May 17, 2024 • 36 mins
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy joins Clay and Buck to discuss how he sees the Trump trial so far and why he predicts a hung jury, with more than one juror siding with Trump. CNN obtains video of Sean "Diddy" Combs physically assaulting ex-girlfriend in hotel. Optimism about Trump verdict? Chiefs heiress Gracie Hunt backs Butker.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in our number two Friday edition of the Clay
and Bucks Show. Hope all of you are having fantastic
early starts to your weekend. We encourage all of you
go subscribe to the podcast. Make sure you don't miss
a moment. Can check out all the guests. Search out
my name Clay Travis, search out Buck Sexton. You can
also listen on the iHeartRadio app. And we appreciate all
(00:22):
of you who are Clay and Buck VIPs. And many
of you are watching on video right now. I believe
I don't know if Bucks on Are you on video?
I'm not your Bucks in Nashville in one of our
downtown studios. I think I'm on video. I'm waving at
you guys right now. If I'm not, We'll be back
on video together on Monday. We're joined now by Andy McCarthy,
who's Mets. But they finally beat the Phillies, who can't
(00:45):
lose at all. I'm saying that is a Braves fan,
because the Phillies have I don't know one like. It
feels like every game has been played so far this year. Andy,
question for you, how devastating was the Michael Cohen tech testimony?
The cross X if we had a fully honest and
(01:05):
paying attention jury and not people who had already made
up their mind about Donald Trump. Is there any doubt
in your mind as a prosecutor that there was enough
reasonable doubt shown that there should be some people open
to a not guilty verdict if they have not already
made up their minds? How would you assess that testimony.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
If we just look at it clay is testimony in
like a straightforward trial where everybody knew what had to
be proved for the prosecution to get to the finish line.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
I would say that it should.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Have been game over in terms of his testimony, because
as I see the case as it should be understood legally,
as opposed to how it's been tried in the court,
and the insufficient notice and the fairy tale kind of
version of events that the jury is getting, then I
(02:02):
think that Cohen is the only link for a couple
of things that the prosecution has to prove, and they'd
be in a very good.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Position to get up.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
The defense would to argue to the jury that you
obviously can't convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt on.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The basis of this guy's testimony.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Which by the way, is precisely why my old office,
which had this investigation first, didn't charge the case. There's
no way you can do this case without Colin.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Okay, so let me follow up.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Then you are Judge merchand let's pretend that you are
not a left wing political operative, which frankly it sometimes
seems that he is more than a judge. This case
is going to be complete. Trump's team will ask for
a directed verdict. They'll basically say that the crime wasn't proven.
They've already asked for a mistrial that's been rejected. Should
(02:55):
Judge merchand say, as a matter of law, this case
has not been proven and toss the case. If in
your mind, if he were completely down the middle just
trying to call balls and strikes, what should happen on
that motion, which will certainly happen at the end of
the testimony.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, he should throw the case out, Clay, But I
want to be clear on how poor this case is
in order to rent to that conclusion. Because you started
out asking me about Cohen, which.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Is exactly what you should ask me about. Is that
was a big event of this week.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
But you know, we know as lawyers that the test
for a judge has to throw a case out solely
on you know, at the end of the government's case
is you have to assume everything in the government's favor,
including that the witnesses were believed by the jury, even
if you, as a judge, thinks there's no way the
(03:55):
jury could have believed this guy. So even saying that
the jury or the judge would have to accept as
true Cohan's testimony, I don't see how they've made their
case out because the way I look at this is
there's basically three things. You have to prove the falsity
of the documents, fraudulent intent, and that the fraudulent intent
(04:19):
included an intent willfully to.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Violate the federal campaign laws.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I think, arguably you can say that some of the documents,
specifically the invoices are arguably false. I think that you know,
Bragg's got a point on that, but the checks are
in false and the book entries are in false. So
he hasn't even made out falsity on all the documents.
(04:45):
But I don't see any evidence of fraud which he
has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And even worse,
I don't see any evidence that Trump was even thinking
about the campaign finance laws number one and number two.
If Trump is the guy that Bragg said he is
in the evidence, then if he was thinking about the
(05:06):
campaign laws and he believed that these expenditures, these NBA
non disclosure agreements were campaign expenditures, he would have paid
them with campaign funds.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
The fact that he didn't shows that it didn't even
enter his mind.
Speaker 5 (05:22):
Andy, this is what I've been saying all along. If
what the government says here is true, you could run
for office and then have your campaign war chest and write,
you know, million dollar checks to ten different women that
all claim that you know, you had affairs with them,
and that would be a campaign expenditure.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
That's right, Buck, But let's be realistic about how you
would do it, because then it doesn't seem like it's
that outrageous of proposition.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
What Trump would simply have done was in his sec
disclosures they would have said the same thing they said
in his business records. They would have called them legal expenses.
And that isn't crazy because if you look at the
Hillary Clinton campaign, which actually did get fined by the
Federal Election Commission for their conduct in the twenty sixteen election.
(06:10):
They called the Steele dossier legal expenses, and the Federal
Election Commission when they find them, said no, no, it
was opposition research. But my point is that what a campaign.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Would do is just say legal expenditures.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
You know, those those were legal deals. They had to
pay for them, and that's you know, if they got
caught down the road on what the legal expenditures were,
what would they care by then the election would be over.
So you know, obviously what he would have done if
he thought this was a campaign expenditure, he would have
paid it at a campaign fund. This guy doesn't go
(06:45):
into his pocket for anything.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
He doesn't want to go into his pocket for right.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
He would have paid it with campaign money and they
would have just said on their FEC disclosure legal expenses,
just like they did in the Trump books.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
So what happens now Andy this case? Do you think
that there are jurors that are going to be willing
to vote not guilty? I mean, really, this gets into
analyzing the jury pool itself, because I think just about
everybody listening to us who's been paying attention to this
case would say, on the merits, there is reasonable doubt here,
(07:20):
as you laid out. You think the judge should give
a directed verdict to take it away from the jury
even being able to decide this, which is a high standard,
meaning that the prosecution's really fallen all over its face.
What happens now, though, presuming that merchand won't do that,
which I think you won't, and it goes to the jury.
Do you think there is a one or more juror
(07:42):
that is willing to say not guilty? How do you analyze?
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Yeah, I think there's a high likelihood that more than
one juror will refuse to convict. I don't think Trump
will quitted, but I do think, well, I'm not We've
talked about this before. I'm not as down on New
York juries as a lot of people are.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
And look, I'm an.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Old guy over the hill who hasn't tried a case
in Manhattan in close to thirty years, So I.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Get that, and the city's changed.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
But nevertheless, Trump only needs one, you know, to win.
And to me, from all the reporting I heard, including
from the Times, which doesn't really want to say this,
the jury seems to be paying riveted attention to blanch
his cross examination of oh, it was.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
A bad day, for sure.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Yeah, this is fascinating to me because you're a super
smart guy here, Andy, did you think one would vote
not guilty before the trial started or is this based
on how the trial has gone in your mind?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I thought that I've always thought that Trump had a
chance to get a home jury. Gun to my head,
I said before the trial, I think he'd be convicted.
And the main reason, Clay is and I don't think
this is a huge problem. The unseen dynamic in a
criminal jury trial. Civil trials may be a little bit different,
but in a criminal trial, it's always how the jury.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Thinks the judge is thinking about the case.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
The jury takes their cues from the judge, and it's
a big deal in a trial how the judge seems
to interact with the prosecutor and treat the prosecution's case.
