October 1, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show features an extended debate about a controversial Cornell University sexual assault lawsuit, focusing on consent, personal responsibility, due process and the distinction between morally objectionable behavior and conduct that meets the legal standard for a crime. Clay outlines the allegations involving a Cornell student, seven fraternity members, alcohol and drug use, emphasizing that the woman initially described the encounter as consensual before later alleging sexual assault and filing a lawsuit. Clay and Buck discuss text messages and other details surrounding the case and argue that an initial statement of consent followed by a later allegation presents substantial challenges for the accused and the legal process. They repeatedly stress that they regard the alleged conduct at the fraternity as degrading and irresponsible while maintaining that moral condemnation and criminal culpability are separate questions.
The Cornell discussion expands into a broader examination of sexual assault allegations, consent laws, due process and equal treatment under the law. Clay proposes reversing the genders in the hypothetical circumstances to test whether men and women would be treated equally, while Buck argues that the legal system must protect genuine victims while also maintaining standards designed to protect innocent people from false accusations. They reference the Duke lacrosse case, along with allegations involving Brett Kavanaugh and E. Jean Carroll, as part of a wider conversation about delayed accusations, the challenges of defending against allegations concerning events from many years earlier and the purpose of statutes of limitations. Clay also argues against laws that preserve the anonymity of sexual assault accusers while publicly identifying the accused, contending that reputational damage can remain even when criminal charges are never filed. A caller named Mary challenges the hosts' framing of the Cornell case and argues that the men involved had a basic moral responsibility to intervene when someone was intoxicated. Although Clay and Buck disagree with aspects of her legal reasoning, Buck acknowledges the strength of her argument on an ethical level, reinforcing Hour 2's distinction between morality and criminal law.
Hour 2 also turns to the death penalty following a botched execution in Tennessee, prompting Clay and Buck to debate capital punishment and different methods of execution. Buck argues that the incident will strengthen arguments made by death penalty opponents and notes the Catholic Church's opposition to capital punishment, even as he explains why he personally supports the death penalty. The hosts discuss lethal injection, the electric chair and firing squads, as well as the broader political debate surrounding execution policy. They also consider whether women sentenced to death should be treated differently from men, ultimately framing the question around equal legal responsibility regardless of sex. A retired anesthesiologist calls the program and provides his professional assessment of the failed lethal injection, saying he believes an improperly placed IV allowed medication to infiltrate surrounding tissue rather than properly entering the vein.
The capital punishment conversation leads into a historical discussion of public executions, the guillotine and execution practices in Europe. Clay and Buck examine the historical rationale for conducting executions publicly, including whether their visibility was intended to demonstrate that punishment was being administered under lawful authority and to deter others from committing crimes. Buck references historian Joel Harrington's The Faithful Executioner, a book about an executioner in early modern Germany, as the hosts discuss historical crimes that could result in execution, accusations of witchcraft and the importance once placed on employing a skilled executioner. The Tennessee controversy therefore develops into a larger philosophical and historical debate over criminal justice, state authority, transparency, deterrence and humane methods of execution.
The hour also includes a lighter discussion of music, workout songs and 1990s rock culture. A listener cites Lit's "My Own Worst Enemy," the Clay and Buck theme song, as a favorite song for getting energized before a workout, prompting the hosts to discuss iconic music and generational differences in musical tastes. Buck mentions the Foo Fighters, while Clay talks about his son's interest in rap and references Juice WRLD as an artist popular with a younger generation. The exchange continues the show's ongoing debate about the best songs for workouts, sports and getting fired up.
Overall, Hour 2 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show centers on provocative legal, ethical and cultural questions surrounding the Cornell University sexual assault lawsuit, consent, due process, false accusation
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back in our number two play and buck. We
have got a lot that we can get into and
I am fired up. Get your popcorn because I'm about
to dive into this Cornell story. So for those of
you who don't know. A couple of years ago, and
(00:20):
this story has taken over everywhere on the internet. It
has been covered a lot by quote-unquote mainstream media. And
I'm just going to give you a ballpark, rough approximation
of what happened. This is not intended to be incredibly detailed.
And then I'm going to dive into some of the
(00:41):
facts and some of the evidence that is out there
specifically to tell you.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Why this is, in my opinion....
Speaker 1 (00:50):
A story that has almost no legitimacy in terms of
the way that it's being covered.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
So a couple of.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Years ago, a sorority girl at Cornell University went to
a fraternity house and engaged in a lot of different
sexual activity, including multiple threesomes. There was lots of drug use.
There was drug use being done off body parts. There
(01:20):
was a lot of alcohol consumed. You can go read
all of those details if you want. In the immediate
aftermath of this incident, the girl said that everything was
consensual and that she had agreed to everything. And there's
contemporary evidence of all of this. As word spread of
(01:44):
what had taken place and as the boys talked, then
her appreciation for the choices that she had made began
to decline. In other words, she began to experience regret,
and there is evidence of this. And now this, basically
(02:04):
in the last week, she has filed a lawsuit now
saying that she was raped, that Cornell covered it all up,
and that the $ 7 million Young men who were involved
in this story, in this case, all raped her and
they have not been punished severely enough. OK, that I think, Buck,
(02:27):
would you sign off the cosign that that's a pretty good,
rough approximation of this story without. OK, here is as
I was doing my research and reading more and more
about this case. Here are some of the details. This
is from The New York Times. She said they have
not named the girl, but of course, all seven of
(02:50):
the boys, the men, the girl, the woman, all seven
of the boys involved in this case, their names are
out on the Internet. They are being savaged. Here are
some of the texts. According to the roommate, if anyone
asks about this, say it didn't happen. The roommate was concerned,
(03:11):
and as the days went on, The roommate says, I
think she came to realize that it was something bad
and that she didn't really enjoy her time there. She
texted that she was upset. There are text messages that
the boys talked about what went on and that she
(03:31):
was upset. And then, Buck, and I think this was
the precipitating factor. The fraternity was getting ready for a
Halloween party and text messages show that initially they said,
you are welcome to come to our Halloween party.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
And then after the.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Story was growing and there was more attention surrounding it,
they decided that. They were not going to come that
she shouldn't come to the party. And she was disinvited
by the fraternity president who was not involved in this incident,
who said that it was not a good decision and
(04:13):
that she come. She then texted one of the guys
and said, I knew this was going to happen. The
woman will always get the short end of the stick.
Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses. A
week later, she decided that she had been sexually assaulted
(04:36):
and she texted the guy and said nothing was consensual.
And she said that four days later, She went to
the emergency room, this is weeks later, and said she
wanted a rape kit. Okay, Buck, this to me actually
ties in some with the Lindsay Clancy story because, and
(04:58):
you say, how's this? In both of those cases, we
are being told that women are not responsible for their actions.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
A woman who murdered.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
All three of her kids, oh, she was postpartum, her
hormones were acting up. she wasn't in the right mental state.
A woman who engaged in multiple sexual acts said they
were all consensual for weeks and then changed her mind
when she got disinvited to a Halloween party and others
(05:30):
started talking about the choices that she had made, then
retroactively decides, I didn't consent, this was rape, and now
she's suing trying to get millions of dollars out of
the university, out of the fraternity guys that were involved here.
And everybody is trying to say, oh, she's a victim.
(05:52):
Cornell covered up this rape. The university's responsible. And they
are trying to turn this into a story where, again,
Cornell is the bad guy and these guys all deserve
to go to prison. Buck, do you disagree with any
of that analysis? Or do you basically co-sign? Is there
(06:14):
anything else you would say differently? I wanted to lay
all this out. Again, the evidence is out there. There's
lots of text messages. She said she was fine with
it until she suddenly wasn't. This is a retroactive rape charge. Yeah,
or retracted consent. There are different ways that people, that's
certainly what it appears to be. There are two different
(06:36):
levels of this situation as I see it.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
There is the legal level and the moral and ethical level.
And those two things are not always, oftentimes actually, not
entirely the same outcome or the same in terms of alignment.
On the criminal side of things, you have a situation
where somebody initially told law enforcement there was consent and
(07:00):
then later says there wasn't consent. And that is a,
if that is going to be the bar now for
a rape charge, think about what the implications of that are.
This is also uncomfortable whenever people hear this, and people
always immediately, because of how terrible rape is, is really
the most serious crime after murder in most people's minds,
(07:26):
that people say, oh, but now you're going to scare
people from coming forward. Well, you can't have people that
level false allegations intentionally without consequence. We discussed that in
the Duke La Crosse rape case. She lied. They knew
she lied. They let it go. And you also, I think,
can't have a situation where people are able to change
(07:48):
whether or not they had engaged in a consensual act
based upon, in this case it seems, the removal of
an invite to a party weeks later. That is– and,
you know, people are saying, why didn't they bring charges? Clay,
if you're the defense attorney of any of these individuals,
you've got a lot of big cards to play that
(08:09):
are going to be very tough on the accuser here,
and maybe rightfully so. I'll tell you this. If I'm
on a jury and I see what has been presented
so far, I say to myself, I'm sorry. The standard
can't be, I said it was consensual to law enforcement
(08:29):
after the fact, right? Not to a friend scared in
the hallway in the early hours right after it happened.
You're talking to the cops. Here's your chance to say,
they violated me. And you say, no, it was consensual.
The drugs were consensual. The sex was consensual. And then
later on, again, this is based on the facts that
have been presented in evidence, well, not in evidence, but
facts presented publicly, say we didn't do it. Or, you know,
(08:52):
they rather they, you know, didn't get my consent. That's
just a that's an impossible legal standard, I think, to
to take and then think that you're being fair to
the accused. We can get into this other side of this, too.
That all said, this behavior on both ends is grotesque
and demeaning and degrading. And the guys who did this
(09:13):
should be ashamed of themselves. And I think that's all
a part of this as well. You don't do that
to any woman. I don't care if she consents or,
you know, if she consents to it, it's still not
something you should do. You should not engage in that
kind of conduct. But that's separate from the criminal issue.
It's a different thing.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I just I look at this and what we are
seeing is women are arguing we can't be held accountable
for our actions. across all fronts. And some women, some women,
to be clear, because we're going to get calls from
people that, yeah, largely left-wing women. But this is not
(09:53):
a male thing. And again, I think it also translates
into the party's writ large. Republicans in general reject victimization.
You are the individual responsible for your life choices and
individual agency matters. Democrats praise victims and hold them up
(10:18):
as aspirational figures. And so I had some fun with this.
I mean, I tweeted this, but I think it is true.
Sometimes it is important to subtly alter fact patterns to
determine what your principles actually are. And so I tweeted
this out, but just think about it for a moment.
(10:39):
A guy goes to a sorority house. gets drunk, uses drugs,
has multiple threesomes in the sorority house, then decides two
years later, after saying, of course, this is all consensual,
two years later, he files a lawsuit seeking millions of
(11:01):
dollars in damages from the university and from the girls
and from the sorority. The guy would be laughed out
of every courtroom in America. And in fact, the fraternity
probably would want to put a statue to him in
front of the fraternity house. If we are going to
argue men and women are equal, they are under the law.
