October 2, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 1 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show opens with a look at the 2026 midterm elections, including the fight for control of the Senate and House, President Donald Trump campaigning in Texas, and the increasingly competitive Texas Senate race between Ken Paxton and James Talarico. Clay argues that Republican voters in Texas cannot take the race for granted and urges Texans to treat the contest as a serious battleground heading toward Election Day.
The major focus of Hour 1 is the controversy surrounding Cornell University and seven former fraternity members accused of sexual assault, following New York Governor Kathy Hochul's decision to initiate a special investigation led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Clay and Buck review the allegations and the history of the case as presented in the transcript, including the accuser's statements about consent, the previous criminal investigation, multiple Cornell campus proceedings, and the subsequent civil litigation. They strongly question the decision to reopen scrutiny of the case and argue that James's involvement raises concerns about political bias and due process. They also react to comments from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, disputing her characterization of the allegations and discussing whether public statements made about the accused men could have legal or reputational consequences.
Clay and Buck broaden the conversation into a debate over sexual-assault allegations, consent, campus disciplinary proceedings, presumption of innocence, media coverage and reputational damage, arguing that even an eventual acquittal may not restore the careers and reputations of people publicly accused of serious crimes. They compare the controversy with the Duke lacrosse case and discuss the distinction between behavior they regard as irresponsible or unethical and conduct that can be proven criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. The hosts also question whether James can conduct an impartial investigation after a social-media statement from her office expressed support for the accuser, with Clay arguing that such comments could become an issue in any future legal proceedings. The conversation expands into criticism of politically motivated prosecutions, including comparisons with the legal cases previously brought against President Trump.
Later in Hour 1, the discussion turns to rape shield laws and anonymity for sexual-assault accusers after a listener raises the question of why the seven accused men's identities are public while the accuser's identity remains protected. Clay and Buck debate the fairness and historical rationale of those protections and argue that today's digital environment can impose lasting professional consequences on accused individuals regardless of the ultimate outcome. Buck also references past controversies involving Wisconsin investigations, while the hosts preview an upcoming conversation with Ann Coulter, a Cornell alumna, and recall the highly publicized Columbia University "Mattress Girl" controversy as another example they believe illustrates the dangers of litigating disputed sexual-assault claims in the media and on college campuses.
The hour also includes a market and technology update with Stifel Chief Investment Officer Michael O'Keeffe, who discusses the rapidly expanding commercial space industry, recent SpaceX launches, Starlink, National Reconnaissance Office missions and the emerging concept of placing data centers in space. O'Keeffe then addresses the investment outlook for artificial intelligence, expressing optimism about AI's medium- and long-term potential to increase productivity, economic growth and corporate earnings while acknowledging possible challenges from regulation and misuse.
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:
X -
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in Friday edition.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Clay and Buck, we're going to take you into the
weekend and hopefully entertain you along the way. We got
a bunch of different guests hopping on the program. We
will discuss a wide variety of different stories that are
out there, including the latest on polling and all of
the big Senate battlegrounds, as well as the House, President Trump.
(00:23):
hitting the trail in Texas and we continue to say
to all of you Texans wake up uh I understand
you have beaten this team for 30 straight years to
put it into a football context but this year they
have got a chance to potentially spring an upset and
if you've won 30 years in a row sometimes you
can be a little bit apprehensive that there's anything to
(00:46):
be paying attention to um And that is the situation
that I think we find ourselves in as the Senate
race continues. I believe Ken Paxton will win, but it's
going to require a lot of the Texans out there
that are listening to us right now. Not only go
vote yourselves, but also make sure that your friends and
family are aware. Hey, this is competitive. You need to
(01:07):
be showing up. Democrats are trying to steal one here.
And if we don't do a good job of protecting
our home turf, then you're going to have to deal
with this crazy man, James Tallarico, for the next six years.
So that is out there. We will continue to follow it.
But let's start here, Buck. This Cornell case, this seven guys,
(01:31):
one girl, the double threesomes that occurred several years ago
in a Cornell frat house, The girl initially said she
consented to everything after they disinvited her.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
I can't believe this is real.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
After they disinvited her to a Halloween party, she became
upset and said, actually, I don't think I consented. I
think I was raped. They had 12 different on campus
hearings into this incident already.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Twelve.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Twelve of them. The D.A.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Investigated said, I don't think I can bring criminal charges
because she is on text saying I consented to everything
because she told them in a statement that she signed
that she consented to everything. She then has now come
back and she says, oh, by the way. Actually, I
was raped, and I want to be paid millions of
(02:27):
dollars for the fact that I was raped.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
She is suing the school.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
She is suing the fraternity, the sorority, everybody that served
her alcohol, as well as, I believe, some of the
seven guys. That is the current procedural posture. And this morning, Buck,
the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, announced that she
was beginning a special investigation to be led by by
Letitia James, current Attorney General of New York, the woman
(02:54):
who is obsessed with getting President Trump. Now they are
going after the seven men, the seven former fraternity members
at Cornell, and that is the latest, and this is
going to be, unfortunately, I think, Buck, a huge story
from here continuing.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Yes, and they are preparing, I think, unfortunately, to.
Destroy the futures of all these young men by feeding
them into the legal machinery of New York state, which
is a partisan attack mechanism. It is not actually about
justice when there are politics and political considerations involved. They're,
(03:37):
they're looking like to me, they're going to do this.
They're going to bring, I would guess I would assess
they're going to bring charges. And I think that in
my opinion, If you have a guy on the jury
or a woman who believes in women being accountable for
their actions, you will not get a conviction, in my opinion,
(03:58):
on these guys based on the facts that have been presented.
That could be wrong. Obviously, jury selection is a very
precarious thing, depending on how you look at it. But, Clay,
a couple of things come to mind before we dive
into the obvious politics of this. As you said, Tish James—
The woman who went after Trump, even though all the
(04:18):
banks he did business with said it was great. They
made money. Everybody made money. They don't think fraud was committed.
But you see, you notice there's actually a precedent here.
Tish James decided that banks were victimized by Trump, even
when the bank said, well, we weren't victimized. It was great.
You know, it was fine. And now in this case,
it's a woman claims she consented. I understand she has
(04:40):
now said she revoked that consent weeks later. But essentially,
Tish James is going to come forward now if she
brings charges and say, even when you said to the
police you consented, you were a victim even though you
said you weren't a victim. That's where we're going to
be here. I know she says she's a victim now. Now,
the banks with Trump never said they were victims, to
be clear, of a financial crime. But, Clay, if you
(05:02):
can do this, if you can bring charges in a
case like this, it also puts on notice anyone– Any
woman who is emotionally unstable and has an ax to
grind against any individual, anyone in the country that she
has a one-night stand with or a long relationship with
or whatever, sexual interaction with, you can, after the fact,
revoke consent and expect police. When there's proof that you
(05:23):
gave consent, which is that is what it is when
you tell law enforcement, I consented to the drugs, I
consented to the sex. That is presentable in a– that
is why the prosecutor didn't bring charges. And by the way,
the prosecutor was right to not bring charges. Look, the
prosecutor is 100% right here. I think there are a
bunch of lessons. And one that I would say off
(05:47):
the top here is you guys, everybody out there, I
have boys. You've got to talk to the boys, the
young men in your life. And this goes for the
moms too, maybe the moms especially. If you find yourself
in it, this is completely unfair. Okay, let me start here.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
We have created a world where a woman, young girl,
can say, I was raped, and her name never goes public,
and your son, your grandson's name, even if it's 100% consensual,
immediately is everywhere. Everybody on the campus is investigating it.