In every criminal case I was ever involved in, you
knew from the judge whether the judge thought this was
serious business or he thought it was a BS case
(09:38):
that didn't belong in court. And it's not necessarily anything.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Especially with the smart judges.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
It's not anything that you could ever point to in
the transcript. But there's a kind of you know, there's
a body language. There's a way you go about things.
When I tried the blind Shaw case years ago in
front of the judge Buksey later Attorney General Casey, when
we swore a witness, we must have had, you know,
a couple of hundred witnesses in the trial and went
(10:06):
on for nine months when we swore a witness, and
you could hear a pin drop in the courtroom because
everybody the judge.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
It was a big deal to the.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Judge that everybody understood that the oath was very important.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
When the witness got the stand.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
It was serious business. Now, you wouldn't see anything in
the transcript that says like the judge favored the government's case,
because I don't think he did.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
He did what his job was.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
But he conveyed to the jury that what we were
doing was very serious and he acted as if the
case was being proved in a serious way and it
wasn't a three ring circus. That's a powerful message to
a jury and they take their cues from the judge.
So a lot will depend on like how did they
feel about merch On and how did they think?
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Do they think he's been fair? And do they think.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
How what did they think of how he's interacted with
the prosecutors.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I think that's really important.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
Andy, Let's assume that it is a hung jury. There's
one hold out. Clearly that's a disaster for the brag
prosecution here. What do you see as the likely second
order effects of that in terms of the other cases,
what Bragg's office would do then? Would they move to
even try to do another trial? You think would this
(11:27):
affect the way that the other legal cases would be
You know, basically, do you think somebody might drop another
one if this one fails? How do you see it
playing out?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
I don't think this case would ever be tried again
if it ends up in a hung jury. And I
really don't think.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
That it's just going to be one. I think it'll
be more than one.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Sure we'll see, but I don't know that the collapse
of this case necessarily is the thing that dismantles the
rest of the law there campaign. But where the lawfare
campaign goes regardless of how this case comes out, I
(12:06):
think depends on the willingness of Jack Smith to narrow
the J six case down to the stuff that Trump's
lawyer in the oral argument to the Supreme Court on
the immunity issue. If he's willing to narrow the case
down to the stuff that John Salard, Trump's lawyer conceded
(12:27):
was private behavior that didn't have it wasn't amenable of
an immunity claim, then I think he could put the
pedal to the medal and chuck In. Judge chuck In
would help him and he could get that case to trial.
But if he's insistent on doing the whole case as
it's indicted, I really think what's going to happen in
that case is the Supreme Court is going to send
(12:48):
it back to chuck In with instructions to sort out
what's private behavior and what's official conduct, and if she does.
If they do that, then it's still a live immunity issue,
which means, however she resolves it, Trump can appeal it
to the DC Circuit and it may go right back
to the Supreme Court. So I don't see if Smith
(13:09):
is not willing to narrow the case down and say
the chuck In, you know, look, I don't want you
to have to go through this whole rigmarole of sorting
out the private from the official. Let's just go to
trial and with private If he's willing to say that,
then I think they can get that case to trial.
If he's not, then forget it.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Last question for you, Andy, and we appreciate all of this, because, man,
this is crazy. If there is a conviction, let's say
that the twelve jurors don't, as we see it, apply
the law correctly and analyze the facts correctly. What do
you think the chances are that this case would be
overturned on appeal.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I think the chances are very high because even before
you got to trial, there's all kinds of legal issues here, like,
for example, I think this case violates the New York Constitution.
I think the statute violates the New York Constitution. They
have major federal constitutional claims, including whether the indictment is adequate.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
So before you even get to.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
The trial and you get to things like allowing the
Stormy Daniels testimony and what I think are going to
be pretty critical errors by the judge. Because when you said, Clay,
like the jury doesn't find the case legally like we've
just discussed it, I don't think they're going to get
the case legally the way we just discussed it. I
think march On's going to give them a different idea
(14:35):
of what the law is. So I think there'll be
a lot of errors. The problem is, it's like Harvey Weinstein,
what was it, three to four years after the trial
they threw out the conviction.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
That's not going to happen, Sam.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And the other thing I would point out, Andy and
I don't know that we've even discussed this.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
We got to go to break.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
But there are two lawyers on this jury of twelve,
which is kind of unheard of. So how exactly do
they drive the jury? What do they think of this case?
They're not exactly legal neophytes.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Yeah, but you know, it's impossible, Clay to say categorically
this is how a lawyer would affect it. Like, let's
say you and I are pretty good lawyers, right, Let's
say from my perspective, let's say this was.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
A case about a real estate client.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
You know, the legal degree wouldn't be very helpful, you know,
because that is anybody else.
Speaker 5 (15:25):
And unfortunately, Andy, I can tell you this from friends
of mine who have gone through this. In recent years,
the law schools are churning out lunatic Marxists at an
unprecedented rate. So having a lawyer on the jury.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
I'm not sure that.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Yeah, I mean, I can't even begin to get into
that right now. Andy McCarthy, everybody, National Review, Fox News. Andy,
we're going to have you back. We'll see how your prediction.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Goes on the on the season or on the trial both.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I was bothering about the season.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
I was ready to say, Clay that like, like Alvin
Bragg says, it's a long season.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
You know, yeah, yeah, the meds are not covering themselves
in glory right now. I hope you're right though about
the legal predictions. That would be an earth shattering result.
I'd love to see the MSNBC and see it in reactions.
If they can't get a conviction, well.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
They want an investigation of the jury. I'm sure.
Speaker 5 (16:16):
Oh yeah, we talked about that real quick, Andy, Will
the jury's identities be public after this? No matter what
the judge says, you think, will someone docks them?
Speaker 2 (16:26):
The minute they decide to go public, they'll be public.
I think that, you know, he's hoping that they'll decide
the case by Thursday so that they can line up
their weekend interviews.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
I think we'll see. All right, Thanks so much, Andy,
want to focus for a moment here on Preborn, which
is an organization that does so much to protect the
lives of unborn children. It is the largest pro life
nonprofit in the country that provides ultrasounds to pregnant women
who are making a critical decision. The ultrasounds that Preborn
(16:56):
gives them are complementary and they're only possible because of
your donations. When a mother considering abortion meets her baby
on ultrasound and here's the heartbeat, it doubles a baby's
chance at life. Every day, Preborn rescues two hundred babies lives.
Last year, they helped to save fifty eight thousand babies.
Twenty eight dollars could be the difference between life and death.
(17:17):
Please join the fight by sponsoring one, two three or
two hundred ultrasounds whatever you can share. All gifts are
tax deductible. To donate, dial pound two five zero on
your cellphone and say the keyword baby. That's pound two
five zero, say the word baby, or go online Preborn
dot com, slash buck, Preborn dot com, slash b u
(17:38):
c K sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Voices of Sanity an insane World.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Welcome back in quick turn here because Buck and I
were so really impressed with what Andy McCarthy was telling us.
We're gonna unpack those revelations and their potential impact when
we return. But in the meantime, I gotta tell you
want to save a bundle, you need to get hooked
up right now with our friends at Puretalk. Puretalk will
put you in a position where you can help to
(18:09):
deal with all this Biden inflation by paying less than
half the price of Verizon at and T or T Mobile.
