No.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
But he said, I'm going to appoint great people and
I'm going to rely on them for their advice. You know,
there's a lot of ways to play this. The way
you can play it is I'm actually the expert. And
then you look like a buffoon. And Kamala fell into that.

Speaker 1 (28:22):
I mean, we just South Carolina on the Republican side
just elected Darlene Graham. And she couldn't give any answer
at all on the most important, arguably foreign policy issue
that could change the world and Taiwan at all.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
And she won it. And she won, and the people
of South Carolina who voted for her, we had a
lot of them calling in and sharing their opinion on this.
It's quite clear. They're like, look, I think she's a
good person. She's going to respect Lindsay's legacy. She'll represent
South Carolina well, and she's going to work closely with
Trump and do what Trump wants, period. I don't care
about it beyond that, or rather, I don't need more
than that. That's a valid point of view. She obviously

(29:01):
just won and she's going to win that Senate seat.
So I think you can see a very similar thing
with AOC where it's, yeah, she doesn't have to be
the expert in Keynesian economics that she was posing as
at one point. She just has to be likable, emotive
and connect. And she is very good at those things now.
So this is like we're talking about the opposing team's
QB or their D line or whatever. She is good

(29:23):
at that now.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Speaking of the opposing team's QB, D-line, it's football season.
And if you love football as much as I do,
and as much as Rush did, and as much as
the vast majority of this audience does, you're going to
love Hard Rock Bet. Now, Hard Rock Bet is available
in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee,

(29:47):
and Virginia. Florida, though, they have the exclusive sports betting license.
That means if you're going to the state of Florida
at all, you're going to go to Disney World, you're
going to go to Universal Studios, you're going to be
traveling down during the winter to get to some warmth
when it's cold where you are. The only way you
can bet on sports is through Hard Rock. And again, Colorado, Arizona, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,

(30:12):
New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia. How often are you in
those states? They're going to be expanding beyond Florida. Right
now they've got a great offer for you. They are
going to give you $ 100 in bonus bets if you
just make $ 5 in bets on any football game that's
coming up. Now, I just put up my college football picks,
11 of them. You can find them on my Twitter account.

(30:32):
You can find a direct link in that article to
this offer. But you can also go right now to hardrock.bet.com.
That's Hard Rock, one word, like the Hard Rock restaurants.
You know the Hard Rock Casino down in Florida. They're
building a great one out in Las Vegas. Hardrock-dot-bet. Hardrock-dot-bet-slash-clay.

(30:56):
Get hooked up now. You go there. You play $ 5
this weekend. You get $ 100 in bonus bets in your account.
You basically get $ 100 if you go to Hardrock-dot-bet-slash-clay. That's Hardrock-dot-bet-slash-clay.
It's in my picks. You can find that link, and
you guys are going to love Hardrock Bet.

Speaker 4 (31:18):
Level up your brain and balance out your day with
the right amount of information and entertainment. Clay Travis and
Buck Sexton on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (31:30):
Second hour of Clay and Buck kicks off now.

Speaker 3 (31:32):
Everybody, thank you so much for being here with us.
We have some Senate races in the mix here, which
we want to give you some updates on. And the
midterms are looming large. Also, A topic, Clay, that people
have been asking us to cover. Have we gotten into

(31:53):
flock cameras yet? I think I did a podcast on it,
a little post-show podcast. I don't think we've talked. Can
we talk flock cameras here, actually? I would like to
do this because I think we're going to have some
passionate views on it. And I think that there are very–
this is– it's nice, isn't it? when you have a

(32:16):
discussion or debate about something where there are pros and
cons and reasonable people can disagree, women can have penises
and should play or, and men should be able to
play against women in sports is not in fact, a
reasonable discussion to be having with people. And because it
is not based in reason, you can't make any progress
in the debate of the discussion. As Clay has found

