September 1, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 1 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show focused heavily on the ongoing Lindsay Clancy murder trial, along with discussions surrounding President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project, the political implications of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, Senate races in key states, and questions about Trump’s long-term legacy and priorities.
The opening segment centered on dramatic developments in the Lindsay Clancy trial in Massachusetts after jurors informed the judge they were deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Clay and Buck analyzed the likelihood of a mistrial, debating whether the jury's division reflects broader national disagreements over the use of the insanity defense, criminal responsibility, and mental health claims in high-profile murder cases. The hosts argued that the facts of the case are largely undisputed and discussed concerns that a deadlocked jury could force prosecutors to decide whether to retry the case. They also examined public reactions to Clancy, particularly support groups and advocates who have rallied around her, and questioned the implications for future criminal cases involving mental health defenses. The conversation expanded into a broader discussion of public perception, social media influence, jury dynamics, and the challenges of finding impartial jurors in widely publicized cases.
The show then shifted to national politics and the continuing controversy surrounding President Trump’s White House ballroom construction project. Clay and Buck discussed a legal challenge seeking to halt the project and the court rulings that allowed construction to continue. The hosts argued that opposition to the ballroom is largely political and debated whether objections are rooted in historical preservation concerns or broader opposition to Trump himself. They also explored the constitutional and legal questions raised by presidential authority over modifications to the White House and examined the practical benefits of the ballroom, including security, logistics, and hosting official events. The discussion included commentary on modernization of the White House and the challenges of maintaining a historic building while adapting it for contemporary needs.
A major political segment examined Donald Trump’s priorities heading into the 2026 midterm election cycle. The hosts questioned whether Trump is as invested in midterm outcomes as he was in previous campaigns, suggesting he may now be more focused on shaping his presidential legacy through long-term projects and institutional changes. They debated the significance of congressional control, the future of Trump’s policy agenda, and whether Republican turnout could suffer when Trump is not personally on the ballot. The conversation also touched on polling reliability, lessons from previous election cycles, and the difficulty of accurately forecasting voter behavior.
The final portion of Hour 1 focused on the battle for control of the U.S. Senate, with particular attention paid to the closely watched Texas Senate race involving Ken Paxton and challenger James Talarico. Responding to listener concerns, Clay and Buck discussed campaign spending disparities, fundraising advantages, advertising visibility, and Republican concerns over voter turnout. They also examined competitive Senate contests in states such as Alaska and Maine, highlighting how small vote margins, polling uncertainty, and campaign strategy could ultimately determine control of the chamber. The hosts assessed the role of Trump-aligned political organizations, Super PAC spending, and the broader Republican effort to defend key Senate seats while maintaining congressional majorities.
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, Tuesday edition, Clay and Buck. We are rolling
in with all of you.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Hope that your Tuesday has been going well, and we
hope that the next three hours that we spend with
all of you will be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
And also.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Somewhat interesting of a day here. Earlier, maybe about an
hour and a half ago, they had a hearing in
the Massachusetts courtroom where Lindsey Clancy is on trial for murder.
And basically the jurors sent a message to the judge
and said, yeah, we can't figure things out.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
We're at a log jam.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
We're not going to come to a consensus here. And
I bet that we have the audio of that and
what it sounded like in the courtroom. But essentially, the
judge comes back and he says, hey, guys, you all
need to go back and you need to continue your deliberations.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
This is cut one.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
The question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are
unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you
back out because I know that this was a long trial.
I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over
300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask
(01:25):
you to go back out, keeping in mind all the
instructions that I gave you, to go out and to
continue your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
All right?
Speaker 3 (01:36):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Okay, this doesn't surprise me, Buck.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
As I was talking about yesterday, when they didn't come
back with a verdict before they went into the weekend,
it was giving you an indication that there were probably issues.
If I were assessing what's likely going on here, I
suspect they said, hey, we're at a log jam. We
can't come to a conclusion. Let's all go home and
sleep on it. We'll then come back tomorrow and see
(02:11):
whether or not we agree or disagree on these details.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
They came back.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
They still can't render a verdict, reach a unanimous verdict.
There are three men and nine women. And I tend
to think that this is probably going to end in
a mistrial buck where we'll see what the actual math
ends up being. But it feels like people are digging
their heels in. And this is a mess of a case.
(02:37):
What's your take on this as you see it? Well,
because the facts are really not in dispute at all.
what would be the thing that somebody could say in
that jury room at this point that would sway somebody
to their side? I think that this has become, and
we have seen this, Clay, reflected online for really the
(03:01):
whole time this case has been a national news story.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
This has become oddly personalized by a lot of people.
who somehow see some of their own struggles in what
Lindsay Clancy did, and I can say did because she
admitted to what she has done. It's just a question
of her psychological state. I think that somehow there's been
(03:28):
a mobilization of emotions here overwhelmingly from female supporters of
Lindsay Clancy that are both irrational and very disturbing to
a lot of people who are observing this. There's No
question about what she did. There's no question that it
is about as heinous a series of acts, not just
(03:49):
one act, a series of acts that any human being
could ever conduct. And as we've discussed, there are people
outside the courtroom who are cheering for her. There are
people who very much want her to have a verdict
that essentially absolves her of a criminal state of mind.
(04:11):
mens rea, as you've often talked about here, and somehow
makes this an issue of the mental health system and
not a woman who murdered her three children in a
premeditated and brutal and horrific fashion, who was, I might add,
getting a lot of help and support from her husband,
from others. It was not like she was out on
(04:33):
her own in this process. So yeah, I have a
lot of Concern, Clay. I think it is also likely
heading to a mistrial. I think that's also where this
is going.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And if it does head to a mistrial, then I
think the state of Massachusetts will have a real decision
to make. And if some of you are saying, OK,
what are the stakes at play? My understanding is, Buck,
if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity... she
could be out of a mental hospital as soon as
40 days from now. In other words, as soon as
(05:07):
they can demonstrate that she is no longer insane by
medicating her.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
So she's temporarily insane just enough to murder her own
three children in a brutal and premeditated fashion, but then
sane enough that maybe she should actually pay almost no
penalty for those killings. in the state of Massachusetts, by
the state of Massachusetts. It is insane if that happens.