(06:28):
She gets angry. She gets emotional. She thought they were
going to be in a relationship. She thought that they
were going to get married one day. And then she
found out that he liked somebody else and that maybe
he hooked up with somebody else. This is hugely, hugely significant.
And retroactively, she decides that she regrets having done something
(06:52):
with your son or your grandson. And she publicly accuses
him of wrongdoing and And it's virtually impossible for him
to prove retroactively everything was fine. I'm just saying this
is the reality. Girls don't have the same danger. Any
boy that says, oh, I was drinking and the girl
(07:15):
took advantage of me and I didn't consent, he's immediately ridiculed.
No one takes him seriously. This is not an even
playing field. And so, Buck, what I would say is
in that situation, if you've got a son who's in
a fraternity and there is a girl and she is
making out with multiple guys and there's drugs and there's alcohol,
(07:36):
get out of the room. Get out of the room
because she can be consenting right then. But as soon
as the other girls in the sorority find out and
as soon as the boys in the fraternity find out,
there's shame everywhere. And the way to protect yourself is
to argue you didn't make that choice. You are a victim.
How do you prove you aren't? But here's what I'm
(07:57):
going to tell you what's going to happen. They're going
to charge these seven guys.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
They're going to charge them all with crimes because Democrats
believe women are victims and men are victimizers. And Letitia
James is going to have a press conference and she's
going to charge all seven of this. My prediction, all
seven of these guys with rape. I don't know what
the jury's going to do, but if you are a
guy that is charged with rape, you are scarlet lettered
(08:23):
for the rest of your life. Every job that you
try to get, your name is everywhere. And very rarely, Buck,
do we actually get full-on vindication like happened in Duke
Lacrosse where we find out the woman was lying. Most
of the time, even if you get a not guilty
verdict one day, your name is still out.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
There as a rapist.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
You can never unring that bell once that accusation is made.
I'm fired up about this. I think the original D.A.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Got it right.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I think there is zero legitimate evidence that she was raped.
And unfortunately, this is the world we live in where
identity politics often determines who's right, who's wrong, who's guilty,
who's innocent.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor
hell a fury like a woman scorned, my friend. A
couple hundred years ago, that was Morning Bride by William Congreve.
People have shortened it to hell hath no fury like
a woman scorned. And that seems to be based on
(09:23):
the evidence presented. I am not taking... And there's another
thing here, Clay. Do you have a breaking thing? No, no, no.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I just think before we even go further analysis, I
think we should also point out aoc what is happening
now too is they're just making up things now so
a lot of people are not getting the actual facts
of this case let's play cut one because a lot
of people out there now are going to see aoc
on social media and they're not going to read the
(09:51):
complaints and they're not going to look at the evidence
and listen this is totally irresponsible of aoc We've said
positive things about her in the past. I don't know
if she actually did the work to read the complaint
or even familiarize herself with the case at all. But
most of what she says here is completely untrue. Listen
to cut one.
Speaker 5 (10:12):
Seven men drugged and gang raped a 20 year old
woman They lured her in to a fraternity house. They
drugged her with ketamine. They then posted to a group
chat that she was incapacitated, and seven men took turns
(10:34):
gang raping her for seven hours.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Clay, I think they should sue her.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Because I actually think they have pretty solid... It is
facts and evidence, and she's a public figure, and I
think you could prove malice in this, too. So, you know,
as we've discussed... Very hard to get a defamation case
unless you're a Republican being attacked in a Democrat state
by a Democrat. But very hard to get a defamation
case through what she said there about they drugged her.
(10:59):
That is that is just factually inaccurate. That is a lie. Yeah.
And then her claim that they said that she was incapacitated.
That is her reading of what they said. They said,
I mean, it's it is to be clear. These guys
are idiots, and unfortunately now they might be paying for
it with their futures, but there's a difference between an
idiot and a criminal in this circumstance. Difference between acting
(11:21):
in a manner that is ungentlemanly, undignified, and gross, and
we should lock you in a cell with people who have,
you know, tackled women from behind in a dark alleyway
and violated them, because that's the kind of stuff, that's
the kind of prison these guys would be going to
if they were convicted of this. Clay, this is.
(11:43):
This to me has a lot of the elements of a,
when they do like a BLM case, a Black Lives
Matter case, because they don't actually get upset about the
clear-cut case, because you and I would say, oh, the
cop was out of line, he should go to prison,
and they pick a case where they think they can
turn it, and it's a little marginal, or it's a
little bit of a close call, and then they want
(12:05):
to really ram it home and make it into something
that it's not, you know, so there's no confusion, there's
no error, there's no... This is... a situation where they
have decided to take a case that is not, you know,
a clear, not clear-cut at all in the sense that
these kids committed a crime. I don't think, and I
keep saying kids, I know they're young adults, but they're
(12:26):
going to try to make it into a crime is
the point. They're going to try to convince people that
a crime was committed here when I think that that
is absolutely not what the evidence points to right now
at all. And I think that you appoint Clay Letitia
James to get an outcome. We all know that. How
many prosecutors are there in the state of New York?
(12:47):
How many sex crimes investigators, longtime actual career prosecutors could
you go to? You go to Tish James because she's
got a name and she's a partisan hack and we
all know it.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
They're going to get charged and it's going to be
a miscarriage of justice that this is going to occur.
If they later are found not guilty by a jury,
which they should be, then it's another political win because
Democrats will say, look how powerful men get away with rape,
(13:21):
even in New York today. So they have created this
narrative of a story that did not happen at all.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
She was doing drugs.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
She was putting the drugs on her naked body and
having the boys do the drugs off of it. And
she was doing drugs off their.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Naked body parts.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
She consented to all of it, Buck. And even Sonny Hostin,
to her credit, points out that when you voluntarily consume
drugs and alcohol, as you do, you can't then argue
that your voluntary consumption of those drugs and alcohol obviated
your ability to consent when you are making your own choices.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Then, I mean, anyone who's ever gone out for a
glass of wine with a date and had sex could
be guilty of rape under the law. Anyone ever. That's
just that's just an unworkable standard. I mean, that's the
destruction of male female relations, if that's what we're going
to be dealing with. So that's right. So that's that's crazy.
But look, they have it's we're right. And, you know, Clay,
(14:21):
there's all there's a whole political aspect to this. There's
a they want they think women voters, I think, in
some of these key states. I know that sounds like
what could what could this New York case have to
do with? No, they're making this the big thing. They
are they are going to. to throw these kids to
the wolves because the online pitchfork and torches estrogen mob
(14:47):
wants that to happen. And this is a mobilization thing.
This is about politics. It is not about justice. The
fact that they have Tish James involved. Clay, it couldn't
be any more obvious. That's the thing about it, too.
They are telling you, that's right, it's our state. This
is how we do it. What are you going to
(15:09):
do about it? We're going to have the most partisan hack,
the one who said she was going to prosecute Trump when.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
She was running for the office of AG.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
We're going to have her do this one. I would
also point out, Buck, it's.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
An Ivy League school.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Do you really think.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
The Ivy League school is biased in favor of the
boys in this case? Do you think they're looking for
reasons to keep men, young men, from being held accountable?
They had 12 kids. 12-campus investigatory hearings on this. They
kicked two of the boys out of school. There were
consequences already just for being involved in the way that
(15:50):
they were. Do you think in any college town in
America that the justice system is biased in favor of young,
wealthy fraternity boys? They want these guys to be guilty. Well,
I'm going to tell you something. The only thing that
makes this.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
left-wing DEFCON 2 instead of DEFCON 1, not all the
guys are white. If they were all white, if they
were all white, they would be way more, you know,
this would just be... It would be Duke Lacrosse all
over again. But I mean, you know, because that's... Look,
Sonny Haas, we've talked about it. Some people are being
(16:27):
sane on this one, even on the left. And I
think it's because... There are minority guys involved here, too.
