August 15, 2025 • 36 mins
In Hour 1 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, the hosts dive into breaking political and international news, offering sharp analysis and bold commentary. The hour opens with coverage of the high-stakes Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, a pivotal moment in global diplomacy. Scheduled for 11:30 AM Alaska time, the meeting is framed as a potential turning point in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with President Trump aiming to bring both sides to the negotiating table without dictating terms. The hosts explore the geopolitical implications, including Trump’s strategic tariffs on India for importing Russian oil, which they argue helped pressure Putin into attending the summit.
The show also tackles the DC crime crisis, highlighting the Trump administration’s police intervention and the District of Columbia’s emergency legal challenge. Clay and Buck scrutinize the lawsuit, citing the president’s constitutional authority and the 1973 Home Rule Act. They discuss the broader impact of judicial activism, referencing past attempts to remove Trump from the ballot in states like Colorado and Maine, and label these efforts as a “legal insurrection.”
Listeners are treated to a spirited debate on law enforcement and public safety, with comparisons between DC’s increased police presence and military occupation. The hosts argue that more police equals less crime, challenging critics who view the move as authoritarian. They also discuss DUI checkpoints, defending their legality and effectiveness, while fielding passionate listener feedback on civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment.
In a lighter segment, the show shifts to pop culture and media trends, dissecting the viral impact of the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce interview. Clay and Buck use the moment to critique the decline of legacy media and the rise of alternative platforms, emphasizing how major news now breaks outside traditional outlets.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome everybody to the Friday edition of the Clay Travis
(00:03):
and Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate you, Appreciate you. In fact,
I just leaned into that one. I don't even know
what's going to happen. Appreciate you being with us, did it?
I said a Clay style there for a moment there,
and we are excited to tell you about everything going on,
including this major summit, this major sit down that is
going on in Alaska with Trump and footin that especially
(00:27):
for a Friday in the middle of August, that's going
to be about as big time as it gets for
any one individual foreign policy news story short of war
breaking out somewhere or major terrorist attack. This is a
big deal and we're going to get into some of
the specifics here. I believe the meeting is occurring post show, right,
(00:50):
so we don't we don't.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Have every thirty Eastern time it starts, which I believe
is eleven thirty am.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Alaska time, Alaska time. We had some very interesting deep
dive with the Governor of Alaska yesterday and to things
that people might not have known about the lovely state
where we have a number of fantastic or even fabulous
radio stations up there where we have a great listening audience.
(01:19):
We appreciate you. It's pretty incredible that people that far
away can hear us on the old radio stations. It's great.
We love it. But we'll give you some of the
details and all. This all sort of take a lot
of your talkbacks and calls today because it is a Friday.
More on the DC crime drama they're still going for
they're still pushing it. In fact, Clay something that you
(01:40):
see today, DC files a lawsuit challenging the administration's police takeover.
This just happened today and this is still breaking. So
the District of Columbia's filed an emergency motion challenging the
Trump administration's attempt. They're going to have a judge listen
to this. The issue is, I see it here. It's
(02:02):
pretty cut and dry that the president can do this.
So you're gonna have to find some and I know
the Democrats have a million ways. They'll say it violates
the Administrative Procedures Act or something. Don't even know who
the Administrative Proscedures Act is, So this is just what
they say. The people who say they know what it
is don't even know what it is. So I'm wondering
where they're really going to take this and what this
(02:24):
judge is going to say. And we still have the
redistricting fight going on. By the way, the governor California,
Gavin Newsom, has kicked off his campaign for a proposition,
play your buddy, Gavin. I think Gavin is still the leader.
I think he is the leading Democrat in the country
right now. Bernie Sanders gets more live hype from the
(02:45):
tours he does, but I think Gavin views himself as
as the alpha male. We're gonna get into the alpha
males Trump and putin here in a second, but what
do you think of both the DC emergency or challenging
this or emergency challenge? I should say to the crime takeover, Well,
let's start with that one. I'm I'm seeing this as
(03:07):
they're just making it worse for themselves. And at this point,
all Trump has to do is just keep doing what
he's doing, and everybody who's opposing him is going to
look increasingly foolish.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
It is indisputably the case that Trump has the constitutional
authority to act as he did in Washington, d C.
With that in mind, it is also possible that a
federal district court judge could in the DC area question
whether Trump has that power, particularly Boseburg and the anti
(03:39):
Trump contingent of the district court judges. So the media
will chase whatever the district court judges do. But remember
the Ninth Circuit. I believe one of the Federal District
Court judges, a brother of Stephen Bryer, if I'm not mistaken,
in the San Francisco area, said that Trump didn't have
the right to call in the guard in LA and
(04:02):
almost immediately that was reversed as it moved up the
legal hierarchy. But it wouldn't shock me if a judge
said that Trump can't do what he clearly can do,
because many of these judges are basically politicians in robes,
and so he can.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Indisputably do this.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Warriors everywhere who have even spent a scintilla of time
studying this not a difficult case. But that doesn't mean
that some judge might not say, well, I don't think
he could do it, you know, for some reason, just
to write an opinion to get a lot of attention.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
This is what we're going to see. Are the hashtag
resistance judges in DC willing to remember this is not
an interpretation of like a broad spectrum authority that the
president has. This is specifically in the district of Columbia
and looking at a law pass in nineteen seventy three
(04:58):
that has been good law for fifty years that deals
exactly with this issue, that says Trump can do this.
This is Trump has thirty days he can do this.
It says it in the law. Are we going to
have a judge that comes along, I'm i'm I could.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Go fifty fifty Whether they could just say that he
can't do it? Eventually judges will say he can, but
there might be one judge who says he cannot.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
It'll just It's fascinating though, because you see this Judges
no longer when it comes to Trump and the hashtag
resistance judiciary, they're no longer. There's no longer the fear
of embarrassment at being completely slapped down nine to oh.
Remember when they tried to kick Trump off the ballot
in Colorado. I think they talked about it in Maine, right,
but they actually were moving forward on her in Colorado
(05:45):
Supreme Court nine to oh, even so to mayor even
Catangi Brown Jackson we're like, guys, I mean, we gotta pretend.
We gotta pretend at least, right, this is not even
pretending to care what the law says. This is pretty
close to that for me, based on the reading of
the nineteen seventy three Home Relact. If a judge manages
to come up with some way to stop Trump on this,
(06:06):
it's just a judge saying I don't like Trump. They're
not even pretending the law matters.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
I also think this is where there should be some
consequences when judges engage in behavior that's way outside the
bounds of what the law is. When you get lifetime tenure,
there's virtually nothing that happens to any of these federal
district court judges. Sure there's a measure of embarrassment on
(06:33):
some level for people who want to actually apply the law,
but I think in many ways that's canceled out by
other judges giving them pats on the back and saying,
way to stand up to that tyrant, Way to stand
up to that authoritarian. This is what judges should do.
And honestly, I think if you get overruled nine oh,
(06:55):
I think you should actually have a consequence. You know,
a good example, as you were just pointing out the
Colorado Supreme Court, everybody wants to forget about it because
now they're saying, oh, redistricting is putting democracy on the
ballot and all these things. The state of Colorado voted
to pull Donald Trump off of the ballot and not
(07:16):
allow people there to vote for him, and the Colorado
Supreme Court said four to three, that's appropriate. We can
do this looking at the federal Constitution. And then the
actual Supreme Court looked at it and said nine to zho, no,
this is unacceptable. But all of those people in Colorado,
there were no consequences for them being wrong. There were
(07:37):
no consequences that we barely even talk about what they
tried to do. And what was it Maine that followed up.