(05:32):
The only thing that strikes me as clearly insane about
all of this is the notion that she may escape
real punishment by the state. Those are three human beings
that were murdered. That they were her children just makes
it worse. But the state of Massachusetts has an obligation
to defend each and every one of those lives the
same way they would anybody else, an adult, any other person. So,
(05:55):
I mean, even more so for children's clearly, but I am,
I am troubled. And I was out yesterday and you
were talking about this clay. I'm troubled that this has
gone as long as it has, because you may just
have one person. What is it? Three men and three men,
nine women, nine women, right? You may have just one
woman who sees, she has seen the Tik TOK commentary
(06:18):
on this. She has seen the online conversations and has decided,
I see something of myself, my own struggles with depression
in Lindsay Clancy, and therefore I will not vote for
a conviction here on these murders. And if she has
dug in on that, if that juror has dug in,
it only takes one, and then you are heading to
a mistrial.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yes, that is 100% accurate. And the challenge that I
think the state of Massachusetts would face if they get
a mistrial, let's assume the jury's deadlocked and we can't
get a unanimous verdict of 12th. Then how in the
world do you impanel a new jury and believe that
you're going to get a different verdict than the one
(06:59):
that you already have? Because every single person in Massachusetts,
for sure, but much of the nation has kind of
already made up their mind on this. It's a month-long
trial that's been going on. I don't know if she's
willing to plead guilty to any lesser charge. I'm not
sure if the state would offer it. I'm not sure
(07:21):
if Lindsey Clancy's representation would allow it to occur. But
I do think, Buck, what you're going to see coming
out of this is I think way more people are
going to start using the insanity defense because. In a
case like this where you know exactly what happened, now,
some people are saying, oh, I think it was her
(07:43):
actual husband. Some of y'all, let me just say this,
they did the murder. That is a thing that is
out there on the Internet. Some of y'all need to
spend less time on the Internet. And I say that
as a guy who basically lives on the Internet. If
the defense isn't citing your argument as one of the
reasons why the defendant is not responsible for the murder,
(08:06):
we just saw this with Tyler Robinson, so many of
you coming up with different theories on who actually killed
Charlie Kirk other than the guy who all the evidence
points to actually killed him. Some of you, I dive
into the mentions, and it doesn't take very long for
somebody to say, well, I think it was actually the
husband who did all this, and she's taking the fall
(08:26):
for it. First of all, if there was any evidence
of that whatsoever, then you could make that argument, and the.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Defense would use it.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
The defense has to come up with whatever they can
to try to argue that the defendant is not responsible.
Do you think that you're coming up with better defenses
than the lawyers who sit around and and spend thousands
of hours investigating every scintilla of evidence and sit in
a courtroom all day trying to ensure that their client
(09:01):
is not convicted? Do you think that you cracked the
case by going on Reddit threads and sitting around with
a bunch of drunk moms on Facebook Messenger?
Speaker 1 (09:12):
I don't think so. Well, there are unfortunately a lot
of people online to whom the answers to all those
questions would be yes, yes, yes, absolutely. I have figured
out the thing that nobody who is actually paid to
investigate this and as a professional who has done it
before has come up with. Clay, I will tell you,
I have a friend in Miami who approached me and
she said, I think the husband did it. And I
(09:33):
just said, honestly– I can't have this conversation with you.
I can't do it. I can't do it. I cannot talk.
There's no way. Because you've already reached a level of
crazy where anything else that I say about this is
just going to fall on deaf ears. So this happened
to you where? In Miami. Friend of mine. On the street.
(09:54):
Wanted to talk to me. Straight up said it. She goes,
what do you think about the case? And she's obviously
a woman, so it's kind of a... neighbor of ours.
I said, I don't want to really get into it.
I said, it's too horrible, which it is, by the way.
Which is what, by the way, was our initial take
on it. Until I started seeing these crazy women cheering
her arriving at trial, it was just such a dark
(10:16):
story that I didn't really think Again, the story itself
is awful, but the fact that people are celebrating her
in any way is, to me, the thing that makes
it a national story. I also would want to know
how anyone could explain this to me. So we all agree,
or I should say every sane human being who relies
on evidence and not vibes or their gut instinct or
(10:38):
feeling for things like this agrees that she did these
three killings, murders from what I can see. And yet
there are people who would be willing to put this
in a situation where she might actually be released into
the public at some point. If a person cannot be
trusted to not suddenly go crazy and murder their own
(11:02):
three children, would you want to stand next to that
person on a subway platform? Would you want that person
to be behind the wheel of a car that you
were in? Would you think that this person is safe?
In general society. Why? They'd say, oh, but she was
fine before. She was fine until she murdered her three children.
And then we're told now she's going to be fine again.
(11:24):
She can just have that break with reality one time,
do the worst thing a human being, certainly the worst
thing a mother could ever possibly do. But there's no
public safety risk based on what? Because a few state
underpaid state quacks at some mental facility are going to
tell her, yeah, you seem OK. We're going to let
you out. That's a just outcome here? Would you want
(11:45):
to be this woman's neighbor afterwards? People say, yes, I
trust her. Why? You don't know her. All you know
about her is that she murdered her three children, and now,
and tried to kill herself, and now we're told she
should only go to a mental facility, but why should
she go to a mental facility to give her a
(12:05):
clean bill of health? Why would she be... When you
start to actually play this out, none of the the
Lindsay Clancy-ites out there make any sense whatsoever. And I
think part of this is just that it's so troubling.
By the way, every angry email I get, and we've
gotten a few, and it's only women, I might add.
There's something going on there, folks. Not a single man
(12:27):
has texted me, called me, told me, you're so wrong,
you don't get it. It's only women who seem to
want to take this position, which tells you something. This
is about emotion. This is not about the logic or
the facts of the case. But every time they send
me the email, the second you tell me that you
(12:48):
don't blame this woman for what she did, I don't
care what you have to say about the case. Like
there's no, there's no, there's nothing else that can be,
it would be like someone telling me, yes, OJ did it,
but race relations require this. No, no, I don't want to,
I don't, I'm never, you're never going to convince me
of that. You're never going to convince me that OJ
should have been able to murder someone Nicole, you know,
(13:11):
Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife and the innocent stand bystander,
Ron Golden. And you're never going to convince me. And
I don't think you're ever going to convince Clay either
that this woman shouldn't spend the rest of her life
in prison.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
I don't.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
This is as straightforward as it gets from what I
can see. Yes.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
And again, if this were just a dispute about insanity
and how it's going to be applied in a court proceeding.
That story is different to me than I'm going to
go stand on the side of the road, wear pink
like we're a member of a favorite sports team and
cheer for her. Look, guarantees are tough. I would be
(13:50):
stunned if the three men, to your point, Buck, on
this case are in any way considering a not guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Maybe we'll be wrong. I would be very surprised. I would.
I mean, not that I don't want to turn this into.
It's not like when we're talking about some far less
serious thing. Right.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
But.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
I am certain that it is not the men on
this jury. Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Can you, by the way, this is comedic. So it takes,
can you imagine, take it outside of this, that you
have to convince nine women. You're the three guys that
it's like the most miserable. Can you imagine in a
highly charged emotional case, take it outside of this scenario.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
You're on a jury.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
There's three dudes and you have to tell the nine
women all day long, every day for hours in a
jury deliberation room.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
No, you're wrong. No, you're wrong.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Because to your point, Buck, there is no factual dispute
really here.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
This isn't a this isn't like, oh, was the bank
robber like was it actually the right bank robber?
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Are we sure we got the right guy or there
was actually far more reasonable doubt. In the OJ case. Oh,
and there was not a lot, but yes. And there
was basically none, but there was more. Yes. So what
does that tell you? We'll take your calls and your emails.
Send us the angry ones if you want, but it is,
(15:07):
you know, when you're getting attacked by crazies, it's kind
of a badge of honor, I'm just going to tell you.
All right, guys, talking to guys here for a second.
