August 5, 2025 • 36 mins
In Hour 1 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, the hosts dive deep into the explosive developments surrounding the Russia collusion investigation, now reignited by a grand jury probe into Obama-era officials. This hour centers on the Department of Justice's referral and the legal implications of potential indictments stemming from what the hosts describe as a decade-long political conspiracy aimed at undermining President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.
Clay and Buck analyze the statute of limitations, the legal viability of conspiracy charges, and the strategic importance of grand jury venue selection—highlighting the difference between a DC-based jury, which they argue is politically biased, and a South Florida jury, which could offer a more neutral ground. They reference insights from Miranda Devine, who suggests that continued cover-ups may extend the legal window for prosecution.
The hour also explores the political ramifications of pursuing charges, even if convictions are unlikely. The hosts debate whether the Republican legal strategy should mirror the aggressive tactics used by Democrats, emphasizing the concept that “the process is the punishment.” They caution listeners to temper expectations, noting that presidential immunity likely shields Barack Obama from criminal liability, despite public frustration.
Listeners from across the country, including law enforcement veterans and legal experts, call in to share perspectives on perjury, RICO, and wire fraud, with many expressing skepticism about the likelihood of successful prosecutions. The show underscores the importance of a public reckoning, even if legal outcomes fall short, and stresses the need for political accountability.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Tuesday edition of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
kicks off right now, and we've got a lot to discuss,
including the referral to the DOJ of those names from
the Russia collusion soft cop attempt of years past, and
(00:21):
now the impaneling of a grand jury.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
A grand jury is now in the mix on this.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
We shall give you the latest on it and where
we think that this is going. Prosecutors are starting that
grand jury probe into the Obama era officials of the
Russia collusion investigation. Interesting note, Clay, you know, I talked
to our friend Miranda Devine on also our friends legitimately
these are friends of ours, are also our friend Will
(00:51):
Caine show yesterday? Were you and Jesse last night? Was
that right where I see you were somewhere? You're Hannity.
You were in someone's show last night? Oh god, I
don't know one of them.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
I was on. I was on what, I don't know Will?
I was on Will Show too, Oh okay, Will Show.
I saw a clip. Okay, there we go.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
So yeah, but in point point being we're talking about
this Clay's Clay's omni prison. You know what I mean
those jackets that he wears. You guys have demanded more news.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Has got me basically on every day somewhere. So when
you asked me, I was like, I couldn't even remember
there for a sec where I was on America's newsroom
this morning.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Okay, I saw you there, and then your Will show.
My point being he's talking about the Pam Bondi stuff.
I'm talking about the panm Bondi stuff. Everybody's talking about
what's going to happen here in this Russia era Russia
collusion investigation, and part of it is I spoke to
Miranda Divine on Will Show and she said something I
thought was interesting and maybe we should ping Miranda to
(01:46):
come talk to us more about this because she raised
this and I hadn't heard this before.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
So I'm just putting this out there.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
You know, that's the thing. You get to do a
hit with some some great people. You know, a hit
is our shorthand for TV apparents. But any was wondering
and sometimes we'll even learned things of the process. She
said Clay that the statute of limitations issues that clearly
would come up in some cases because five years five
years when you're talking about something happened ten years ago.
(02:14):
This is not a tough call. Ten year statute of
limitations also applies to some things federal crimes that would
have run. But if the conspiracy was continued and there
was cover up and even endured during some of the
Trump years and beyond, perhaps into the Biden years, that
would Now I hadn't heard this before, but she indicated
(02:34):
this on TV that that could be a part of
all of this. Because short of that, I look at this,
Clay and I say, I don't understand what the statutory
framework would be for the charges yet. I'm not a lawyer,
but Play's a lawyer. We're going to get into this.
I think the grand jury probe into Obama officials is
(02:56):
an interesting step. I am still not con convinced it
is likely that any of them will face even with
a grand jury looking at them criminal charges, but I'm
certainly open to and no, I could be wrong. What
do you see given where this is right now?
Speaker 4 (03:13):
There are so many different angles that you can analyze
this report from the one that I think is paramount
and matters more than anything else, is where is the
grand jury going to be impaneled? And I haven't heard
this widely discussed because to me, it's the only thing
that matters, because if they did a DC based grand jury,
(03:36):
I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration
getting indicted for anything related to Russia collusion or virtually zero.
And so I think you would have to find a
hook to move the grand jury out of DC and
put it somewhere else. Now, what I've heard being discussed
is because of the marri Lago raid, maybe the grand
(03:59):
jury is going to be I paneled in somewhere in
South Florida as the mar Lago case was.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Here is the challenge with that.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Do you think I could put on like one of
those glasses with mustache outfits and be like, hello, fellow citizens,
put me on.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
This grand jury.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, it would be funny because in theory you could
be impaneled as a South Florida resident on one of
these grand juries. But I imagine that you would be
stricken from the jury pool quite quickly. I would imagine
so too.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Yes, But here is the challenge.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
So one everything else, all I think that matters is
where's the grand jury located?
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Two?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Is there a is the grand jury? If it were
located in Florida? Is that a valid grand jury? And
that's where you try to argue, oh, this is all
part of one grand conspiracy to get Trump and it
includes even the mar A Lago investigation and raid from
the FBI. I would imagine that almost immediately you would
(05:01):
see where the grand jury is located as a major
part of any defense that was offered. And remember this
became an issue because initially Jack Smith tried to impanel
the Florida Classified Documents case in DC and then up
at the last moment and recognize that he had a
(05:22):
jurisdiction issue, a venue issue, and he suddenly moved into
South Florida.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
This is me being a legal nerd and telling you
where this case is headed.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
Part of me wonders buck whether this is partly just
a exercise in following through on promises. And if the
jury declines to indict politically, the Trump team can just
throw up their hands and say, democrats won't indict democrats
(05:52):
for committing crimes. We did everything we could in this case,
and then they think they win politically because it retains
the issue here. But they did everything they could do
from a legal process perspective.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Does that make sense.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
A boy, the way we can take calls on this
because I know it's complicated, but I think you've got
the number one question that has to be resolved is
where is this grand jury going to be? And for
those of you out there that don't know, usually indictments
are handed out by a grand jury. And if you
have a grand jury in DC that is ninety six
percent or ninety five percent or whatever the heck, the
(06:29):
percentage is maybe ninety seven percent inclined to favor Democrats.
I don't believe they're going to indict Hillary or former
Obama officials.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Continue if it's in DC, there's there's no there's I
would say, no chance.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
I mean, which is why like nine percent.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
No, it's just a political move because they can say
we took this to the grand jury, but the DC
grand jury would not indict. Remember, I give credit to
the President because he's also said this, but we were
the first show that I heard even talking about it.
Obama is going to be protected by presidential immunity the
same way that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. And
(07:07):
there are people out there that will tell you that
that's not true. And maybe you listen to some of them.
I believe they are wrong, and I believe they are
getting you fired up with the idea of Oh, Obama's
going to face charges. Obama I would be stunned beyond
belief if he face charges, and if he did, he
would immediately defend himself by saying, Hey, the same Supreme
(07:29):
Court president that applied for Trump related to twenty twenty
also applies for me.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
There's no chance, in my mind zero Obama's going to
face any And I'm just being honest with all of you.
I don't think anybody should think that that's going to happen.