There were multiple states that were willing to get in
line and say Trump was disqualified from being able to
be eligible for president of the United States. If that's
not an actual legal insurrection, what is you know? That's
(07:57):
the phrase Kathy Hokel used to describe Texas redistricting. Pulling
a candidate off the ballot and not allowing your citizens
to vote is to me a level of attack on
basic democracy in the process of warresident that maybe.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
For judicial overreach we've seen in the Trump era against Trump,
I could because it's I mean, you think about they
also were just deciding that there was no there was
no process to speak of. I mean they just said, yeah,
Trump did a thing I don't like, so he can't
be on the ballot. You can't and you can't even
point to that just being one judge buck, which is
why I find it so troubling. The Colorado Supreme Court,
(08:39):
I believe there's seven Supreme Court justices in the state
of Colorado voted.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Four to three, we're going to do this. So that
actually went through the entire Colorado court system and they
said yes, and then they got slapped down nine to zero.
And I'm mentioning it now, and I bet a lot
of you are just now thinking, oh, yeah, I totally
forgot about that. Because there's so many legal process and
procedures that have been put in place since then. I
think that was, of all of them, the most egregious.
(09:06):
And so when you hear somebody like Kathy Hochl, Governor
of New York, say, oh, this is a legal insurrection
referring to Texas or redistricting I think it's important to
remember what they did legitimately in trying to take Trump
off the ballot, and it had to go all the
way to Supreme Court to put his name on the ballot.
I can't think of anything that's even remotely comparable that
(09:28):
any Republican has ever done that is a legal attack
of a similar nature on Democrats.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Meanwhile, there are Democrats out there. This is as somebody
who's been in Baghdad during a war. I gotta tell you.
Here's Tiffany Cross, Democrat saying, I guess this is over
at CNN, CNNMSNBC. You know, Tomato, Tomato, It's all the
same these days. Here she is saying, remember, she's upset,
(09:58):
this has cut five. She's upset not because DC is dangerous,
but because there are too many people who are there
to make it safer on the streets. Play five.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
I mean, this is frightening. I kind of disagree with
you both. It's not a distraction, and the way we're
normalizing fascism is frightening. I left DC today it looked
like Baghdad, the way that the National Guard has taken over,
the way that they have militarized the police force, there.
It is scary, and so the fact that he has
previously threatened to have Gavin Newsom arrested. He had the
(10:31):
Christy known the Homeland Security Secretary. I mean, for her,
killing puppies is business as usual. She's not in any
position to even be qualified to oversee a department with this.
Ice does not have the authority to arrest anybody. He
is deploying them, like you said, like it's his own
personal police force.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Just ignoring everything that's true and just saying things that
are crazy and emotionally charged, and even a shot about
the Gnomes in the past. She believe herself open to that,
but I'm not defending it. I'm just saying working this
is a kitchen sink strategy. It's fascism, attacking Nome for
(11:12):
the dog thing and all this stuff. She's going all
in on this instead of just saying for a second,
hold on. First of all, there are I've seen plenty
of There was an armory near where I grew up
in New York. You see people in military uniforms. Why
is it scary to see people from the National Guard?
Why would that be a bad thing? This is a
little bit like why police on your block should make
(11:33):
you feel safer, and if they don't, you should ask why.
I agree.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And anybody out there who doesn't want more police is
probably doing something illegal. And here's a big question. Worst
case scenario, Trump does all this additional mobilization of resources
to help try to make DC safer and the crime
rate stays basically the same. That's the worst case scenario,
(12:00):
absolute worst case scenario. Has anybody really considered what happens
if it works? Imagine if Trump brings these resources to
bear on the district of Columbia and suddenly violent crime
drops by forty percent. Look at what he did on
the border, where basically nobody talks about the border. It's
(12:21):
important sometimes to remember stories that were big, Oh Trump
can't be on the ballot, he's not a constitutionally eligible
to be president.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Just vanishes.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Nobody even mentions it the border, nobody mentions it at all.
Has anybody really thought? This is why I love the
move that Trump is making. I don't see a downside.
Democrats say, hey, we've got too many police. Most people say,
well we should. If you're upset about too many police,
you're probably a criminal. The only person who's upset about
(12:51):
a drunk driving. A test is the person who's driving drunk, right, Like,
if you're driving, you know you know how the person
they can catch you because some guys are like uh oh,
and you turn and go the opposite direction and they
pull you over. If you see a drunk driving checkpoint,
it's probably a sign that you may have been drinking.
The only people upset about drunk driving checkpoints are people
(13:12):
that might have been drinking. To me, the only people
upset about more police on the streets are people who
are actually engaged in criminal behavior. But buck, what if
it works? What if in two months we have a
fifty percent decline in violent crime in DC? What if
carjacking plummets. What if the number of murders plummet? What
(13:35):
do democrats do then? I and worst case scenario, nothing changes.
And the problems are so intractable in DC right now
that more troops and more police on the ground don't
impact things. But I just see this as brilliant when
you write when you analyze risk reward, if the risk
is zero and the reward is massive, that to me
(13:56):
seems like something you should do in all facets of life.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
And that to me is this, Yeah, and yet they're
still going to scream about this and say that it
is fascism. Uh, have you written your will yet or
done something as important as establishing a trust. Here's a
little inside tip on both. They're no longer expensive or
time consuming thanks to our sponsor, Trust and Will dot Com.
They can help you create one or both without having
(14:21):
to find and hire an attorney. It's important to do
this because your trust or will will eventually become your voice.
You don't want your family scrambling after the fact, because
if there's no will or trust left behind, your estate
can be tied up in probate for months or longer,
depending on the state. Set your family up the right
way at the time it's needed most. The website to
get started is Trust and Will dot com slash buck.
(14:45):
When you go there, you'll save twenty percent. That's Trust
and Will dot Com slash Buck. Trust and Will dot
Com slash Buck.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Making America great again isn't just one man, It's many.
The team podcasts Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay
and Buck podcast Feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I know we got big serious things to discuss, but
I do think I've been getting blown up all morning
about this. I was just talking about it to Buck.
The numbers are out. You have no knowledge of the
Taylor Swift interview that she did with Travis Kelcey Buck
at all?
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Right? Like you have?
Speaker 2 (15:31):
You truly have had zero knowledge of it in any way?
Have you managed to escape all coverage of it, all
attention on it.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Yes, yeah, I have no idea. I didn't know who
Travis Kelsey was until he started dating Taylor Swift. That
is a very girl like thing for you to I
was gonna say, maybe I shouldn't have admitted that on
the radio. That's that, that's a little that was a
little fabulous for you.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
I was actually, yeah, well, we've got some fun, fun
analysis there. I didn't actually know there was a heaterous,
actual man who did not know Travis Kelcey until he
started dating Taylor Swift, until Buck just told us.
Speaker 6 (16:05):
So.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
I appreciate him being so honest with his audience early
in the show. Today, my phone has been blown up
with everybody dissecting this relationship. Let me just tell you this,
I do find it interesting in this way. I think
the legacy media is to a large degree now worthless.
(16:31):
And I say that because look at where major news
is breaking outside of Fox News, which is a leviathan
unlike any other news organization. Right now, I think it's
fair to say in the country, almost everyone is doing
things outside of the traditional metric, and the number of
(16:53):
people consuming them is off the charts. I was just
looking through billions of impressions of that Taylor Swift and
Travis Kelsey interview. Now, whatever you think about it, I
do think the Trump election in twenty twenty four, to
a large extent, is a map for what twenty twenty
eight is going to look like. The sixty minutes interview thing,
(17:16):
which obviously turned into a flap associated with Kamala, that
organization is dead. I don't even think it's going to
matter in twenty twenty eight, and I do think it's
going to be one of the most profound legacies of
Trump that the media that traditionally was the safeguarding universe
that analyzed all of this is gone forever. I don't
(17:36):
think it's ever going to return. And I think this
interview that has taken over much of pop culture is
emblematic of what happened in the twenty twenty four election too.