There's an inevitable intersection we all face at one time
or another in our lives. It's when you no longer
have all that energy that you used to have and
you're getting slowed down quite a bit. There's a solution
to this, though. Of course, proper sleep, diet, exercise. You
(15:28):
got to get everything dialed in. But as you're going,
proper supplementation is critical. And trust me, I know about
this because I am a chalk daily guy myself. Their
best-selling product, Chalk makes all these incredible supplements. The Chalk
Male Vitality Stack is specially formulated to provide you with
more energy. And Chalk's Male Vitality Stack's primary ingredient has
(15:49):
proven in studies to restore 20% of your body's T-levels
within three months. Sign up today at Chalk.com, C-H-O-Q.com. They
have a whole bunch of fantastic products, and they're all
top of the line, made right here in the USA,
a company based out of Texas. When you subscribe for
a monthly delivery and use my name, Buck, You'll get
their free $ 99 bag of chalk lip powder with your
(16:10):
first delivery. That's C-H-O-Q.com, code Buck. C-H-O-Q.com, code Buck. Looking
for normal in a world of crazy? Clay and Buck
have your back. Welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
We have a bunch of stories to talk about Clay today. Obviously,
we're going to have updates on the Lindsay Clancy situation,
(16:32):
but we also have a victory for Big T. with
the White House able to continue its construction of the ballroom,
which is very exciting, very exciting. It turns out that
they were not able to just say, stop, halt, cease
and desist all ballroom building activities. So I think that
(16:54):
is a nice thing. We've got more with Iran. The
Iran story continues on. And one thing I think is interesting,
Trump clearly agrees with us analytically on data centers but
his tone is a little um a little caustic maybe
(17:16):
on the data centers we should have a conversation about
this like i i think everyone's gonna get to the
place he wants them to on this but i don't
think the frustration in the in the uh truths that
he's putting out is necessarily working for him in a
positive way you see what i'm you see what i'm
saying on that one Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Look, I think this plays into a larger question that
I don't think is a bad one to ask. How
much does Trump actually care at this point about the midterms?
It's a good question. I mean, he's already had the
ultimate triumph of getting elected. We can talk about that
maybe when we come back a little bit. I don't
(17:57):
know that he's got the same fire in his belly
that he had in.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
The 2024 election, to be clear.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I want to tell all of you about the huge
difference that Sabre can make when it comes to making
your family safer.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
These are all non-lethal.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
They got bear spray. about lion spray, but also pepper spray.
If you've got a son or daughter that's working, let's
say late at night, maybe they're off on a new
college campus. Maybe they got their driver's license and they're
driving around in the car way more. When safety matter matters,
Americans choose Sabre, the number one brand trusted by police
(18:32):
and millions worldwide. Sabre, S-A-B-R-E is how it's spelled. And
right now you can save 15% on select Sabre bundles.
Go to saberprotect.com. You're going to love them. That's saberprotect.com.
We had some things breaking yesterday.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Like I mentioned, the White House ballroom, the Supreme Court
having to come in over the top and say that
the White House ballroom construction can continue. Kavanaugh on the
side of the Angels. John Roberts on the side of
the Communists on this one. Not a surprise. So, just
(19:12):
able to continue think about this though if they kept
it where it was it would be rubble like it's
already under construction so now is is it the contention
of the people that want the trump ballroom to stop
that he's not allowed to finish it but he should
(19:33):
undo it and go back and restore what was there
before i mean you want to talk about a The
whole thing seems to be pretty nuts to me, that
there's been such intense opposition to it, especially because, as
we've said, this is a fundamentally sound idea. Clay, you
(19:54):
were at the first white house correspondence dinner, which was
disrupted by a lunatic running in with a gun and
that's at a hotel. And yes, secret service tries to
secure it. But as we know, this president is the president's,
under most threat in our lives, I mean, I think
you could say, I mean, Reagan would be the next
(20:14):
closest and you could say, well, very, very close, you know,
they both were shot. So obviously both of them under
tremendous threat. I think ideologically in many ways, this president,
President Trump is under even considerably more threat. So having
that ballroom makes sense from a security standpoint, makes sense
from a logistics standpoint. And yet because Trump is doing it,
(20:38):
they have decided, that they would rather it sit there,
I guess, a pile of rubble than allow the ballroom,
which no one is suggesting Trump would take with him,
and it's not portable. So it would be there for
whoever wins the next election in 28 to use and
to have their dignitaries and donors and whoever come through.
(21:00):
I just, to me, it's one of these classic Trump
derangement syndrome moments where there's the only reason to really
want to do this or rather to stop him from
doing this is because it's trump and stopping trump makes
them feel good doesn't matter what it is even if
it's a dumb thing to stop.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Yeah um the legality on this i will dive into
for a moment but buck it feels like every single
news story is event happens and then we wait to
see what a judge is going to say Doesn't it
feel like that for the last several years that almost
(21:40):
everything is a, okay, we'll see you in court. We'll
see what a judge says. And then a district court
judge says something. And then a circuit court judge says something.
And people argue about what they said. And then a
Supreme Court says something. And then you go right into
the next cycle of what can and cannot occur. To me,
the ballroom legal dispute is actually pretty intriguing from a
(22:03):
legal perspective because and this gets really into the weeds.
But the entire case was based on someone who objected
to the aesthetics of the ballroom dispute. as a citizen
who was interested in historical preservation.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
It basically like offended his sensibilities as he walked by,
I think was more or less the objection.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
And typically there is a standing requirement and the standing
requirement of I'm a citizen and I'm upset by something
like a ballroom is typically not going to rise to
the level. What was intriguing to me, So they basically
dismissed it on that ground, which is going to allow
Trump to get it done. What was interesting to me
(22:48):
was there was an underlying 5-4 decision where essentially the
three liberal justices plus John Roberts all said they don't
think that Trump has the legal authority to be able
to undertake this construction. I do think, I agree with
you 100%, the ballroom is going to be awesome. and
(23:09):
it's going to benefit Democrat, Republican, political parties that we
may not know for the next, for far beyond the
life of anyone here going forward. I do think as
a total procedural question, what if the president just decided
to tear down the whole White House? I mean, there
(23:29):
is an argument at some point in time, and I
think it's a fair argument to say, and many of
you may have been involved in this yourselves, At some point,
a renovation becomes something.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Different than a teardown, right?
Speaker 2 (23:45):
And I know that there is often legal artifice involved
as to the structure and what can be and can't
be done to it. And I know the history, was
it Truman who came in and basically ripped the White
House out from its studs because the whole thing was
in danger of falling apart? And I will say, and
I know this is going to get clipped, people are
going to be mad at me, White House is a
(24:07):
little bit shabby sometimes, Buck.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Yeah, it is. It's true. And if you've been there...
Have you ever been to a musty old country club?
Sometimes it sort of feels and smells a little bit
like the country club from Caddyshack, where Judge Smales could
appear in a minute and be like, you know, Randolph!
I mean, if you've been in most.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
houses that were constructed in the 1800s, most of the
time you don't walk in and think, my goodness, this
house is a work of art. The White House looks
like it's been what it is, a place that has
been well-worn. And so it doesn't feel like an ornate
(24:53):
place necessarily. And so I do think it needs modernization.
I can't even imagine how difficult, for instance, for any
of you who have built a house or tried to
add in modern tech to a house, you would think
about this quite a lot from a national security perspective.
Think about all the details that have to be put
(25:14):
onto this house from the 1800s. There's a lot to
be done to make it... To make it habitable. And
I do think Trump is trying to look forward. I
also think this ties in with the question that I asked.
What does Trump care more about right now? The arch
that he's building. The ballroom that he's building.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Remaking. I think he put in marble in one of
the bathrooms upstairs.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Does he care more about the legacy work that he
is doing on the White House? Or who controls the
House of Representatives today? in January. I think the Senate matters,
and I think he would know because for Supreme Court appointments,
which are so incredibly significant. But do you feel like
Congress is going to get anything done no matter who's
(26:02):
in control?