It's just not going to happen. He has immunity while
he's president, and trying to prove something after people can
write in well what if we find something, Well, you
know what if a million different things you could say,
But the reality is that's not I think going to
(07:55):
now showing doing what Tulsea Gabbert has done and showing
the way that the Obama officials were clearly being disingenuous
and dishonest in all of this is important for people
to see. The Other problem is with a lot of
this stuff, you're gonna run into anytime. It's an interpretation
(08:15):
of analysis. Trying to say it's criminal is going to
be very hard, even if anybody should have known. I mean,
you saw this with the FISA warrants they ran against Carter,
against Papadopoulos, Carter Page, FBI stuff. They can say, well,
maybe it wasn't a lock, but we thought that this
was good enough that we should use our authority for
(08:36):
the following reasons. Now, there was that one guy who lied.
Now we're going back into the right. This is the
thing I've been covering for a decade, right, so I
got to go back in the memory banks. Here there
was that lawyer who lied and changed evidence so that
they could get the FISA on I think it was
Carter Page and removed that he had been in good
(08:58):
standing with the intelligence community previously, some thing along those lines.
He was prosecuted and nothing actually ended up happening to him.
So just remember, I mean, he did not get punished
at all. So it's this is a challenge, and it
was in DC. This is the point. It's in DC.
To Clay's point, if they bring it in South Florida
or somewhere else, then things can get a little bit spicier.
(09:20):
That could be a little bit more interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Here is another legal weeds analysis. I question whether all
of these things are connected so in order to have
a conspiracy and argue that it's an ongoing conspiracy, I
actually think there are different crimes, and I think they
have beginning and end dates. I think that what happened
with Russia is one crime, right, the Russia collusion, the hoax,
(09:46):
everything associated with that, and it lasted for several years,
and I think that is one thing. I actually think
that's different than the mar Lago raid and also the
twenty twenty and destigations and all those things. So I
think connecting all of those issues to argue it's one
(10:06):
grand conspiracy is actually a challenging legal proposition because usually,
and I'll just give you an example, if you and
Ibuck engaged in a conspiracy to rob a bank and
then the bank robbery ended up happening one day and
that was a finite finished scenario, and then we engaged
in an additional conspiracy and we decided to steal a boat,
(10:31):
I would argue that those are you know, hopefully we
don't do either of those things, but I would argue
that those are two distinct crimes, and our partnership, even
though we're involved in the same thing, would not necessarily
be a conspiracy because they have an open and shut,
closed date. I think that's going to be a challenge
to argue that all of this is interconnected matters, because
(10:54):
that would then give the that's the hook that allows
the jurisdiction to be outside of DC, because otherwise I
think most people would say, yeah, the Russia collusion case
should be DC. And and by the way, I think
the twenty twenty investigation into the election would be DC.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
But mar Lago is different, so I see those as distinct.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
I also think part of the frustration, and that's why
I believe it's necessary for us to all set our
expectations within what is likely. Like I said, I could pambondy,
there could be an announcement, there could be a press
conference in a couple of in a couple of weeks, whenever, Hey,
you know this guy, that guy who worked for Obama's
facing falling charges. I'm not saying that's impossible or not
(11:38):
on the table. I think it's highly unlikely, but I
think that part of the frustration, and it's unlikely for
procedural reasons, right, I don't I don't need anyone to
email me and remind me I lived eight eight rather
eight and breathed Russia collusion, conspiracy for years of my life.
All right, do a consolo radio show before I teamed
(11:59):
up with Clay. This, day in and day out, they
were spying, They lied this, there's nothing with russ So
trust me, I'm well aware of all the nasty and
evil things they did. But we have a system, and
within that legal system, there are some challenges to going
after these individuals, even knowing what they did now. I
think part of the frustration on this play is we've
(12:19):
all seen that when the shoe is on the other foot,
and when Democrats are in a position to do so,
whether it's the mar Lago raid or the Faiso warrants,
or the Special councils, or the impeachments or the four
Criminal prosecutions or all the they abuse their authority in bad
faith as a political weapon against their opponents. And the
real question for Maga, I think in this moment, for
(12:41):
everybody who supports the president, is do we play within
this system as boy scouts, no offense boy scouts, or
did the brass knuckles come out? And what we can
justify what we can get away with justifying we do
through the system instead of reading in the best possible
faith within the system. I think that's a real discussion
(13:06):
or a real thought process that's going on here, Meaning,
you know, do you bring a charge even if you
know you can't prove it because you're gonna make them
lawyer up and mess them up, and the processes the
punishment that remains to be seen.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
I think that's important too, because you could get indictments,
and then the indictments are the underlying crimes are going
to be litigated for years. Remember they got indictments on
all the Marra A Lago raids, and then before Trump
won reelection, the judge down there tossed that entire case,
I believe in July of twenty twenty four if I
(13:38):
remember correctly. So my concern would be, just because you
get an indictment doesn't mean that you've got a valid
upstanding going to withstand all of the criminal challenges that
will be coming. So this is complicated. We'll take calls.
We're not talking about what should necessarily happen as much
as the challenges that have to be followed in order
(14:01):
to put something in place. I think, beyond the shadow
of the doubt, they have to do it in Florida
if they're going to even hope to get an indictment.
And I also think that as all this unfolds, I
get it, a lot of people want an eye for
an eye attitude now that Trump and his team runs
the system.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
It's an end.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
You know.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
We used to say, I'll just point this out conservatives,
Clay used to be, we don't want the other side
to get canceled. We just don't want anyone to be canceled.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
That didn't work until all of a sudden you had
the bud light effect, until you had people that were
suffering consequences for their their bad actions. Yes, they kept
doing it and doing it and doing it. An eye
for an eye within the system, as long as it's
within the system and you can justify it. I think
some people want to see that, and that's where a
(14:48):
lot of the frustration comes. And I'm aware of that,
all right. Look, every day, thousands of women across our
nation are contending with an unplanned pregnancy with so few
options in front of them, at least that's what they're told.
But thanks to preborn. There are options, there's hope. The
preborn clinics offer life and support for that child and
that mother, and they have a level of understanding and
(15:09):
compassion for pregnant women that is just so incredible, and
it's saving so many lives day in and day out.
Over three hundred and fifty thousand babies have been saved
through this life giving work. Mother's like Valeria, who thought
she didn't deserve to have a child until her search
led her to a Preborn Network clinic. Now she has
a beautiful baby daughter. This is happening every day. That's
(15:29):
why your support is so critical. Just twenty eight dollars
a month can save a life. That's the price of
a preborn ultrasound, which they give to any pregnant woman
who walks in for free. They introduce mother to child
through that ultrasound, and then the conversation about life becomes
so much easier. Dial pound two fifty say the keyword baby.
(15:50):
That's pound two five zero, say the keyword baby. Or
go to preborn dot com, slash buck preborn dot com
slash b u C King America.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
One thought at a time.
Speaker 6 (16:03):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton them find them on the
free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Walk back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you rolling with us. We got a ton of
you weighing in with vip emails.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Maybe we can run into some of these.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
And a lot of people saying if Obama, here's Michael,
and we'll get into some of this. If Obama can't
be prosecuted, can he be called to testify under oath?
No criminal liability, no Fifth Amendment? Seems like he must
testify truthfully on pain of perjury. You could still take
the Fifth Amendment. Yeah, I mean this is I've seen
people saying, oh, if you can't be prosecuted, you can't.
(16:47):
I mean, you could still have to be sued civilly, like,
there are lots of ways that you could be liable
for what you say in some way in court. So again,
I just think that a lot of you are chasing
this idea of Obama's going to walk out in handcuffs,
(17:07):
because there are people who have sold this idea.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
And they're being dishonest. Sorry, just they're being dishonest with
their audience. Okay, I'm not even I'm not going to
name some names. They know Obama's not gonna get arrested.
They know Obama's not going to be prosecuted, but they
know that it's going to cause a lot of online clicks.