(32:37):
out with his still on claimed unrequited, unrequited and unclaimed
$ 10 million offer, to have the high school. Did you
even go to eighth grade? You naughty man.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
I'm now taking it down to, I could, if I
have to pick an eighth grade team that the eighth
grade boys would beat the WNBA champions, average WNBA team
buck makes $ 7 million for the entire season. That's everybody
on the team combined. I'm offering them 10 million to
beat an eighth grade boys team and crickets.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
That's crazy. Uh, That is a debate, though, where you
don't have reasonable stuff going on. You have feelings, dogma, orthodoxy.
Flock cameras– I want to separate that. Flock cameras and
data centers, there's totally reasonable stuff going on when people

(33:34):
are like, well, here are my concerns. Here's what's going on.
It feels like we're having an old-school policy discussion here.
where you weren't dealing with race communist lunatics who live
in some alternate reality. So let's do this, because, Clay,
not only is there a good faith back and forth
over the flock cameras, people on the right, conservatives, disagree.

(33:54):
I was surprised, in fact, to see that Governor Ron DeSantis,
who we have said extremely, and I think well-deserved, positive
things about on this program many times over, stretching back
to COVID all the way to the way he has
been governor of Florida to today. He is opposed to

(34:16):
flock cameras in Florida and has signed something that they're
going to be taking them off. I think it's I
want to get the specifics right, but like state highways
or something, they're going to be limiting it somehow. But
here's where I come down on this, Clay. And some
people are going to get mad at me. So this
is why it's, this is probably why I have the
long preamble about good faith debate and the family can disagree,

(34:38):
whatever it could still be. I think that whatever we
try to ban or severely restrict the use of an
extremely useful technology, it always ends up just pushing it
for a workaround and it fails in some way. I
see that certainly with the data centers debate. But to me,

(35:00):
that's more of a how we do it debate, not
a do we do it debate. Data centers are happening.
It's just where do you want them? How do you
want the regulations to be? There's no, oh, there won't
be data centers. Flock cameras feels a little more like
some states are leaning toward a lot of people are
saying they just don't want these things out there. I

(35:21):
understand the concerns. But to me, the benefits outweigh the cons.
And I'll pass this to you now, Clay. The benefits
outweigh the cons. And the problem, as I see it,
is abuse. And you just need to have strict rules
of the road. Pardon the expression. Rules of the road
for flock cameras on public highways and everything else. The

(35:43):
usage of that data. Because to me, that's really the issue.
But I got to tell you, I think I might
get lambasted online for this one because people really do
not like these flock cameras.

Speaker 1 (35:59):
So my take on them, and I love that you
had the preamble, so you're like, now I might be
saying something controversial here, but remember, I like you, and
you're all very kind. So my take on it is
similar to all technology, which is I want to see
how the interplay of flock cameras is applied by the

(36:19):
courts when it comes to the Fourth Amendment.

Speaker 4 (36:21):
Right.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
I know that everybody kind of sometimes we talk a
lot about the First Amendment and we certainly talk about
a lot about the Second Amendment. And and then we
just had a Supreme Court decision about, hey, the the
equal rights, equal protection clauses that were put in place after.
The Civil War and what's the implication and how are

(36:45):
slaves incorporated compared to others who have come to our country?
All these different things. I think a lot of times
we forget to talk about the fourth. And essentially the
fourth deals with what is and is not considered to
be an unreasonable search. And the analogy I always like
to use here, Buck, and I may have shared this
on the show before, is when I took crim law

(37:08):
back in Vanderbilt Law School in the day, with a
great criminal law professor. He's a legend at Vanderbilt Law School.
He taught generations of lawyers, a guy named Don Hall.
Don Hall said so much of Fourth Amendment law when
it comes to how do you apply and determine what
is and is not a constitutional search has to do

(37:30):
with trying to teach police officers how what they can
and can't do in very complex dynamic situations. And he
would illustrate this for young lawyers this way. He would say,
at some point during your course, he would say, everybody
stand up and back away from your computer screens. Everybody

(37:54):
in the whole classroom stand up, walk away from your
computer screens. And then he would say, how nervous are
you that I'm going to walk around now and see
what every single one of you is doing on your
computer screen right now. In your opinion, law students, would
that be a fair and constitutional or unreasonable and unconstitutional search?