All right, we'll talk more about this. Funerals are some
of the toughest moments for families. The only silver lining
is they bring everyone together, sharing stories and memories of
their loved ones. Funerals and memorials are also a time
when seeing pictures and videos comforts the heart. For years now,
Clay and I have worked with Legacy Box, the company
(16:48):
that does the single best job out there of digitally
transferring old media like videotapes, Super 8 film, print photos
and slides, whatever you might have, onto digital files. Once
those memories are digitized, you have them forever. They're not
going to fade, break, disintegrate over time. Legacy Box ships
you a box that you fill with your old media
and send to them. In a few weeks, you get
(17:09):
everything back along with brand new digital files. We love
Legacy Box. Clay and I have both used them. This
company preserves family history for Americans nationwide. They've done it
now for 2 million plus families, including our own. Shop
Legacy Box's current online sale today at LegacyBox.com slash buck.
That's LegacyBox.com slash B-U-C-K.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Laugh learn and hang with the guys clay and buck
preset on the iheart.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
App welcome back into clay and buck we have a
super tight turn here clay can i just set this
up tish james a reporter asked a real reporter question
about how tish james of the ag for new york
could possibly be unbiased in this investigation we have the
audio clay people everyone has to hear this everyone has
to hear this coming up i haven't heard it yet
(17:57):
clay that's a hell of a it is chilling how
obvious what's going on is all right last night on
a positive note Cleveland Browns congratulations we won that bet
the over congratulations we won that bet my bet for
all of you this weekend at hard rock bet slash
clay that is hard rock dot bet slash clay you
(18:20):
bet five dollars you get a hundred dollars in bonus
bets I am sorry for all you Maryland Terp fans
out there But the Nebraska Cornhuskers are going to obliterate
you this weekend. Nebraska's going to cover the 14.5 in Lincoln.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Go Huskers, go. Hardrock.bet.com. The Blood Bank is Nebraska to
win big. Let's have some fun. Welcome back, Ed. We're
going to have some fun during the course of the
program today, just FYI. But we are talking about a
serious story right now. The Cornell Seven, the seven men
(19:01):
who are alleged to have committed a rape on an
undergraduate a couple of years ago, they have now named
Letitia James as the investigator. Buck, I was saying off air,
and I'll reiterate it, I will say the same thing
to all of you. If you are politically active... in
any way on the right side of the political equation,
(19:24):
and you are basing your companies and your life in
blue cities and or blue states, you need to move
those companies. I have a lot of different interests across
a variety of different industries. All of the companies that
I have are based in red states because I see
(19:45):
what a kangaroo court they have allowed these blue state
jurisdictions to be We saw what happened to President Trump.
He's not going to be the end of it. They
are going to come after you with everything they have.
If you live in a blue state and you are
in some way offending their sense of of political justice.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Yeah, you're you're it's a partisan hit. I mean, let's
just call it what it is. They're going to hit
you for for political reasons. And for anyone who would
want to try and argue that point, Clay... We could
give you so many. As I mentioned, Tish James said,
if there's any ethics a prosecutor is supposed to have
when running for office, I'm pretty sure saying I'm going
to get a private citizen who has never been convicted
(20:25):
of anything, which was true at the time, would be
high on that list. But here is that same attorney
general following in the esteemed footsteps of notorious scumbag Elliot Spitzer,
among others. Here is that esteemed prosecutor, A.G., Letitia James,
On this issue of Cornell and the case and how
(20:46):
she's already said she's supposed to look at this and
decide whether to bring charges, she sounds like an attorney
for the accuser.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Play the cut.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Attorney General, on your Facebook page three days ago, you wrote,
what this young woman has been forced to endure is
horrific and unacceptable. I'm holding her in my heart and
in my prayers to her and to all survivors. You're
not alone.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
We stand with you.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
But why did you affirm her allegations as fact without
doing your own fact-finding investigation? And to the governor, why
did you appoint an official who made a public statement
affirming those allegations as fact as someone who's supposed to
be doing an investigation?
Speaker 3 (21:26):
I will answer that.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I have every confidence in our Attorney General to do
what she has always done. Look at the facts, examine
the record, and draw the proper conclusions.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
That's exactly what's.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Going to happen in this case.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Attorney General, please.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
I will not comment on a Facebook post.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
It was her Facebook post! She publicly wrote that she
agrees with the accuser on all the major issue here,
which is that she was violent and it was bad,
and that she wasn't just drunk and acting like a
morally questionable young woman. Clay, how can she still be in.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Charge of this investigation? And actually, legally, she is dead
in the water based on this. I mean, the very
foundational element.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
of any.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Independent review is that you cannot have prejudged the outcome
of your investigation. Now, I can't believe I'm going to
defend Letitia James. It's possible that her team posted this
on Facebook and she had no idea, right? Because it's
such an identity politics thing. It's possible that they said, oh,
(22:34):
we're going to be on the side of the woman.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Even if that's true, and you're saying that's a very
generous reading, which it would be, which isn't even claimed yet,
but Clay, even if that were true, for the appearance
of propriety, she can't be the one. She can't do it.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Now, if I am now representing these boys, these young men,
I actually love that she has posted this. Because whatever
conclusions she reaches, we're going to be able to attack
as biased. We're going to be able to argue that
she should be removed from this investigation at its outset.
(23:09):
And certainly we're going to be able to call any
eventual conclusion that she reaches into question based on her
having prejudged this situation. Here's the problem, Buck. You've hit
on this a lot. The process is the punishment.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
It's one of my favorite phrases.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
You and I are fortunate enough to have resources to
be able to defend ourselves when people attack us. And
we are public figures and we got the airwaves and
we can go out and talk and we can say
exactly what we think on everything.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
These seven guys, these seven.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
24 year olds or whatever they are that are now
publicly being tarred and feathered. They don't have the same
method by which to defend themselves. And so, look, you
can argue that Letitia James and Alvin Bragg coming after
President Trump actually resulted partly in him being elected president
(24:02):
of the United States. In other words, it is the
ultimate validation and vindication for him that he is the
most powerful man in the world now, despite the fact
that they attacked him, maybe partly because they attacked him.
What do these boys get? What do these young men get?
They can't even ever get their names back. They aren't
(24:23):
public figures. They probably, I mean, they're smart kids. If
they got into Cornell, they're probably trying to do investment
banking jobs in New York, or they're probably trying to
do venture capital in California.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
They can't get online. Reputation is their future. That is
the reality of the world we live in today. You
can't just, you know, put, put a sack on your shoulder,
hitchhike eight hours down the road. And no one knows
in that town who you are. Like you're, you're, Scarlet letter.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Hard and feathered. Scarlet lettered is the exact right analogy, too.
And here's the other thing. As soon as these guys
get a job anywhere, some media figure is going to
send an email to the company that employs them. And
they're going to say, why do you believe it's appropriate
for insert company here to employ insert figure here, given
(25:14):
the allegations of rape that were put out against him?
And you can say, oh, I'm willing to take the
slings and arrows for that.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Most people aren't.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
Most people are cowards, and they're going to say, hey,
we'll just move on. And to be fair, if you
run a really big company and you're employing, let's say,
1,500 people, Is one 24-year-old worth your company getting associated
in a negative way with this case? For a lot
(25:46):
of people, the answer is no. And I don't know
what the independent family status is of these individuals, but
most kids... who graduate from Ivy League schools, aren't so
wealthy that they're going to be able to live off
mom and dad for the rest of their life. So
this is just, I mean, it's just a really awful situation.