That's despite the fact you get unlimited talk text plenty
of five G data just twenty bucks a month. You
can switch from your cell phone and keep the same
cell phone number by dialing pound two five zero on
(18:29):
your cell phone and saying the keywords Clay and Buck.
Puretalk's US customer service team will make switching incredibly easy again.
All you have to do dial pound two five zero,
say Clay and Buck. You'll save an additional fifty percent
off your first month.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
That is, pound two five zero say Clay and Bucks.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Clay, Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of truth.
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Second show. Some breaking
news that probably is going to turn into a huge story,
not politics related, but we should mention it.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
There is a video that CNN has obtained of the
music mogul Ditty beating the crap out of his then girlfriend.
It appears in what they say is the Intercontinental Hotel
in Los Angeles, punching her in the face, kicking her
when shoes on the grounds.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
Pretty awful you watched the video.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
I mean, this thing is uh is frankly, I mean
it's it's beyond the shadow of a doubt, criminal assault
and domestic violence. I don't know why it took eight
years for this story to come out, but it's going
to be a really big story. I've stayed and then
(19:53):
many of you out there listening right now in the
Los Angeles area and beyond the Intercontinental Hotel where this happened,
over looks the Fox Lot. I have spent months of
my life staying there. I don't know how this video
would not have come out before now, eight years ago.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
It's now well, you do know.
Speaker 5 (20:15):
It's just the answer is that people didn't want to
release it, right, I mean you know you're saying, if
this had normally have if some guy just did this
and security was aware of it, there would have been
police called. The really one didn't. Any reason it didn't
happen was because this is Sean Combs, who is a
very rich, very influential music and fashion mogul. And let's
(20:41):
be honest, and some people, unfortunately somewhat tragically consider him
to be a cultural icon of sorts, or at least.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
They used to.
Speaker 5 (20:51):
But I have to wonder is this enough given all
the other allegations as well, and there are a lot
of allegations against this guy out there, does he get canceled,
does he get treated differently? Or is this just somehow
largely ignored by those in Hollywood and elsewhere who are
very music industry people who are very much wanting to
(21:14):
be on Ditty's good side. I'm not sure that mister
Combs is necessarily going to face justice in any sense.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
I'll also point out we've spent some time this week
talking about the Harrison Butker controversy.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
You and I talked about it yesterday during our photo shoot.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
It will be interesting to see whether Diddy on video
actually beating the crap out of a woman gets as
much attention as Harrison Butker praising stay at home moms.
Speaker 5 (21:42):
Never mind, attention, outrage, It will not get as much outrage. Yeah,
our culture right now and our media and news ecosystem
is far more angry at what Buttker said, then they
will be at what did he did here on video?
You can take it to the bank. I mean, it
(22:03):
is a certainty that a whole bunch of major news
organizations will treat this with far less venomous rage than
they did. But Ker saying, Hey, for a lot of women,
being a mom is actually the greatest vocation you could
have and the greatest thing you can do in your
life and maybe build a family and have kids. That
(22:24):
is blasphemy. Telling women that they're not necessarily going to
be happy if they forego family so that they can
make VP in their forties. That is a crime against humanity,
according to the Coastal Democrat Left and some other places too,
whereas what did he did here? And it is it
is vicious? Yes, it is on camera. There is no
(22:47):
question about what went on here when you watch the video.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
But you know they'll.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
They'll make excuses.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
There'll be people who make excuses for this, And I
do think it's important because this is one of the
biggest I would say signs of cultural rot that has
been brought on by social media is we now often
treat words as more significant violations of cultural norms than
actual violent acts. In other words, Harrison Bucker, if he
(23:17):
had punched a woman, would have gotten one one hundredth
of the media attention, maybe one one thousandth of the
media attention.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
As for saying, hey, being a homemaker.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
And a mom is an incredible almost crying while he's
praising his wife. That's where we are as a society,
and I think, frankly, it's one reason why the cancel
culture rot has so taken control.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
We cancel people for thoughts, not for actual.
Speaker 5 (23:48):
Crime or in the case of Butker, I would add
to this, I know you spent a lot of time
on it yesterday, and I was seeing some of the
Twitter ex chatter about how how much people loved your
break down of a clay So I don't want to
be labor it. And there's other news we're going to
get into here in the third hour, I would just say,
on On, I thought the speech was incredibly powerful, and
(24:11):
the reason it was both powerful and so hated is
because it is true when you say things that people
don't like, that they don't agree with that they know
are false, you know, unless you're defaming them personally or something.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Right.
Speaker 5 (24:25):
But you know, if someone gets up there and says,
you know, you know what's really going to make you
happy in life, chasing money, do everything you can to
chase money, you're gonna be like, well, that guy's an idiot,
because that's not true. It's not going to make you happy.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Right.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
But if somebody gets up there and says specific specifically
to women, but it's true for men as well, fore going,
you know, or I should say, deprioritizing marriage and family
and faith is for most people. And this is the
people also lose all context. This is where you get
people say, well I did this and it.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
Worked out for me.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
Everyone has allowed their individual choice for their path in life.
It's a question of what he was talking about is
what in general as a philosophy, as an approach, is
going to engender the most happiness, the most stability, the
most you know, productivity in all senses.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Right.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
And the reason people get so upset when they hear this,
who disagree with them is because at some level they
know it's true, and especially people who have made life
choices that they cannot undo. They hear this, and they
don't want to believe that it was a choice they
made that has led them to be unhappy. They want
to believe that it's the patriarchy or Donald Trump or whatever.
(25:46):
There's always some excuse and then the constant refueling of
the delusion with the pop culture stuff about how you
do you? You know, girl power? Yeah, be a boss
like it's awesome sometimes sometimes generally not. And anyway, so
(26:07):
your point about Ditty Versus or Sean Combs and.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
Whatever his name is not, he's on.
Speaker 5 (26:13):
I mean, it's been very apparent that he's a very
bad person for a long time. But people, you know,
I'm sure Anna Winter and all the rest have been
kissing up to this guy for the last thirty years
without any pause, and they will try to continue to
do so if they can get away with it.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Were you surprised shifting gears to what we talked about
the top of the hour? Were you surprised with how
confident Andy McCarthy is that we're going to get a
hung jury here?
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (26:37):
I was.
Speaker 5 (26:38):
I was surprised. I like where his head is at.
I just can't emotion I just can't like psychologically get
there because there's just so much there's so much darkness
that you face when you look into what's being done
to Donald Trump. I would feel this way if it
were another Republican running too. I want to be very
(26:58):
clear about that. You're gonna say no. If they did
this to Mitt Romney, I would be going to the
mat in defense of ye Romney, because.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
You're willing to stand on principle, not the person.
Speaker 5 (27:10):
That's important if it And honestly, if they were doing
this to you know, the same set of facts and circumstance,
but they were doing this to a Democrat, I would
be telling our side. First of all, our side doesn't
have the stones. You know, we never we We're always like, oh,
you know, we need to police each other, and let's
not become the monster to fight the monster and all
that stuff. Our side wouldn't do it, but if we were,
(27:32):
I'd be saying, this is not how we do business.
I got yelled at by a lot of people once
because there was I forget even what it was. There
was a conservative moment of anger over something and people
blocked a bridge and I was like, we don't do that, guys,
don't we don't do the blocking the bridge thing. That's
that's for left wing lunatics. That's not how we roll.