You ever seen those stats about CDs and MP three's
and how even after MP three's came out, people are
still buying CDs until two thousand and six, and then
it was done and then it just died gone. And
(17:57):
we'll come back here a second. What percentage of Americans
do you think own gold? Is it five percent, fifteen percent,
a third of all Americans? Look, just more than twelve
percent is the answer, which is pretty small when you
think about it, considering especially that gold has increased by
some forty percent over the last year alone. For you,
for most of this audience, it's an investment opportunity. And
there are a lot of reasons to own gold these days,
(18:18):
not just because of that value increase. It's proven to
increase in value over time, that's one thing, and owning
it in your savings account is going to help hedge
with the declining value of our dollar over time. Owning
gold is good can be physical gold, That's what I've got,
but you can also take an existing ira or four
to one k and turn it into a gold ira
(18:38):
or four one k with birch Gold Group.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Cash in our accounts. The cash in our accounts is
going down. Gold is going up over time. Go check
it out for yourself. Text my name Buck to ninety
eight ninety eight ninety eight. Birch Gold will send you
a free infoKit on Gold. Text Buck to ninety eight
ninety eight ninety eight. Today, welcome back into Clay and Bock.
Let's start to dive in with the Trump Putin summit
(19:02):
in Alaska today. It's going to be happening. They're sitting
down right after the show, so we're telling you what
we're expecting and all of the preview, if you will,
of this diplomatic boxing match that will be going on.
Trump was on Air Force one this morning, speaking to
the press as he does. This is cut ten and
this is what he said. Are the territorial swaps on
(19:27):
the table? Will you be discussing? They'll be discussed.
Speaker 6 (19:30):
But I've got to let Ukraine make that decision, and
I think they'll make a proper decision. But I'm not
here to negotiate for Ukraine. I'm here to get them
at a table, and I think you have two sides. Look,
Vladimir Putin wanted to take all of Ukraine. If I
wasn't president, he would right now be taking all of
you grant.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
But he's not gonna do it. So Trump is really
setting this up. I think, Clay and this has been
I believe the expectation from a lot of people now
who have been following this where he is. He's getting
the two sides to talk, and so he's talking to
Putin about that process. But it sounds like he doesn't
(20:13):
have a particular I don't know. It doesn't sound like
he has an expectation of what either side is going
to demand, or maybe I should say he doesn't plan
to dictate terms to either side other than just make
a deal. Is he's like smashing these two, these two
guys together Zelenskin Putin and saying, figure it out.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
I would equate this too, And I bet a lot
of people out there in business in life you've done this.
You go to meet with somebody and you think, I
don't really know what the significance of this meeting is,
and then you can tell about five minutes in whether
or not it's going to be worth your time.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I think that's really what Trump is trying to do.
Did you see I.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Want to play this cut because I couldn't believe it.
Hillary Clinton said that Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
if he gets this war to end. I never would
have believed that. Do we have that audio? I believe
we do is in the cutscheet. Can we play that
if he.
Speaker 7 (21:11):
Could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where
it had to concede its territory to the aggressor had
to in a way validate Putin's vision of greater Russia,
but instead could really stand up to Putin to make
it clear there must be a cease fire, there will
be no exchange of territory, and that over a period
(21:34):
of time, Putin should be actually withdrawing from the territory
he seized in order to demonstrate good faith efforts let
us say, not to threaten European security. If President Trump
were the architect of that, I'd nominate him for a
Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Okay, that standard, Well, first of all, that standard at snarky.
She doesn't have high faith here.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, And also that standard is basically Russia just puts
down its arms and says we never should have invaded
in the first place. I do think that Trump's going
to get a deal. And I believe that the media
has not covered enough the move to splash big tariffs
(22:19):
on India for taking in the Russian oil and gas,
and hardly anyone has talked about it that I believe
was the move that got Putin to come to Russia
and meet with Trump. I also think not enough as
being so for those of you who don't understand that
tactically why it was such a big move, there had
(22:41):
been a tacit acknowledgement that Europe was not going to
pay for oil and gas from Russia, but that we
basically weren't going to allow the oil and gas of
Russia to continue to continue to pile up and not
go on to the global marketplace because that could raise
the cost of oil and gas for everybody. And so
(23:01):
there was sort of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, they'll
just sell all of their oil and gas to India
and also China. But India obviously is a democracy that
we have a great relationship with, and India went I
believe the math is from oil and gas from Russia
representing one percent of their overall oil and gas imports
(23:21):
to I believe thirty three percent. Basically overnight. So that
if you think about India and the amount of size
of that country, Russia I believe is fueling about a
third of their overall oil and gas needs from one
percent pre invasion with Ukraine. So that suddenly doubling of
the tariff on India was a statement that Trump basically
(23:44):
isn't okay with that. Continuing almost immediately Putin said okay,
let's go meet now. I think that has not gotten
enough attention. I think that's what motivated this second part
of this that hasn't gotten enough attention. In my mind,
Buck Putin's coming to America. It wasn't very long ago
that we were saying through the Biden administration, Oh, if
(24:04):
Putin ever steps foot in America, we're going to arrest
him for war crimes. Have you heard anyone on the
Democrat party side even mention the idea? Do you remember
that tough talk from Biden. Oh, he'll never come to
America because the international criminal courts will arrest him and
America is going to take him into custody. And there
was talk that he wasn't going to be able to
(24:25):
travel anywhere outside of Russia he's coming to America. That
feels pretty significant too that Trump got him to come here.
Trump's not going to Russia. Trump's not even going to
Sweden or some sort of traditionally neutral country. He's got
Putin coming to the United States. Now, I know it's
(24:48):
not a huge trip from Russia, but I think both
of those parts, before we even see how the conversation go,
are illustrative to me of Putin actually being interested in
potentially trying to get a deal done here. Now what
does he want? That's the ultimate question we never have
really figured out.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Here's Trump also on Air Force One talking about Putin.
Just a little throwback here, Ah, what was it three
years ago when we were in mar A Lago with
Trump in the early early days of the Russia Ukraine War,
And Trump said Putin's a genius.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
And it was in the context of a much longer
thing where he's basically just saying this guy is a
very savvy operator and knows how to get what he wants.
But he was just being Trump, you know, when he
says he has a very good relationship with somebody, Well,
that can change in a day. But Trump likes to
present things in a certain way, and the whole Internet
melted down over this for a couple of days. I
(25:45):
remember there was like a global news story that Trump
said Putin's a genius. Trump, I think has respect for
Putin's skill set and for his bravado. I wonder though,
if he likes makes him at all as a person.
First of all, he has his English is not very good,
is what I understand. He speaks He speaks English, but
(26:07):
not well. So they do use it. I think they
use a translate. That's actually really I want to know.
I know they have translators present. I'm wondering how much
that is relied on in an exchange between Trump and Putin.
But I do know that Putin's English is not very good.
So the the depth of the relationship between these two men,
I don't think is particularly you know, they don't they
(26:29):
don't really have some deeper connection. Right. This isn't FDR
and Churchill slapping each other's backs back in the day.
But here is Trump saying some things about Putin. This
is cut eleven. Listen to it. And you've had a
lot of phone calls with President Putin.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
What's the difference in the face to face in person
media different?
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Look, He's a smart guy been doing it for a
long time, but so have I been doing it for
a long time. And here we are with president that
was much more difficult than what I'm doing today, believe me.