I don't like that behavior. I think that that shows
a disrespect for the people who give you their time.
(17:31):
Obama is ninety nine point nine nine percent not going
to be criminally indicted over any of this.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
He can't be. He cannot be Trump under up state.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
I give credit to Trump for pointing out again the
Supreme Court that they claimed was rigged by Trump has
given all presidents expansive protection, Democrat, Republican, independent, all for
both past and present actions. To come, we'll take some
of your calls. We'll read some more of these emails.
In the meantime. Two of my three boys have cell phones.
(18:03):
The youngest does not. We let him communicate via a
rapid radio, which is great. These are a lot of fun.
If you remember being a kid, maybe you had like
the old Gi Joe radios and you ran around with them.
It's a great easy way to communicate with a kid
without having to worry about them being able to get
on the internet. It's also good football seasons coming up,
(18:25):
maybe you're going to be in a crowded tailgate situation.
Maybe a lot of cell phone networks are going to
be overloaded. Rapid radios can find a way to communicate
because they search all of the available networks. They get
you hooked up. Also worked great in times of catastrophe,
no setup required, pull them out of the box, press
a button, Boom, You're ready to go. Rapid radios dot
(18:48):
com to save sixty percent off. That's rapid radios dot Com.
Get hooked up today.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
All right, welcome back into Clay and Buck. We're talking
about the impaneling of a grand jury to look into
the Russia collusion conspiracy that has spanned a decade now
and was really the original ultra dirty trick used against
Trump to try to stop him before MAGA could even
(19:16):
get going. It was meant to, you know, smother Maga
with a pillow. It was really an insidious effort using
the media, elements of the deep state, within the intelligence
community and yes the White House in the control of
the Obama regime at the time. And we're just trying
to tell you where this stands now, where it's likely
(19:39):
to go.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
And with that in mind.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Let's let's dive into some of these emails and some
of these calls. Clay, we have Mike in North Carolina.
He's a caller, right, Let's hear from Mike. What's going on.
Speaker 7 (19:53):
Hey, Bella's thanks a lot. You guys are doing a
great job.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
I'm almost a fifty year veteran law enforcements. I've got
lots of contacts that are federal prosecutors that have wrote
that have risen to just about the highest position short
of Pam Bondi's office. And I've discussed this whole issue
with them and it's not good. So everybody probably shouldn't
(20:22):
get their hopes up too high. The statue of limitations
is going to be a problem once they get into
court because they don't believe that the recent axe clause
and the conspiracy will will hold up. They don't think
that they can use it. RICO is going to be
(20:45):
lacking the myriad of minor crimes minor but the lesser
crimes and wire fraud is probably going to get a
real tough one to do too. The good point is
that perjury will definitely be in play because once once
(21:05):
the conspiracy in the lies came out, they continue to
push it while under oaths. So that's good.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Thank you for the thank you for the call.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Let me let me dive into this a little bit,
buck and I'll start in reverse, because he finished with perjury.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Perjury is really hard to prove.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
It is just really hard to prove, especially if you're
dealing with someone who is actually smart.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
And I'll go back to uh. You know, that depends
on what the meaning of the word is is. For
those of you who remember the Clinton era, you know,
remember when he committed perjury.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
But that's okay, he'll actually committed perjury, right, But the.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Way that he would answer questions, he said, you know,
there is no relationship there. There are lots of angles
where you're able to dodge around. The only reason, by
the way, Bill Clinton got caught for perjury, correct me
if I'm wrong, is because Monica Lewinsky saved the dress
and they were able to prove.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
Yeah, I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.
I mean, he was a liar. He committed perjury, black letter,
clear obvious perjury. But I could but only I think
because she kept that dress. If that dress had not existed,
I think it would have been hard to prove. It
would have been a he said, she said, And it
would have been hard to prove whether or not Monica
Lewinsky was being honest or he was. I will say
(22:33):
a great example of somebody who has not faced any
charges and will not face any charges despite being a liar.
But he's a creature of the bureaucracy is fauci. Everything
he says, he goes. You know, the data was coming
from multiple sources. And I looked at this, and I
looked at that, and it was complicated, and it was
(22:56):
if someone can turn your brain to mush with kind
of vague non answers on it's very hard to get
them with perjury unless you have a think. I brought
this up in the context of counter terrorism cases. Why
did guys who were and it was guys who were
raising money for al Qaeda, or you know, bought a
(23:16):
weapon illegally for a guy who was an anwar Alackey sympathizer,
things like that, why did they get nailed on perjury charges?
Because they would the investigators, usually FBI. The investigators would
sit down with them and ask them answers to questions
they already knew and hammer them on a few times,
and they didn't realize because they didn't have a lawyer
(23:36):
with them. It's very illegal to lie to the FBI
about whether you bought explosives material for somebody or something
like that. Right, so, even if you couldn't prove the
criminal terrorist conspiracy, you had them dead to rights on
the lie. And then they end up pleading and they
take for five years or you know, seven years with
the terrorism enhancement something like that. You're not going to
get that with these guys. This is kind of remember,
(23:57):
you know, I know that we think of them as
as bumbling buffoon and they are at some level, but
they're also creatures clay of the intelligence community and the bureaucracy,
people like Brennan and Clapper. They've been mumbling through testimony
for as long as I've been alive. This is what
these guys do. So thinking that they're going to.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Say, you know, oh, I'm telling a big obvious lie.
You can prove. Maybe you get them on this, but
very unlikely you haven't. We haven't got them on it yet.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
I would also usually perjury has a very set statute
of limitations, and much of the testimony relating to Russia collusion,
I believe would be past the perjury.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
It's all five years. It's all that. That perjury is
all five years. And I just say this.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
People are saying, now, put them through the process and
get them to lie. They don't have to testify. Everything
will be through lawyers. They're not more they're not. I
mean I say things sometimes like they're you know, there's
different levels of moron. But you're not going to get
John Brennan to perjure himself when he doesn't even have
to testify about one of these matters. You know, this
(25:04):
is we just need to keep this in the realm
of reality a little bit. That's that's what I think
is important. I mean people, by the way, a lot
of people calling and Clay they you know what, and
this this I get. They just want the process to
be the punishment.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
I am.
Speaker 4 (25:15):
There is a let me say this, by the way,
on the conspiracy element. When I was in krimlaw class,
we had a great professor Don Hall, and he used
to say, this is the reality inside of criminal prosecutions.
They will say, boy, we don't have them on hardly anything.
Let's just get him on a conspiracy. Right, So this
(25:37):
is a very broad based charge. My concern on the
conspiracy again, this is where we started the show, is
how do you locate the conspiracy charges in Florida. The
only way to do that with the Russia collusion case
is to argue it's one grand conspiracy. I think that's
a very hard put to sink. So my concern is
(25:59):
getting Russia collusion charges to me would almost certainly require
a DC grand jury, which I don't think a DC
grand jury is willing to indict. So you have to
get it to Florida. But then you get the challenge
of is the conspiracy actually the appropriate venue in Florida.
I understand this is complicated, but I'm trying to tell
you where we are headed from a legal process and procedure,
(26:23):
And this is why it's complicated. Now to your point, Buck,
some people are just like, screw it, bring the charges,
get the story out there. Who cares what happens.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
This is the eye for an eye approach, which, by
the way, I understand I'm not discounting it. I'm just
saying that that's a different thing than I think we'll
be able to take this all the way, get criminal
convictions that will be upheld on appeal and that people
are going to go to prison. That's a different thing
than screw it. Let's just make these guys pay whatever
price we can. We know that they're scumbags. That's also
(26:53):
that's also a valid philosophical position. Let's get Roger in
a story of Queen's What's going on?