(11:25):
Why are we creating a situation where a woman can
be a retroactive victim and create an opportunity for herself
to be paid millions of dollars? And if a man
tried the exact same thing, we would all laugh him
out of the court and he would be universally ridiculed online.
I do think if you're going to argue for equality
(11:48):
under the law between the sexes, as most of us would,
when you subtly alter a fact pattern and you consider
it to be ridiculous if a man were to do it,
then why is it not also ridiculous for a woman
to do it? I think that's a fair thing to
work through.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Well, that's also really a transition into a lot of
the discussion around this botched execution in Tennessee. Why was
this woman, and when you read about the nature of
the crime, it's just absolutely heinous and satanic and demonic
in every way, what she did. And they waited and
waited and waited, and now they've apparently botched this after
(12:28):
the Supreme Court didn't come in and stop it. But
people object to a woman being executed. Yeah. No matter
how they just there are a lot of people who
just think you don't execute a woman. And to that,
you'd have to ask, why is the agency of an
adult female and criminal culpability to be treated any differently
(12:50):
than the male? Let me point out 90 something percent
of violent crimes, which are what you're usually going to
be executed for unless you commit high crimes, treason or
something or capital treason.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
But.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, men commit most of the crimes that would get
you on death row. But if a woman does it
and it does happen, Clay, shouldn't that woman also face
the death penalty?
Speaker 1 (13:12):
And that's why Marsha Blackburn has already tweeted, who will
be the next governor of Tennessee, bring back the electric chair.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
The answer is simple. See, I think it's firing squad, personally.
I just... I know this is a macabre debate to have.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Actually, when we come back, we should talk about this
more because the entire purpose of a public execution is
for the execution to be in public, not behind closed doors,
not trying to shield.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
People in many ways. I think the state should have
to do this in a way where people know, where
people see. I think, to me, it's actually much more,
if you're worried about these things and about things being
done out of public view it's much more sinister to
me it's much more something you'd see in the soviet
union where you're in some dark room no one's allowed
to see and they kill you this this is why
public executions were a thing because people were being killed
(14:08):
in prisons outside the scope of law and they wanted
people to be able to see them and also because
the goal of public execution is to make a statement
from the state perspective, whether you agree or disagree with
it in terms of public execution. The goal is to
say the state finds this behavior heinous and believes that
(14:28):
these consequences should be so significant that you no longer
deserve to live. And so we'll talk about this some more, too.
Born on America's darkest day of September 11th, the Tunnel
to Towers Foundation has been helping America's heroes ever since.
Heroes like United States Army Sergeant Mario Nelson. Sergeant Nelson
served with the National Guard and volunteered at Ground Zero
(14:50):
after the 9-11 attacks. Later, Mario enlisted full-time in the
Army and was deployed to Iraq. Mario made the ultimate
sacrifice when he was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade. In
this 25th anniversary year of 9-11, we continue to honor
the cost of service and the enduring legacy of those
who gave everything for our freedom. Mario left behind his wife, Mecca,
and their daughter, Mia. The Tunnel to Towers Foundation... Recognize
(15:12):
the sacrifice of this family by providing Mecca and Mia
with a mortgage-free home. Help even more families like the Nelsons.
Your donation today can make a world of difference in
honoring their service and keeping their memory alive. Donate $ 11
a month or amplify your impact with a car or
land donation. Go to T2T. org. That's T, the number two, T.org.
(15:34):
It's like having your house at the perfect temperature all
the time. Preset Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.
Welcome back in here to Clay and Buck. You know, Clay,
we're talking about his botched execution in Tennessee. You know,
there are, I think, five states that still have firing
(15:54):
squad as an option. And I just think that that,
in every sense, makes the most sense. It's the most efficient. Definitely,
definitely going to get the result that is sought in
an execution. And we certainly can conduct it. It's not,
you know, they have this problem now. It's pentobarbital, I think,
(16:16):
is the substance they use in lethal injections. They can't
find it because no one wants to make it. And
there's all these other problems that come up with it.
So I just, do you agree with me? I know
this is a very, you know, we're not, I understand.
This is a very serious thing. We're not picking food
off of a Chinese menu, but.
I think that if we're going to have the death
(16:36):
penalty in this country, it should just be, the first
option should just be firing squad.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
You get to pick, right? Is that the standard in
most states? Didn't a guy pick the firing squad recently
in South Carolina? I feel like a guy in South
Carolina recently picked the firing squad and people were surprised.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Because, you know, you put yourself in situations, law enforcement,
you could get shot in the line of duty. Military,
you could get shot in situations. I'm saying, you know,
No one's ever like, I'm taking a risk where I
might end up in a gas chamber, really. You know,
that's not a thing. So just to me, it strikes
me that we're already living in a world where the possibility,
you know, where I just think it's the least barbaric.
(17:16):
If you're going to think that all executions are barbaric,
I think a firing squad is the least barbaric version
of it. Well, I just don't know what happens now.
So they weren't.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Able to do the scheduled execution. Then they took her
to a hospital. For those of you who don't know,
Tennessee had a woman that was being– executed and they
had issues with the the drugs that they put in
and this is.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
A huge win for the anti-death penalty crowd huge huge
i mean they i bet money is flowing into all
the ngos and by the way that's a legitimate i
i don't disparage people that oppose the death penalty at
all the catholic church certainly opposes the death penalty i'm
a catholic but i'm just saying this is a huge
win for the people uh or you know huge uh
point in the direction of those who are anti-death penalties.
(18:01):
So that's also a part of the discussion, to be sure.