And people said, you know, some people said you gotta
have you got to have some sense of principle or else,
(27:52):
what are you even doing? What are you fighting for?
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Can you imagine if a New York City jury refuses
to convict Trump on this case, what the immediate reaction
on I will tell you to be MSNBC that night.
Speaker 5 (28:05):
I will do for sure. We should definitely make sure
you text and remind me when that when that verdict
comes down. Hate watching MSNBC when something great happens for
Trump is honestly one of the most joyful experiences you'll
ever have of TV watching. But I think Clay I
would go so far as to say that if it
is truly a hung jury, I think they worry very
(28:26):
much about Biden's fire, or they worry even more about
Biden's viability. I don't know. Then if it becomes Kamala
takes over, I've always said that's possible, But the the
narrative that this creates becomes inescapable of they really are
trying to They're already rigging the election, and it will
look like Donald Trump is beating.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Their rig job and on path to win reelection. Let
me give you a thought as we go to break
here the reason why Biden wants June and September as
the trial dates. He's trying to early September. He's trying
to avoid there being a conflict if they try to
(29:09):
rush through court proceedings. Because if Trump's saying, you've got
me in court all day, how am I supposed to
be preparing for an actual case?
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Heard?
Speaker 1 (29:19):
It's impossible has two months for the erase the election.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
It is possible that that j six case happens. It
is possible that they get it started. It is not likely.
I would give it probably one in five odds or something,
or five to.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
No or five to one.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
Yes, there we go. I got to learn the betting lingo.
If you're a gun owner, I know about guns, I
don't know about betting. Really, I'm going to suggest adding
a new firearm your collection, made by Bear Creek Arsenal.
I already owned two, an ar and a pistol. This
North Carolina based company has been making high quality firearms
at incredible value for more than a decade. Though there
are four decades of firearms experience back up their skills
(30:01):
and manufacturing. They offer such a wide range of premium
calibers that a fraction of what the competition offers. Look
I honestly had a hard time even believing it when
I first saw what the prices were, and then I
took their weapons out to the range and they're excellent.
They're so well made, they're accurate, and you're just getting
a better price for everything you need in a firearm.
(30:23):
And you're also part of now what is a growing
and great American brand, Bear Creek Arsenal. In five ten years,
it's going to be one of these names you hear
in the firearms industry, right alongside the big boys who
have been there for a long, long time, many decades.
They're growing fast, and it's because the more people learn
about Bear Creek Arsenal, the more the Second Amendment community
embraces what they are making and wants their guns. Bearcreek
(30:46):
Arsenal dot com slash buck is where you want to
go and use my name buck as your promo code
to get ten percent off your first order. Again, that's
Bear Creekarsenal dot com slash buck and use promo code
Buck for ten percent off.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton chuck up a win for
Team Reality.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
All right, there's still sanity out there in the world,
not just on this show some other places. We try
to find that sanity and bring it to you, package
it up nicely for you. Gracie Hunt is the daughter
of the Chief's owner, Clark Hunt. She waited on this
Harrison Butker speech.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
It's amazing.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
I guess the media will say it's controversial. There's nothing controversial.
The guy is a believing Catholic who actually thinks that
the teachings of the church are not just valid, but
a good idea for your life. You know, agree or
disagree with here, that's fine. He's not trying to make
anybody do anything. He's sharing his opinion at a commencement.
(31:46):
But again, as I said, the truth is, you know,
you really don't want to tell, especially the sort of
Democrat cat ladies out there who think that career at
the expense of everything else is a past way to happiness.
They don't want to hear that maybe there are other
choices that young women should consider, or at least should prioritize.
(32:07):
A Gracie Hunt, she has an idea on what makes
sense here Play thirteen.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
The Couch would like to.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
Know, as America would, that the reaction from the Hunt
family regarding the kicker Harrison.
Speaker 6 (32:18):
Butker Well, I can only speak from my own experience,
which is I've had the most incredible mom who had
the ability to stay home and be with us as
kids staring up. And I understand that there are many
women out there who can't make that decision, but for me,
in my life, I know it was really formative in
shaping me and my siblings to be who we are.
Speaker 5 (32:38):
So you understood what he was talking about for sure.
Speaker 6 (32:41):
And I really respect Harrison and his Christian faith and
what he's accomplished on and off the field.
Speaker 7 (32:47):
Yeah, how Well says that a very just a very
reasonable and I think an astute observation from the owner
of the chiefs.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
Owner of the chief's daughter. That's great honor of the
chief's daughter. Yeah, but Buck.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
She also is saying that she was appearing on Fox
and Friends this morning playing pickleball. So she's standing there
with a pickleball paddle in her hand in the you
know whatever, you would call it, a pickleball playing outfit,
and somehow she makes more sense than ninety nine percent
(33:25):
of people in the media, which is having a mom
who can stay home because your family is financially secure
is a luxury. It's something that many families aspire to
have the option to do. It doesn't mean that you
have to do it. And it's also very beneficial for
kids to have two parents in the household, especially if
(33:47):
one of them can be a primary caregiver. The fact
that this is considered controversial really is evidence of how
to me, we use the word controversy really just to
attack arguments that we don't like, and that's what.
Speaker 5 (34:01):
There's a lot, there's a lot here to examine. I mean,
I remember how in the nineties, you know, there was
this thing about a lot of different shows would have
the fight to see if grandma and grandpa were going
to go into the nursing home. There are a lot
of families grandma and grandpa pitching in and helping with
the kids. It's happened. I know what happened Tolay in
(34:22):
your family. It's happening in my family with my mom
and dad and my sister. I think multi generational family,
you know, raising of kids and everything else is a
beautiful thing. I think it gives grandparents tremendous purpose. I just,
you know, instead of just sending people, look, retirement homes
or retirement communities can be very nice for people. I'm
not I'm not criticizing them per se. I'm just saying
(34:44):
there are a lot of options here. But running as
fast and as hard as you can in the corporate
race is not always answering. But do you see this
story about this Special Forces veteran. Okay, the guy's a badass,
a legitimate badass, served multiple combat tours overseas, he comes back,
he's got a beautiful life and two kids, and he
(35:04):
dies I mean from basically being overworked from what we
understand at least that's the reporting of it as an
investment banker.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
Yeah, it's crazy.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
He's a Special Forces guy, everybody like you know, he's
a snake eater, that's what they call. And he dies
from being overworked in his cubicle, and you know it's insane.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
I think again, in most of life, finding balance in
all facets is a big help towards your own individual
self worth, which makes you more valuable for your family.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
And the idea that.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
The data which clearly shows and I think you said it,
and I said it yesterday. Your anecdote doesn't refute the
overall data. So people feel attacked when their lifestyle doesn't
fit everything perfectly. There are tons of you out there
listening right now who have been fabulous single parent. That
doesn't mean that the average kid isn't helped by having
(36:05):
a two parent household.
Speaker 4 (36:07):
That's just the reality.
Speaker 5 (36:09):
The Green Beret Special Force is the same thing who
died of a blood clot due to and he wanted
to leave his one hundred hour work weeks that were
ruining his life. That's the quote was Leo Lukenas, and
he was thirty five years old. He was working in
investment banking. I mean again, first, that's a whole other
(36:30):
discussion about why that culture is what it is, to
just work people into oblivion on no sleep and everything else.