Speaker 8 (26:59):
Roger, Hey, guys, you just stole my thunder there. Uh oh,
what I was going to say is what I was
going to say is I think it's what's going on
now is a success. You know, Uh, You've got uh Obama,
You've got Comi, you got Brennan. And to them, their
(27:23):
egos are so large that you know that they want
to be thought of as gods. And this is bringing
them down. This is showing the people just you know
what type of political hacks they were, and and you know.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yeah, that's the thank you, Roger.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
This is the political Yeah, this is the political accountability
part of it, which I think I do think is
important and valid. So thank you for calling in on that.
I think that's Clay. I think that's real. The more
people know how gross and underhanded these efforts were, it
stays with them longer. And some of these people still
think they should have a say. I mean, certainly Obama
does in our public life, public discourse, in national elections.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
I also think this is important to build on what
he said about the process and having some sort of
public hearing on this and a reckoning for lack of
a better way to say it. You know, when Trump
got charged, we told all of you four months they're
going to charge him.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
This is coming.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
We don't think it's legitimate, but we're laying out all
of the different parameters associated with it. On the left,
if charges come down, does that audience have any idea
that there's enough legitimacy for charges to be brought here?
Because they've been told all of Russia collusion was true.
They've been told everything that Tulsea Gabbard said is made up.
(28:42):
There's no legitimacy to it whatsoever. You guys, meaning everybody
listening to us right now, you are super well informed.
We covered it aggressively on New York City, on Atlanta,
on South Florida, on DC, and we really kind of
told you where we were headed, what was likely to come.
I don't think any of you were shocked by what
(29:03):
you saw transpire there. What is the average MSNBC viewer
or New York Times reader going to think if suddenly
indictments come down for lies associated with Russia collusion, I
think that's a real Now they're probably going to say, oh,
this is unprecedented, this is a present, it's invalid.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
But I think the point you're making is they will
be completely blind shot out of nowhere that this could occur. Yeah, yeah,
I think I think that's right. Greg and Orlando, Florida.
What's going on, Greg, Well.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
Truck drivers. So my favorite time of the day is
twelve to three here in Florida.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
But they love our truck drivers. Thank you, Greg.
Speaker 5 (29:43):
No problem. What's that quote all stairs lov and war?
I think it should be love, war and politics. I
think we should go blow to blow with them, and
if we can't get them legally at least well, at
least try to get them on accountability a little bit
more and like Clay saying, bring the light to what
they're doing. More people will know. And if we can't
get them legally a left at least morally and ethically,
(30:04):
people have a little bit bigger open eyes and realize
what they've done, and remember that with future elections and
anything else, that comes up.
Speaker 4 (30:12):
I think that's a great call, and I think that's
really what you should expect and hope to have occurring.
Here is just a public reckoning, even if we don't
get a criminal court reckoning, because I'm telling you, this
is gonna get bogged down. By the way, a lot
of three and four thousand dollars an hour criminal defense
attorneys in DC buck that are just rubbing their hands
(30:35):
with glee because they want charges to come down. Because
you know who the real winner here is criminal defense
lawyers because Democrats are going to pay them tens of
millions of dollars in legal defense fees that all their
rich benefactors, the Soroses of the world, are going to fund.
And those guys are just like it's bonus season, baby,
I'm gonna go buy a new house. I'm telling you
(30:57):
right now. That's exactly the conversations they're having. Ruth in
Cape Coral, Florida. A lot of Florida representatives representation rather
on Today Show.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
What's going on?
Speaker 9 (31:05):
Ruth, Hi, good afternoon. Clay in back. Yeah, I was
calling about presidential immunity. But before I get into my
points on that, just want to make a quick observation
about Grand Conspiracy. You were indicating that you felt that
the parts of the Grand Conspiracy were all separate. But
(31:26):
I think if they have evidence showing that the same
people coordinated all these efforts, can you be.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Clear, Clay, Just to be clear, Clay thinks that it's
very hard to prove the I'm Buck, He's Clay. He
thinks it's very hard to prove the Grand Conspiracy all
ties together. So you're saying you think it'll be easier
than he maybe thinks.
Speaker 9 (31:49):
If they have evidence showing that the same people perpetrated
the conspiracy.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
That My argument with that is, let me just say,
like Barack Obama was definitely involved in the Russia investigation
and collusion, I don't think Barack Obama was involved in
the decision for the FBI to raid the Department of Justice, right.
Speaker 7 (32:13):
So.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
I remember at all, Yeah, sorry to raid mar Lago.
He was not in office at that point, so for
him to be involved in that, I think it's hard
to have conspirators that are part of a conspiracy for
one conspiracy and not for another, and so I think
it's separate. Ruth, you had another point, though we got
only about thirty seconds but go for it.
Speaker 9 (32:35):
Yes, I do, I do, okay with absolute presidential immunity.
There were two parts to that Supreme Court decision. One
was absolute immunity, the other was presumed immunity. And they
kicked it back to the lower courts so that they
would have to determine which were official acts which were not.
But if you remember, it was one of the liberal
justices Chanji Brown or Kagan or so Money or that says, oh,
(33:00):
what if he ordered somebody to go out and kill somebody,
you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
So you're saying that this wouldn't be covered under official acts,
I am.
Speaker 9 (33:10):
Saying, yes, I am saying. They have some emails right now,
as far as I understand that the Russians had hacked
into either the DNC or Hillary's computer that show that
Obama and Hillary knew that they were contriving the Russia conspiracy.
And that's not an officials.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
Yeah, we'll see, we'll see. Thank you, Thank you, Ruth.
I don't think that there's any Obama emails or he's like, hey,
those fake emails, let's pin them on Trump.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
I'm not saying that he didn't do it.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
I'm just saying I don't think there's any emails that
will show it with that level of clarity. Here's the problem, Clay,
any conversations that Obama, as president at the time, is
having with the FBI director, with the CIA director, any
of that is going to be considered under his official
duty in terms of decisions made within their per you,
of surveillance, of contact with the press, all of that.
You're never going to get around that. What Ruth said
(34:06):
is there was a hypothetical. My recollection is what if
the president just decided he wanted to assassinate someone? Could
if the president killed the maid in the Oval office
because he's in a bad move, that's not an official act.
That's clearly not covered. But talking to the FBI director
about surveillance that's going to be covered, or ordering Seal
Team six to take out somebody in a foreign country,
arguably that's within the presidential provinces too, right, So I
(34:30):
think Obama just you got to take him off the table.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
It's unlikely to happen. I know it's people, don't you know.
I get it.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
It's frustrated to hear, but I'm just telling you the truth,
at Clays, is it the same way. If we're wrong,
we will show up on the air and maya kulpa
and you know we'll take our lumps. Look, part of
my health journey has involved this. Right here, I'm holding
up on the video. You can see Chalk dally. I've
got it in my hand here. Boost free and total
testosterone contains four hundred five hundred mega milligrams rather prima
(34:57):
v shi legit and supports lean muscle mass. This is awesome.
I take it every day. I got to hear my
desk doing the show. Proper supplementation along with that. An
exercise is critical for your health, and Chalk is there
for you. The Male Vitality Stack, by the way, that's
where I would start. It helps with so many things
energy drive and yes, boosting testosterone. Go to Chalk dot
com today see what they've got. Choq dot com get
(35:19):
set up like I am. Massive discount when you use
my name Buck as your promo code. Go to chalkcchoq
dot com use promo code Buck.