The results are in a consumer study of cell phone
service companies. Only one company got a perfect five-star rating
across all four categories surveyed, and that's Pure Talk, my
cell phone service provider. Value, coverage, data, and support. Pure
Talk got a five-star review by more than 123,000 people.
It's not easy to do. 100% of Pure Talk's customer
(18:24):
service team is based here in the U.S., making it
very easy to communicate when you switch over to Pure
Talk in as little as 10 minutes via your cell phone.
Their unlimited data plan, along with unlimited calls and text messages,
is just $ 34.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
99.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
If you've got a plan like that with AT & T, Verizon,
or T-Mobile, what are you paying? I bet it's $ 30
or more a month than that. Stop overpaying for subpar service.
Join Pure Talk. Dial pound 250. Say the keywords Clay
and Buck. You'll save 50% off your first month. That's
pound 250. Say our names, Clay and Buck, to make
the switch to Pure Talk today. Welcome back in, Clay
(18:56):
and Buck. Tons of reaction rolling in to both our
discussion about the botched execution in Tennessee and and also
to the Cornell rape case. Should we go to phone lines, Buck,
and get some of these suggestions? You said you want
the firing squad. Marsha Blackburn, who is going to be
(19:16):
the next governor from Tennessee, said she wants to bring
back the electric chair. J.R. in Naples, fire away.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
I was just saying we should just get a tall
tree and a shorter rope and save the money and
continue to reuse the rope.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Go back to hanging. Yeah, thank you for the question.
Thank you for the call. Hanging is like– no, I
understand this. People are going to say, oh, there's a
way you can do it where someone snaps their neck
and it's immediate and essentially I think all consciousness goes
and the person's effectively dead right away. But sometimes that
(19:54):
doesn't happen. And sometimes then you have a slow asphyxiation,
which is not a good way to go. Buck, I'm
going to blow your mind.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Did you know that back in the day when the
French debuted the guillotine during the French Revolution, that when
your head is chopped off, you can still see for
a short period of time and your brain is still
functional because of the blood? So when they hold your
head up. without your body there, you can be conscious
(20:28):
of the fact that that occurred.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Do you know that? Is that true? I know that
the eyes can move and stuff, but I thought that
was like a reflex after, like a chicken with its
head removed.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Well, I guess technically to no one billion percent since
everybody is dead who has their head chopped off. But
the reports are that basically the head continues to live
for a very short period of time after your head
is chopped off.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
I believe it was a doctor who came up with
the guillotine. Well, the idea was that it was humane.
That was a nice way.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
To do one of the best ways, most flawless ways
to go was because it replaced the chopper.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
Right.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Which people would think about that. I actually have a
book that I read, which is a fascinating book. It
was written by I think he's actually a Tennessee based
professor and historian, Clay. I forget the guy's name, but
it's called The Faithful Executioner. And it's about a– gosh,
(21:24):
I read the book a while ago. I think it
was late 16th century German executioner who was paid by the–
it wasn't Bavaria, but something like the municipality of Bavaria
to conduct, by the way, not just executions, but also
torture and execution on behalf of the state– And but
(21:46):
the list of things you could get executed for would
shock people to faking coins. So if you were if
you were messing with with currency, treasury, they would they
would execute you for that. Obviously, witchcraft. And I talked
to you about there's a whole Germany was the the
epicenter of. of which thousands, really over tens of thousands
(22:07):
of women, mostly burned at the stake. By the way,
cutting their head off was considered a... Sorry, guys, this
is a really bleak day, but this is all true.
Cutting their head off was considered the lesser punishment. For
a witch. Because it's rapid. Because it's rapid, exactly.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Which is why you want the best executioner, which I'm
sure this guy, like sometimes you would pick a guy.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
So you would pay him.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Clay, you would tip your executioner in advance so that
he would make it quick and easy for you and
not kind of miss a little bit. That is a
real thing.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Sometimes they had to do it two, three, or four
times to get the head off.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
So you really wanted that executioner to be good at
his job, and there was even a, you know, hey, man, please,
here you go. Here's a little extra. Make it quick
and painless. So that was a— and by the way, they
call it the faithful execution. This guy had a family.
He was a Christian. He was, you know, this was
his job, was to go around and lob people's heads off.
(23:03):
It was a real thing. Anyway. It was also kind
of considered, though, even then a well, the book, The
Faithful Executioner. Go get it. You guys, those are interested.
It's good.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
What are the calls we got? Mary in Connecticut. Mary,
you want to weigh in on the Cornell situation?
Speaker 5 (23:20):
I do. Hey, I don't know how you can make
any kind of viable argument in defense of these boys.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Well, hold on. Do you mean morally or do you
mean legally? Because there's a difference.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
That's a fine line in this particular case.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
I don't think so. Hold on.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Let me explain.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Hold on.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Well, let me explain why I think that's a significant difference.
You can say, I don't agree with what the boys did.
The men in the fraternity house, like engaging in group
sex with a girl, all those things.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
But there's a difference between I disagree with your behavior
and And you belong in prison potentially for decades. Right. Like,
I think there's a zero percent chance that these guys
belong in prison for decades legally. I think you can
make a strong argument morally. They made a poor choice.
But to me, there is a very big difference between
(24:12):
what is moral and what is legal. And the criminal
code is directly focused on what is and is not illegal.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Let's hear from Mary, though. So what's your point on this?
Go ahead. You've heard kind of Clay. Clay and I
agree on this, but I'll let you talk it out.
Go for it.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
Okay. He's talking like a lawyer. I get that. I
think it's a fine line.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
He is a lawyer.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
These boys will not go to jail. These boys should
be punished. I think it's less about the girl. The girl,
these are not grownups. These are children in my book.