Speaker 1 (26:03):
I really don't.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
I don't have a lot of faith in Congress to
get very much done at all. And so I think
Trump largely feels vindicated by the spectacular win that he
had in 2024. He sees that as his historic legacy,
his moonshot, so to speak. And I don't know that
who wins the midterms. I mean, most of us don't
(26:24):
remember who wins the midterms after. I also think this
ties in with Trump. Trump voters often don't show up
without Trump on the ballot. I know you're pessimistic about
how all this is going to go. But I just
feel like Trump doesn't have the same fire in his
belly for this midterm as he did in 18. or
(26:44):
as certainly he has in 16, 20, and 24 when
he's been on the ballot himself.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Well, I think that's all true. I do think that
legacy building for Trump is going to increasingly take center stage,
and that's when you're looking at things like the arch
and the ballroom and other things, the beautification of D.C.,
the monument building and these things. I think that Trump
(27:11):
is no longer– Much bothered, if at all, by the
notion of Democrats. If you're Trump at this point, are
you quaking in your in your loafers when you hear
the Democrats in the House are going to launch an
investigation or even impeach you again? Do you care? You
do not care. They're not going to have the votes
(27:32):
in the Senate for removal, so they're not going to
be able to stop him from his last two years.
So what really is the downside for Trump? Now, I
do think that he would like to see his agenda
continue to go through. I'm not saying Trump is hoping
for a loss here, but I don't think he is
as concerned about this as he has been at other times.
(27:55):
And there seems to me to be plenty of cause–
for concern if one cares very deeply about how things
are looking in the House and the Senate based on
the data, the polling that we have so far. You
can say all the polling is wrong, but some of
this stuff seems to line up and make sense. I
would just note, sometimes the polling is wrong, and we
(28:16):
all know. The perfect example of this was the Seltzer
poll in Iowa for Kamala versus Trump.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Kamala was going to beat Trump by three, I believe,
was the math that she had.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Was Kamala going to win by three? Yeah. I thought
it was much more than that. Oh, no, I'm sorry.
She was off by like 16. Off by like 16. Yeah,
so that's right. But no one saw that poll with
Kamala winning Iowa and thought, oh, wow, Kamala's going to
win Iowa. We all knew. And that was the end
of that pollster's career. Truly was the end of that
(28:49):
pollster's career. I'm not seeing things that make me think
that the current state of the electorate is poorly reflected. Now,
in tight races, a tight race is a tight race.
So you're up, you're down, one point, three point, whatever,
we can't necessarily know. But if Beto O'Rourke can take
it to within three points against Ted Cruz, I think
(29:11):
you have to take seriously that Paxton has a real
race on his hands with Tallarico. I think that the
tale of two Sullivans up in Alaska is.
Concerning just because that will also be tight and the
only need people say, oh, Alaskans figured it out. OK,
basically all Alaskans did. But even if a few hundred
(29:33):
get confused or older people, they're trying to read this,
you know, it doesn't. Three thousand people voted for the wrong. Sullivan.
Like that's the whole number that voted for that. Maybe
some of them wanted to vote for him.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well, and there could be some truth that otherwise they
would have been Democrat voters, and so they made that choice.
But my point is I think this race could come
down to 3,000 votes.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Well, this is a thing, and so that's why the
dirty trick is concerning. And Susan Collins, I think has–
I was very confident that Susan Collins was going to
come out the victor against– and now in real time
I'm blanking on his name– but the guy that got
pushed out. Troy Jackson, the new guy. No, no, no.
The guy before that, I'm saying. Graham Plattner. Plattner, thank you.
(30:18):
Against Plattner, I thought that she was looking really, really strong.
She's got more of a challenge on her hands. So
you start to look at some of these tighter Senate seats.
I don't know if I believe the Al-Sayed polling that
I've seen. That's the only one where I start to say, really?
Because I've seen some that have him up by a
few points. Although it's within the realm of possibility. That
(30:41):
much is for sure. I think the polling has been...
atrocious so far.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
In the majority of these midterm races what i would
say is just go vote and it's ultimately going to
come down to i think a handful of people frankly
just like 2024 did and what the actual turnout is
i will say this if you want a positive the
democrat party as a whole is actually less popular than
(31:08):
the republican party And there are a lot of people
who are just a pox on both their houses, people
who are just fed up with the political process, which
I understand. Some of them are in this audience and
they're saying, why did I show up and vote if
they can't even pass the SAVE Act? And I understand
that perspective as well. I think there's just a lot
(31:29):
of frustrated Americans at the political representation that we have
in Congress and in the Senate period.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yesterday, Clay got to introduce you to Ben Spell, the
co-founder of Good Ranchers. Sorry, I missed the chance to
be here for that conversation. It was excellent. Ben and
his wife, Corley, have built a way for you and
your family to improve the quality of the meals you
eat at home. Their Good Ranchers business connects you with
American ranchers and farmers that raise their livestock the right way.
Pasture raised, no antibiotics, and no added hormones. Imagine your
(31:59):
beef selections, your chicken, and the pork you eat, all
raised by those criteria. Good Ranchers partners with over 100
local farmers and ranchers to deliver 100% American meat straight
to your door. I'll save you the step of taste
testing their products by telling you it is phenomenal because
I've had it so many times myself. For a limited time,
you can get free ground beef bundle with your first
(32:22):
Good Ranchers order. That's four pounds of 100% American Angus
ground beef to stock in your freezer. Visit goodranchers.com slash
buck to claim your free ground beef bundle. Plus, when
you start a plan, you'll get free meat with every order.
That's GoodRanchers.com slash buck for your free 4-pound ground beef bundle. GoodRanchers.com.
(32:43):
Use code buck. American meat delivered. laugh learn hang with
the guys right there when you need them most clay
and buck just preset them on the iheart app.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Welcome back in clay and buck we are rolling through
the program we got some calls i'll get to those
in a moment uh 11 mortgages closed through perfect 10
mortgage just in the past few days because you guys
are falling in love with the service they have you
give them 10 minutes And in as little as 10 days,
they can close. They have the same values as you,
(33:17):
and they will absolutely love taking care of you, whether
you want to wipe out all of your credit card debt,
whether you want to wipe out your personal loans.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
If you own a home, you've likely built more. a
decent amount of equity.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
Instead of paying 20%, you can get a great mortgage rate.
You can put your financial house in order. You give
them 10 minutes. They can close in 10 days. That's perfect.
One zero mortgage.com. Put it in your phone. You will
love them. People going to them in droves.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Perfect. One zero mortgage.com. Uh, Let's see.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
There's a lot of talk about all of the different stories.
Let's see what Dallas has to say. Al in Dallas,
you're nervous about the Texas Senate race.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Very nervous.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
It's past time to push the panic button here. Tallarico's
ads are everywhere. He's on every social media platform, TV, radio,
yard signs. Paxson's campaign is nonexistent. No ads, no yard signs.
It's invisible. It's it's very, very scary.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
OK, thanks for the call.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
I was texting with Ken Paxton yesterday, so I know
the campaign is working in earnest.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
I would say this. Their belief is this is a race.
You weren't just texting me to be like, hey, you
guys are still like out there, right? Like, just check in.
Anybody home?