(26:08):
And again, I come back to largely this girl who
has made these allegations. She stands to potentially reap millions
of dollars because there is a likelihood, I think, given
the size of Cornell, that eventually they will say, hey,
here's $ 4 million. We're sorry the way that at least, right?
Speaker 3 (26:28):
I'm just giving millions of dollars. No, no, but it's
a seven-figure settlement just to sort of make it go
away from there.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Could be eight figures. She might get $ 10 million, right?
I mean, she likely will get millions of dollars because
the pressure on Cornell is will be so intense that
they will settle and they will put out some statement
and they will say, we should have handled this better
and we're disappointed and we've hired 86 new rape counselors
(26:55):
at the university. And I'm just telling you how this
is all going to play out because eventually the president
of Cornell is going to worry about his or her job.
And then they're going to worry about the people on
the board are going to say, well, I don't want
to get attacked for this.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
We have to do something. And you know what else
this is, too? There's a whole industry of radical left
feminist media. Women should never be accountable for anything. There's
all this stuff out there. And they haven't really had
their this case. They've wanted this case. For 20 years.
(27:30):
I mean, go back to Duke Lacrosse. It was 20
years ago. They've wanted the high-profile, victimized– when I say wanted,
like they've been looking for the moment to make this
a big national conversation because they've fabricated it.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
What else do you have to know?
Speaker 3 (27:46):
The New York Times, Rolling Stone, they've actually fabricated cases
like this in the past. That's how much they want
this to be a thing. And now they have the
case that they're going all in on it. But as
I was saying, you know, if I was sitting here, Clay,
the same thing with you. And I thought that seven guys, look,
(28:08):
I still think their behavior was stupid and they're paying
a very high price for it already. I mean, these guys,
you know, they shouldn't have done what they did, but
that's not the same thing as criminal. You know, you
shouldn't cheat on your girlfriend when you're in college, but
you shouldn't get locked up in a cell for that, right?
There's unethical versus ethical. Illegal and unethical are not always
the same thing. But Clay, if there were seven guys
(28:31):
that drugged and raped a girl... And it was very
clear from the evidence presented that, by the way, the
prosecutor who looked at this already, you know, some prosecutor
in New York State agrees with you, agrees with me,
you know, comes came to the same conclusion we did.
So we're not crazy here at all. OK.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
And the university did, which is in no way biased
in favor of the fraternity guys.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
So we had this is this is key. We had
the rational first look at this, which, if anything, is
weighted always overwhelmingly in favor of the female. And now
they've decided to emotionalize it and go back at it
another bite at the apple and try to make this
into something that it quite frankly wasn't. If you and
I thought that seven guys drugged and raped the girl,
(29:13):
we would want the most stringent punishment available under the law.
But there also wouldn't be much to talk about here.
That's what I mean by the BLM always chooses cases
where it's not really what they say it is. You know,
hands up, don't shoot. Well, that's not what happened. And here...
This is so emotional and so charged because they're saying,
you know, AOC said it was a gang rape. It
(29:36):
is clear from the evidence that that is not what
happened here. And yet they want to say that's what happened.
And that's where that's where the conflict and that's where
the outrage and that's where everything comes from. All right, well,
we'll get into more. By the way, Ann Coulter will
be with us and. She is, I'm telling you, she
is going to be all over this. She went to Cornell.
(29:57):
She's a Cornell alumna as well. So she can bring
a little extra perspective to it. But she wrote years
ago about a case at Columbia with a woman that
became known as Mattress Girl.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
You remember this?
Speaker 3 (30:11):
A woman who claimed that she was raped. And by
the way, the police looked at it. She wasn't raped.
She was sending him cutesy text messages the next day.
Want to see you again? He broke up with her
six months later. And then she said she was raped.
And then she carried around a mattress everywhere with her
to signify her being violated. Literally a mattress carried a
mattress around campus as a protest. Yeah. And can talk
(30:33):
to us about that, too. So she'll be with us
in just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
I can't wait to hear what I personally can't wait
to hear what what Ann Coulter is going to say
about this case.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
It's popcorn. Look, good ranchers. We got a.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Brand new way for people to play along with our
steak bets. For those of you new to the program,
Buck always loses steak bets to me.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
And I have at least one.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Good, solid bet outstanding right now about what Kamala Harris
is going to do. Is she or is she not
going to run for president? You can get on the
fun now with good ranchers. They have a high stakes bet,
high stakes box, a.k.a. That's a play on words, a
bet box. They created a special URL just for this
(31:22):
box to honor the stake bets on this program. Good
Ranchers dot com slash bet. You go to Good Ranchers
dot com slash bet. You will get a box of
steak all preselected by us worthy of a great steak dinner.
You can make your own steak bets out there. Good
(31:42):
Ranchers has got such an incredible product. You can get
hooked up today. Go check it out. Make your own
steak bets at Good Ranchers dot com slash bet. good
ranchers.com slash bet. Brand new website. You're going to love it.
Check out the steak bet box. You're going to love
(32:04):
that too. Go to the website. Now get your own
steak bets, rolling good ranchers.com slash bet.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Prepare for the midterms. Listen to Clay and Buck. Do
your part in Red Pillow Liberal today. Welcome back in.
All right, joining us once again, Michael O'Keefe, Chief Investment
Officer at Stiefel. He's going to give us a market
sightlines with Michael update here. Michael, appreciate you being with us.
A lot of stuff going on in the space industry
(32:34):
this week. SpaceX launched four rockets. A bunch of other
stuff happening there. Tell us about the space industry, SpaceX
leading in a lot of ways. What's going on?
Speaker 6 (32:43):
Yeah, we love the space industry. So to your point,
lots of activity this week. You know, an astronaut swap
on ISS coming from SpaceX. We've got the first mission
really from the National Reconnaissance Office is from SpaceX Falcon Heavy.
SpaceX delivered a bunch of Starlink satellites to space, a
(33:05):
lot of stuff going on. One of the other things
that's interesting is little bits of activity where we see
the idea of building data centers in space. Out there,
there's infinite sunlight in a way. And so some of
the activity happening really relates to that.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Appreciate you coming on with us. Question, building on that
a little bit, all of the different AI moves that
are going on, Are you bullish on the overall trajectory
of the market as we hit nearly record highs and
AI continues to propel all of this?
Speaker 6 (33:38):
Yeah, I mean, the bottom line is we're very constructive
on artificial intelligence. You can think of it medium to
long term as a real big improvement in productivity and
economic growth. There's talks of headwinds, right, the potential for regulation,
or maybe equally important, the potential for misbehavior. And you
have to take all of that into consideration for sure.
(33:59):
But at the end of the day, when we take
a look at what's going on, we see individuals using it,
we see businesses using it, and ultimately to improve productivity,
improve earnings.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
This has been Market Sidelines with Michael. Michael O'Keefe, Chief
Investment Officer of Stiefel. Great. Thanks for joining us, man,
for a quick update. We appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
My pleasure.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Kyle in Kentucky weighing in. By the way, it's Friday,
so 800-282-2882. Kyle, you got a good question.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Fire away. Do we have him? Kyle is there. He's gone, apparently.
He got scared or something. Let's go to the next one.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
He froze.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Well, he was asking a question that I think is
a good one that a lot of you have, which
is why do we know all seven of these guys'
names and the girl's name is not public? Rape shield laws.
She is allowed because she is alleging that she was raped.
She is allowed to attack them and argue that they
are rapists. But because of rape shield laws, she is
(35:00):
able to argue that her name should not be in public.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
I know you think it's controversial. I agree with you.