But the corporate grind in general, Clay leads to a
lot of a lot of unhappiness and no doubting. More
and fancier stuff does not lead to happen
Welcome in our number two Friday edition of the Clay
and Bucks Show. Hope all of you are having fantastic
early starts to your weekend. We encourage all of you
go subscribe to the podcast. Make sure you don't miss
a moment. Can check out all the guests. Search out
my name Clay Travis, search out Buck Sexton. You can
also listen on the iHeartRadio app. And we appreciate all
(00:22):
of you who are Clay and Buck VIPs. And many
of you are watching on video right now. I believe
I don't know if Bucks on Are you on video?
I'm not your Bucks in Nashville in one of our
downtown studios. I think I'm on video. I'm waving at
you guys right now. If I'm not, We'll be back
on video together on Monday. We're joined now by Andy McCarthy,
who's Mets. But they finally beat the Phillies, who can't
(00:45):
lose at all. I'm saying that is a Braves fan,
because the Phillies have I don't know one like. It
feels like every game has been played so far this year. Andy,
question for you, how devastating was the Michael Cohen tech testimony?
The cross X if we had a fully honest and
(01:05):
paying attention jury and not people who had already made
up their mind about Donald Trump. Is there any doubt
in your mind as a prosecutor that there was enough
reasonable doubt shown that there should be some people open
to a not guilty verdict if they have not already
made up their minds? How would you assess that testimony.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
If we just look at it clay is testimony in
like a straightforward trial where everybody knew what had to
be proved for the prosecution to get to the finish line.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
I would say that it should.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Have been game over in terms of his testimony, because
as I see the case as it should be understood legally,
as opposed to how it's been tried in the court,
and the insufficient notice and the fairy tale kind of
version of events that the jury is getting, then I
(02:02):
think that Cohen is the only link for a couple
of things that the prosecution has to prove, and they'd
be in a very good.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Position to get up.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
The defense would to argue to the jury that you
obviously can't convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt on.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The basis of this guy's testimony.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Which by the way, is precisely why my old office,
which had this investigation first, didn't charge the case. There's
no way you can do this case without Colin.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Okay, so let me follow up.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Then you are Judge merchand let's pretend that you are
not a left wing political operative, which frankly it sometimes
seems that he is more than a judge. This case
is going to be complete. Trump's team will ask for
a directed verdict. They'll basically say that the crime wasn't proven.
They've already asked for a mistrial that's been rejected. Should
(02:55):
Judge merchand say, as a matter of law, this case
has not been proven and toss the case. If in
your mind, if he were completely down the middle just
trying to call balls and strikes, what should happen on
that motion, which will certainly happen at the end of
the testimony.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, he should throw the case out, Clay, But I
want to be clear on how poor this case is
in order to rent to that conclusion. Because you started
out asking me about Cohen, which.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Is exactly what you should ask me about. Is that
was a big event of this week.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
But you know, we know as lawyers that the test
for a judge has to throw a case out solely
on you know, at the end of the government's case
is you have to assume everything in the government's favor,
including that the witnesses were believed by the jury, even
if you, as a judge, thinks there's no way the
(03:55):
jury could have believed this guy. So even saying that
the jury or the judge would have to accept as
true Cohan's testimony, I don't see how they've made their
case out because the way I look at this is
there's basically three things. You have to prove the falsity
of the documents, fraudulent intent, and that the fraudulent intent
(04:19):
included an intent willfully to.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Violate the federal campaign laws.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I think, arguably you can say that some of the documents,
specifically the invoices are arguably false. I think that you know,
Bragg's got a point on that, but the checks are
in false and the book entries are in false. So
he hasn't even made out falsity on all the documents.
(04:45):
But I don't see any evidence of fraud which he
has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And even worse,
I don't see any evidence that Trump was even thinking
about the campaign finance laws number one and number two.
If Trump is the guy that Bragg said he is
in the evidence, then if he was thinking about the
(05:06):
campaign laws and he believed that these expenditures, these NBA
non disclosure agreements were campaign expenditures, he would have paid
them with campaign funds.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
The fact that he didn't shows that it didn't even
enter his mind.
Speaker 5 (05:22):
Andy, this is what I've been saying all along. If
what the government says here is true, you could run
for office and then have your campaign war chest and write,
you know, million dollar checks to ten different women that
all claim that you know, you had affairs with them,
and that would be a campaign expenditure.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
That's right, Buck, But let's be realistic about how you
would do it, because then it doesn't seem like it's
that outrageous of proposition.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
What Trump would simply have done was in his sec
disclosures they would have said the same thing they said
in his business records. They would have called them legal expenses.
And that isn't crazy because if you look at the
Hillary Clinton campaign, which actually did get fined by the
Federal Election Commission for their conduct in the twenty sixteen election.
(06:10):
They called the Steele dossier legal expenses, and the Federal
Election Commission when they find them, said no, no, it
was opposition research. But my point is that what a campaign.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
Would do is just say legal expenditures.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
You know, those those were legal deals. They had to
pay for them, and that's you know, if they got
caught down the road on what the legal expenditures were,
what would they care by then the election would be over.
So you know, obviously what he would have done if
he thought this was a campaign expenditure, he would have
paid it at a campaign fund. This guy doesn't go
(06:45):
into his pocket for anything.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
He doesn't want to go into his pocket for right.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
He would have paid it with campaign money and they
would have just said on their FEC disclosure legal expenses,
just like they did in the Trump books.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
So what happens now Andy this case? Do you think
that there are jurors that are going to be willing
to vote not guilty? I mean, really, this gets into
analyzing the jury pool itself, because I think just about
everybody listening to us who's been paying attention to this
case would say, on the merits, there is reasonable doubt here,
(07:20):
as you laid out. You think the judge should give
a directed verdict to take it away from the jury
even being able to decide this, which is a high standard,
meaning that the prosecution's really fallen all over its face.
What happens now, though, presuming that merchand won't do that,
which I think you won't, and it goes to the jury.
Do you think there is a one or more juror
(07:42):
that is willing to say not guilty? How do you analyze?
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Yeah, I think there's a high likelihood that more than
one juror will refuse to convict. I don't think Trump
will quitted, but I do think, well, I'm not We've
talked about this before. I'm not as down on New
York juries as a lot of people are.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
And look, I'm an.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Old guy over the hill who hasn't tried a case
in Manhattan in close to thirty years, So I.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Get that, and the city's changed.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
But nevertheless, Trump only needs one, you know, to win.
And to me, from all the reporting I heard, including
from the Times, which doesn't really want to say this,
the jury seems to be paying riveted attention to blanch
his cross examination of oh, it was.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
A bad day, for sure.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Yeah, this is fascinating to me because you're a super
smart guy here, Andy, did you think one would vote
not guilty before the trial started or is this based
on how the trial has gone in your mind?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
I thought that I've always thought that Trump had a
chance to get a home jury. Gun to my head,
I said before the trial, I think he'd be convicted.
And the main reason, Clay is and I don't think
this is a huge problem. The unseen dynamic in a
criminal jury trial. Civil trials may be a little bit different,
but in a criminal trial, it's always how the jury.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Thinks the judge is thinking about the case.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
The jury takes their cues from the judge, and it's
a big deal in a trial how the judge seems
to interact with the prosecutor and treat the prosecution's case.