Speaker 6 (35:29):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sex. To find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton show rolling through
and having some fun with all of you. We'll take
some more of your calls as we continue through the program.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Next hour, Buck, Sorry, Buck.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
There are subpoenas that have gone out in the Epstein
case from James Comer. We will tell you a bit
about those. Everything basically is in the legal process at
this point in time, and what I would say to
you is, don't miss sometimes the larger scale successes for
(36:17):
the individual day to day storyline, because one reason that
this is all happening is because the economy, border crime
Trump's rolling on, and so it feels sometimes like there
are bright, shiny distractions that are occupying everybody's attention. But
I think big picture, economy, border crime Trump is delivering
(36:39):
on all three fronts. We'll talk about that when we
come back. And the latest on the subpoenas going out
from Washington, d C. To the Clintons and more related
to Epstein here on Clambuck
Welcome everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Tuesday edition of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
kicks off right now, and we've got a lot to discuss,
including the referral to the DOJ of those names from
the Russia collusion soft cop attempt of years past, and
(00:21):
now the impaneling of a grand jury.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
A grand jury is now in the mix on this.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
We shall give you the latest on it and where
we think that this is going. Prosecutors are starting that
grand jury probe into the Obama era officials of the
Russia collusion investigation. Interesting note, Clay, you know, I talked
to our friend Miranda Devine on also our friends legitimately
these are friends of ours, are also our friend Will
(00:51):
Caine show yesterday? Were you and Jesse last night? Was
that right where I see you were somewhere? You're Hannity.
You were in someone's show last night? Oh god, I
don't know one of them.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
I was on. I was on what, I don't know Will?
I was on Will Show too, Oh okay, Will Show.
I saw a clip. Okay, there we go.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
So yeah, but in point point being we're talking about
this Clay's Clay's omni prison. You know what I mean
those jackets that he wears. You guys have demanded more news.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Has got me basically on every day somewhere. So when
you asked me, I was like, I couldn't even remember
there for a sec where I was on America's newsroom
this morning.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Okay, I saw you there, and then your Will show.
My point being he's talking about the Pam Bondi stuff.
I'm talking about the panm Bondi stuff. Everybody's talking about
what's going to happen here in this Russia era Russia
collusion investigation, and part of it is I spoke to
Miranda Divine on Will Show and she said something I
thought was interesting and maybe we should ping Miranda to
(01:46):
come talk to us more about this because she raised
this and I hadn't heard this before.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
So I'm just putting this out there.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
You know, that's the thing. You get to do a
hit with some some great people. You know, a hit
is our shorthand for TV apparents. But any was wondering
and sometimes we'll even learned things of the process. She
said Clay that the statute of limitations issues that clearly
would come up in some cases because five years five
years when you're talking about something happened ten years ago.
(02:14):
This is not a tough call. Ten year statute of
limitations also applies to some things federal crimes that would
have run. But if the conspiracy was continued and there
was cover up and even endured during some of the
Trump years and beyond, perhaps into the Biden years, that
would Now I hadn't heard this before, but she indicated
(02:34):
this on TV that that could be a part of
all of this. Because short of that, I look at this,
Clay and I say, I don't understand what the statutory
framework would be for the charges yet. I'm not a lawyer,
but Play's a lawyer. We're going to get into this.
I think the grand jury probe into Obama officials is
(02:56):
an interesting step. I am still not con convinced it
is likely that any of them will face even with
a grand jury looking at them criminal charges, but I'm
certainly open to and no, I could be wrong. What
do you see given where this is right now?
Speaker 4 (03:13):
There are so many different angles that you can analyze
this report from the one that I think is paramount
and matters more than anything else, is where is the
grand jury going to be impaneled? And I haven't heard
this widely discussed because to me, it's the only thing
that matters, because if they did a DC based grand jury,
(03:36):
I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration
getting indicted for anything related to Russia collusion or virtually zero.
And so I think you would have to find a
hook to move the grand jury out of DC and
put it somewhere else. Now, what I've heard being discussed
is because of the marri Lago raid, maybe the grand
(03:59):
jury is going to be I paneled in somewhere in
South Florida as the mar Lago case was.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Here is the challenge with that.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Do you think I could put on like one of
those glasses with mustache outfits and be like, hello, fellow citizens,
put me on.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
This grand jury.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, it would be funny because in theory you could
be impaneled as a South Florida resident on one of
these grand juries. But I imagine that you would be
stricken from the jury pool quite quickly. I would imagine
so too.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Yes, But here is the challenge.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
So one everything else, all I think that matters is
where's the grand jury located?
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Two?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Is there a is the grand jury? If it were
located in Florida? Is that a valid grand jury? And
that's where you try to argue, oh, this is all
part of one grand conspiracy to get Trump and it
includes even the mar A Lago investigation and raid from
the FBI. I would imagine that almost immediately you would
(05:01):
see where the grand jury is located as a major
part of any defense that was offered. And remember this
became an issue because initially Jack Smith tried to impanel
the Florida Classified Documents case in DC and then up
at the last moment and recognize that he had a
(05:22):
jurisdiction issue, a venue issue, and he suddenly moved into
South Florida.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
This is me being a legal nerd and telling you
where this case is headed.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
Part of me wonders buck whether this is partly just
a exercise in following through on promises. And if the
jury declines to indict politically, the Trump team can just
throw up their hands and say, democrats won't indict democrats
(05:52):
for committing crimes. We did everything we could in this case,
and then they think they win politically because it retains
the issue here. But they did everything they could do
from a legal process perspective.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Does that make sense.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
A boy, the way we can take calls on this
because I know it's complicated, but I think you've got
the number one question that has to be resolved is
where is this grand jury going to be? And for
those of you out there that don't know, usually indictments
are handed out by a grand jury. And if you
have a grand jury in DC that is ninety six
percent or ninety five percent or whatever the heck, the
(06:29):
percentage is maybe ninety seven percent inclined to favor Democrats.
I don't believe they're going to indict Hillary or former
Obama officials.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Continue if it's in DC, there's there's no there's I
would say, no chance.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
I mean, which is why like nine percent.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
No, it's just a political move because they can say
we took this to the grand jury, but the DC
grand jury would not indict. Remember, I give credit to
the President because he's also said this, but we were
the first show that I heard even talking about it.
Obama is going to be protected by presidential immunity the
same way that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. And
(07:07):
there are people out there that will tell you that
that's not true. And maybe you listen to some of them.
I believe they are wrong, and I believe they are
getting you fired up with the idea of Oh, Obama's
going to face charges. Obama I would be stunned beyond
belief if he face charges, and if he did, he
would immediately defend himself by saying, Hey, the same Supreme
(07:29):
Court president that applied for Trump related to twenty twenty
also applies for me.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
There's no chance, in my mind zero Obama's going to
face any And I'm just being honest with all of you.
I don't think anybody should think that that's going to happen.
It's just not going to happen. He has immunity while
he's president, and trying to prove something after people can
write in well what if we find something, Well, you
know what if a million different things you could say,
But the reality is that's not I think going to
(07:55):
now showing doing what Tulsea Gabbert has done and showing
the way that the Obama officials were clearly being disingenuous
and dishonest in all of this is important for people
to see. The Other problem is with a lot of
this stuff, you're gonna run into anytime. It's an interpretation
(08:15):
of analysis. Trying to say it's criminal is going to
be very hard, even if anybody should have known. I mean,
you saw this with the FISA warrants they ran against Carter,
against Papadopoulos, Carter Page, FBI stuff. They can say, well,
maybe it wasn't a lock, but we thought that this
was good enough that we should use our authority for
(08:36):
the following reasons. Now, there was that one guy who lied.
Now we're going back into the right. This is the
thing I've been covering for a decade, right, so I
got to go back in the memory banks. Here there
was that lawyer who lied and changed evidence so that
they could get the FISA on I think it was
Carter Page and removed that he had been in good
(08:58):
standing with the intelligence community previously, some thing along those lines.