I agree with you. Absolutely. Rape shield laws should not exist.
They were used, by the way, under the Jane Doe,
Jane Doe law, so-called in Wisconsin, to go after campaign
officials for unofficial coordination working for Scott Walker. They couldn't
even tell people, Clay, that there were pre-dawn raids on
their homes. For campaign stuff, because they did it using
(35:26):
and abusing, believe it or not, rape shield law statutes
in that state.
Speaker 5 (35:31):
Insane.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
Let me say this.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
I understand the intent historically, because if you were raped
in the 1940s or the 1950s, It was such a
shameful thing that there was a concern that women would
never be able to get married. They wouldn't be able
to have normal lives. Being a victim, if you are
truly a victim, is not something that is shameful, right?
(35:56):
No other aspect of the law do we protect a
victim's name. If you're out on the street. and somebody
comes up and punches you in the face, your name
is in that article.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
You are then a part of the story.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
It's just in the cases of sexual assault, and I
think it creates an unfair dynamic where you can get
your accuser's name public and get him dragged over the coals,
and you yourself remain anonymous.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
Yeah, Clay, they colluded, by the way. A judge and
prosecutors in Wisconsin used the statute, which was set up
specifically for secret investigations to be able to occur for
sex crimes. They just decided they were going to use
it for campaign finance violations. Ann Coulter, popcorn buck.
Welcome in Friday edition.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Clay and Buck, we're going to take you into the
weekend and hopefully entertain you along the way. We got
a bunch of different guests hopping on the program. We
will discuss a wide variety of different stories that are
out there, including the latest on polling and all of
the big Senate battlegrounds, as well as the House, President Trump.
(00:23):
hitting the trail in Texas and we continue to say
to all of you Texans wake up uh I understand
you have beaten this team for 30 straight years to
put it into a football context but this year they
have got a chance to potentially spring an upset and
if you've won 30 years in a row sometimes you
can be a little bit apprehensive that there's anything to
(00:46):
be paying attention to um And that is the situation
that I think we find ourselves in as the Senate
race continues. I believe Ken Paxton will win, but it's
going to require a lot of the Texans out there
that are listening to us right now. Not only go
vote yourselves, but also make sure that your friends and
family are aware. Hey, this is competitive. You need to
(01:07):
be showing up. Democrats are trying to steal one here.
And if we don't do a good job of protecting
our home turf, then you're going to have to deal
with this crazy man, James Tallarico, for the next six years.
So that is out there. We will continue to follow it.
But let's start here, Buck. This Cornell case, this seven guys,
(01:31):
one girl, the double threesomes that occurred several years ago
in a Cornell frat house, The girl initially said she
consented to everything after they disinvited her.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
I can't believe this is real.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
After they disinvited her to a Halloween party, she became
upset and said, actually, I don't think I consented. I
think I was raped. They had 12 different on campus
hearings into this incident already.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Twelve.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Twelve of them. The D.A.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Investigated said, I don't think I can bring criminal charges
because she is on text saying I consented to everything
because she told them in a statement that she signed
that she consented to everything. She then has now come
back and she says, oh, by the way. Actually, I
was raped, and I want to be paid millions of
(02:27):
dollars for the fact that I was raped.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
She is suing the school.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
She is suing the fraternity, the sorority, everybody that served
her alcohol, as well as, I believe, some of the
seven guys. That is the current procedural posture. And this morning, Buck,
the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, announced that she
was beginning a special investigation to be led by by
Letitia James, current Attorney General of New York, the woman
(02:54):
who is obsessed with getting President Trump. Now they are
going after the seven men, the seven former fraternity members
at Cornell, and that is the latest, and this is
going to be, unfortunately, I think, Buck, a huge story
from here continuing.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Yes, and they are preparing, I think, unfortunately, to.
Destroy the futures of all these young men by feeding
them into the legal machinery of New York state, which
is a partisan attack mechanism. It is not actually about
justice when there are politics and political considerations involved. They're,
(03:37):
they're looking like to me, they're going to do this.
They're going to bring, I would guess I would assess
they're going to bring charges. And I think that in
my opinion, If you have a guy on the jury
or a woman who believes in women being accountable for
their actions, you will not get a conviction, in my opinion,
(03:58):
on these guys based on the facts that have been presented.
That could be wrong. Obviously, jury selection is a very
precarious thing, depending on how you look at it. But, Clay,
a couple of things come to mind before we dive
into the obvious politics of this. As you said, Tish James—
The woman who went after Trump, even though all the
(04:18):
banks he did business with said it was great. They
made money. Everybody made money. They don't think fraud was committed.
But you see, you notice there's actually a precedent here.
Tish James decided that banks were victimized by Trump, even
when the bank said, well, we weren't victimized. It was great.
You know, it was fine. And now in this case,
it's a woman claims she consented. I understand she has
(04:40):
now said she revoked that consent weeks later. But essentially,
Tish James is going to come forward now if she
brings charges and say, even when you said to the
police you consented, you were a victim even though you
said you weren't a victim. That's where we're going to
be here. I know she says she's a victim now. Now,
the banks with Trump never said they were victims, to
be clear, of a financial crime. But, Clay, if you
(05:02):
can do this, if you can bring charges in a
case like this, it also puts on notice anyone– Any
woman who is emotionally unstable and has an ax to
grind against any individual, anyone in the country that she
has a one-night stand with or a long relationship with
or whatever, sexual interaction with, you can, after the fact,
revoke consent and expect police. When there's proof that you
(05:23):
gave consent, which is that is what it is when
you tell law enforcement, I consented to the drugs, I
consented to the sex. That is presentable in a– that
is why the prosecutor didn't bring charges. And by the way,
the prosecutor was right to not bring charges. Look, the
prosecutor is 100% right here. I think there are a
bunch of lessons. And one that I would say off
(05:47):
the top here is you guys, everybody out there, I
have boys. You've got to talk to the boys, the
young men in your life. And this goes for the
moms too, maybe the moms especially. If you find yourself
in it, this is completely unfair. Okay, let me start here.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
We have created a world where a woman, young girl,
can say, I was raped, and her name never goes public,
and your son, your grandson's name, even if it's 100% consensual,
immediately is everywhere. Everybody on the campus is investigating it.
(06:28):
She gets angry. She gets emotional. She thought they were
going to be in a relationship. She thought that they
were going to get married one day. And then she
found out that he liked somebody else and that maybe
he hooked up with somebody else. This is hugely, hugely significant.
And retroactively, she decides that she regrets having done something
(06:52):
with your son or your grandson. And she publicly accuses
him of wrongdoing and And it's virtually impossible for him
to prove retroactively everything was fine. I'm just saying this
is the reality. Girls don't have the same danger. Any
boy that says, oh, I was drinking and the girl
(07:15):
took advantage of me and I didn't consent, he's immediately ridiculed.
No one takes him seriously. This is not an even
playing field. And so, Buck, what I would say is
in that situation, if you've got a son who's in
a fraternity and there is a girl and she is
making out with multiple guys and there's drugs and there's alcohol,
(07:36):
get out of the room. Get out of the room
because she can be consenting right then. But as soon
as the other girls in the sorority find out and
as soon as the boys in the fraternity find out,
there's shame everywhere. And the way to protect yourself is
to argue you didn't make that choice. You are a victim.