Speaker 2 (34:43):
I told him that I want to help, and we
were talking about what his schedule for campaigning is going
to be around big college football games. As you might imagine,
I will be at some of them. So I'm going
to be with him some this fall.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
At football games. They're getting outspent. The caller is right.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Tallarico has raised money like crazy. It's mostly out-of-state money
that is flooding into Texas, not dissimilar to Beto. But
their belief is this is a race that starts right
after Labor Day and that until we actually get all
the kids in school and everybody's back and rolling, that's
when everybody starts to pay attention. And that's when they're
(35:26):
going to unleash and and really kind of turn up
the battle.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
So apparently MAGA Inc., which is a Trump aligned super PAC,
has over 400 million dollar war chest. and has not
committed to any independent expenditures to help Paxton. And some
of the more Texas GOP establishment side of things has
been saying or has been feeling that because Trump chose
(35:55):
Paxton over Cornyn, that there should be a lot of
Trump MAGA help. Now, when I say Trump, I mean
from his super PAC. So there's a lot of money
that could go into this to help. I think the
question is, are they waiting for maximum impact, Clay, or
is there actually a delay or even a refusal to
(36:15):
spend to help Paxton pull this across the finish line?
So we'll have to take a closer look at that.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
So far, President Trump has spent around $ 800, 000, I believe
was the amount that was reported for Darlene Graham. I
would expect that he will start to put some of
that money into play for the Senate and in close
House races. We'll talk about that and more next.
Welcome in, Tuesday edition, Clay and Buck. We are rolling
in with all of you.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Hope that your Tuesday has been going well, and we
hope that the next three hours that we spend with
all of you will be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
And also.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Somewhat interesting of a day here. Earlier, maybe about an
hour and a half ago, they had a hearing in
the Massachusetts courtroom where Lindsey Clancy is on trial for murder.
And basically the jurors sent a message to the judge
and said, yeah, we can't figure things out.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
We're at a log jam.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
We're not going to come to a consensus here. And
I bet that we have the audio of that and
what it sounded like in the courtroom. But essentially, the
judge comes back and he says, hey, guys, you all
need to go back and you need to continue your deliberations.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
This is cut one.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
The question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are
unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you
back out because I know that this was a long trial.
I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over
300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask
(01:25):
you to go back out, keeping in mind all the
instructions that I gave you, to go out and to
continue your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
All right?
Speaker 3 (01:36):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Okay, this doesn't surprise me, Buck.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
As I was talking about yesterday, when they didn't come
back with a verdict before they went into the weekend,
it was giving you an indication that there were probably issues.
If I were assessing what's likely going on here, I
suspect they said, hey, we're at a log jam. We
can't come to a conclusion. Let's all go home and
sleep on it. We'll then come back tomorrow and see
(02:11):
whether or not we agree or disagree on these details.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
They came back.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
They still can't render a verdict, reach a unanimous verdict.
There are three men and nine women. And I tend
to think that this is probably going to end in
a mistrial buck where we'll see what the actual math
ends up being. But it feels like people are digging
their heels in. And this is a mess of a case.
(02:37):
What's your take on this as you see it? Well,
because the facts are really not in dispute at all.
what would be the thing that somebody could say in
that jury room at this point that would sway somebody
to their side? I think that this has become, and
we have seen this, Clay, reflected online for really the
(03:01):
whole time this case has been a national news story.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
This has become oddly personalized by a lot of people.
who somehow see some of their own struggles in what
Lindsay Clancy did, and I can say did because she
admitted to what she has done. It's just a question
of her psychological state. I think that somehow there's been
(03:28):
a mobilization of emotions here overwhelmingly from female supporters of
Lindsay Clancy that are both irrational and very disturbing to
a lot of people who are observing this. There's No
question about what she did. There's no question that it
is about as heinous a series of acts, not just
(03:49):
one act, a series of acts that any human being
could ever conduct. And as we've discussed, there are people
outside the courtroom who are cheering for her. There are
people who very much want her to have a verdict
that essentially absolves her of a criminal state of mind.
(04:11):
mens rea, as you've often talked about here, and somehow
makes this an issue of the mental health system and
not a woman who murdered her three children in a
premeditated and brutal and horrific fashion, who was, I might add,
getting a lot of help and support from her husband,
from others. It was not like she was out on
(04:33):
her own in this process. So yeah, I have a
lot of Concern, Clay. I think it is also likely
heading to a mistrial. I think that's also where this
is going.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
And if it does head to a mistrial, then I
think the state of Massachusetts will have a real decision
to make. And if some of you are saying, OK,
what are the stakes at play? My understanding is, Buck,
if she's found not guilty by reason of insanity... she
could be out of a mental hospital as soon as
40 days from now. In other words, as soon as
(05:07):
they can demonstrate that she is no longer insane by
medicating her.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
So she's temporarily insane just enough to murder her own
three children in a brutal and premeditated fashion, but then
sane enough that maybe she should actually pay almost no
penalty for those killings. in the state of Massachusetts, by
the state of Massachusetts. It is insane if that happens.
(05:32):
The only thing that strikes me as clearly insane about
all of this is the notion that she may escape
real punishment by the state. Those are three human beings
that were murdered. That they were her children just makes
it worse. But the state of Massachusetts has an obligation
to defend each and every one of those lives the
same way they would anybody else, an adult, any other person. So,
(05:55):
I mean, even more so for children's clearly, but I am,
I am troubled. And I was out yesterday and you
were talking about this clay. I'm troubled that this has
gone as long as it has, because you may just
have one person. What is it? Three men and three men,
nine women, nine women, right? You may have just one
woman who sees, she has seen the Tik TOK commentary
(06:18):
on this. She has seen the online conversations and has decided,
I see something of myself, my own struggles with depression
in Lindsay Clancy, and therefore I will not vote for
a conviction here on these murders. And if she has
dug in on that, if that juror has dug in,
it only takes one, and then you are heading to
a mistrial.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yes, that is 100% accurate. And the challenge that I
think the state of Massachusetts would face if they get
a mistrial, let's assume the jury's deadlocked and we can't
get a unanimous verdict of 12th. Then how in the
world do you impanel a new jury and believe that
you're going to get a different verdict than the one
(06:59):
that you already have? Because every single person in Massachusetts,
for sure, but much of the nation has kind of
already made up their mind on this. It's a month-long
trial that's been going on. I don't know if she's
willing to plead guilty to any lesser charge. I'm not
sure if the state would offer it. I'm not sure
(07:21):
if Lindsey Clancy's representation would allow it to occur. But
I do think, Buck, what you're going to see coming
out of this is I think way more people are
going to start using the insanity defense because. In a
case like this where you know exactly what happened, now,
some people are saying, oh, I think it was her
(07:43):
actual husband. Some of y'all, let me just say this,
they did the murder. That is a thing that is
out there on the Internet. Some of y'all need to
spend less time on the Internet. And I say that
as a guy who basically lives on the Internet. If
the defense isn't citing your argument as one of the
reasons why the defendant is not responsible for the murder,
(08:06):
we just saw this with Tyler Robinson, so many of
you coming up with different theories on who actually killed
Charlie Kirk other than the guy who all the evidence
points to actually killed him. Some of you, I dive
into the mentions, and it doesn't take very long for
somebody to say, well, I think it was actually the
husband who did all this, and she's taking the fall
(08:26):
for it. First of all, if there was any evidence
of that whatsoever, then you could make that argument, and the.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Defense would use it.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
The defense has to come up with whatever they can
to try to argue that the defendant is not responsible.