I have sons. I said to my sons, if you
came upon this, you better do something.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Get the girl out of there.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
Call the cops. I don't know enough about the law.
You find somebody drunk, incapacitated, a young woman, so you
get to jump on her?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Everybody was drinking. Everybody was doing drugs. She asked the
boys to do drugs off of her naked body, and
she did drugs off of their naked body.
Speaker 5 (25:07):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
She said she consented to— To me, that does not matter.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
That does not matter. That is not the point. The
point is— Okay, wait.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Hold on.
Speaker 5 (25:14):
This is a young woman— So why?
Speaker 4 (25:17):
Hold on.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
I mean, to me, that's a girl.
Speaker 5 (25:19):
Is compliant, but it doesn't give these seven guys to
put the call out and all this.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
OK, Mary, let me flip it. Let me flip it.
A boy is in the sorority house. Girls are saying
do drugs off of me.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
And he has. sex with multiple sorority girls. He is
doing drugs. He's drunk.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
And then two years later, he sues and says, they
raped me. They took advantage of me. They were sending
messages saying, hey, there's a guy here. He's sleeping with anybody.
Would you support that guy filing that lawsuit?
Speaker 5 (25:56):
A hundred percent. It comes down to humanity. you know
we expect people to be human we don't expect people
to be animals and again the whole do break case
my boys are very young and i did say to
them people that you shouldn't say this to your sons
when they bring in the strippers get out of the
party and someone needs help you get them out of
the party but by.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
The way you're right you're right about your advice man
thank you for calling in uh we appreciate you appreciate
you sharing your opinion mary in connecticut um Clay, she's
right morally and ethically. And this is the thing. We
agree with her on that. I mean, I agree that,
you know, this is this is a phrase that sometimes
in certain contexts, like in pop culture, they're ridicule. Like
the nerdy guy will be the strip club. But this
(26:36):
is somebody's daughter. No, it's true. It is somebody's daughter.
And this was somebody's daughter. And these guys engage in
this should have thought, you know, it wasn't one guy
with one girl. And, you know, maybe they had feelings
for each other. They did some drugs and things got,
you know. And you can discuss how you feel about
the ethics of that situation. There is no situation in
which seven guys having sex with a girl who's doing
(26:57):
drugs is ethical, moral, decent, upright, and something that shouldn't
be condemned.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (27:04):
In my opinion. I mean, again, a moral question, but
there's no world in which, oh, seven guys have sex
with one girl. That's okay. It's not okay. But to
Clay's point, and to my point, it's not.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
remotely enjoyable like that seems weird to me to want
to like just personally right like it seems very strange
to me but.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah i mean i that that also i think is
true but that is different than it is criminal and
and to the point about oh but she had done
some drugs she chose to do drugs if a woman
can come around after saying first of all that she
considered the drugs and she initially considered the sex after
the fact not even during after the fact what you've
done is you've opened up legally the ability to of
(27:46):
anyone who is angry and wants to even the score
with a man. And this does happen. I'm not saying
it is all the time, but we've cited some of
the we cited the Duke lacrosse case. We have cited
times where this has been the factual reality. You leave
the door wide open for somebody to come back and say, well, actually,
I was raped. And now that person has to be arrested, prosecuted,
(28:07):
their life ruined, and maybe they spend a really long
time in prison. And that's what that's the law cannot
do that and be considered just. I agree with all that.
I would also add this. Sometimes people say I'm controversial
for this opinion. Go figure. We should do away with
rape shield laws. You should not be able to accuse someone.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Of rape and not have your name public and everybody
that you accuse is immediately made public. I just don't
agree with it. I think it's antiquated. Look, if someone
rapes you, They should go to prison for the rest
of their lives. And you being a victim of rape,
it isn't 1940 anymore. You're not scarlet lettered like you
(28:54):
might have been 100 years ago. But I also think
that the rape shield laws, which were initially put in
place because there was concern women wouldn't come forward. I
think in this day and age, they actually encourage people
to sometimes file cases just to get the guys in trouble.
(29:16):
Because once your name goes out, Buck, here's the truth.
Every guy that has ever been accused of rape, his name,
when you Google it, for the rest of their life,
it's there, even if they didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
And look, there's a difference.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
I respect Mary's call, but to me, there's a big
difference between morally, is this right? Did you sin? Are
you a just person? And do you deserve to spend
decades in prison? That's a huge difference to me. I
would say in this case, I would expand that out.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I agree. But I would expand it to is it
is it moral can be for some people? Well, you know,
they're they're they're not married. And this is, you know,
this is fornication. And that's that's a moral argument. This
goes beyond that to this is grotesque, right? You might
think two individuals getting really drunk who don't know each
other having sex is a bad idea and you think
(30:07):
it's unethical. That's one level, right? Maybe wherever on the scale.
Seven guys having sex with a girl who is clearly
intoxicated and also the way they were texting about her.
I mean, the level of sort of. of lack of
human compassion and disrespect for another human being in this.
I know people, just to be clear, there are some
sort of ultra-feminist leftist types who might say, the ones
(30:30):
who say that sex work is real work, they might say, no,
this is actually fine. You will have that too, meaning
that if she consented, there's nothing wrong with what she did.
I do not take that position. Clay does not take
that position. But ethically, they say, if she consented. But
on the legal part of this, we have to have
a standard That is fair to both the accused and
the accuser for how you can adjudicate this. And to me, Clay,
(30:56):
I have seen nothing based on, you know, I shouldn't
say I've seen nothing. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence
so far supports the prosecution of the prosecutor's decision not
to charge this case. Look, yes, I agree. And I
would also add this.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
I also think this ties in with the Trump allegations
that were brought by E.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Jean Carroll.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
This is also why statutes of limitation should matter in
a big way. It's almost impossible to defend yourself from
something that happened years ago.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
You were at a fraternity party 30 years ago. There
was a girl who was there. You haven't seen her since,
but she decides that you're a risk to abortion because
you might be on the Supreme Court. And she says
you raped her. How do you disprove that? It's impossible.