(38:20):
And it gets people nervous because it puts it actually
into your own world. What are expectations and how are
they being applied here? And so, Buck, I want to
know what governments are doing with the data that they
can get from flat cameras. Because I think a lot
of people don't realize that these things that we have

(38:41):
in our hands right now, You are often telling on
yourself way more with your cell phone than you are
with anything they can do from a flock camera. In
other words, they'll do a search. You know this. I
don't think a lot of people know this, Buck. If
they know that a murder happened on X block at

(39:01):
X time, let's say a murder happened at 2 a.m.
on a street corner in Washington, D.C., They can pull,
and it's not a very populated part of the city,
and they know there's not that many people. They can
pull every cell phone that was in that network that
was pinging off that area station, and they can narrow
it automatically down to, hey, if your cell phone was on,

(39:22):
there's only 20 cell phones that were on in this area.
Every time you pull your phone out and turn it on...
giving the government a vast amount of information. So I
don't buy in, Buck, to this idea that a lot
of people have that the flock cameras are in some
way creating a dynamic as it pertains to technology that

(39:44):
does not already exist with your cell phones very often.
if that makes sense.

Speaker 3 (39:49):
So DeSantis specifically has cited, and it's like he anticipated
that people like you and me, and we hadn't discussed
this before, it seems like we're pretty aligned on our
view on this one. DeSantis referenced how this would have
been used during COVID against people. So he's getting right
into my wheelhouse and your wheelhouse right away. This would

(40:10):
have been used to see if people were traveling who
weren't supposed to, and maybe it would have been used
to lock down. I think that that first of all,
that gets my attention. And I think that that's valid.
I'm not I'm not dismissing this or saying I don't
have a concern with that, too. But to me, that
again goes into this is the abuse of a technology,

(40:32):
not the day to day frontline use of that technology.
There's something that is different about that. And and so
to me, The guardrails are very important to have with
this because, remember, this is about knowing where your car is.
I mean, they're tracking your car via license plate in
real time everywhere you go, and then that data is

(40:55):
stored for a period of time. Some places, Clay, have limited,
for example, how long that information is stored. Some places
are making changes about this. I think that that's all
valid and good. But to me, a ban on flock cameras,
I mean, I'll put it to you this way. Would
I want to be the mayor of– well, it's really
the county commissioners that kind of run Miami-Dade. But would

(41:17):
I want to be the– let's just say the head
honcho of Miami-Dade County who signed off on something that,
let's say, banned flock cameras within city limits? And then
I have to explain to some mother whose four-year-old was
kidnapped and we had a description of the car and
the license plate why we weren't able to bring back
her kid in an hour.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
Yeah, that's what I would think too.

Speaker 3 (41:40):
I wouldn't want to be in that. Oh, because people
are concerned about government overreach. I'm concerned about government overreach.
But what are we really talking about here? This is
the movement of your vehicle on public roads. There's video cameras.
This would be like saying, I don't think we should
have video cameras in public. By the way, same thing.
Video cameras are picking you up. If you're in any

(42:03):
populated area, they're picking you up dozens of times a day.
Watching what you do.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
That's what I was going to go to secondarily, which
is the most important part, I think. You're already on
camera everywhere.

Speaker 3 (42:15):
All the time.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
All the time. And so this idea, what you hit on,
I think, is important. We had that shooting outside of
the high school football game that I went to, and
nobody knows who did it. The 16-year-old who was murdered,
so far, nobody has been able to be captured. If
you can have cameras that are constantly turned on in

(42:36):
high-crime venues.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
To me.

Speaker 1 (42:38):
That's a no-brainer. And I would like to drive down
violent crime everywhere. And you and I are a little
bit unique, I think, because of what we do. I
already presume that as soon as I leave my house,
there is someone paying attention to something that I'm doing
all day long, every day.