He was prosecuted and nothing actually ended up happening to him.
So just remember, I mean, he did not get punished
at all. So it's this is a challenge, and it
was in DC. This is the point. It's in DC.
To Clay's point, if they bring it in South Florida
or somewhere else, then things can get a little bit spicier.
(09:20):
That could be a little bit more interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Here is another legal weeds analysis. I question whether all
of these things are connected so in order to have
a conspiracy and argue that it's an ongoing conspiracy, I
actually think there are different crimes, and I think they
have beginning and end dates. I think that what happened
with Russia is one crime, right, the Russia collusion, the hoax,
(09:46):
everything associated with that, and it lasted for several years,
and I think that is one thing. I actually think
that's different than the mar Lago raid and also the
twenty twenty and destigations and all those things. So I
think connecting all of those issues to argue it's one
(10:06):
grand conspiracy is actually a challenging legal proposition because usually,
and I'll just give you an example, if you and
Ibuck engaged in a conspiracy to rob a bank and
then the bank robbery ended up happening one day and
that was a finite finished scenario, and then we engaged
in an additional conspiracy and we decided to steal a boat,
(10:31):
I would argue that those are you know, hopefully we
don't do either of those things, but I would argue
that those are two distinct crimes, and our partnership, even
though we're involved in the same thing, would not necessarily
be a conspiracy because they have an open and shut,
closed date. I think that's going to be a challenge
to argue that all of this is interconnected matters, because
(10:54):
that would then give the that's the hook that allows
the jurisdiction to be outside of DC, because otherwise I
think most people would say, yeah, the Russia collusion case
should be DC. And and by the way, I think
the twenty twenty investigation into the election would be DC.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
But mar Lago is different, so I see those as distinct.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
I also think part of the frustration, and that's why
I believe it's necessary for us to all set our
expectations within what is likely. Like I said, I could pambondy,
there could be an announcement, there could be a press
conference in a couple of in a couple of weeks, whenever, Hey,
you know this guy, that guy who worked for Obama's
facing falling charges. I'm not saying that's impossible or not
(11:38):
on the table. I think it's highly unlikely, but I
think that part of the frustration, and it's unlikely for
procedural reasons, right, I don't I don't need anyone to
email me and remind me I lived eight eight rather
eight and breathed Russia collusion, conspiracy for years of my life.
All right, do a consolo radio show before I teamed
(11:59):
up with Clay. This, day in and day out, they
were spying, They lied this, there's nothing with russ So
trust me, I'm well aware of all the nasty and
evil things they did. But we have a system, and
within that legal system, there are some challenges to going
after these individuals, even knowing what they did now. I
think part of the frustration on this play is we've
(12:19):
all seen that when the shoe is on the other foot,
and when Democrats are in a position to do so,
whether it's the mar Lago raid or the Faiso warrants,
or the Special councils, or the impeachments or the four
Criminal prosecutions or all the they abuse their authority in bad
faith as a political weapon against their opponents. And the
real question for Maga, I think in this moment, for
(12:41):
everybody who supports the president, is do we play within
this system as boy scouts, no offense boy scouts, or
did the brass knuckles come out? And what we can
justify what we can get away with justifying we do
through the system instead of reading in the best possible
faith within the system. I think that's a real discussion
(13:06):
or a real thought process that's going on here, Meaning,
you know, do you bring a charge even if you
know you can't prove it because you're gonna make them
lawyer up and mess them up, and the processes the
punishment that remains to be seen.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
I think that's important too, because you could get indictments,
and then the indictments are the underlying crimes are going
to be litigated for years. Remember they got indictments on
all the Marra A Lago raids, and then before Trump
won reelection, the judge down there tossed that entire case,
I believe in July of twenty twenty four if I
(13:38):
remember correctly. So my concern would be, just because you
get an indictment doesn't mean that you've got a valid
upstanding going to withstand all of the criminal challenges that
will be coming. So this is complicated. We'll take calls.
We're not talking about what should necessarily happen as much
as the challenges that have to be followed in order
(14:01):
to put something in place. I think, beyond the shadow
of the doubt, they have to do it in Florida
if they're going to even hope to get an indictment.
And I also think that as all this unfolds, I
get it, a lot of people want an eye for
an eye attitude now that Trump and his team runs
the system.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
It's an end.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
You know.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
We used to say, I'll just point this out conservatives,
Clay used to be, we don't want the other side
to get canceled. We just don't want anyone to be canceled.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
That didn't work until all of a sudden you had
the bud light effect, until you had people that were
suffering consequences for their their bad actions. Yes, they kept
doing it and doing it and doing it. An eye
for an eye within the system, as long as it's
within the system and you can justify it. I think
some people want to see that, and that's where a
(14:48):
lot of the frustration comes. And I'm aware of that,
all right. Look, every day, thousands of women across our
nation are contending with an unplanned pregnancy with so few
options in front of them, at least that's what they're told.
But thanks to preborn. There are options, there's hope. The
preborn clinics offer life and support for that child and
that mother, and they have a level of understanding and
(15:09):
compassion for pregnant women that is just so incredible, and
it's saving so many lives day in and day out.
Over three hundred and fifty thousand babies have been saved
through this life giving work. Mother's like Valeria, who thought
she didn't deserve to have a child until her search
led her to a Preborn Network clinic. Now she has
a beautiful baby daughter. This is happening every day. That's
(15:29):
why your support is so critical. Just twenty eight dollars
a month can save a life. That's the price of
a preborn ultrasound, which they give to any pregnant woman
who walks in for free. They introduce mother to child
through that ultrasound, and then the conversation about life becomes
so much easier. Dial pound two fifty say the keyword baby.
(15:50):
That's pound two five zero, say the keyword baby. Or
go to preborn dot com, slash buck preborn dot com
slash b u C King America.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
One thought at a time.
Speaker 6 (16:03):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton them find them on the
free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Walk back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you rolling with us. We got a ton of
you weighing in with vip emails.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Maybe we can run into some of these.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
And a lot of people saying if Obama, here's Michael,
and we'll get into some of this. If Obama can't
be prosecuted, can he be called to testify under oath?
No criminal liability, no Fifth Amendment? Seems like he must
testify truthfully on pain of perjury. You could still take
the Fifth Amendment. Yeah, I mean this is I've seen
people saying, oh, if you can't be prosecuted, you can't.
(16:47):
I mean, you could still have to be sued civilly, like,
there are lots of ways that you could be liable
for what you say in some way in court. So again,
I just think that a lot of you are chasing
this idea of Obama's going to walk out in handcuffs,
(17:07):
because there are people who have sold this idea.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
And they're being dishonest. Sorry, just they're being dishonest with
their audience. Okay, I'm not even I'm not going to
name some names. They know Obama's not gonna get arrested.
They know Obama's not going to be prosecuted, but they
know that it's going to cause a lot of online clicks.
I don't like that behavior. I think that that shows
a disrespect for the people who give you their time.
(17:31):
Obama is ninety nine point nine nine percent not going
to be criminally indicted over any of this.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
He can't be. He cannot be Trump under up state.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
I give credit to Trump for pointing out again the
Supreme Court that they claimed was rigged by Trump has
given all presidents expansive protection, Democrat, Republican, independent, all for
both past and present actions. To come, we'll take some
of your calls. We'll read some more of these emails.
In the meantime. Two of my three boys have cell phones.
(18:03):
The youngest does not. We let him communicate via a
rapid radio, which is great. These are a lot of fun.
If you remember being a kid, maybe you had like
the old Gi Joe radios and you ran around with them.