How do you defend yourself against that? That is what
(31:50):
they did to Brett Kavanaugh. By the way, it was
even worse than that because he wasn't even at a
fraternity party. I don't think she was even in the
same house as him, but that's a separate issue. Yes,
but also this is why statutes of limitation exist. Sometimes,
I know it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
People before us were actually kind of smart in the
way that they set up rules. And tearing them down
willy-nilly because somebody's upset on social media is not the
way to bring justice. By the way, we've got a
ton of people who still want to weigh in on
the executions as well.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
A lot of good calls. I'm sure we're going to
get real quickly. That book, the faithful executioner of Vanderbilt
university historian. Oh, there you go. I knew it was,
I remember it was Tennessee, but yeah, he was actually
the guy I'll give him a shout out. Cause I
enjoyed the, I enjoyed the book. Um, Now, of course,
I just made it disappear. I'll tell you later, but
it's a good book.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
It is kind of crazy, isn't it, that you would
tip your executioner so that you would hope that he
would be great at chopping your head off as quickly
and without.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Joel Harrington, Joel Harrington of Vanderbilt University 2013 book. Anyway,
there you go. Joel Harrington. All right. Look, I am.
I've got to pick for you Thursday, Thursday night football.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I am on. believe it or not, the Browns, who
are hosting the Steelers tonight. And I'm also on the over.
Both teams have been scoring a little bit more maybe
than you would anticipate. This will be up in the
tab with popular bets at hardrock.bet.com. And if you are
(33:24):
right now in the state of Ohio where this game
is going to be played, or if you're in Tennessee, Virginia,
New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Arizona, and also the
state of Florida, you can get $ 100 when you play $ 5. Again,
I'm on the Browns, and I am on the over
(33:44):
in tonight's game. And you can go play along with me.
Bet $ 5, get $ 100 in bonus bets. This is a
fantastic company with great relationships all over the state of Florida.
one of our nation's best states, if I might say
so myself. Hardrock.bet.clay. That is Hardrock.bet.clay. Get hooked up today.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
$ 100 when you bet $ 5. Hardrock.bet.clay. Smart, fun, sane commentary.
The Clay and Buck Show. Stick around.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
More is coming up just the way you'd expect it.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
How about that? Welcome back into Clay and Buck. A
lot of talkbacks, a lot of thoughts on all this.
Let's get to it. Henry from Orlando, Florida. See on
our talkback list. Listen on WFLA, the great station. Play it.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
You guys are talking about what song really gets you
pumped up and ready to go into the gym or.
maybe getting ready to play a game or whatever. I
got to tell you, there's this little known punk rock
band called Lit, my own worst enemy.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
Oh, that's right.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
It's your theme song. I got to tell you, since 99,
that does it for me. I can't wait to get
to the gym after I hear that.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
Henry, solid, solid talk back, my friend. High five. I
do think that our theme song, I think Lit is
a great 90s anthem that guitar riff that's why we
chose it really this was this was clay's brainchild full
credit to him to go to those guys who are
also ideologically uh patriotic let's just put it that way
they're patriots um i mean i would put it up
(35:22):
there clay also with uh from the 90s hero by
foo fighters you know there's a few songs that are
kind of iconic 90s hype-up songs, but I'm really curious
what your son's, like, his generation with their hype-up song is.
It will be something that you've never heard of because
he likes, again, a lot of rappers.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
I've mentioned this before. I do think you would like
Juice WRLD, who's unfortunately passed.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I'm unfamiliar. I'm unfamiliar. I would figure that you probably
wouldn't know Mr.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
WRLD's work. This is a good take from Hans. Hans
in Florida. Hans, what you got for us?
Speaker 4 (35:58):
Yeah, hey, guys. How you doing? How you doing? Great. Good.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
You got about 45 seconds, Doc, so go fast. All right.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
I'm a retired anesthesiologist. That was a screw-up. Should never
have happened. If I were to choose a lethal way
to die, it would be by injection. As an anesthesiologist,
having put over 30,000 people, quote, asleep, what they did
is they had a bad IV. Almost no question of that. malpractice.
And there's a way to test that before you get going.
(36:26):
Should have never happened.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
Bad IV, by the way, Doc, that would mean that
you just don't have it correctly into the vein. So
the substance is not getting into the vein. Is that accurate?
Speaker 4 (36:37):
Right. So they thought they had it in the vein.
It's called it's infiltrating. So it's going into subcutaneous tissue. Now,
the woman said, I feel it burning.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
That was great. We had to go to break.
Welcome back in our number two play and buck. We
have got a lot that we can get into and
I am fired up. Get your popcorn because I'm about
to dive into this Cornell story. So for those of
you who don't know. A couple of years ago, and
(00:20):
this story has taken over everywhere on the internet. It
has been covered a lot by quote-unquote mainstream media. And
I'm just going to give you a ballpark, rough approximation
of what happened. This is not intended to be incredibly detailed.
And then I'm going to dive into some of the
(00:41):
facts and some of the evidence that is out there
specifically to tell you.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Why this is, in my opinion....
Speaker 1 (00:50):
A story that has almost no legitimacy in terms of
the way that it's being covered.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
So a couple of.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Years ago, a sorority girl at Cornell University went to
a fraternity house and engaged in a lot of different
sexual activity, including multiple threesomes. There was lots of drug use.