So we get along. There's a good respect level on
both sides, and I think, you know something's going to
(27:08):
come of it. I notice he's bringing a lot of
business people from Russia, and that's good. I like that
because they want to do business. But they're not doing
business until we get the worst out of it.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
He's not over selling it, Clay. You'll notice Trump isn't
saying this is one hundred percent get ready to pop
the champagne. He's saying, we'll see, but I'm trying.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Here's another thing that I think people say, Oh, Trump
gets along too well with dictators. Trump is too chummy
with authoritarians everything else. Here's what I think Trump relies upon,
and I think many authoritarian leaders do too. You ultimately
(27:51):
have to trust the person at the top of the
chain that you're making a deal with, because both Trump
and Putin and everybody else who's in a position of
power is going to have a vast bureaucracy of people
that are in charge of implementing the policies that they
put in place. This is true for any CEO, this
is true for any business, And ultimately, in a top
(28:14):
down structure, you have to know, hey, I can get
this guy on the phone and I trust him that
we have a mutuality of understanding. And that is ultimately,
I think the case on everything. Anybody who has ever
papered a deal of any kind of significance, If you
don't trust the guy at the top of the food
(28:35):
chain that you're doing the deal with, everything that you
intend gets lost in the flow of the bureaucracy, and
you ultimately need to be able to go to the
top and say, hey, this is what we talked about
face to face, let's work this out. And I think
Putin respects that, and I think Trump respects that, and
that's why I think there is cautious optimism. I thought
(28:57):
really yesterday Buck that the governor of Alaska, I thought
that was kind of big news when he said, Hey,
it's possible Zolensky just hops in a jet and ends
up here too. In other words, there is a possibility
that they could extend this visit in Anchorage and maybe
continue to hammer out details. I haven't heard anybody else
(29:17):
make that comment, but that to me, it wouldn't take
for I mean, all these guys have access to huge
jumbo jets that can travel around the world and get anywhere.
I don't know that that's likely to happen, but maybe
there's a possibility this ends up in a longer meeting.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
This is also one of those moments where no one's
really talking about this clay, but a reminder of the
United Nations is essentially worthless. Yes, you know, you'll notice
you don't hear, there's no and and really on this
issue too. The EU has done some stuff, the European
our allies are helping Ukraine with some money and weapons.
(29:54):
But at the end of the day, it's still America
that is calling the shots on the global state, especially
when you're talking about a Rusher or China situation. It's
us and it's them. You know, the the UN that
the make believe stories that the United Nations Security Council
does anything good, It really doesn't. It's it's either irrelevant
(30:14):
or sometimes actually bad in the decisions or in the way. Certainly,
the You and Human Rights Council is a giant mess.
But you would think that. This is why you would
have you know, an aggressor an invasion, a major war
the United Nations. Nobody even cares. Yeah, I'm not going
to do anything totally totally worthless. That's why they should
move it out of New York, to move it somewhere else.
(30:35):
And you know, not let these diplomats just run up
their charge cards at fancy restaurants.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Do you know why it's totally worthless? Because they're not
the deciders of anything. And that comes back to you
know why you got to try the tops to sit
down with Putin. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is
who is the decider. And that's that's why so frustrating
big business, big government, because there are seven hundred and
sixty eight different and vice presidents of something, but they're
(31:02):
all running their request up the flagpole and everything gets
bogged down. You always want to talk with the guy
or the gal who actually gets to make a decision
at any organization. Otherwise it's often a worthless process. And
I think that's what Trump gets, and that's certainly what
Putin gets. I'm going to go down Tuesday to Chattanooga, Tennessee.
(31:23):
I'm speaking there at the Young Republican Conference. And I'm
also going to visit our friends at Legacy Box. I've
been talking about this for a while. They have an
incredible facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee where you can send all
of your old family memories on tape, on film reels,
on any basic type of media and they will digitize it.
(31:43):
I think I'm actually kind of curious to see this room.
I believe they have the largest collection of VCRs anywhere
in the world because they can basically take any of
your VHS tapes and they can digitize them. That's their business.
They have a huge factory of people working all all
the time in Chattanooga, Tennessee to do this, and I'm
(32:03):
gonna see it for myself on Tuesday. But if you've
got old media lying around your house, videotapes, audio cassettes,
loose photos, they're going to keep fading with time. These
VHS tapes are not made to last for a long time.
They may be in a hot attic, they may be
out in your garage now uh and right now you
can save a bundle. I might even see some of
(32:23):
your gear going through the process of being digitized inside
of this amazing factory. Just go to Legacy box dot
com right now slash Clay to get fifty percent off
your order again. I'm gonna be seeing it for myself
next week. Look forward to checking out their facilities. But
millions of you have trusted Legacy Box to help preserve
(32:44):
your family memories, and right now they've got a fabulous
deal for you. Legacy Box dot Com slash Clay fifty
percent off your order. That's a Legacy box dot Com
slash Clay.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
Seek out with the guys on the Sunday Hang with
Clay and Buck podcast, a new episode of Every Sunday.
Find it on the iHeart app or wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
We got a lot of different people.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Wa again, as is often the case on a variety
of different topics. Let's go here a day from Brockton,
mass DD talkback what we got for you.
Speaker 8 (33:25):
Hey, Clay, this is Dave from Bronckon and nobody ever
heard of him before because he sucked. Now he's with
Tillo Swiss, So I'm kind of Patriots Nation. You got
me in Massachusetts and the Pats are gonna smoke Casey
this year.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Mock my words on I can't. I can't argue with
someone's analysis of the Patriots when they're rocking a Boston
accent like that, Like that's just he's beyond reproach.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
I appreciate the bitterness. The Patriots are not, in fact,
gonna smoke anyone this year. They're not very good.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Sorry, is that the case? I was not aware.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Yeah, they've been awful without Tom Brady as they were
awful without Tom Brady before him. Hurley, I'm not Hurley.
It's like lost Hurley from Lincoln, Nebraska.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
What you got for is ee, I'm here.
Speaker 9 (34:16):
You're talking about Travis and Taylor, and I have to
tell you that I really appreciate them because it helps me.
When I go to my news websites. I scrolled down
and I read the articles that I want to read,
and I know exactly when the stop reading. It's when
I come to the first Travison and Taylor headlines.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
So I love them.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
People click on these stories like crazy. I will tell
you even at OutKick Dennis in Columbus, Ohio, he's mad.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
I did it. Sometimes the things that I say that
are going to provoke me. I knew I was swear
to you. I was going to say, you've pissed off
the libertarians who are listening, and sure enough, here we are.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
I am in favor of DUI checkpoints. I think that
they are smart. I think that they reduce drunk drive.
And I don't think you have a right to drive
on taxpayer funded roads and not worry that you might
be pulled over for breaking the law when it comes
to drunk driving. But Dennis from Columbus, Ohio is upset
with me for being in favor of the UI checkpoints.
Speaker 5 (35:15):
Congratulations on selling out the Fourth Amendment. Boys, I'm not
sure which one of you said it, but I can't
believe either of you parroted the idiotic line about the
only people being upset about sobriety checkpoints are people driving
drunk period.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
What about those of.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
Us who don't like to be detained for as much
as an hour without probable cause.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
You aren't getting detained for an hour at d UI
checkpoint again, public roads.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
It was it was play. Just to be clear with me.
It's at Travis on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
I'll take I am now going to be attacked this
week for opposing murder and opposing drunk driving. So uh,
I you know, I'll take the slings and arrows when
they come. I actually think that that drunk drive stops now.