Speaker 3 (42:59):
You actually have not just the expectation of no privacy
in public. I operate the same way. I have the
expectation of Invasion of privacy in public.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
Everything I do is public at all times the moment
that I leave my home. Look, I think a lot
of people are not aware what you just said, Buck.
Every time you go to the grocery store, you're on camera.
Every time you go to Walmart, you're on camera. Every
time you go to the bank, you're on camera. I
don't think most people realize how easily it is to

(43:29):
track what you are doing. I'm not committing any crimes.
And so I am not worried about this. Now, I
also understand the people out there who say, OK, Clay,
you saw what happened during covid. I think the best
argument against them is actually what Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, said,
which is at some point in time, they will track

(43:50):
you over this if we have another pandemic. That's why
I live in Tennessee. I don't think I was with
Marsha Blackburn this morning. She's going to be the next
governor of Tennessee. I don't think she's going to do
that here. I think if you're in a blue state,
I would be concerned about all of my freedoms in
a blue state, and that's why I live in a
red state. But flock, if I lived in New York City,

(44:14):
flock cameras to me would be 763rd most important thing
that I'm worried about in New York City right now
with Mom Donnie as mayor. It wouldn't even be in
my top echelon because... I think in general, in New
York City, they would be used to typically catch people
who are committing violent crimes. And I think we need

(44:35):
to catch more people committing violent crimes, not less. And
I want to give police the authority. That's where the
Fourth Amendment comes in to make sure that the searches
that are occurring are reasonable and not unreasonable. And that's
why my start is I still want to see how
this is applied within the context of the overall court.
and Fourth Amendment rights.

Speaker 3 (44:56):
You were a high school debate nerd, too, right? Weren't
you on the debate team?

Speaker 1 (45:00):
No, I did not. My son was one of the
best high school debaters in the country.

Speaker 3 (45:04):
Shout out.

Speaker 1 (45:04):
He just finished high school debate, top eight, I think,
in the nation. But he did it obsessively, so I'm
familiar with it through him. What's the style that he did?
I did Lincoln-Douglas. That was the big one when I
was in high school in New York. You did Lincoln-Douglas
or extemp, extemporaneous speaking.

Speaker 3 (45:20):
Yeah, he did.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
He did the one where you talk super fast. And
I think it's policy policy.

Speaker 3 (45:27):
Yeah. Douglas is the other. So he did policy. Lincoln Douglas.
This reminds me of this is this would be an
excellent resolution for a high level debate. I agree. Douglas
High School debate, you know, showdown. So because like I said,
there really is. I understand when DeSantis said the covid stuff,
I was like, I could already envision the whole thing.
They are tracking you. They are how much are you driving?

(45:49):
Why are you in your car? I get all that.
So there are certainly things to be addressed with this. Mr. Clay?

Speaker 1 (45:57):
Yeah, I want to tell you about good ranchers. A
lot of you heard earlier this week on Monday, Ben Spell.
He was here in studio with us talking about the
challenges of producing meat in America. And he said something
staggering that I didn't know. And I think a lot
of you still have not gotten used to. Eighty five
percent of the meat you buy is coming in from
out of country. You don't know how it was produced.

(46:19):
You don't know the quality. You don't really know what
you are buying. And if you're in the United States
and you think to yourself, you know what? I want
to buy good American-based products that are coming right off
of American farms. That's exactly what Good Ranchers was designed
to do. They have over 25,000 five-star reviews on Trustpilot.

(46:42):
People love them. They're not bringing in foreign meat. This
is grown right here in the good old USA. You
are going to love their product, and you can get
a ground beef bundle. with your first Good Ranchers order
that's 100% free. Four pounds of 100% American Angus ground

(47:03):
beef to have in your freezer. Get hooked up right
now at goodranchers.com slash clay. Think about that. Four pounds
of 100% American raised Angus ground beef right in your
freezer when you make your first order. Goodranchers.com slash clay
comes right to your home today. You're going to love it.