There was drug use being done off body parts. There
(01:20):
was a lot of alcohol consumed. You can go read
all of those details if you want. In the immediate
aftermath of this incident, the girl said that everything was
consensual and that she had agreed to everything. And there's
contemporary evidence of all of this. As word spread of
(01:44):
what had taken place and as the boys talked, then
her appreciation for the choices that she had made began
to decline. In other words, she began to experience regret,
and there is evidence of this. And now this, basically
(02:04):
in the last week, she has filed a lawsuit now
saying that she was raped, that Cornell covered it all up,
and that the $ 7 million Young men who were involved
in this story, in this case, all raped her and
they have not been punished severely enough. OK, that I think, Buck,
(02:27):
would you sign off the cosign that that's a pretty good,
rough approximation of this story without. OK, here is as
I was doing my research and reading more and more
about this case. Here are some of the details. This
is from The New York Times. She said they have
not named the girl, but of course, all seven of
(02:50):
the boys, the men, the girl, the woman, all seven
of the boys involved in this case, their names are
out on the Internet. They are being savaged. Here are
some of the texts. According to the roommate, if anyone
asks about this, say it didn't happen. The roommate was concerned,
(03:11):
and as the days went on, The roommate says, I
think she came to realize that it was something bad
and that she didn't really enjoy her time there. She
texted that she was upset. There are text messages that
the boys talked about what went on and that she
(03:31):
was upset. And then, Buck, and I think this was
the precipitating factor. The fraternity was getting ready for a
Halloween party and text messages show that initially they said,
you are welcome to come to our Halloween party.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
And then after the.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Story was growing and there was more attention surrounding it,
they decided that. They were not going to come that
she shouldn't come to the party. And she was disinvited
by the fraternity president who was not involved in this incident,
who said that it was not a good decision and
(04:13):
that she come. She then texted one of the guys
and said, I knew this was going to happen. The
woman will always get the short end of the stick.
Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses. A
week later, she decided that she had been sexually assaulted
(04:36):
and she texted the guy and said nothing was consensual.
And she said that four days later, She went to
the emergency room, this is weeks later, and said she
wanted a rape kit. Okay, Buck, this to me actually
ties in some with the Lindsay Clancy story because, and
(04:58):
you say, how's this? In both of those cases, we
are being told that women are not responsible for their actions.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
A woman who murdered.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
All three of her kids, oh, she was postpartum, her
hormones were acting up. she wasn't in the right mental state.
A woman who engaged in multiple sexual acts said they
were all consensual for weeks and then changed her mind
when she got disinvited to a Halloween party and others
(05:30):
started talking about the choices that she had made, then
retroactively decides, I didn't consent, this was rape, and now
she's suing trying to get millions of dollars out of
the university, out of the fraternity guys that were involved here.
And everybody is trying to say, oh, she's a victim.
(05:52):
Cornell covered up this rape. The university's responsible. And they
are trying to turn this into a story where, again,
Cornell is the bad guy and these guys all deserve
to go to prison. Buck, do you disagree with any
of that analysis? Or do you basically co-sign? Is there
(06:14):
anything else you would say differently? I wanted to lay
all this out. Again, the evidence is out there. There's
lots of text messages. She said she was fine with
it until she suddenly wasn't. This is a retroactive rape charge. Yeah,
or retracted consent. There are different ways that people, that's
certainly what it appears to be. There are two different
(06:36):
levels of this situation as I see it.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
There is the legal level and the moral and ethical level.
And those two things are not always, oftentimes actually, not
entirely the same outcome or the same in terms of alignment.
On the criminal side of things, you have a situation
where somebody initially told law enforcement there was consent and
(07:00):
then later says there wasn't consent. And that is a,
if that is going to be the bar now for
a rape charge, think about what the implications of that are.
This is also uncomfortable whenever people hear this, and people
always immediately, because of how terrible rape is, is really
the most serious crime after murder in most people's minds,
(07:26):
that people say, oh, but now you're going to scare
people from coming forward. Well, you can't have people that
level false allegations intentionally without consequence. We discussed that in
the Duke La Crosse rape case. She lied. They knew
she lied. They let it go. And you also, I think,
can't have a situation where people are able to change
(07:48):
whether or not they had engaged in a consensual act
based upon, in this case it seems, the removal of
an invite to a party weeks later. That is– and,
you know, people are saying, why didn't they bring charges? Clay,
if you're the defense attorney of any of these individuals,
you've got a lot of big cards to play that
(08:09):
are going to be very tough on the accuser here,
and maybe rightfully so. I'll tell you this. If I'm
on a jury and I see what has been presented
so far, I say to myself, I'm sorry. The standard
can't be, I said it was consensual to law enforcement
(08:29):
after the fact, right? Not to a friend scared in
the hallway in the early hours right after it happened.
You're talking to the cops. Here's your chance to say,
they violated me. And you say, no, it was consensual.
The drugs were consensual. The sex was consensual. And then
later on, again, this is based on the facts that
have been presented in evidence, well, not in evidence, but
facts presented publicly, say we didn't do it. Or, you know,
(08:52):
they rather they, you know, didn't get my consent. That's
just a that's an impossible legal standard, I think, to
to take and then think that you're being fair to
the accused. We can get into this other side of this, too.
That all said, this behavior on both ends is grotesque
and demeaning and degrading. And the guys who did this
(09:13):
should be ashamed of themselves. And I think that's all
a part of this as well. You don't do that
to any woman. I don't care if she consents or,
you know, if she consents to it, it's still not
something you should do. You should not engage in that
kind of conduct. But that's separate from the criminal issue.