Frent thankfully, Uber and Lyft have helped, I think, decrease
drunk driving immensely. Also, young kids are not drinking as much,
(36:10):
which I think is probably a good health moves. They're
hitting historic lows, but the data is pretty clear that
when you drive drunk, you put a lot of people
in danger, and anything we can do to limit that
danger that is within constitutional authority. And I think that
is and has been found to be within the constitutional authority,
not violating the Fourth Amendment, and I'm in favor of it.
(36:32):
I'm anti murder and I'm anti drunk driving. I'm taking
some strong cases this week. When we come back, we
will break down a bunch of serious stories relating to
Putin and Ukraine. Also, we have research on my use
of the word fabulous, and it turns out, fuck, this
is a hell of the tease. Maybe I'm actually gay
and I didn't know it. I do use the word
(36:54):
fabulous a lot. We'll discuss next week.
Welcome everybody to the Friday edition of the Clay Travis
(00:03):
and Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate you, Appreciate you. In fact,
I just leaned into that one. I don't even know
what's going to happen. Appreciate you being with us, did it?
I said a Clay style there for a moment there,
and we are excited to tell you about everything going on,
including this major summit, this major sit down that is
going on in Alaska with Trump and footin that especially
(00:27):
for a Friday in the middle of August, that's going
to be about as big time as it gets for
any one individual foreign policy news story short of war
breaking out somewhere or major terrorist attack. This is a
big deal and we're going to get into some of
the specifics here. I believe the meeting is occurring post show, right,
(00:50):
so we don't we don't.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Have every thirty Eastern time it starts, which I believe
is eleven thirty am.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Alaska time, Alaska time. We had some very interesting deep
dive with the Governor of Alaska yesterday and to things
that people might not have known about the lovely state
where we have a number of fantastic or even fabulous
radio stations up there where we have a great listening audience.
(01:19):
We appreciate you. It's pretty incredible that people that far
away can hear us on the old radio stations. It's great.
We love it. But we'll give you some of the
details and all. This all sort of take a lot
of your talkbacks and calls today because it is a Friday.
More on the DC crime drama they're still going for
they're still pushing it. In fact, Clay something that you
(01:40):
see today, DC files a lawsuit challenging the administration's police takeover.
This just happened today and this is still breaking. So
the District of Columbia's filed an emergency motion challenging the
Trump administration's attempt. They're going to have a judge listen
to this. The issue is, I see it here. It's
(02:02):
pretty cut and dry that the president can do this.
So you're gonna have to find some and I know
the Democrats have a million ways. They'll say it violates
the Administrative Procedures Act or something. Don't even know who
the Administrative Proscedures Act is, So this is just what
they say. The people who say they know what it
is don't even know what it is. So I'm wondering
where they're really going to take this and what this
(02:24):
judge is going to say. And we still have the
redistricting fight going on. By the way, the governor California,
Gavin Newsom, has kicked off his campaign for a proposition,
play your buddy, Gavin. I think Gavin is still the leader.
I think he is the leading Democrat in the country
right now. Bernie Sanders gets more live hype from the
(02:45):
tours he does, but I think Gavin views himself as
as the alpha male. We're gonna get into the alpha
males Trump and putin here in a second, but what
do you think of both the DC emergency or challenging
this or emergency challenge? I should say to the crime takeover, Well,
let's start with that one. I'm I'm seeing this as
(03:07):
they're just making it worse for themselves. And at this point,
all Trump has to do is just keep doing what
he's doing, and everybody who's opposing him is going to
look increasingly foolish.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
It is indisputably the case that Trump has the constitutional
authority to act as he did in Washington, d C.
With that in mind, it is also possible that a
federal district court judge could in the DC area question
whether Trump has that power, particularly Boseburg and the anti
(03:39):
Trump contingent of the district court judges. So the media
will chase whatever the district court judges do. But remember
the Ninth Circuit. I believe one of the Federal District
Court judges, a brother of Stephen Bryer, if I'm not mistaken,
in the San Francisco area, said that Trump didn't have
the right to call in the guard in LA and
(04:02):
almost immediately that was reversed as it moved up the
legal hierarchy. But it wouldn't shock me if a judge
said that Trump can't do what he clearly can do,
because many of these judges are basically politicians in robes,
and so he can.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Indisputably do this.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Warriors everywhere who have even spent a scintilla of time
studying this not a difficult case. But that doesn't mean
that some judge might not say, well, I don't think
he could do it, you know, for some reason, just
to write an opinion to get a lot of attention.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
This is what we're going to see. Are the hashtag
resistance judges in DC willing to remember this is not
an interpretation of like a broad spectrum authority that the
president has. This is specifically in the district of Columbia
and looking at a law pass in nineteen seventy three
(04:58):
that has been good law for fifty years that deals
exactly with this issue, that says Trump can do this.
This is Trump has thirty days he can do this.
It says it in the law. Are we going to
have a judge that comes along, I'm i'm I could.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Go fifty fifty Whether they could just say that he
can't do it? Eventually judges will say he can, but
there might be one judge who says he cannot.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
It'll just It's fascinating though, because you see this Judges
no longer when it comes to Trump and the hashtag
resistance judiciary, they're no longer. There's no longer the fear
of embarrassment at being completely slapped down nine to oh.
Remember when they tried to kick Trump off the ballot
in Colorado. I think they talked about it in Maine, right,
but they actually were moving forward on her in Colorado
(05:45):
Supreme Court nine to oh, even so to mayor even
Catangi Brown Jackson we're like, guys, I mean, we gotta pretend.
We gotta pretend at least, right, this is not even
pretending to care what the law says. This is pretty
close to that for me, based on the reading of
the nineteen seventy three Home Relact. If a judge manages
to come up with some way to stop Trump on this,
(06:06):
it's just a judge saying I don't like Trump. They're
not even pretending the law matters.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
I also think this is where there should be some
consequences when judges engage in behavior that's way outside the
bounds of what the law is. When you get lifetime tenure,
there's virtually nothing that happens to any of these federal
district court judges. Sure there's a measure of embarrassment on
(06:33):
some level for people who want to actually apply the law,
but I think in many ways that's canceled out by
other judges giving them pats on the back and saying,
way to stand up to that tyrant, Way to stand
up to that authoritarian. This is what judges should do.
And honestly, I think if you get overruled nine oh,
(06:55):
I think you should actually have a consequence. You know,
a good example, as you were just pointing out the
Colorado Supreme Court, everybody wants to forget about it because
now they're saying, oh, redistricting is putting democracy on the
ballot and all these things. The state of Colorado voted
to pull Donald Trump off of the ballot and not
(07:16):
allow people there to vote for him, and the Colorado
Supreme Court said four to three, that's appropriate. We can
do this looking at the federal Constitution. And then the
actual Supreme Court looked at it and said nine to zho, no,
this is unacceptable. But all of those people in Colorado,
there were no consequences for them being wrong. There were
(07:37):
no consequences that we barely even talk about what they
tried to do. And what was it Maine that followed up.
There were multiple states that were willing to get in
line and say Trump was disqualified from being able to
be eligible for president of the United States. If that's
not an actual legal insurrection, what is you know? That's
(07:57):
the phrase Kathy Hokel used to describe Texas redistricting. Pulling
a candidate off the ballot and not allowing your citizens
to vote is to me a level of attack on
basic democracy in the process of warresident that maybe.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
For judicial overreach we've seen in the Trump era against Trump,
I could because it's I mean, you think about they
also were just deciding that there was no there was
no process to speak of. I mean they just said, yeah,
Trump did a thing I don't like, so he can't
be on the ballot. You can't and you can't even
point to that just being one judge buck, which is
why I find it so troubling. The Colorado Supreme Court,
(08:39):
I believe there's seven Supreme Court justices in the state
of Colorado voted.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Four to three, we're going to do this. So that
actually went through the entire Colorado court system and they
said yes, and then they got slapped down nine to zero.