It's a great easy way to communicate with a kid
without having to worry about them being able to get
on the internet. It's also good football seasons coming up,
(18:25):
maybe you're going to be in a crowded tailgate situation.
Maybe a lot of cell phone networks are going to
be overloaded. Rapid radios can find a way to communicate
because they search all of the available networks. They get
you hooked up. Also worked great in times of catastrophe,
no setup required, pull them out of the box, press
a button, Boom, You're ready to go. Rapid radios dot
(18:48):
com to save sixty percent off. That's rapid radios dot Com.
Get hooked up today.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
All right, welcome back into Clay and Buck. We're talking
about the impaneling of a grand jury to look into
the Russia collusion conspiracy that has spanned a decade now
and was really the original ultra dirty trick used against
Trump to try to stop him before MAGA could even
(19:16):
get going. It was meant to, you know, smother Maga
with a pillow. It was really an insidious effort using
the media, elements of the deep state, within the intelligence
community and yes the White House in the control of
the Obama regime at the time. And we're just trying
to tell you where this stands now, where it's likely
(19:39):
to go.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
And with that in mind.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Let's let's dive into some of these emails and some
of these calls. Clay, we have Mike in North Carolina.
He's a caller, right, Let's hear from Mike. What's going on.
Speaker 7 (19:53):
Hey, Bella's thanks a lot. You guys are doing a
great job.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
I'm almost a fifty year veteran law enforcements. I've got
lots of contacts that are federal prosecutors that have wrote
that have risen to just about the highest position short
of Pam Bondi's office. And I've discussed this whole issue
with them and it's not good. So everybody probably shouldn't
(20:22):
get their hopes up too high. The statue of limitations
is going to be a problem once they get into
court because they don't believe that the recent axe clause
and the conspiracy will will hold up. They don't think
that they can use it. RICO is going to be
(20:45):
lacking the myriad of minor crimes minor but the lesser
crimes and wire fraud is probably going to get a
real tough one to do too. The good point is
that perjury will definitely be in play because once once
(21:05):
the conspiracy in the lies came out, they continue to
push it while under oaths. So that's good.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Thank you for the thank you for the call.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Let me let me dive into this a little bit,
buck and I'll start in reverse, because he finished with perjury.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Perjury is really hard to prove.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
It is just really hard to prove, especially if you're
dealing with someone who is actually smart.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
And I'll go back to uh. You know, that depends
on what the meaning of the word is is. For
those of you who remember the Clinton era, you know,
remember when he committed perjury.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
But that's okay, he'll actually committed perjury, right, But the.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Way that he would answer questions, he said, you know,
there is no relationship there. There are lots of angles
where you're able to dodge around. The only reason, by
the way, Bill Clinton got caught for perjury, correct me
if I'm wrong, is because Monica Lewinsky saved the dress
and they were able to prove.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
Yeah, I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman.
I mean, he was a liar. He committed perjury, black letter,
clear obvious perjury. But I could but only I think
because she kept that dress. If that dress had not existed,
I think it would have been hard to prove. It
would have been a he said, she said, And it
would have been hard to prove whether or not Monica
Lewinsky was being honest or he was. I will say
(22:33):
a great example of somebody who has not faced any
charges and will not face any charges despite being a liar.
But he's a creature of the bureaucracy is fauci. Everything
he says, he goes. You know, the data was coming
from multiple sources. And I looked at this, and I
looked at that, and it was complicated, and it was
(22:56):
if someone can turn your brain to mush with kind
of vague non answers on it's very hard to get
them with perjury unless you have a think. I brought
this up in the context of counter terrorism cases. Why
did guys who were and it was guys who were
raising money for al Qaeda, or you know, bought a
(23:16):
weapon illegally for a guy who was an anwar Alackey sympathizer,
things like that, why did they get nailed on perjury charges?
Because they would the investigators, usually FBI. The investigators would
sit down with them and ask them answers to questions
they already knew and hammer them on a few times,
and they didn't realize because they didn't have a lawyer
(23:36):
with them. It's very illegal to lie to the FBI
about whether you bought explosives material for somebody or something
like that. Right, so, even if you couldn't prove the
criminal terrorist conspiracy, you had them dead to rights on
the lie. And then they end up pleading and they
take for five years or you know, seven years with
the terrorism enhancement something like that. You're not going to
get that with these guys. This is kind of remember,
(23:57):
you know, I know that we think of them as
as bumbling buffoon and they are at some level, but
they're also creatures clay of the intelligence community and the bureaucracy,
people like Brennan and Clapper. They've been mumbling through testimony
for as long as I've been alive. This is what
these guys do. So thinking that they're going to.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Say, you know, oh, I'm telling a big obvious lie.
You can prove. Maybe you get them on this, but
very unlikely you haven't. We haven't got them on it yet.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
I would also usually perjury has a very set statute
of limitations, and much of the testimony relating to Russia collusion,
I believe would be past the perjury.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
It's all five years. It's all that. That perjury is
all five years. And I just say this.
Speaker 3 (24:42):
People are saying, now, put them through the process and
get them to lie. They don't have to testify. Everything
will be through lawyers. They're not more they're not. I
mean I say things sometimes like they're you know, there's
different levels of moron. But you're not going to get
John Brennan to perjure himself when he doesn't even have
to testify about one of these matters. You know, this
(25:04):
is we just need to keep this in the realm
of reality a little bit. That's that's what I think
is important. I mean people, by the way, a lot
of people calling and Clay they you know what, and
this this I get. They just want the process to
be the punishment.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
I am.
Speaker 4 (25:15):
There is a let me say this, by the way,
on the conspiracy element. When I was in krimlaw class,
we had a great professor Don Hall, and he used
to say, this is the reality inside of criminal prosecutions.
They will say, boy, we don't have them on hardly anything.
Let's just get him on a conspiracy. Right, So this
(25:37):
is a very broad based charge. My concern on the
conspiracy again, this is where we started the show, is
how do you locate the conspiracy charges in Florida. The
only way to do that with the Russia collusion case
is to argue it's one grand conspiracy. I think that's
a very hard put to sink. So my concern is
(25:59):
getting Russia collusion charges to me would almost certainly require
a DC grand jury, which I don't think a DC
grand jury is willing to indict. So you have to
get it to Florida. But then you get the challenge
of is the conspiracy actually the appropriate venue in Florida.
I understand this is complicated, but I'm trying to tell
you where we are headed from a legal process and procedure,
(26:23):
And this is why it's complicated. Now to your point, Buck,
some people are just like, screw it, bring the charges,
get the story out there. Who cares what happens.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
This is the eye for an eye approach, which, by
the way, I understand I'm not discounting it. I'm just
saying that that's a different thing than I think we'll
be able to take this all the way, get criminal
convictions that will be upheld on appeal and that people
are going to go to prison. That's a different thing
than screw it. Let's just make these guys pay whatever
price we can. We know that they're scumbags. That's also
(26:53):
that's also a valid philosophical position. Let's get Roger in
a story of Queen's What's going on?
Speaker 8 (26:59):
Roger, Hey, guys, you just stole my thunder there. Uh oh,
what I was going to say is what I was
going to say is I think it's what's going on
now is a success. You know, Uh, You've got uh Obama,
You've got Comi, you got Brennan. And to them, their
(27:23):
egos are so large that you know that they want
to be thought of as gods. And this is bringing
them down. This is showing the people just you know
what type of political hacks they were, and and you know.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yeah, that's the thank you, Roger.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
This is the political Yeah, this is the political accountability
part of it, which I think I do think is
important and valid. So thank you for calling in on that.