(47:25):
Four pounds of ground beef for free with your first order. GoodRanchers.com.
Code Clay. American meat delivered.

Speaker 4 (47:35):
If you truly care, pass along this common sense to
family and friends.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
Clay and Buck, owning the airwaves.

Speaker 1 (47:43):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck. All right, update from
inside of the courtroom. The judge basically says, even though
you remain deadlocked, which is the note from the jury
that came today around the middle of the afternoon here,
just in the last 20 minutes or so, Go back

(48:05):
and keep deliberating. So this was the same thing the
judge said yesterday. I don't know how many times the
judge can continue to send back a deadlocked jury to
continue deliberations. Some of you out there may well have
tried cases where this has happened many different times. It's

(48:25):
not that common to have a jury multiple times basically
tell the judge, we're not going to agree, and the
judge keeps saying, go back and keep talking. Buck, I just,
I don't know what the actual numbers are here. I
would be very surprised if the men, there are only

(48:46):
three men on this jury, I would be very surprised
if the three men on this jury are saying, we
think she is not guilty. I would be very surprised simultaneously,
based on what we've seen from the behavior of women
in Massachusetts, if all nine women were saying she's guilty.

(49:07):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 3 (49:09):
I think if.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
This would be miserable if you are the men who
are saying, but she killed her three kids. And some
of the women on this jury just keep saying, but
she was really depressed. You don't understand. And we were
talking about this off air. My wife is super fired
up about this. And her argument is that women are
not talking enough. among themselves about how there are now

(49:36):
going to be arguments that are made that women, because
of their hormones can't make rational decisions. And that was
actually an argument that used to be made a hundred
years ago.

Speaker 3 (49:49):
The term hysteria actually is related to the Greek for,
I think it's womb or uterus or something. And that's where, uh.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
The hysterectomy, obviously, is connected to that as well. So
her argument is, we keep saying, hey, we want women
in positions of power. And then when a mom kills
her three kids, a ton of women show up and say, oh,
but she was really depressed. And then my kids... who
have actually been paying attention to this now. One of

(50:21):
them said, hey, on TikTok, Dad, there are now guys arguing.
Why can't men say, hey, our testosterone levels were really
high or I was taking steroids? Why can't men cite
their own hormone levels to argue that they aren't responsible
for criminal behavior? Which, I've got to be honest with you,

(50:43):
is not a crazy take if we're going to start
saying it. I come back to two things. That Irina
Zuritska murder. If you watch that guy stab her in
cold blood on the Charlotte public transit, and your immediate
response was, well, he's probably mentally ill. He shouldn't be
held accountable for that first-degree murder. I question how many

(51:07):
of you did that who are now saying Lindsay Clancy
isn't responsible. And, Buck, you were just talking about the
young mom who got stabbed in Times Square in the
middle of the day. They shot because the woman was
brandishing a knife, the woman who committed that murder, so
she is dead. But she was mentally ill. Should the
young mom who got stabbed in Times Square, should the

(51:30):
person who did that, if she were still living, not
be charged and convicted of first-degree murder? I just think
we are opening a huge can of worms if I
was depressed or my hormones were behaving in a way
that isn't normal, and so I can't be held criminally
responsible for strangling to death my three children. I just

(51:54):
think we're going to a dark place where you're going
to see a lot more of these arguments coming out,
and frankly, when evil happens... I'm not very interested in
making excuses personally for evil.

Speaker 3 (52:09):
I mentioned this, Clay, on Twitter or on X, and
I would direct anyone to go check it out, not
just my little musing on the subject, although that might
be of interest to some, but the article in question
is about 20, 21 years ago. The New York Times
did this piece, and this is back when the Times
used to at least do occasional acts of real reporting.