And I'm mentioning it now, and I bet a lot
of you are just now thinking, oh, yeah, I totally
forgot about that. Because there's so many legal process and
procedures that have been put in place since then. I
think that was, of all of them, the most egregious.
(09:06):
And so when you hear somebody like Kathy Hochl, Governor
of New York, say, oh, this is a legal insurrection
referring to Texas or redistricting I think it's important to
remember what they did legitimately in trying to take Trump
off the ballot, and it had to go all the
way to Supreme Court to put his name on the ballot.
I can't think of anything that's even remotely comparable that
(09:28):
any Republican has ever done that is a legal attack
of a similar nature on Democrats.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Meanwhile, there are Democrats out there. This is as somebody
who's been in Baghdad during a war. I gotta tell you.
Here's Tiffany Cross, Democrat saying, I guess this is over
at CNN, CNNMSNBC. You know, Tomato, Tomato, It's all the
same these days. Here she is saying, remember, she's upset,
(09:58):
this has cut five. She's upset not because DC is dangerous,
but because there are too many people who are there
to make it safer on the streets. Play five.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
I mean, this is frightening. I kind of disagree with
you both. It's not a distraction, and the way we're
normalizing fascism is frightening. I left DC today it looked
like Baghdad, the way that the National Guard has taken over,
the way that they have militarized the police force, there.
It is scary, and so the fact that he has
previously threatened to have Gavin Newsom arrested. He had the
(10:31):
Christy known the Homeland Security Secretary. I mean, for her,
killing puppies is business as usual. She's not in any
position to even be qualified to oversee a department with this.
Ice does not have the authority to arrest anybody. He
is deploying them, like you said, like it's his own
personal police force.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Just ignoring everything that's true and just saying things that
are crazy and emotionally charged, and even a shot about
the Gnomes in the past. She believe herself open to that,
but I'm not defending it. I'm just saying working this
is a kitchen sink strategy. It's fascism, attacking Nome for
(11:12):
the dog thing and all this stuff. She's going all
in on this instead of just saying for a second,
hold on. First of all, there are I've seen plenty
of There was an armory near where I grew up
in New York. You see people in military uniforms. Why
is it scary to see people from the National Guard?
Why would that be a bad thing? This is a
little bit like why police on your block should make
(11:33):
you feel safer, and if they don't, you should ask why.
I agree.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And anybody out there who doesn't want more police is
probably doing something illegal. And here's a big question. Worst
case scenario, Trump does all this additional mobilization of resources
to help try to make DC safer and the crime
rate stays basically the same. That's the worst case scenario,
(12:00):
absolute worst case scenario. Has anybody really considered what happens
if it works? Imagine if Trump brings these resources to
bear on the district of Columbia and suddenly violent crime
drops by forty percent. Look at what he did on
the border, where basically nobody talks about the border. It's
(12:21):
important sometimes to remember stories that were big, Oh Trump
can't be on the ballot, he's not a constitutionally eligible
to be president.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Just vanishes.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Nobody even mentions it the border, nobody mentions it at all.
Has anybody really thought? This is why I love the
move that Trump is making. I don't see a downside.
Democrats say, hey, we've got too many police. Most people say,
well we should. If you're upset about too many police,
you're probably a criminal. The only person who's upset about
(12:51):
a drunk driving. A test is the person who's driving drunk, right, Like,
if you're driving, you know you know how the person
they can catch you because some guys are like uh oh,
and you turn and go the opposite direction and they
pull you over. If you see a drunk driving checkpoint,
it's probably a sign that you may have been drinking.
The only people upset about drunk driving checkpoints are people
(13:12):
that might have been drinking. To me, the only people
upset about more police on the streets are people who
are actually engaged in criminal behavior. But buck, what if
it works? What if in two months we have a
fifty percent decline in violent crime in DC? What if
carjacking plummets. What if the number of murders plummet? What
(13:35):
do democrats do then? I and worst case scenario, nothing changes.
And the problems are so intractable in DC right now
that more troops and more police on the ground don't
impact things. But I just see this as brilliant when
you write when you analyze risk reward, if the risk
is zero and the reward is massive, that to me
(13:56):
seems like something you should do in all facets of life.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
And that to me is this, Yeah, and yet they're
still going to scream about this and say that it
is fascism. Uh, have you written your will yet or
done something as important as establishing a trust. Here's a
little inside tip on both. They're no longer expensive or
time consuming thanks to our sponsor, Trust and Will dot Com.
They can help you create one or both without having
(14:21):
to find and hire an attorney. It's important to do
this because your trust or will will eventually become your voice.
You don't want your family scrambling after the fact, because
if there's no will or trust left behind, your estate
can be tied up in probate for months or longer,
depending on the state. Set your family up the right
way at the time it's needed most. The website to
get started is Trust and Will dot com slash buck.
(14:45):
When you go there, you'll save twenty percent. That's Trust
and Will dot Com slash Buck. Trust and Will dot
Com slash Buck.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Making America great again isn't just one man, It's many.
The team podcasts Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay
and Buck podcast Feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I know we got big serious things to discuss, but
I do think I've been getting blown up all morning
about this. I was just talking about it to Buck.
The numbers are out. You have no knowledge of the
Taylor Swift interview that she did with Travis Kelcey Buck
at all?
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Right? Like you have?
Speaker 2 (15:31):
You truly have had zero knowledge of it in any way?
Have you managed to escape all coverage of it, all
attention on it.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Yes, yeah, I have no idea. I didn't know who
Travis Kelsey was until he started dating Taylor Swift. That
is a very girl like thing for you to I
was gonna say, maybe I shouldn't have admitted that on
the radio. That's that, that's a little that was a
little fabulous for you.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
I was actually, yeah, well, we've got some fun, fun
analysis there. I didn't actually know there was a heaterous,
actual man who did not know Travis Kelcey until he
started dating Taylor Swift, until Buck just told us.
Speaker 6 (16:05):
So.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
I appreciate him being so honest with his audience early
in the show. Today, my phone has been blown up
with everybody dissecting this relationship. Let me just tell you this,
I do find it interesting in this way. I think
the legacy media is to a large degree now worthless.
(16:31):
And I say that because look at where major news
is breaking outside of Fox News, which is a leviathan
unlike any other news organization. Right now, I think it's
fair to say in the country, almost everyone is doing
things outside of the traditional metric, and the number of
(16:53):
people consuming them is off the charts. I was just
looking through billions of impressions of that Taylor Swift and
Travis Kelsey interview. Now, whatever you think about it, I
do think the Trump election in twenty twenty four, to
a large extent, is a map for what twenty twenty
eight is going to look like. The sixty minutes interview thing,
(17:16):
which obviously turned into a flap associated with Kamala, that
organization is dead. I don't even think it's going to
matter in twenty twenty eight, and I do think it's
going to be one of the most profound legacies of
Trump that the media that traditionally was the safeguarding universe
that analyzed all of this is gone forever. I don't
(17:36):
think it's ever going to return. And I think this
interview that has taken over much of pop culture is
emblematic of what happened in the twenty twenty four election too.