In every criminal case I was ever involved in, you
knew from the judge whether the judge thought this was
serious business or he thought it was a BS case
(09:38):
that didn't belong in court. And it's not necessarily anything.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Especially with the smart judges.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
It's not anything that you could ever point to in
the transcript. But there's a kind of you know, there's
a body language. There's a way you go about things.
When I tried the blind Shaw case years ago in
front of the judge Buksey later Attorney General Casey, when
we swore a witness, we must have had, you know,
a couple of hundred witnesses in the trial and went
(10:06):
on for nine months when we swore a witness, and
you could hear a pin drop in the courtroom because
everybody the judge.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
It was a big deal to the.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Judge that everybody understood that the oath was very important.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
When the witness got the stand.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
It was serious business. Now, you wouldn't see anything in
the transcript that says like the judge favored the government's case,
because I don't think he did.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
He did what his job was.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
But he conveyed to the jury that what we were
doing was very serious and he acted as if the
case was being proved in a serious way and it
wasn't a three ring circus. That's a powerful message to
a jury and they take their cues from the judge.
So a lot will depend on like how did they
feel about merch On and how did they think?
Speaker 3 (10:54):
Do they think he's been fair? And do they think.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
How what did they think of how he's interacted with
the prosecutors.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I think that's really important.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
Andy, Let's assume that it is a hung jury. There's
one hold out. Clearly that's a disaster for the brag
prosecution here. What do you see as the likely second
order effects of that in terms of the other cases,
what Bragg's office would do then? Would they move to
even try to do another trial? You think would this
(11:27):
affect the way that the other legal cases would be
You know, basically, do you think somebody might drop another
one if this one fails? How do you see it
playing out?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
I don't think this case would ever be tried again
if it ends up in a hung jury. And I
really don't think.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
That it's just going to be one. I think it'll
be more than one.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Sure we'll see, but I don't know that the collapse
of this case necessarily is the thing that dismantles the
rest of the law there campaign. But where the lawfare
campaign goes regardless of how this case comes out, I
(12:06):
think depends on the willingness of Jack Smith to narrow
the J six case down to the stuff that Trump's
lawyer in the oral argument to the Supreme Court on
the immunity issue. If he's willing to narrow the case
down to the stuff that John Salard, Trump's lawyer conceded
(12:27):
was private behavior that didn't have it wasn't amenable of
an immunity claim, then I think he could put the
pedal to the medal and chuck In. Judge chuck In
would help him and he could get that case to trial.
But if he's insistent on doing the whole case as
it's indicted, I really think what's going to happen in
that case is the Supreme Court is going to send
(12:48):
it back to chuck In with instructions to sort out
what's private behavior and what's official conduct, and if she does.
If they do that, then it's still a live immunity issue,
which means, however she resolves it, Trump can appeal it
to the DC Circuit and it may go right back
to the Supreme Court. So I don't see if Smith
(13:09):
is not willing to narrow the case down and say
the chuck In, you know, look, I don't want you
to have to go through this whole rigmarole of sorting
out the private from the official. Let's just go to
trial and with private If he's willing to say that,
then I think they can get that case to trial.
If he's not, then forget it.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Last question for you, Andy, and we appreciate all of this, because, man,
this is crazy. If there is a conviction, let's say
that the twelve jurors don't, as we see it, apply
the law correctly and analyze the facts correctly. What do
you think the chances are that this case would be
overturned on appeal.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I think the chances are very high because even before
you got to trial, there's all kinds of legal issues here, like,
for example, I think this case violates the New York Constitution.
I think the statute violates the New York Constitution. They
have major federal constitutional claims, including whether the indictment is adequate.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
So before you even get to.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
The trial and you get to things like allowing the
Stormy Daniels testimony and what I think are going to
be pretty critical errors by the judge. Because when you said, Clay,
like the jury doesn't find the case legally like we've
just discussed it, I don't think they're going to get
the case legally the way we just discussed it. I
think march On's going to give them a different idea
(14:35):
of what the law is. So I think there'll be
a lot of errors. The problem is, it's like Harvey Weinstein,
what was it, three to four years after the trial
they threw out the conviction.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
That's not going to happen, Sam.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And the other thing I would point out, Andy and
I don't know that we've even discussed this.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
We got to go to break.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
But there are two lawyers on this jury of twelve,
which is kind of unheard of. So how exactly do
they drive the jury? What do they think of this case?
They're not exactly legal neophytes.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Yeah, but you know, it's impossible, Clay to say categorically
this is how a lawyer would affect it. Like, let's
say you and I are pretty good lawyers, right, Let's
say from my perspective, let's say this was.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
A case about a real estate client.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
You know, the legal degree wouldn't be very helpful, you know,
because that is anybody else.
Speaker 5 (15:25):
And unfortunately, Andy, I can tell you this from friends
of mine who have gone through this. In recent years,
the law schools are churning out lunatic Marxists at an
unprecedented rate. So having a lawyer on the jury.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
I'm not sure that.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Yeah, I mean, I can't even begin to get into
that right now. Andy McCarthy, everybody, National Review, Fox News. Andy,
we're going to have you back. We'll see how your prediction.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Goes on the on the season or on the trial both.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I was bothering about the season.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
I was ready to say, Clay that like, like Alvin
Bragg says, it's a long season.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
You know, yeah, yeah, the meds are not covering themselves
in glory right now. I hope you're right though about
the legal predictions. That would be an earth shattering result.
I'd love to see the MSNBC and see it in reactions.
If they can't get a conviction, well.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
They want an investigation of the jury. I'm sure.
Speaker 5 (16:16):
Oh yeah, we talked about that real quick, Andy, Will
the jury's identities be public after this? No matter what
the judge says, you think, will someone docks them?
Speaker 2 (16:26):
The minute they decide to go public, they'll be public.
I think that, you know, he's hoping that they'll decide
the case by Thursday so that they can line up
their weekend interviews.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
I think we'll see. All right, Thanks so much, Andy,
want to focus for a moment here on Preborn, which
is an organization that does so much to protect the
lives of unborn children. It is the largest pro life
nonprofit in the country that provides ultrasounds to pregnant women
who are making a critical decision. The ultrasounds that Preborn
(16:56):
gives them are complementary and they're only possible because of
your donations. When a mother considering abortion meets her baby
on ultrasound and here's the heartbeat, it doubles a baby's
chance at life. Every day, Preborn rescues two hundred babies lives.
Last year, they helped to save fifty eight thousand babies.
Twenty eight dollars could be the difference between life and death.
(17:17):
Please join the fight by sponsoring one, two three or
two hundred ultrasounds whatever you can share. All gifts are
tax deductible. To donate, dial pound two five zero on
your cellphone and say the keyword baby. That's pound two
five zero, say the word baby, or go online Preborn
dot com, slash buck, Preborn dot com, slash b u
(17:38):
c K sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Voices of Sanity an insane World.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Welcome back in quick turn here because Buck and I
were so really impressed with what Andy McCarthy was telling us.
We're gonna unpack those revelations and their potential impact when
we return. But in the meantime, I gotta tell you
want to save a bundle, you need to get hooked
up right now with our friends at Puretalk. Puretalk will
put you in a position where you can help to
(18:09):
deal with all this Biden inflation by paying less than
half the price of Verizon at and T or T Mobile.
That's despite the fact you get unlimited talk text plenty
of five G data just twenty bucks a month. You
can switch from your cell phone and keep the same
cell phone number by dialing pound two five zero on
(18:29):
your cell phone and saying the keywords Clay and Buck.