I think that's Clay. I think that's real. The more
people know how gross and underhanded these efforts were, it
stays with them longer. And some of these people still
think they should have a say. I mean, certainly Obama
does in our public life, public discourse, in national elections.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
I also think this is important to build on what
he said about the process and having some sort of
public hearing on this and a reckoning for lack of
a better way to say it. You know, when Trump
got charged, we told all of you four months they're
going to charge him.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
This is coming.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
We don't think it's legitimate, but we're laying out all
of the different parameters associated with it. On the left,
if charges come down, does that audience have any idea
that there's enough legitimacy for charges to be brought here?
Because they've been told all of Russia collusion was true.
They've been told everything that Tulsea Gabbard said is made up.
(28:42):
There's no legitimacy to it whatsoever. You guys, meaning everybody
listening to us right now, you are super well informed.
We covered it aggressively on New York City, on Atlanta,
on South Florida, on DC, and we really kind of
told you where we were headed, what was likely to come.
I don't think any of you were shocked by what
(29:03):
you saw transpire there. What is the average MSNBC viewer
or New York Times reader going to think if suddenly
indictments come down for lies associated with Russia collusion, I
think that's a real Now they're probably going to say, oh,
this is unprecedented, this is a present, it's invalid.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
But I think the point you're making is they will
be completely blind shot out of nowhere that this could occur. Yeah, yeah,
I think I think that's right. Greg and Orlando, Florida.
What's going on, Greg, Well.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
Truck drivers. So my favorite time of the day is
twelve to three here in Florida.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
But they love our truck drivers. Thank you, Greg.
Speaker 5 (29:43):
No problem. What's that quote all stairs lov and war?
I think it should be love, war and politics. I
think we should go blow to blow with them, and
if we can't get them legally at least well, at
least try to get them on accountability a little bit
more and like Clay saying, bring the light to what
they're doing. More people will know. And if we can't
get them legally a left at least morally and ethically,
(30:04):
people have a little bit bigger open eyes and realize
what they've done, and remember that with future elections and
anything else, that comes up.
Speaker 4 (30:12):
I think that's a great call, and I think that's
really what you should expect and hope to have occurring.
Here is just a public reckoning, even if we don't
get a criminal court reckoning, because I'm telling you, this
is gonna get bogged down. By the way, a lot
of three and four thousand dollars an hour criminal defense
attorneys in DC buck that are just rubbing their hands
(30:35):
with glee because they want charges to come down. Because
you know who the real winner here is criminal defense
lawyers because Democrats are going to pay them tens of
millions of dollars in legal defense fees that all their
rich benefactors, the Soroses of the world, are going to fund.
And those guys are just like it's bonus season, baby,
I'm gonna go buy a new house. I'm telling you
(30:57):
right now. That's exactly the conversations they're having. Ruth in
Cape Coral, Florida. A lot of Florida representatives representation rather
on Today Show.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
What's going on?
Speaker 9 (31:05):
Ruth, Hi, good afternoon. Clay in back. Yeah, I was
calling about presidential immunity. But before I get into my
points on that, just want to make a quick observation
about Grand Conspiracy. You were indicating that you felt that
the parts of the Grand Conspiracy were all separate. But
(31:26):
I think if they have evidence showing that the same
people coordinated all these efforts, can you be.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Clear, Clay, Just to be clear, Clay thinks that it's
very hard to prove the I'm Buck, He's Clay. He
thinks it's very hard to prove the Grand Conspiracy all
ties together. So you're saying you think it'll be easier
than he maybe thinks.
Speaker 9 (31:49):
If they have evidence showing that the same people perpetrated
the conspiracy.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
That My argument with that is, let me just say,
like Barack Obama was definitely involved in the Russia investigation
and collusion, I don't think Barack Obama was involved in
the decision for the FBI to raid the Department of Justice, right.
Speaker 7 (32:13):
So.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
I remember at all, Yeah, sorry to raid mar Lago.
He was not in office at that point, so for
him to be involved in that, I think it's hard
to have conspirators that are part of a conspiracy for
one conspiracy and not for another, and so I think
it's separate. Ruth, you had another point, though we got
only about thirty seconds but go for it.
Speaker 9 (32:35):
Yes, I do, I do, okay with absolute presidential immunity.
There were two parts to that Supreme Court decision. One
was absolute immunity, the other was presumed immunity. And they
kicked it back to the lower courts so that they
would have to determine which were official acts which were not.
But if you remember, it was one of the liberal
justices Chanji Brown or Kagan or so Money or that says, oh,
(33:00):
what if he ordered somebody to go out and kill somebody,
you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
So you're saying that this wouldn't be covered under official acts,
I am.
Speaker 9 (33:10):
Saying, yes, I am saying. They have some emails right now,
as far as I understand that the Russians had hacked
into either the DNC or Hillary's computer that show that
Obama and Hillary knew that they were contriving the Russia conspiracy.
And that's not an officials.
Speaker 3 (33:32):
Yeah, we'll see, we'll see. Thank you, Thank you, Ruth.
I don't think that there's any Obama emails or he's like, hey,
those fake emails, let's pin them on Trump.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
I'm not saying that he didn't do it.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
I'm just saying I don't think there's any emails that
will show it with that level of clarity. Here's the problem, Clay,
any conversations that Obama, as president at the time, is
having with the FBI director, with the CIA director, any
of that is going to be considered under his official
duty in terms of decisions made within their per you,
of surveillance, of contact with the press, all of that.
You're never going to get around that. What Ruth said
(34:06):
is there was a hypothetical. My recollection is what if
the president just decided he wanted to assassinate someone? Could
if the president killed the maid in the Oval office
because he's in a bad move, that's not an official act.
That's clearly not covered. But talking to the FBI director
about surveillance that's going to be covered, or ordering Seal
Team six to take out somebody in a foreign country,
arguably that's within the presidential provinces too, right, So I
(34:30):
think Obama just you got to take him off the table.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
It's unlikely to happen. I know it's people, don't you know.
I get it.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
It's frustrated to hear, but I'm just telling you the truth,
at Clays, is it the same way. If we're wrong,
we will show up on the air and maya kulpa
and you know we'll take our lumps. Look, part of
my health journey has involved this. Right here, I'm holding
up on the video. You can see Chalk dally. I've
got it in my hand here. Boost free and total
testosterone contains four hundred five hundred mega milligrams rather prima
(34:57):
v shi legit and supports lean muscle mass. This is awesome.
I take it every day. I got to hear my
desk doing the show. Proper supplementation along with that. An
exercise is critical for your health, and Chalk is there
for you. The Male Vitality Stack, by the way, that's
where I would start. It helps with so many things
energy drive and yes, boosting testosterone. Go to Chalk dot
com today see what they've got. Choq dot com get
(35:19):
set up like I am. Massive discount when you use
my name Buck as your promo code. Go to chalkcchoq
dot com use promo code Buck.
Speaker 6 (35:29):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sex. To find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton show rolling through
and having some fun with all of you. We'll take
some more of your calls as we continue through the program.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Next hour, Buck, Sorry, Buck.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
There are subpoenas that have gone out in the Epstein
case from James Comer. We will tell you a bit
about those. Everything basically is in the legal process at
this point in time, and what I would say to
you is, don't miss sometimes the larger scale successes for
(36:17):
the individual day to day storyline, because one reason that
this is all happening is because the economy, border crime
Trump's rolling on, and so it feels sometimes like there
are bright, shiny distractions that are occupying everybody's attention. But
I think big picture, economy, border crime Trump is delivering
(36:39):
on all three fronts. We'll talk about that when we
come back. And the latest on the subpoenas going out
from Washington, d C. To the Clintons and more related
to Epstein here on Clambuck
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.