Do you think that you're coming up with better defenses
than the lawyers who sit around and and spend thousands
of hours investigating every scintilla of evidence and sit in
a courtroom all day trying to ensure that their client
(09:01):
is not convicted? Do you think that you cracked the
case by going on Reddit threads and sitting around with
a bunch of drunk moms on Facebook Messenger?
Speaker 1 (09:12):
I don't think so. Well, there are unfortunately a lot
of people online to whom the answers to all those
questions would be yes, yes, yes, absolutely. I have figured
out the thing that nobody who is actually paid to
investigate this and as a professional who has done it
before has come up with. Clay, I will tell you,
I have a friend in Miami who approached me and
she said, I think the husband did it. And I
(09:33):
just said, honestly– I can't have this conversation with you.
I can't do it. I can't do it. I cannot talk.
There's no way. Because you've already reached a level of
crazy where anything else that I say about this is
just going to fall on deaf ears. So this happened
to you where? In Miami. Friend of mine. On the street.
(09:54):
Wanted to talk to me. Straight up said it. She goes,
what do you think about the case? And she's obviously
a woman, so it's kind of a... neighbor of ours.
I said, I don't want to really get into it.
I said, it's too horrible, which it is, by the way.
Which is what, by the way, was our initial take
on it. Until I started seeing these crazy women cheering
her arriving at trial, it was just such a dark
(10:16):
story that I didn't really think Again, the story itself
is awful, but the fact that people are celebrating her
in any way is, to me, the thing that makes
it a national story. I also would want to know
how anyone could explain this to me. So we all agree,
or I should say every sane human being who relies
on evidence and not vibes or their gut instinct or
(10:38):
feeling for things like this agrees that she did these
three killings, murders from what I can see. And yet
there are people who would be willing to put this
in a situation where she might actually be released into
the public at some point. If a person cannot be
trusted to not suddenly go crazy and murder their own
(11:02):
three children, would you want to stand next to that
person on a subway platform? Would you want that person
to be behind the wheel of a car that you
were in? Would you think that this person is safe?
In general society. Why? They'd say, oh, but she was
fine before. She was fine until she murdered her three children.
And then we're told now she's going to be fine again.
(11:24):
She can just have that break with reality one time,
do the worst thing a human being, certainly the worst
thing a mother could ever possibly do. But there's no
public safety risk based on what? Because a few state
underpaid state quacks at some mental facility are going to
tell her, yeah, you seem OK. We're going to let
you out. That's a just outcome here? Would you want
(11:45):
to be this woman's neighbor afterwards? People say, yes, I
trust her. Why? You don't know her. All you know
about her is that she murdered her three children, and now,
and tried to kill herself, and now we're told she
should only go to a mental facility, but why should
she go to a mental facility to give her a
(12:05):
clean bill of health? Why would she be... When you
start to actually play this out, none of the the
Lindsay Clancy-ites out there make any sense whatsoever. And I
think part of this is just that it's so troubling.
By the way, every angry email I get, and we've
gotten a few, and it's only women, I might add.
There's something going on there, folks. Not a single man
(12:27):
has texted me, called me, told me, you're so wrong,
you don't get it. It's only women who seem to
want to take this position, which tells you something. This
is about emotion. This is not about the logic or
the facts of the case. But every time they send
me the email, the second you tell me that you
(12:48):
don't blame this woman for what she did, I don't
care what you have to say about the case. Like
there's no, there's no, there's nothing else that can be,
it would be like someone telling me, yes, OJ did it,
but race relations require this. No, no, I don't want to,
I don't, I'm never, you're never going to convince me
of that. You're never going to convince me that OJ
should have been able to murder someone Nicole, you know,
(13:11):
Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife and the innocent stand bystander,
Ron Golden. And you're never going to convince me. And
I don't think you're ever going to convince Clay either
that this woman shouldn't spend the rest of her life
in prison.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
I don't.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
This is as straightforward as it gets from what I
can see. Yes.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
And again, if this were just a dispute about insanity
and how it's going to be applied in a court proceeding.
That story is different to me than I'm going to
go stand on the side of the road, wear pink
like we're a member of a favorite sports team and
cheer for her. Look, guarantees are tough. I would be
(13:50):
stunned if the three men, to your point, Buck, on
this case are in any way considering a not guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Maybe we'll be wrong. I would be very surprised. I would.
I mean, not that I don't want to turn this into.
It's not like when we're talking about some far less
serious thing. Right.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
But.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
I am certain that it is not the men on
this jury. Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Can you, by the way, this is comedic. So it takes,
can you imagine, take it outside of this, that you
have to convince nine women. You're the three guys that
it's like the most miserable. Can you imagine in a
highly charged emotional case, take it outside of this scenario.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
You're on a jury.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
There's three dudes and you have to tell the nine
women all day long, every day for hours in a
jury deliberation room.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
No, you're wrong. No, you're wrong.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Because to your point, Buck, there is no factual dispute
really here.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
This isn't a this isn't like, oh, was the bank
robber like was it actually the right bank robber?
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Are we sure we got the right guy or there
was actually far more reasonable doubt. In the OJ case. Oh,
and there was not a lot, but yes. And there
was basically none, but there was more. Yes. So what
does that tell you? We'll take your calls and your emails.
Send us the angry ones if you want, but it is,
(15:07):
you know, when you're getting attacked by crazies, it's kind
of a badge of honor, I'm just going to tell you.
All right, guys, talking to guys here for a second.
There's an inevitable intersection we all face at one time
or another in our lives. It's when you no longer
have all that energy that you used to have and
you're getting slowed down quite a bit. There's a solution
to this, though. Of course, proper sleep, diet, exercise. You
(15:28):
got to get everything dialed in. But as you're going,
proper supplementation is critical. And trust me, I know about
this because I am a chalk daily guy myself. Their
best-selling product, Chalk makes all these incredible supplements. The Chalk
Male Vitality Stack is specially formulated to provide you with
more energy. And Chalk's Male Vitality Stack's primary ingredient has
(15:49):
proven in studies to restore 20% of your body's T-levels
within three months. Sign up today at Chalk.com, C-H-O-Q.com. They
have a whole bunch of fantastic products, and they're all
top of the line, made right here in the USA,
a company based out of Texas. When you subscribe for
a monthly delivery and use my name, Buck, You'll get
their free $ 99 bag of chalk lip powder with your
(16:10):
first delivery. That's C-H-O-Q.com, code Buck. C-H-O-Q.com, code Buck. Looking
for normal in a world of crazy? Clay and Buck
have your back. Welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
We have a bunch of stories to talk about Clay today. Obviously,
we're going to have updates on the Lindsay Clancy situation,
(16:32):
but we also have a victory for Big T. with
the White House able to continue its construction of the ballroom,
which is very exciting, very exciting. It turns out that
they were not able to just say, stop, halt, cease
and desist all ballroom building activities. So I think that
(16:54):
is a nice thing. We've got more with Iran. The
Iran story continues on. And one thing I think is interesting,
Trump clearly agrees with us analytically on data centers but
his tone is a little um a little caustic maybe
(17:16):
on the data centers we should have a conversation about
this like i i think everyone's gonna get to the
place he wants them to on this but i don't
think the frustration in the in the uh truths that
he's putting out is necessarily working for him in a
positive way you see what i'm you see what i'm
saying on that one Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Look, I think this plays into a larger question that
I don't think is a bad one to ask. How
much does Trump actually care at this point about the midterms?