Puretalk's US customer service team will make switching incredibly easy again.
All you have to do dial pound two five zero,
say Clay and Buck. You'll save an additional fifty percent
off your first month.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
That is, pound two five zero say Clay and Bucks.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Clay, Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of truth.
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Second show. Some breaking
news that probably is going to turn into a huge story,
not politics related, but we should mention it.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
There is a video that CNN has obtained of the
music mogul Ditty beating the crap out of his then girlfriend.
It appears in what they say is the Intercontinental Hotel
in Los Angeles, punching her in the face, kicking her
when shoes on the grounds.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
Pretty awful you watched the video.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
I mean, this thing is uh is frankly, I mean
it's it's beyond the shadow of a doubt, criminal assault
and domestic violence. I don't know why it took eight
years for this story to come out, but it's going
to be a really big story. I've stayed and then
(19:53):
many of you out there listening right now in the
Los Angeles area and beyond the Intercontinental Hotel where this happened,
over looks the Fox Lot. I have spent months of
my life staying there. I don't know how this video
would not have come out before now, eight years ago.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
It's now well, you do know.
Speaker 5 (20:15):
It's just the answer is that people didn't want to
release it, right, I mean you know you're saying, if
this had normally have if some guy just did this
and security was aware of it, there would have been
police called. The really one didn't. Any reason it didn't
happen was because this is Sean Combs, who is a
very rich, very influential music and fashion mogul. And let's
(20:41):
be honest, and some people, unfortunately somewhat tragically consider him
to be a cultural icon of sorts, or at least.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
They used to.
Speaker 5 (20:51):
But I have to wonder is this enough given all
the other allegations as well, and there are a lot
of allegations against this guy out there, does he get canceled,
does he get treated differently? Or is this just somehow
largely ignored by those in Hollywood and elsewhere who are
very music industry people who are very much wanting to
(21:14):
be on Ditty's good side. I'm not sure that mister
Combs is necessarily going to face justice in any sense.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
I'll also point out we've spent some time this week
talking about the Harrison Butker controversy.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
You and I talked about it yesterday during our photo shoot.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
It will be interesting to see whether Diddy on video
actually beating the crap out of a woman gets as
much attention as Harrison Butker praising stay at home moms.
Speaker 5 (21:42):
Never mind, attention, outrage, It will not get as much outrage. Yeah,
our culture right now and our media and news ecosystem
is far more angry at what Buttker said, then they
will be at what did he did here on video?
You can take it to the bank. I mean, it
(22:03):
is a certainty that a whole bunch of major news
organizations will treat this with far less venomous rage than
they did. But Ker saying, Hey, for a lot of women,
being a mom is actually the greatest vocation you could
have and the greatest thing you can do in your
life and maybe build a family and have kids. That
(22:24):
is blasphemy. Telling women that they're not necessarily going to
be happy if they forego family so that they can
make VP in their forties. That is a crime against humanity,
according to the Coastal Democrat Left and some other places too,
whereas what did he did here? And it is it
is vicious? Yes, it is on camera. There is no
(22:47):
question about what went on here when you watch the video.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
But you know they'll.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
They'll make excuses.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
There'll be people who make excuses for this, And I
do think it's important because this is one of the
biggest I would say signs of cultural rot that has
been brought on by social media is we now often
treat words as more significant violations of cultural norms than
actual violent acts. In other words, Harrison Bucker, if he
(23:17):
had punched a woman, would have gotten one one hundredth
of the media attention, maybe one one thousandth of the
media attention.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
As for saying, hey, being a homemaker.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
And a mom is an incredible almost crying while he's
praising his wife. That's where we are as a society,
and I think, frankly, it's one reason why the cancel
culture rot has so taken control.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
We cancel people for thoughts, not for actual.
Speaker 5 (23:48):
Crime or in the case of Butker, I would add
to this, I know you spent a lot of time
on it yesterday, and I was seeing some of the
Twitter ex chatter about how how much people loved your
break down of a clay So I don't want to
be labor it. And there's other news we're going to
get into here in the third hour, I would just say,
on On, I thought the speech was incredibly powerful, and
(24:11):
the reason it was both powerful and so hated is
because it is true when you say things that people
don't like, that they don't agree with that they know
are false, you know, unless you're defaming them personally or something.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Right.
Speaker 5 (24:25):
But you know, if someone gets up there and says,
you know, you know what's really going to make you
happy in life, chasing money, do everything you can to
chase money, you're gonna be like, well, that guy's an idiot,
because that's not true. It's not going to make you happy.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Right.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
But if somebody gets up there and says specific specifically
to women, but it's true for men as well, fore going,
you know, or I should say, deprioritizing marriage and family
and faith is for most people. And this is the
people also lose all context. This is where you get
people say, well I did this and it.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
Worked out for me.
Speaker 5 (25:01):
Everyone has allowed their individual choice for their path in life.
It's a question of what he was talking about is
what in general as a philosophy, as an approach, is
going to engender the most happiness, the most stability, the
most you know, productivity in all senses.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Right.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
And the reason people get so upset when they hear this,
who disagree with them is because at some level they
know it's true, and especially people who have made life
choices that they cannot undo. They hear this, and they
don't want to believe that it was a choice they
made that has led them to be unhappy. They want
to believe that it's the patriarchy or Donald Trump or whatever.
(25:46):
There's always some excuse and then the constant refueling of
the delusion with the pop culture stuff about how you
do you? You know, girl power? Yeah, be a boss
like it's awesome sometimes sometimes generally not. And anyway, so
(26:07):
your point about Ditty Versus or Sean Combs and.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
Whatever his name is not, he's on.
Speaker 5 (26:13):
I mean, it's been very apparent that he's a very
bad person for a long time. But people, you know,
I'm sure Anna Winter and all the rest have been
kissing up to this guy for the last thirty years
without any pause, and they will try to continue to
do so if they can get away with it.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Were you surprised shifting gears to what we talked about
the top of the hour? Were you surprised with how
confident Andy McCarthy is that we're going to get a
hung jury here?
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (26:37):
I was.
Speaker 5 (26:38):
I was surprised. I like where his head is at.
I just can't emotion I just can't like psychologically get
there because there's just so much there's so much darkness
that you face when you look into what's being done
to Donald Trump. I would feel this way if it
were another Republican running too. I want to be very
(26:58):
clear about that. You're gonna say no. If they did
this to Mitt Romney, I would be going to the
mat in defense of ye Romney, because.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
You're willing to stand on principle, not the person.
Speaker 5 (27:10):
That's important if it And honestly, if they were doing
this to you know, the same set of facts and circumstance,
but they were doing this to a Democrat, I would
be telling our side. First of all, our side doesn't
have the stones. You know, we never we We're always like, oh,
you know, we need to police each other, and let's
not become the monster to fight the monster and all
that stuff. Our side wouldn't do it, but if we were,
(27:32):
I'd be saying, this is not how we do business.
I got yelled at by a lot of people once
because there was I forget even what it was. There
was a conservative moment of anger over something and people
blocked a bridge and I was like, we don't do that, guys,
don't we don't do the blocking the bridge thing. That's
that's for left wing lunatics. That's not how we roll.
And people said, you know, some people said you gotta
have you got to have some sense of principle or else,
(27:52):
what are you even doing? What are you fighting for?