How do you prove you aren't? But here's what I'm
(07:57):
going to tell you what's going to happen. They're going
to charge these seven guys.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
They're going to charge them all with crimes because Democrats
believe women are victims and men are victimizers. And Letitia
James is going to have a press conference and she's
going to charge all seven of this. My prediction, all
seven of these guys with rape. I don't know what
the jury's going to do, but if you are a
guy that is charged with rape, you are scarlet lettered
(08:23):
for the rest of your life. Every job that you
try to get, your name is everywhere. And very rarely, Buck,
do we actually get full-on vindication like happened in Duke
Lacrosse where we find out the woman was lying. Most
of the time, even if you get a not guilty
verdict one day, your name is still out.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
There as a rapist.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
You can never unring that bell once that accusation is made.
I'm fired up about this. I think the original D.A.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Got it right.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I think there is zero legitimate evidence that she was raped.
And unfortunately, this is the world we live in where
identity politics often determines who's right, who's wrong, who's guilty,
who's innocent.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor
hell a fury like a woman scorned, my friend. A
couple hundred years ago, that was Morning Bride by William Congreve.
People have shortened it to hell hath no fury like
a woman scorned. And that seems to be based on
(09:23):
the evidence presented. I am not taking... And there's another
thing here, Clay. Do you have a breaking thing? No, no, no.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I just think before we even go further analysis, I
think we should also point out aoc what is happening
now too is they're just making up things now so
a lot of people are not getting the actual facts
of this case let's play cut one because a lot
of people out there now are going to see aoc
on social media and they're not going to read the
(09:51):
complaints and they're not going to look at the evidence
and listen this is totally irresponsible of aoc We've said
positive things about her in the past. I don't know
if she actually did the work to read the complaint
or even familiarize herself with the case at all. But
most of what she says here is completely untrue. Listen
to cut one.
Speaker 5 (10:12):
Seven men drugged and gang raped a 20 year old
woman They lured her in to a fraternity house. They
drugged her with ketamine. They then posted to a group
chat that she was incapacitated, and seven men took turns
(10:34):
gang raping her for seven hours.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Clay, I think they should sue her.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Because I actually think they have pretty solid... It is
facts and evidence, and she's a public figure, and I
think you could prove malice in this, too. So, you know,
as we've discussed... Very hard to get a defamation case
unless you're a Republican being attacked in a Democrat state
by a Democrat. But very hard to get a defamation
case through what she said there about they drugged her.
(10:59):
That is that is just factually inaccurate. That is a lie. Yeah.
And then her claim that they said that she was incapacitated.
That is her reading of what they said. They said,
I mean, it's it is to be clear. These guys
are idiots, and unfortunately now they might be paying for
it with their futures, but there's a difference between an
idiot and a criminal in this circumstance. Difference between acting
(11:21):
in a manner that is ungentlemanly, undignified, and gross, and
we should lock you in a cell with people who have,
you know, tackled women from behind in a dark alleyway
and violated them, because that's the kind of stuff, that's
the kind of prison these guys would be going to
if they were convicted of this. Clay, this is.
(11:43):
This to me has a lot of the elements of a,
when they do like a BLM case, a Black Lives
Matter case, because they don't actually get upset about the
clear-cut case, because you and I would say, oh, the
cop was out of line, he should go to prison,
and they pick a case where they think they can
turn it, and it's a little marginal, or it's a
little bit of a close call, and then they want
(12:05):
to really ram it home and make it into something
that it's not, you know, so there's no confusion, there's
no error, there's no... This is... a situation where they
have decided to take a case that is not, you know,
a clear, not clear-cut at all in the sense that
these kids committed a crime. I don't think, and I
keep saying kids, I know they're young adults, but they're
(12:26):
going to try to make it into a crime is
the point. They're going to try to convince people that
a crime was committed here when I think that that
is absolutely not what the evidence points to right now
at all. And I think that you appoint Clay Letitia
James to get an outcome. We all know that. How
many prosecutors are there in the state of New York?
(12:47):
How many sex crimes investigators, longtime actual career prosecutors could
you go to? You go to Tish James because she's
got a name and she's a partisan hack and we
all know it.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
They're going to get charged and it's going to be
a miscarriage of justice that this is going to occur.
If they later are found not guilty by a jury,
which they should be, then it's another political win because
Democrats will say, look how powerful men get away with rape,
(13:21):
even in New York today. So they have created this
narrative of a story that did not happen at all.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
She was doing drugs.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
She was putting the drugs on her naked body and
having the boys do the drugs off of it. And
she was doing drugs off their.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Naked body parts.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
She consented to all of it, Buck. And even Sonny Hostin,
to her credit, points out that when you voluntarily consume
drugs and alcohol, as you do, you can't then argue
that your voluntary consumption of those drugs and alcohol obviated
your ability to consent when you are making your own choices.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Then, I mean, anyone who's ever gone out for a
glass of wine with a date and had sex could
be guilty of rape under the law. Anyone ever. That's
just that's just an unworkable standard. I mean, that's the
destruction of male female relations, if that's what we're going
to be dealing with. So that's right. So that's that's crazy.
But look, they have it's we're right. And, you know, Clay,
(14:21):
there's all there's a whole political aspect to this. There's
a they want they think women voters, I think, in
some of these key states. I know that sounds like
what could what could this New York case have to
do with? No, they're making this the big thing. They
are they are going to. to throw these kids to
the wolves because the online pitchfork and torches estrogen mob
(14:47):
wants that to happen. And this is a mobilization thing.
This is about politics. It is not about justice. The
fact that they have Tish James involved. Clay, it couldn't
be any more obvious. That's the thing about it, too.
They are telling you, that's right, it's our state. This
is how we do it. What are you going to
(15:09):
do about it? We're going to have the most partisan hack,
the one who said she was going to prosecute Trump when.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
She was running for the office of AG.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
We're going to have her do this one. I would
also point out, Buck, it's.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
An Ivy League school.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Do you really think.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
The Ivy League school is biased in favor of the
boys in this case? Do you think they're looking for
reasons to keep men, young men, from being held accountable?
They had 12 kids. 12-campus investigatory hearings on this. They
kicked two of the boys out of school. There were
consequences already just for being involved in the way that
(15:50):
they were. Do you think in any college town in
America that the justice system is biased in favor of young,
wealthy fraternity boys? They want these guys to be guilty. Well,
I'm going to tell you something. The only thing that
makes this.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
left-wing DEFCON 2 instead of DEFCON 1, not all the
guys are white. If they were all white, if they
were all white, they would be way more, you know,
this would just be... It would be Duke Lacrosse all
over again. But I mean, you know, because that's... Look,
Sonny Haas, we've talked about it. Some people are being
(16:27):
sane on this one, even on the left. And I
think it's because... There are minority guys involved here, too.
All right, we'll talk more about this. Funerals are some
of the toughest moments for families. The only silver lining
is they bring everyone together, sharing stories and memories of
their loved ones. Funerals and memorials are also a time
when seeing pictures and videos comforts the heart. For years now,
Clay and I have worked with Legacy Box, the company
(16:48):
that does the single best job out there of digitally
transferring old media like videotapes, Super 8 film, print photos
and slides, whatever you might have, onto digital files. Once
those memories are digitized, you have them forever. They're not
going to fade, break, disintegrate over time. Legacy Box ships
you a box that you fill with your old media
and send to them. In a few weeks, you get
(17:09):
everything back along with brand new digital files. We love
Legacy Box. Clay and I have both used them. This
company preserves family history for Americans nationwide. They've done it
now for 2 million plus families, including our own. Shop
Legacy Box's current online sale today at LegacyBox.com slash buck.