It's a good question. I mean, he's already had the
ultimate triumph of getting elected. We can talk about that
maybe when we come back a little bit. I don't
(17:57):
know that he's got the same fire in his belly
that he had in.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
The 2024 election, to be clear.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
I want to tell all of you about the huge
difference that Sabre can make when it comes to making
your family safer.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
These are all non-lethal.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
They got bear spray. about lion spray, but also pepper spray.
If you've got a son or daughter that's working, let's
say late at night, maybe they're off on a new
college campus. Maybe they got their driver's license and they're
driving around in the car way more. When safety matter matters,
Americans choose Sabre, the number one brand trusted by police
(18:32):
and millions worldwide. Sabre, S-A-B-R-E is how it's spelled. And
right now you can save 15% on select Sabre bundles.
Go to saberprotect.com. You're going to love them. That's saberprotect.com.
We had some things breaking yesterday.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Like I mentioned, the White House ballroom, the Supreme Court
having to come in over the top and say that
the White House ballroom construction can continue. Kavanaugh on the
side of the Angels. John Roberts on the side of
the Communists on this one. Not a surprise. So, just
(19:12):
able to continue think about this though if they kept
it where it was it would be rubble like it's
already under construction so now is is it the contention
of the people that want the trump ballroom to stop
that he's not allowed to finish it but he should
(19:33):
undo it and go back and restore what was there
before i mean you want to talk about a The
whole thing seems to be pretty nuts to me, that
there's been such intense opposition to it, especially because, as
we've said, this is a fundamentally sound idea. Clay, you
(19:54):
were at the first white house correspondence dinner, which was
disrupted by a lunatic running in with a gun and
that's at a hotel. And yes, secret service tries to
secure it. But as we know, this president is the president's,
under most threat in our lives, I mean, I think
you could say, I mean, Reagan would be the next
(20:14):
closest and you could say, well, very, very close, you know,
they both were shot. So obviously both of them under
tremendous threat. I think ideologically in many ways, this president,
President Trump is under even considerably more threat. So having
that ballroom makes sense from a security standpoint, makes sense
from a logistics standpoint. And yet because Trump is doing it,
(20:38):
they have decided, that they would rather it sit there,
I guess, a pile of rubble than allow the ballroom,
which no one is suggesting Trump would take with him,
and it's not portable. So it would be there for
whoever wins the next election in 28 to use and
to have their dignitaries and donors and whoever come through.
(21:00):
I just, to me, it's one of these classic Trump
derangement syndrome moments where there's the only reason to really
want to do this or rather to stop him from
doing this is because it's trump and stopping trump makes
them feel good doesn't matter what it is even if
it's a dumb thing to stop.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Yeah um the legality on this i will dive into
for a moment but buck it feels like every single
news story is event happens and then we wait to
see what a judge is going to say Doesn't it
feel like that for the last several years that almost
(21:40):
everything is a, okay, we'll see you in court. We'll
see what a judge says. And then a district court
judge says something. And then a circuit court judge says something.
And people argue about what they said. And then a
Supreme Court says something. And then you go right into
the next cycle of what can and cannot occur. To me,
the ballroom legal dispute is actually pretty intriguing from a
(22:03):
legal perspective because and this gets really into the weeds.
But the entire case was based on someone who objected
to the aesthetics of the ballroom dispute. as a citizen
who was interested in historical preservation.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
It basically like offended his sensibilities as he walked by,
I think was more or less the objection.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
And typically there is a standing requirement and the standing
requirement of I'm a citizen and I'm upset by something
like a ballroom is typically not going to rise to
the level. What was intriguing to me, So they basically
dismissed it on that ground, which is going to allow
Trump to get it done. What was interesting to me
(22:48):
was there was an underlying 5-4 decision where essentially the
three liberal justices plus John Roberts all said they don't
think that Trump has the legal authority to be able
to undertake this construction. I do think, I agree with
you 100%, the ballroom is going to be awesome. and
(23:09):
it's going to benefit Democrat, Republican, political parties that we
may not know for the next, for far beyond the
life of anyone here going forward. I do think as
a total procedural question, what if the president just decided
to tear down the whole White House? I mean, there
(23:29):
is an argument at some point in time, and I
think it's a fair argument to say, and many of
you may have been involved in this yourselves, At some point,
a renovation becomes something.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Different than a teardown, right?
Speaker 2 (23:45):
And I know that there is often legal artifice involved
as to the structure and what can be and can't
be done to it. And I know the history, was
it Truman who came in and basically ripped the White
House out from its studs because the whole thing was
in danger of falling apart? And I will say, and
I know this is going to get clipped, people are
going to be mad at me, White House is a
(24:07):
little bit shabby sometimes, Buck.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Yeah, it is. It's true. And if you've been there...
Have you ever been to a musty old country club?
Sometimes it sort of feels and smells a little bit
like the country club from Caddyshack, where Judge Smales could
appear in a minute and be like, you know, Randolph!
I mean, if you've been in most.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
houses that were constructed in the 1800s, most of the
time you don't walk in and think, my goodness, this
house is a work of art. The White House looks
like it's been what it is, a place that has
been well-worn. And so it doesn't feel like an ornate
(24:53):
place necessarily. And so I do think it needs modernization.
I can't even imagine how difficult, for instance, for any
of you who have built a house or tried to
add in modern tech to a house, you would think
about this quite a lot from a national security perspective.
Think about all the details that have to be put
(25:14):
onto this house from the 1800s. There's a lot to
be done to make it... To make it habitable. And
I do think Trump is trying to look forward. I
also think this ties in with the question that I asked.
What does Trump care more about right now? The arch
that he's building. The ballroom that he's building.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Remaking. I think he put in marble in one of
the bathrooms upstairs.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Does he care more about the legacy work that he
is doing on the White House? Or who controls the
House of Representatives today? in January. I think the Senate matters,
and I think he would know because for Supreme Court appointments,
which are so incredibly significant. But do you feel like
Congress is going to get anything done no matter who's
(26:02):
in control?
Speaker 1 (26:03):
I really don't.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
I don't have a lot of faith in Congress to
get very much done at all. And so I think
Trump largely feels vindicated by the spectacular win that he
had in 2024. He sees that as his historic legacy,
his moonshot, so to speak. And I don't know that
who wins the midterms. I mean, most of us don't
(26:24):
remember who wins the midterms after. I also think this
ties in with Trump. Trump voters often don't show up
without Trump on the ballot. I know you're pessimistic about
how all this is going to go. But I just
feel like Trump doesn't have the same fire in his
belly for this midterm as he did in 18. or
(26:44):
as certainly he has in 16, 20, and 24 when
he's been on the ballot himself.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Well, I think that's all true. I do think that
legacy building for Trump is going to increasingly take center stage,
and that's when you're looking at things like the arch
and the ballroom and other things, the beautification of D.C.,
the monument building and these things. I think that Trump
(27:11):
is no longer– Much bothered, if at all, by the
notion of Democrats. If you're Trump at this point, are
you quaking in your in your loafers when you hear
the Democrats in the House are going to launch an
investigation or even impeach you again? Do you care? You
do not care. They're not going to have the votes
(27:32):
in the Senate for removal, so they're not going to
be able to stop him from his last two years.