You ever seen those stats about CDs and MP three's
and how even after MP three's came out, people are
still buying CDs until two thousand and six, and then
it was done and then it just died gone. And
(17:57):
we'll come back here a second. What percentage of Americans
do you think own gold? Is it five percent, fifteen percent,
a third of all Americans? Look, just more than twelve
percent is the answer, which is pretty small when you
think about it, considering especially that gold has increased by
some forty percent over the last year alone. For you,
for most of this audience, it's an investment opportunity. And
there are a lot of reasons to own gold these days,
(18:18):
not just because of that value increase. It's proven to
increase in value over time, that's one thing, and owning
it in your savings account is going to help hedge
with the declining value of our dollar over time. Owning
gold is good can be physical gold, That's what I've got,
but you can also take an existing ira or four
to one k and turn it into a gold ira
(18:38):
or four one k with birch Gold Group.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Cash in our accounts. The cash in our accounts is
going down. Gold is going up over time. Go check
it out for yourself. Text my name Buck to ninety
eight ninety eight ninety eight. Birch Gold will send you
a free infoKit on Gold. Text Buck to ninety eight
ninety eight ninety eight. Today, welcome back into Clay and Bock.
Let's start to dive in with the Trump Putin summit
(19:02):
in Alaska today. It's going to be happening. They're sitting
down right after the show, so we're telling you what
we're expecting and all of the preview, if you will,
of this diplomatic boxing match that will be going on.
Trump was on Air Force one this morning, speaking to
the press as he does. This is cut ten and
this is what he said. Are the territorial swaps on
(19:27):
the table? Will you be discussing? They'll be discussed.
Speaker 6 (19:30):
But I've got to let Ukraine make that decision, and
I think they'll make a proper decision. But I'm not
here to negotiate for Ukraine. I'm here to get them
at a table, and I think you have two sides. Look,
Vladimir Putin wanted to take all of Ukraine. If I
wasn't president, he would right now be taking all of
you grant.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
But he's not gonna do it. So Trump is really
setting this up. I think, Clay and this has been
I believe the expectation from a lot of people now
who have been following this where he is. He's getting
the two sides to talk, and so he's talking to
Putin about that process. But it sounds like he doesn't
(20:13):
have a particular I don't know. It doesn't sound like
he has an expectation of what either side is going
to demand, or maybe I should say he doesn't plan
to dictate terms to either side other than just make
a deal. Is he's like smashing these two, these two
guys together Zelenskin Putin and saying, figure it out.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
I would equate this too, And I bet a lot
of people out there in business in life you've done this.
You go to meet with somebody and you think, I
don't really know what the significance of this meeting is,
and then you can tell about five minutes in whether
or not it's going to be worth your time.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I think that's really what Trump is trying to do.
Did you see I.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Want to play this cut because I couldn't believe it.
Hillary Clinton said that Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
if he gets this war to end. I never would
have believed that. Do we have that audio? I believe
we do is in the cutscheet. Can we play that
if he.
Speaker 7 (21:11):
Could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where
it had to concede its territory to the aggressor had
to in a way validate Putin's vision of greater Russia,
but instead could really stand up to Putin to make
it clear there must be a cease fire, there will
be no exchange of territory, and that over a period
(21:34):
of time, Putin should be actually withdrawing from the territory
he seized in order to demonstrate good faith efforts let
us say, not to threaten European security. If President Trump
were the architect of that, I'd nominate him for a
Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Okay, that standard, Well, first of all, that standard at snarky.
She doesn't have high faith here.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Yeah, And also that standard is basically Russia just puts
down its arms and says we never should have invaded
in the first place. I do think that Trump's going
to get a deal. And I believe that the media
has not covered enough the move to splash big tariffs
(22:19):
on India for taking in the Russian oil and gas,
and hardly anyone has talked about it that I believe
was the move that got Putin to come to Russia
and meet with Trump. I also think not enough as
being so for those of you who don't understand that
tactically why it was such a big move, there had
(22:41):
been a tacit acknowledgement that Europe was not going to
pay for oil and gas from Russia, but that we
basically weren't going to allow the oil and gas of
Russia to continue to continue to pile up and not
go on to the global marketplace because that could raise
the cost of oil and gas for everybody. And so
(23:01):
there was sort of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, they'll
just sell all of their oil and gas to India
and also China. But India obviously is a democracy that
we have a great relationship with, and India went I
believe the math is from oil and gas from Russia
representing one percent of their overall oil and gas imports
(23:21):
to I believe thirty three percent. Basically overnight. So that
if you think about India and the amount of size
of that country, Russia I believe is fueling about a
third of their overall oil and gas needs from one
percent pre invasion with Ukraine. So that suddenly doubling of
the tariff on India was a statement that Trump basically
(23:44):
isn't okay with that. Continuing almost immediately Putin said okay,
let's go meet now. I think that has not gotten
enough attention. I think that's what motivated this second part
of this that hasn't gotten enough attention. In my mind,
Buck Putin's coming to America. It wasn't very long ago
that we were saying through the Biden administration, Oh, if
(24:04):
Putin ever steps foot in America, we're going to arrest
him for war crimes. Have you heard anyone on the
Democrat party side even mention the idea? Do you remember
that tough talk from Biden. Oh, he'll never come to
America because the international criminal courts will arrest him and
America is going to take him into custody. And there
was talk that he wasn't going to be able to
(24:25):
travel anywhere outside of Russia he's coming to America. That
feels pretty significant too that Trump got him to come here.
Trump's not going to Russia. Trump's not even going to
Sweden or some sort of traditionally neutral country. He's got
Putin coming to the United States. Now, I know it's
(24:48):
not a huge trip from Russia, but I think both
of those parts, before we even see how the conversation go,
are illustrative to me of Putin actually being interested in
potentially trying to get a deal done here. Now what
does he want? That's the ultimate question we never have
really figured out.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Here's Trump also on Air Force One talking about Putin.
Just a little throwback here, Ah, what was it three
years ago when we were in mar A Lago with
Trump in the early early days of the Russia Ukraine War,
And Trump said Putin's a genius.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
And it was in the context of a much longer
thing where he's basically just saying this guy is a
very savvy operator and knows how to get what he wants.
But he was just being Trump, you know, when he
says he has a very good relationship with somebody, Well,
that can change in a day. But Trump likes to
present things in a certain way, and the whole Internet
melted down over this for a couple of days. I
(25:45):
remember there was like a global news story that Trump
said Putin's a genius. Trump, I think has respect for
Putin's skill set and for his bravado. I wonder though,
if he likes makes him at all as a person.
First of all, he has his English is not very good,
is what I understand. He speaks He speaks English, but
(26:07):
not well. So they do use it. I think they
use a translate. That's actually really I want to know.
I know they have translators present. I'm wondering how much
that is relied on in an exchange between Trump and Putin.
But I do know that Putin's English is not very good.
So the the depth of the relationship between these two men,
I don't think is particularly you know, they don't they
(26:29):
don't really have some deeper connection. Right. This isn't FDR
and Churchill slapping each other's backs back in the day.
But here is Trump saying some things about Putin. This
is cut eleven. Listen to it. And you've had a
lot of phone calls with President Putin.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
What's the difference in the face to face in person
media different?
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Look, He's a smart guy been doing it for a
long time, but so have I been doing it for
a long time. And here we are with president that
was much more difficult than what I'm doing today, believe me.