That's LegacyBox.com slash B-U-C-K.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Laugh learn and hang with the guys clay and buck
preset on the iheart.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
App welcome back into clay and buck we have a
super tight turn here clay can i just set this
up tish james a reporter asked a real reporter question
about how tish james of the ag for new york
could possibly be unbiased in this investigation we have the
audio clay people everyone has to hear this everyone has
to hear this coming up i haven't heard it yet
(17:57):
clay that's a hell of a it is chilling how
obvious what's going on is all right last night on
a positive note Cleveland Browns congratulations we won that bet
the over congratulations we won that bet my bet for
all of you this weekend at hard rock bet slash
clay that is hard rock dot bet slash clay you
(18:20):
bet five dollars you get a hundred dollars in bonus
bets I am sorry for all you Maryland Terp fans
out there But the Nebraska Cornhuskers are going to obliterate
you this weekend. Nebraska's going to cover the 14.5 in Lincoln.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Go Huskers, go. Hardrock.bet.com. The Blood Bank is Nebraska to
win big. Let's have some fun. Welcome back, Ed. We're
going to have some fun during the course of the
program today, just FYI. But we are talking about a
serious story right now. The Cornell Seven, the seven men
(19:01):
who are alleged to have committed a rape on an
undergraduate a couple of years ago, they have now named
Letitia James as the investigator. Buck, I was saying off air,
and I'll reiterate it, I will say the same thing
to all of you. If you are politically active... in
any way on the right side of the political equation,
(19:24):
and you are basing your companies and your life in
blue cities and or blue states, you need to move
those companies. I have a lot of different interests across
a variety of different industries. All of the companies that
I have are based in red states because I see
(19:45):
what a kangaroo court they have allowed these blue state
jurisdictions to be We saw what happened to President Trump.
He's not going to be the end of it. They
are going to come after you with everything they have.
If you live in a blue state and you are
in some way offending their sense of of political justice.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Yeah, you're you're it's a partisan hit. I mean, let's
just call it what it is. They're going to hit
you for for political reasons. And for anyone who would
want to try and argue that point, Clay... We could
give you so many. As I mentioned, Tish James said,
if there's any ethics a prosecutor is supposed to have
when running for office, I'm pretty sure saying I'm going
to get a private citizen who has never been convicted
(20:25):
of anything, which was true at the time, would be
high on that list. But here is that same attorney
general following in the esteemed footsteps of notorious scumbag Elliot Spitzer,
among others. Here is that esteemed prosecutor, A.G., Letitia James,
On this issue of Cornell and the case and how
(20:46):
she's already said she's supposed to look at this and
decide whether to bring charges, she sounds like an attorney
for the accuser.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Play the cut.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Attorney General, on your Facebook page three days ago, you wrote,
what this young woman has been forced to endure is
horrific and unacceptable. I'm holding her in my heart and
in my prayers to her and to all survivors. You're
not alone.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
We stand with you.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
But why did you affirm her allegations as fact without
doing your own fact-finding investigation? And to the governor, why
did you appoint an official who made a public statement
affirming those allegations as fact as someone who's supposed to
be doing an investigation?
Speaker 3 (21:26):
I will answer that.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I have every confidence in our Attorney General to do
what she has always done. Look at the facts, examine
the record, and draw the proper conclusions.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
That's exactly what's.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Going to happen in this case.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Attorney General, please.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
I will not comment on a Facebook post.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
It was her Facebook post! She publicly wrote that she
agrees with the accuser on all the major issue here,
which is that she was violent and it was bad,
and that she wasn't just drunk and acting like a
morally questionable young woman. Clay, how can she still be in.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Charge of this investigation? And actually, legally, she is dead
in the water based on this. I mean, the very
foundational element.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
of any.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Independent review is that you cannot have prejudged the outcome
of your investigation. Now, I can't believe I'm going to
defend Letitia James. It's possible that her team posted this
on Facebook and she had no idea, right? Because it's
such an identity politics thing. It's possible that they said, oh,
(22:34):
we're going to be on the side of the woman.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Even if that's true, and you're saying that's a very
generous reading, which it would be, which isn't even claimed yet,
but Clay, even if that were true, for the appearance
of propriety, she can't be the one. She can't do it.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Now, if I am now representing these boys, these young men,
I actually love that she has posted this. Because whatever
conclusions she reaches, we're going to be able to attack
as biased. We're going to be able to argue that
she should be removed from this investigation at its outset.
(23:09):
And certainly we're going to be able to call any
eventual conclusion that she reaches into question based on her
having prejudged this situation. Here's the problem, Buck. You've hit
on this a lot. The process is the punishment.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
It's one of my favorite phrases.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
You and I are fortunate enough to have resources to
be able to defend ourselves when people attack us. And
we are public figures and we got the airwaves and
we can go out and talk and we can say
exactly what we think on everything.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
These seven guys, these seven.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
24 year olds or whatever they are that are now
publicly being tarred and feathered. They don't have the same
method by which to defend themselves. And so, look, you
can argue that Letitia James and Alvin Bragg coming after
President Trump actually resulted partly in him being elected president
(24:02):
of the United States. In other words, it is the
ultimate validation and vindication for him that he is the
most powerful man in the world now, despite the fact
that they attacked him, maybe partly because they attacked him.
What do these boys get? What do these young men get?
They can't even ever get their names back. They aren't
(24:23):
public figures. They probably, I mean, they're smart kids. If
they got into Cornell, they're probably trying to do investment
banking jobs in New York, or they're probably trying to
do venture capital in California.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
They can't get online. Reputation is their future. That is
the reality of the world we live in today. You
can't just, you know, put, put a sack on your shoulder,
hitchhike eight hours down the road. And no one knows
in that town who you are. Like you're, you're, Scarlet letter.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Hard and feathered. Scarlet lettered is the exact right analogy, too.
And here's the other thing. As soon as these guys
get a job anywhere, some media figure is going to
send an email to the company that employs them. And
they're going to say, why do you believe it's appropriate
for insert company here to employ insert figure here, given
(25:14):
the allegations of rape that were put out against him?
And you can say, oh, I'm willing to take the
slings and arrows for that.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Most people aren't.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
Most people are cowards, and they're going to say, hey,
we'll just move on. And to be fair, if you
run a really big company and you're employing, let's say,
1,500 people, Is one 24-year-old worth your company getting associated
in a negative way with this case? For a lot
(25:46):
of people, the answer is no. And I don't know
what the independent family status is of these individuals, but
most kids... who graduate from Ivy League schools, aren't so
wealthy that they're going to be able to live off
mom and dad for the rest of their life. So
this is just, I mean, it's just a really awful situation.
(26:08):
And again, I come back to largely this girl who
has made these allegations. She stands to potentially reap millions
of dollars because there is a likelihood, I think, given
the size of Cornell, that eventually they will say, hey,
here's $ 4 million. We're sorry the way that at least, right?
Speaker 3 (26:28):
I'm just giving millions of dollars. No, no, but it's
a seven-figure settlement just to sort of make it go
away from there.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Could be eight figures. She might get $ 10 million, right?
I mean, she likely will get millions of dollars because
the pressure on Cornell is will be so intense that
they will settle and they will put out some statement
and they will say, we should have handled this better
and we're disappointed and we've hired 86 new rape counselors
(26:55):
at the university. And I'm just telling you how this
is all going to play out because eventually the president
of Cornell is going to worry about his or her job.
And then they're going to worry about the people on
the board are going to say, well, I don't want
to get attacked for this.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
We have to do something. And you know what else
this is, too? There's a whole industry of radical left
feminist media. Women should never be accountable for anything. There's
all this stuff out there. And they haven't really had
their this case. They've wanted this case. For 20 years.
(27:30):
I mean, go back to Duke Lacrosse. It was 20
years ago. They've wanted the high-profile, victimized– when I say wanted,
like they've been looking for the moment to make this
a big national conversation because they've fabricated it.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
What else do you have to know?