So what really is the downside for Trump? Now, I
do think that he would like to see his agenda
continue to go through. I'm not saying Trump is hoping
for a loss here, but I don't think he is
as concerned about this as he has been at other times.
(27:55):
And there seems to me to be plenty of cause–
for concern if one cares very deeply about how things
are looking in the House and the Senate based on
the data, the polling that we have so far. You
can say all the polling is wrong, but some of
this stuff seems to line up and make sense. I
would just note, sometimes the polling is wrong, and we
(28:16):
all know. The perfect example of this was the Seltzer
poll in Iowa for Kamala versus Trump.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Kamala was going to beat Trump by three, I believe,
was the math that she had.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Was Kamala going to win by three? Yeah. I thought
it was much more than that. Oh, no, I'm sorry.
She was off by like 16. Off by like 16. Yeah,
so that's right. But no one saw that poll with
Kamala winning Iowa and thought, oh, wow, Kamala's going to
win Iowa. We all knew. And that was the end
of that pollster's career. Truly was the end of that
(28:49):
pollster's career. I'm not seeing things that make me think
that the current state of the electorate is poorly reflected. Now,
in tight races, a tight race is a tight race.
So you're up, you're down, one point, three point, whatever,
we can't necessarily know. But if Beto O'Rourke can take
it to within three points against Ted Cruz, I think
(29:11):
you have to take seriously that Paxton has a real
race on his hands with Tallarico. I think that the
tale of two Sullivans up in Alaska is.
Concerning just because that will also be tight and the
only need people say, oh, Alaskans figured it out. OK,
basically all Alaskans did. But even if a few hundred
(29:33):
get confused or older people, they're trying to read this,
you know, it doesn't. Three thousand people voted for the wrong. Sullivan.
Like that's the whole number that voted for that. Maybe
some of them wanted to vote for him.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well, and there could be some truth that otherwise they
would have been Democrat voters, and so they made that choice.
But my point is I think this race could come
down to 3,000 votes.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Well, this is a thing, and so that's why the
dirty trick is concerning. And Susan Collins, I think has–
I was very confident that Susan Collins was going to
come out the victor against– and now in real time
I'm blanking on his name– but the guy that got
pushed out. Troy Jackson, the new guy. No, no, no.
The guy before that, I'm saying. Graham Plattner. Plattner, thank you.
(30:18):
Against Plattner, I thought that she was looking really, really strong.
She's got more of a challenge on her hands. So
you start to look at some of these tighter Senate seats.
I don't know if I believe the Al-Sayed polling that
I've seen. That's the only one where I start to say, really?
Because I've seen some that have him up by a
few points. Although it's within the realm of possibility. That
(30:41):
much is for sure. I think the polling has been...
atrocious so far.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
In the majority of these midterm races what i would
say is just go vote and it's ultimately going to
come down to i think a handful of people frankly
just like 2024 did and what the actual turnout is
i will say this if you want a positive the
democrat party as a whole is actually less popular than
(31:08):
the republican party And there are a lot of people
who are just a pox on both their houses, people
who are just fed up with the political process, which
I understand. Some of them are in this audience and
they're saying, why did I show up and vote if
they can't even pass the SAVE Act? And I understand
that perspective as well. I think there's just a lot
(31:29):
of frustrated Americans at the political representation that we have
in Congress and in the Senate period.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yesterday, Clay got to introduce you to Ben Spell, the
co-founder of Good Ranchers. Sorry, I missed the chance to
be here for that conversation. It was excellent. Ben and
his wife, Corley, have built a way for you and
your family to improve the quality of the meals you
eat at home. Their Good Ranchers business connects you with
American ranchers and farmers that raise their livestock the right way.
Pasture raised, no antibiotics, and no added hormones. Imagine your
(31:59):
beef selections, your chicken, and the pork you eat, all
raised by those criteria. Good Ranchers partners with over 100
local farmers and ranchers to deliver 100% American meat straight
to your door. I'll save you the step of taste
testing their products by telling you it is phenomenal because
I've had it so many times myself. For a limited time,
you can get free ground beef bundle with your first
(32:22):
Good Ranchers order. That's four pounds of 100% American Angus
ground beef to stock in your freezer. Visit goodranchers.com slash
buck to claim your free ground beef bundle. Plus, when
you start a plan, you'll get free meat with every order.
That's GoodRanchers.com slash buck for your free 4-pound ground beef bundle. GoodRanchers.com.
(32:43):
Use code buck. American meat delivered. laugh learn hang with
the guys right there when you need them most clay
and buck just preset them on the iheart app.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Welcome back in clay and buck we are rolling through
the program we got some calls i'll get to those
in a moment uh 11 mortgages closed through perfect 10
mortgage just in the past few days because you guys
are falling in love with the service they have you
give them 10 minutes And in as little as 10 days,
they can close. They have the same values as you,
(33:17):
and they will absolutely love taking care of you, whether
you want to wipe out all of your credit card debt,
whether you want to wipe out your personal loans.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
If you own a home, you've likely built more. a
decent amount of equity.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
Instead of paying 20%, you can get a great mortgage rate.
You can put your financial house in order. You give
them 10 minutes. They can close in 10 days. That's perfect.
One zero mortgage.com. Put it in your phone. You will
love them. People going to them in droves.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Perfect. One zero mortgage.com. Uh, Let's see.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
There's a lot of talk about all of the different stories.
Let's see what Dallas has to say. Al in Dallas,
you're nervous about the Texas Senate race.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
Very nervous.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
It's past time to push the panic button here. Tallarico's
ads are everywhere. He's on every social media platform, TV, radio,
yard signs. Paxson's campaign is nonexistent. No ads, no yard signs.
It's invisible. It's it's very, very scary.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
OK, thanks for the call.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
I was texting with Ken Paxton yesterday, so I know
the campaign is working in earnest.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
I would say this. Their belief is this is a race.
You weren't just texting me to be like, hey, you
guys are still like out there, right? Like, just check in.
Anybody home?
Speaker 2 (34:43):
I told him that I want to help, and we
were talking about what his schedule for campaigning is going
to be around big college football games. As you might imagine,
I will be at some of them. So I'm going
to be with him some this fall.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
At football games. They're getting outspent. The caller is right.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Tallarico has raised money like crazy. It's mostly out-of-state money
that is flooding into Texas, not dissimilar to Beto. But
their belief is this is a race that starts right
after Labor Day and that until we actually get all
the kids in school and everybody's back and rolling, that's
when everybody starts to pay attention. And that's when they're
(35:26):
going to unleash and and really kind of turn up
the battle.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
So apparently MAGA Inc., which is a Trump aligned super PAC,
has over 400 million dollar war chest. and has not
committed to any independent expenditures to help Paxton. And some
of the more Texas GOP establishment side of things has
been saying or has been feeling that because Trump chose
(35:55):
Paxton over Cornyn, that there should be a lot of
Trump MAGA help. Now, when I say Trump, I mean
from his super PAC. So there's a lot of money
that could go into this to help. I think the
question is, are they waiting for maximum impact, Clay, or
is there actually a delay or even a refusal to
(36:15):
spend to help Paxton pull this across the finish line?
So we'll have to take a closer look at that.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
So far, President Trump has spent around $ 800, 000, I believe
was the amount that was reported for Darlene Graham. I
would expect that he will start to put some of
that money into play for the Senate and in close
House races. We'll talk about that and more next.
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.
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.
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