(52:32):
maybe by accident, but it would happen. And the New
York Times came up with this idea, or rather was
exploring this idea that for forensic psychiatrists, so these are
people whose specialty is in the intersection of mental health,
the psychological and psychiatric realm, and the law. So the

(52:55):
criminally insane is something that forensic psychiatrists would be dealing
with on a regular basis. And they kept running into
when people would spend time studying, analyzing, interviewing the worst
of the worst murderers, they would find that the justifications,

(53:15):
not justifications really, but the explanations, the analyses, the assessments
of why they did what they did always fell short,
didn't make sense, seemed kind of, and that they kept
coming back to one word, evil. That these people enjoyed cruelty, suffering,

(53:37):
extreme psychological duress and terror of other human beings, felt
zero remorse, knew what they were doing, chose to keep
doing it, were well aware of what was going on.
And I thought one of the even more interesting things
was that they were able to map out using CT
scan of the brain that, Clay, when people who are

(54:01):
They refer to them in the piece, I believe, as
predatory psychopaths because there are a lot of psychopaths. Psychopathy
is far more common in society than people realize. But
predatory psychopaths, criminal, mass murderers, people like Ted Bundy and
Manson and this, people who have that psychological profile, when

(54:22):
they see extreme violence, even if it's a natural disaster
or if it's violence and warfare, their brain reacts differently
to it.

Speaker 1 (54:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (54:34):
So I start, you start to say, okay, well, in
meaning they're like, it actually hits their pleasure center and
not their empathy or not their fear center. They, they
look at this and they go, Ooh, now at some
point you couldn't even get into, as we get a
better understanding of the mind, well then maybe that's just
the way their mechanics work or something. And so does
that change their culpability to which I would just say

(54:54):
to me, if you're criminally insane to the point where
you have harmed people and Isn't that a better isn't
the notion that you could be criminally insane and let
out of prison ever? Utterly backwards, because if you're a
person who has had their faculties and did a bad thing,
could be reformed and more trusted in their reform than

(55:14):
a person who is completely bonkers and did something horrible.
And then you're told later now they're stable.

Speaker 1 (55:21):
Says who? I'll give you an even darker example of
the Lindsay Clancy defense. People who are into child porn
are into kids. Their brain is wired differently, as you
were just saying, Buck. That's why we have to protect
them from kids. Are you just going to say, well,

(55:44):
that's the way that's yeah. What protected them from being
in proximity to kids, protect the kids from them. Are
you now just going to say, well, it's the way
their brains are wired.

Speaker 3 (55:54):
What can we do?

Speaker 1 (55:56):
Because there are, by the way, some sick people on
primarily the left now that will say that.

Speaker 3 (56:03):
Yes, they will understand.

Speaker 1 (56:07):
And so I just look, there are some things that
are so evil. that we have to make it clear
that we are not going to excuse it in any way.
You and I agree on this. Child murder is the
worst thing that a human can do. To make any
excuses for it at all is, to me, a failure

(56:29):
when it comes to the most basic responsibility of adults everywhere,
which is protecting children. I just I this really it's
your point is a good one where you might sit
around and say, hey, what should the tariff rate be
with Canada? And you can argue and we can have
a debate about how to bring back manufacturing and all
these things. When I hear people say Lindsay Clancy should

(56:52):
not be found guilty because her hormones are an issue
and she was really sad. It makes me angry. it
makes me angry to even have to respond to that
argument because I think even by taking it as an argument,
that's a difficult spot to take. To celebrate her is
even a step beyond that. And frankly, I think we've

(57:14):
seen into the dark soul of much of the nation
in the response in this case.

Speaker 3 (57:18):
I really mean this. Doing this show, which is always
because we are live and unscripted and it's a work
in progress because we are progressing as we do the work.
Every day. And it gives us an excuse both to
learn a lot so that we can come to the show,
not just equipped with current events, but facts and background
for the analysis. And so I just am able to

(57:39):
pull this up because I was curious as we're having
this discussion. When was the first time somebody used the
insanity defense? Because this would be a relative because psychology
as a field of study has not been around for
that long. Did you have something on the insanity?