Speaker 3 (27:46):
The New York Times, Rolling Stone, they've actually fabricated cases
like this in the past. That's how much they want
this to be a thing. And now they have the
case that they're going all in on it. But as
I was saying, you know, if I was sitting here, Clay,
the same thing with you. And I thought that seven guys, look,
(28:08):
I still think their behavior was stupid and they're paying
a very high price for it already. I mean, these guys,
you know, they shouldn't have done what they did, but
that's not the same thing as criminal. You know, you
shouldn't cheat on your girlfriend when you're in college, but
you shouldn't get locked up in a cell for that, right?
There's unethical versus ethical. Illegal and unethical are not always
the same thing. But Clay, if there were seven guys
(28:31):
that drugged and raped a girl... And it was very
clear from the evidence presented that, by the way, the
prosecutor who looked at this already, you know, some prosecutor
in New York State agrees with you, agrees with me,
you know, comes came to the same conclusion we did.
So we're not crazy here at all. OK.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
And the university did, which is in no way biased
in favor of the fraternity guys.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
So we had this is this is key. We had
the rational first look at this, which, if anything, is
weighted always overwhelmingly in favor of the female. And now
they've decided to emotionalize it and go back at it
another bite at the apple and try to make this
into something that it quite frankly wasn't. If you and
I thought that seven guys drugged and raped the girl,
(29:13):
we would want the most stringent punishment available under the law.
But there also wouldn't be much to talk about here.
That's what I mean by the BLM always chooses cases
where it's not really what they say it is. You know,
hands up, don't shoot. Well, that's not what happened. And here...
This is so emotional and so charged because they're saying,
you know, AOC said it was a gang rape. It
(29:36):
is clear from the evidence that that is not what
happened here. And yet they want to say that's what happened.
And that's where that's where the conflict and that's where
the outrage and that's where everything comes from. All right, well,
we'll get into more. By the way, Ann Coulter will
be with us and. She is, I'm telling you, she
is going to be all over this. She went to Cornell.
(29:57):
She's a Cornell alumna as well. So she can bring
a little extra perspective to it. But she wrote years
ago about a case at Columbia with a woman that
became known as Mattress Girl.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
You remember this?
Speaker 3 (30:11):
A woman who claimed that she was raped. And by
the way, the police looked at it. She wasn't raped.
She was sending him cutesy text messages the next day.
Want to see you again? He broke up with her
six months later. And then she said she was raped.
And then she carried around a mattress everywhere with her
to signify her being violated. Literally a mattress carried a
mattress around campus as a protest. Yeah. And can talk
(30:33):
to us about that, too. So she'll be with us
in just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
I can't wait to hear what I personally can't wait
to hear what what Ann Coulter is going to say
about this case.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
It's popcorn. Look, good ranchers. We got a.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Brand new way for people to play along with our
steak bets. For those of you new to the program,
Buck always loses steak bets to me.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
And I have at least one.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Good, solid bet outstanding right now about what Kamala Harris
is going to do. Is she or is she not
going to run for president? You can get on the
fun now with good ranchers. They have a high stakes bet,
high stakes box, a.k.a. That's a play on words, a
bet box. They created a special URL just for this
(31:22):
box to honor the stake bets on this program. Good
Ranchers dot com slash bet. You go to Good Ranchers
dot com slash bet. You will get a box of
steak all preselected by us worthy of a great steak dinner.
You can make your own steak bets out there. Good
(31:42):
Ranchers has got such an incredible product. You can get
hooked up today. Go check it out. Make your own
steak bets at Good Ranchers dot com slash bet. good
ranchers.com slash bet. Brand new website. You're going to love it.
Check out the steak bet box. You're going to love
(32:04):
that too. Go to the website. Now get your own
steak bets, rolling good ranchers.com slash bet.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Prepare for the midterms. Listen to Clay and Buck. Do
your part in Red Pillow Liberal today. Welcome back in.
All right, joining us once again, Michael O'Keefe, Chief Investment
Officer at Stiefel. He's going to give us a market
sightlines with Michael update here. Michael, appreciate you being with us.
A lot of stuff going on in the space industry
(32:34):
this week. SpaceX launched four rockets. A bunch of other
stuff happening there. Tell us about the space industry, SpaceX
leading in a lot of ways. What's going on?
Speaker 6 (32:43):
Yeah, we love the space industry. So to your point,
lots of activity this week. You know, an astronaut swap
on ISS coming from SpaceX. We've got the first mission
really from the National Reconnaissance Office is from SpaceX Falcon Heavy.
SpaceX delivered a bunch of Starlink satellites to space, a
(33:05):
lot of stuff going on. One of the other things
that's interesting is little bits of activity where we see
the idea of building data centers in space. Out there,
there's infinite sunlight in a way. And so some of
the activity happening really relates to that.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Appreciate you coming on with us. Question, building on that
a little bit, all of the different AI moves that
are going on, Are you bullish on the overall trajectory
of the market as we hit nearly record highs and
AI continues to propel all of this?
Speaker 6 (33:38):
Yeah, I mean, the bottom line is we're very constructive
on artificial intelligence. You can think of it medium to
long term as a real big improvement in productivity and
economic growth. There's talks of headwinds, right, the potential for regulation,
or maybe equally important, the potential for misbehavior. And you
have to take all of that into consideration for sure.
(33:59):
But at the end of the day, when we take
a look at what's going on, we see individuals using it,
we see businesses using it, and ultimately to improve productivity,
improve earnings.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
This has been Market Sidelines with Michael. Michael O'Keefe, Chief
Investment Officer of Stiefel. Great. Thanks for joining us, man,
for a quick update. We appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (34:21):
My pleasure.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Kyle in Kentucky weighing in. By the way, it's Friday,
so 800-282-2882. Kyle, you got a good question.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
Fire away. Do we have him? Kyle is there. He's gone, apparently.
He got scared or something. Let's go to the next one.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
He froze.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Well, he was asking a question that I think is
a good one that a lot of you have, which
is why do we know all seven of these guys'
names and the girl's name is not public? Rape shield laws.
She is allowed because she is alleging that she was raped.
She is allowed to attack them and argue that they
are rapists. But because of rape shield laws, she is
(35:00):
able to argue that her name should not be in public.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
I know you think it's controversial. I agree with you.
I agree with you. Absolutely. Rape shield laws should not exist.
They were used, by the way, under the Jane Doe,
Jane Doe law, so-called in Wisconsin, to go after campaign
officials for unofficial coordination working for Scott Walker. They couldn't
even tell people, Clay, that there were pre-dawn raids on
their homes. For campaign stuff, because they did it using
(35:26):
and abusing, believe it or not, rape shield law statutes
in that state.
Speaker 5 (35:31):
Insane.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
Let me say this.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
I understand the intent historically, because if you were raped
in the 1940s or the 1950s, It was such a
shameful thing that there was a concern that women would
never be able to get married. They wouldn't be able
to have normal lives. Being a victim, if you are
truly a victim, is not something that is shameful, right?
(35:56):
No other aspect of the law do we protect a
victim's name. If you're out on the street. and somebody
comes up and punches you in the face, your name
is in that article.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
You are then a part of the story.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
It's just in the cases of sexual assault, and I
think it creates an unfair dynamic where you can get
your accuser's name public and get him dragged over the coals,
and you yourself remain anonymous.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
Yeah, Clay, they colluded, by the way. A judge and
prosecutors in Wisconsin used the statute, which was set up
specifically for secret investigations to be able to occur for
sex crimes. They just decided they were going to use
it for campaign finance violations. Ann Coulter, popcorn buck.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.