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Can you imagine if a New York City jury refuses
to convict Trump on this case, what the immediate reaction
on I will tell you to be MSNBC that night.
Speaker 5 (28:05):
I will do for sure. We should definitely make sure
you text and remind me when that when that verdict
comes down. Hate watching MSNBC when something great happens for
Trump is honestly one of the most joyful experiences you'll
ever have of TV watching. But I think Clay I
would go so far as to say that if it
is truly a hung jury, I think they worry very
(28:26):
much about Biden's fire, or they worry even more about
Biden's viability. I don't know. Then if it becomes Kamala
takes over, I've always said that's possible, But the the
narrative that this creates becomes inescapable of they really are
trying to They're already rigging the election, and it will
look like Donald Trump is beating.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Their rig job and on path to win reelection. Let
me give you a thought as we go to break
here the reason why Biden wants June and September as
the trial dates. He's trying to early September. He's trying
to avoid there being a conflict if they try to
(29:09):
rush through court proceedings. Because if Trump's saying, you've got
me in court all day, how am I supposed to
be preparing for an actual case?
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Heard?
Speaker 1 (29:19):
It's impossible has two months for the erase the election.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
It is possible that that j six case happens. It
is possible that they get it started. It is not likely.
I would give it probably one in five odds or something,
or five to.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
No or five to one.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
Yes, there we go. I got to learn the betting lingo.
If you're a gun owner, I know about guns, I
don't know about betting. Really, I'm going to suggest adding
a new firearm your collection, made by Bear Creek Arsenal.
I already owned two, an ar and a pistol. This
North Carolina based company has been making high quality firearms
at incredible value for more than a decade. Though there
are four decades of firearms experience back up their skills
(30:01):
and manufacturing. They offer such a wide range of premium
calibers that a fraction of what the competition offers. Look
I honestly had a hard time even believing it when
I first saw what the prices were, and then I
took their weapons out to the range and they're excellent.
They're so well made, they're accurate, and you're just getting
a better price for everything you need in a firearm.
(30:23):
And you're also part of now what is a growing
and great American brand, Bear Creek Arsenal. In five ten years,
it's going to be one of these names you hear
in the firearms industry, right alongside the big boys who
have been there for a long, long time, many decades.
They're growing fast, and it's because the more people learn
about Bear Creek Arsenal, the more the Second Amendment community
embraces what they are making and wants their guns. Bearcreek
(30:46):
Arsenal dot com slash buck is where you want to
go and use my name buck as your promo code
to get ten percent off your first order. Again, that's
Bear Creekarsenal dot com slash buck and use promo code
Buck for ten percent off.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton chuck up a win for
Team Reality.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
All right, there's still sanity out there in the world,
not just on this show some other places. We try
to find that sanity and bring it to you, package
it up nicely for you. Gracie Hunt is the daughter
of the Chief's owner, Clark Hunt. She waited on this
Harrison Butker speech.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
It's amazing.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
I guess the media will say it's controversial. There's nothing controversial.
The guy is a believing Catholic who actually thinks that
the teachings of the church are not just valid, but
a good idea for your life. You know, agree or
disagree with here, that's fine. He's not trying to make
anybody do anything. He's sharing his opinion at a commencement.
(31:46):
But again, as I said, the truth is, you know,
you really don't want to tell, especially the sort of
Democrat cat ladies out there who think that career at
the expense of everything else is a past way to happiness.
They don't want to hear that maybe there are other
choices that young women should consider, or at least should prioritize.
(32:07):
A Gracie Hunt, she has an idea on what makes
sense here Play thirteen.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
The Couch would like to.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
Know, as America would, that the reaction from the Hunt
family regarding the kicker Harrison.
Speaker 6 (32:18):
Butker Well, I can only speak from my own experience,
which is I've had the most incredible mom who had
the ability to stay home and be with us as
kids staring up. And I understand that there are many
women out there who can't make that decision, but for me,
in my life, I know it was really formative in
shaping me and my siblings to be who we are.
Speaker 5 (32:38):
So you understood what he was talking about for sure.
Speaker 6 (32:41):
And I really respect Harrison and his Christian faith and
what he's accomplished on and off the field.
Speaker 7 (32:47):
Yeah, how Well says that a very just a very
reasonable and I think an astute observation from the owner
of the chiefs.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
Owner of the chief's daughter. That's great honor of the
chief's daughter. Yeah, but Buck.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
She also is saying that she was appearing on Fox
and Friends this morning playing pickleball. So she's standing there
with a pickleball paddle in her hand in the you
know whatever, you would call it, a pickleball playing outfit,
and somehow she makes more sense than ninety nine percent
(33:25):
of people in the media, which is having a mom
who can stay home because your family is financially secure
is a luxury. It's something that many families aspire to
have the option to do. It doesn't mean that you
have to do it. And it's also very beneficial for
kids to have two parents in the household, especially if
(33:47):
one of them can be a primary caregiver. The fact
that this is considered controversial really is evidence of how
to me, we use the word controversy really just to
attack arguments that we don't like, and that's what.
Speaker 5 (34:01):
There's a lot, there's a lot here to examine. I mean,
I remember how in the nineties, you know, there was
this thing about a lot of different shows would have
the fight to see if grandma and grandpa were going
to go into the nursing home. There are a lot
of families grandma and grandpa pitching in and helping with
the kids. It's happened. I know what happened Tolay in
(34:22):
your family. It's happening in my family with my mom
and dad and my sister. I think multi generational family,
you know, raising of kids and everything else is a
beautiful thing. I think it gives grandparents tremendous purpose. I just,
you know, instead of just sending people, look, retirement homes
or retirement communities can be very nice for people. I'm
not I'm not criticizing them per se. I'm just saying
(34:44):
there are a lot of options here. But running as
fast and as hard as you can in the corporate
race is not always answering. But do you see this
story about this Special Forces veteran. Okay, the guy's a badass,
a legitimate badass, served multiple combat tours overseas, he comes back,
he's got a beautiful life and two kids, and he
(35:04):
dies I mean from basically being overworked from what we
understand at least that's the reporting of it as an
investment banker.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
Yeah, it's crazy.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
He's a Special Forces guy, everybody like you know, he's
a snake eater, that's what they call. And he dies
from being overworked in his cubicle, and you know it's insane.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
I think again, in most of life, finding balance in
all facets is a big help towards your own individual
self worth, which makes you more valuable for your family.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
And the idea that.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
The data which clearly shows and I think you said it,
and I said it yesterday. Your anecdote doesn't refute the
overall data. So people feel attacked when their lifestyle doesn't
fit everything perfectly. There are tons of you out there
listening right now who have been fabulous single parent. That
doesn't mean that the average kid isn't helped by having
(36:05):
a two parent household.
Speaker 4 (36:07):
That's just the reality.
Speaker 5 (36:09):
The Green Beret Special Force is the same thing who
died of a blood clot due to and he wanted
to leave his one hundred hour work weeks that were
ruining his life. That's the quote was Leo Lukenas, and
he was thirty five years old. He was working in
investment banking. I mean again, first, that's a whole other
(36:30):
discussion about why that culture is what it is, to
just work people into oblivion on no sleep and everything else.
But the corporate grind in general, Clay leads to a
lot of a lot of unhappiness and no doubting. More
and fancier stuff does not lead to happen
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.