Speaker 1 (57:54):
Well, I think one of the first was Daniel Sickles,
who we talked about, the individual who killed his wife's lover,
who later became a Civil War general, lost his leg
at the Battle of Gettysburg and was one of the
successful men of his era. He argued that he was
overcome with rage when his wife was cheating on him.

(58:15):
He saw her paramour and he killed her and he
was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Speaker 3 (58:20):
So you mentioned the Civil War. It's interesting. That's right
around the time when it first appeared anywhere. But the
first appearance was in England. Obviously, English common law is
a huge precedent for our own system and everything else.
Something called the McNatten Rule. I don't know how to

(58:43):
pronounce this. It's M apostrophe N. This is from Psychology Today.
The Insanity Defense was born in England in 1843. So, Clay,
just some years before the case you cited in this
country about Sickles. The Manhattan Rule was established when Daniel Manhattan,
who was psychotic, was acquitted of attempting to assassinate the

(59:04):
British Prime Minister. Following public debate over this verdict, the
House of Lords established the Manhattan rule, which became the
foundational legal test for insanity in both Britain. and the
United States. Under this rule, a defendant must prove they
had a disease of the mind that stopped them from

(59:25):
understanding the nature of their actions or understanding right from wrong.

Speaker 1 (59:32):
And this goes to– I don't think.

Speaker 3 (59:35):
Lindsay Clancy, by the way, fits that description. I think
that she knew what she was doing. She planned out
what she was doing. She was aware of everything, and
she knew that it wasn't a good thing. She didn't
think that this was somehow going to bring about the
messiah or something by murdering her own children. So– Anyway, sorry,

(59:55):
you were saying?

Speaker 1 (59:56):
No, I was just going to say this goes to, again,
the foundation of most crimes is the actus rea and
the mens rea. The act itself is being acknowledged in
this defense, i.e., you did kill someone. They're saying you
lack the mental capacity, the mens rea, to be responsible
for it. Now, in the case of someone like Daniel Sicklesbuck,
what it provided was an avenue for a jury to say, yeah,

(01:00:21):
he may have done it, but the other guy deserved it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:00:24):
I mean, that was basically the argument he made, which
is different than what she is saying.

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
That branched off, actually, as I said, crime of passion
became an affirmative defense that now is an off branch
of what you're talking about, which was the temporary insanity
of finding your wife with a lover. Crime of passion.
I think I said that they got rid of those rules.
You guys in Texas, you don't mess around. They got
rid of those rules in like the 70s as an

(01:00:49):
affirmative defense.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
I think, again, you're going to see way more psychology-related defenses,
hormone-related defenses. And I think it just is an ultimate
direct attack on the most important part of humanity in
my mind, which is individual responsibility. Yeah. But we will
continue to update you. Doesn't sound like there's going to

(01:01:12):
be a verdict. Certainly not while we're on the air today.
There's a police officer outside Louisville, Kentucky. Prosecutors say he
ran his ex-girlfriend through flock license plate cameras. We were
talking about flock over 2000 times, 2000. He wanted to
know where she was, where she was going, where she slept.
He's been charged with official misconduct, unlawful access to a computer.

(01:01:36):
But that guy had a badge and a camera network
to do it. Here's the part that gets to you.
A stranger doesn't necessarily need a badge to be able
to track you on the Internet. Your home address, your
phone number, your family's address. They're all on people search
sites right now for a couple of bucks. Your info
is available to anybody with a credit card. And nobody

(01:01:58):
gets arrested for buying that info from a data broker.
So we signed up for Incogni, online service we trust.
Incogni might be a new name to you, but the
company goes after data brokers, forcing them to delete your
personal info. By law, the data brokers have to comply.
Incogni keeps checking so they can't quietly put you back

(01:02:20):
on these lists. You should have Incogni working for you too.
Take back your online privacy. Go to incogni.com slash clay
for 60% off. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I incogni.com slash clay for a 60%
discount on regular prices because they can't harm you if

(01:02:41):
they can't find you. Incogni.com code clay.

Speaker 4 (01:02:45):
It's like having your house at the perfect temperature all
the time.

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
Preset Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.