So we get along. There's a good respect level on
both sides, and I think, you know something's going to
(27:08):
come of it. I notice he's bringing a lot of
business people from Russia, and that's good. I like that
because they want to do business. But they're not doing
business until we get the worst out of it.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
He's not over selling it, Clay. You'll notice Trump isn't
saying this is one hundred percent get ready to pop
the champagne. He's saying, we'll see, but I'm trying.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Here's another thing that I think people say, Oh, Trump
gets along too well with dictators. Trump is too chummy
with authoritarians everything else. Here's what I think Trump relies upon,
and I think many authoritarian leaders do too. You ultimately
(27:51):
have to trust the person at the top of the
chain that you're making a deal with, because both Trump
and Putin and everybody else who's in a position of
power is going to have a vast bureaucracy of people
that are in charge of implementing the policies that they
put in place. This is true for any CEO, this
is true for any business, And ultimately, in a top
(28:14):
down structure, you have to know, hey, I can get
this guy on the phone and I trust him that
we have a mutuality of understanding. And that is ultimately,
I think the case on everything. Anybody who has ever
papered a deal of any kind of significance, If you
don't trust the guy at the top of the food
(28:35):
chain that you're doing the deal with, everything that you
intend gets lost in the flow of the bureaucracy, and
you ultimately need to be able to go to the
top and say, hey, this is what we talked about
face to face, let's work this out. And I think
Putin respects that, and I think Trump respects that, and
that's why I think there is cautious optimism. I thought
(28:57):
really yesterday Buck that the governor of Alaska, I thought
that was kind of big news when he said, Hey,
it's possible Zolensky just hops in a jet and ends
up here too. In other words, there is a possibility
that they could extend this visit in Anchorage and maybe
continue to hammer out details. I haven't heard anybody else
(29:17):
make that comment, but that to me, it wouldn't take
for I mean, all these guys have access to huge
jumbo jets that can travel around the world and get anywhere.
I don't know that that's likely to happen, but maybe
there's a possibility this ends up in a longer meeting.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
This is also one of those moments where no one's
really talking about this clay, but a reminder of the
United Nations is essentially worthless. Yes, you know, you'll notice
you don't hear, there's no and and really on this
issue too. The EU has done some stuff, the European
our allies are helping Ukraine with some money and weapons.
(29:54):
But at the end of the day, it's still America
that is calling the shots on the global state, especially
when you're talking about a Rusher or China situation. It's
us and it's them. You know, the the UN that
the make believe stories that the United Nations Security Council
does anything good, It really doesn't. It's it's either irrelevant
(30:14):
or sometimes actually bad in the decisions or in the way. Certainly,
the You and Human Rights Council is a giant mess.
But you would think that. This is why you would
have you know, an aggressor an invasion, a major war
the United Nations. Nobody even cares. Yeah, I'm not going
to do anything totally totally worthless. That's why they should
move it out of New York, to move it somewhere else.
(30:35):
And you know, not let these diplomats just run up
their charge cards at fancy restaurants.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Do you know why it's totally worthless? Because they're not
the deciders of anything. And that comes back to you
know why you got to try the tops to sit
down with Putin. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is
who is the decider. And that's that's why so frustrating
big business, big government, because there are seven hundred and
sixty eight different and vice presidents of something, but they're
(31:02):
all running their request up the flagpole and everything gets
bogged down. You always want to talk with the guy
or the gal who actually gets to make a decision
at any organization. Otherwise it's often a worthless process. And
I think that's what Trump gets, and that's certainly what
Putin gets. I'm going to go down Tuesday to Chattanooga, Tennessee.
(31:23):
I'm speaking there at the Young Republican Conference. And I'm
also going to visit our friends at Legacy Box. I've
been talking about this for a while. They have an
incredible facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee where you can send all
of your old family memories on tape, on film reels,
on any basic type of media and they will digitize it.
(31:43):
I think I'm actually kind of curious to see this room.
I believe they have the largest collection of VCRs anywhere
in the world because they can basically take any of
your VHS tapes and they can digitize them. That's their business.
They have a huge factory of people working all all
the time in Chattanooga, Tennessee to do this, and I'm
(32:03):
gonna see it for myself on Tuesday. But if you've
got old media lying around your house, videotapes, audio cassettes,
loose photos, they're going to keep fading with time. These
VHS tapes are not made to last for a long time.
They may be in a hot attic, they may be
out in your garage now uh and right now you
can save a bundle. I might even see some of
(32:23):
your gear going through the process of being digitized inside
of this amazing factory. Just go to Legacy box dot
com right now slash Clay to get fifty percent off
your order again. I'm gonna be seeing it for myself
next week. Look forward to checking out their facilities. But
millions of you have trusted Legacy Box to help preserve
(32:44):
your family memories, and right now they've got a fabulous
deal for you. Legacy Box dot Com slash Clay fifty
percent off your order. That's a Legacy box dot Com
slash Clay.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
Seek out with the guys on the Sunday Hang with
Clay and Buck podcast, a new episode of Every Sunday.
Find it on the iHeart app or wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
We got a lot of different people.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Wa again, as is often the case on a variety
of different topics. Let's go here a day from Brockton,
mass DD talkback what we got for you.
Speaker 8 (33:25):
Hey, Clay, this is Dave from Bronckon and nobody ever
heard of him before because he sucked. Now he's with
Tillo Swiss, So I'm kind of Patriots Nation. You got
me in Massachusetts and the Pats are gonna smoke Casey
this year.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Mock my words on I can't. I can't argue with
someone's analysis of the Patriots when they're rocking a Boston
accent like that, Like that's just he's beyond reproach.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
I appreciate the bitterness. The Patriots are not, in fact,
gonna smoke anyone this year. They're not very good.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Sorry, is that the case? I was not aware.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Yeah, they've been awful without Tom Brady as they were
awful without Tom Brady before him. Hurley, I'm not Hurley.
It's like lost Hurley from Lincoln, Nebraska.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
What you got for is ee, I'm here.
Speaker 9 (34:16):
You're talking about Travis and Taylor, and I have to
tell you that I really appreciate them because it helps me.
When I go to my news websites. I scrolled down
and I read the articles that I want to read,
and I know exactly when the stop reading. It's when
I come to the first Travison and Taylor headlines.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
So I love them.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
People click on these stories like crazy. I will tell
you even at OutKick Dennis in Columbus, Ohio, he's mad.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
I did it. Sometimes the things that I say that
are going to provoke me. I knew I was swear
to you. I was going to say, you've pissed off
the libertarians who are listening, and sure enough, here we are.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
I am in favor of DUI checkpoints. I think that
they are smart. I think that they reduce drunk drive.
And I don't think you have a right to drive
on taxpayer funded roads and not worry that you might
be pulled over for breaking the law when it comes
to drunk driving. But Dennis from Columbus, Ohio is upset
with me for being in favor of the UI checkpoints.
Speaker 5 (35:15):
Congratulations on selling out the Fourth Amendment. Boys, I'm not
sure which one of you said it, but I can't
believe either of you parroted the idiotic line about the
only people being upset about sobriety checkpoints are people driving
drunk period.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
What about those of.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
Us who don't like to be detained for as much
as an hour without probable cause.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
You aren't getting detained for an hour at d UI
checkpoint again, public roads.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
It was it was play. Just to be clear with me.
It's at Travis on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
I'll take I am now going to be attacked this
week for opposing murder and opposing drunk driving. So uh,
I you know, I'll take the slings and arrows when
they come. I actually think that that drunk drive stops now.
Frent thankfully, Uber and Lyft have helped, I think, decrease
drunk driving immensely. Also, young kids are not drinking as much,
(36:10):
which I think is probably a good health moves. They're
hitting historic lows, but the data is pretty clear that
when you drive drunk, you put a lot of people
in danger, and anything we can do to limit that
danger that is within constitutional authority. And I think that
is and has been found to be within the constitutional authority,
not violating the Fourth Amendment, and I'm in favor of it.
(36:32):
I'm anti murder and I'm anti drunk driving. I'm taking
some strong cases this week. When we come back, we
will break down a bunch of serious stories relating to
Putin and Ukraine. Also, we have research on my use
of the word fabulous, and it turns out, fuck, this
is a hell of the tease. Maybe I'm actually gay
and I didn't know it. I do use the word
(36:54):
fabulous a lot. We'll discuss next week.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!