It's a different thing.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I just I look at this and what we are
seeing is women are arguing we can't be held accountable
for our actions. across all fronts. And some women, some women,
to be clear, because we're going to get calls from
people that, yeah, largely left-wing women. But this is not
(09:53):
a male thing. And again, I think it also translates
into the party's writ large. Republicans in general reject victimization.
You are the individual responsible for your life choices and
individual agency matters. Democrats praise victims and hold them up
(10:18):
as aspirational figures. And so I had some fun with this.
I mean, I tweeted this, but I think it is true.
Sometimes it is important to subtly alter fact patterns to
determine what your principles actually are. And so I tweeted
this out, but just think about it for a moment.
(10:39):
A guy goes to a sorority house. gets drunk, uses drugs,
has multiple threesomes in the sorority house, then decides two
years later, after saying, of course, this is all consensual,
two years later, he files a lawsuit seeking millions of
(11:01):
dollars in damages from the university and from the girls
and from the sorority. The guy would be laughed out
of every courtroom in America. And in fact, the fraternity
probably would want to put a statue to him in
front of the fraternity house. If we are going to
argue men and women are equal, they are under the law.
(11:25):
Why are we creating a situation where a woman can
be a retroactive victim and create an opportunity for herself
to be paid millions of dollars? And if a man
tried the exact same thing, we would all laugh him
out of the court and he would be universally ridiculed online.
I do think if you're going to argue for equality
(11:48):
under the law between the sexes, as most of us would,
when you subtly alter a fact pattern and you consider
it to be ridiculous if a man were to do it,
then why is it not also ridiculous for a woman
to do it? I think that's a fair thing to
work through.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Well, that's also really a transition into a lot of
the discussion around this botched execution in Tennessee. Why was
this woman, and when you read about the nature of
the crime, it's just absolutely heinous and satanic and demonic
in every way, what she did. And they waited and
waited and waited, and now they've apparently botched this after
(12:28):
the Supreme Court didn't come in and stop it. But
people object to a woman being executed. Yeah. No matter
how they just there are a lot of people who
just think you don't execute a woman. And to that,
you'd have to ask, why is the agency of an
adult female and criminal culpability to be treated any differently
(12:50):
than the male? Let me point out 90 something percent
of violent crimes, which are what you're usually going to
be executed for unless you commit high crimes, treason or
something or capital treason.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
But.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, men commit most of the crimes that would get
you on death row. But if a woman does it
and it does happen, Clay, shouldn't that woman also face
the death penalty?
Speaker 1 (13:12):
And that's why Marsha Blackburn has already tweeted, who will
be the next governor of Tennessee, bring back the electric chair.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
The answer is simple. See, I think it's firing squad, personally.
I just... I know this is a macabre debate to have.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Actually, when we come back, we should talk about this
more because the entire purpose of a public execution is
for the execution to be in public, not behind closed doors,
not trying to shield.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
People in many ways. I think the state should have
to do this in a way where people know, where
people see. I think, to me, it's actually much more,
if you're worried about these things and about things being
done out of public view it's much more sinister to
me it's much more something you'd see in the soviet
union where you're in some dark room no one's allowed
to see and they kill you this this is why
public executions were a thing because people were being killed
(14:08):
in prisons outside the scope of law and they wanted
people to be able to see them and also because
the goal of public execution is to make a statement
from the state perspective, whether you agree or disagree with
it in terms of public execution. The goal is to
say the state finds this behavior heinous and believes that
(14:28):
these consequences should be so significant that you no longer
deserve to live. And so we'll talk about this some more, too.
Born on America's darkest day of September 11th, the Tunnel
to Towers Foundation has been helping America's heroes ever since.
Heroes like United States Army Sergeant Mario Nelson. Sergeant Nelson
served with the National Guard and volunteered at Ground Zero
(14:50):
after the 9-11 attacks. Later, Mario enlisted full-time in the
Army and was deployed to Iraq. Mario made the ultimate
sacrifice when he was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade. In
this 25th anniversary year of 9-11, we continue to honor
the cost of service and the enduring legacy of those
who gave everything for our freedom. Mario left behind his wife, Mecca,
and their daughter, Mia. The Tunnel to Towers Foundation... Recognize
(15:12):
the sacrifice of this family by providing Mecca and Mia
with a mortgage-free home. Help even more families like the Nelsons.
Your donation today can make a world of difference in
honoring their service and keeping their memory alive. Donate $ 11
a month or amplify your impact with a car or
land donation. Go to T2T. org. That's T, the number two, T.org.
(15:34):
It's like having your house at the perfect temperature all
the time. Preset Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.
Welcome back in here to Clay and Buck. You know, Clay,
we're talking about his botched execution in Tennessee. You know,
there are, I think, five states that still have firing
(15:54):
squad as an option. And I just think that that,
in every sense, makes the most sense. It's the most efficient. Definitely,
definitely going to get the result that is sought in
an execution. And we certainly can conduct it. It's not,
you know, they have this problem now. It's pentobarbital, I think,
(16:16):
is the substance they use in lethal injections. They can't
find it because no one wants to make it. And
there's all these other problems that come up with it.
So I just, do you agree with me? I know
this is a very, you know, we're not, I understand.
This is a very serious thing. We're not picking food
off of a Chinese menu, but.
I think that if we're going to have the death
(16:36):
penalty in this country, it should just be, the first
option should just be firing squad.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
You get to pick, right? Is that the standard in
most states? Didn't a guy pick the firing squad recently
in South Carolina? I feel like a guy in South
Carolina recently picked the firing squad and people were surprised.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Because, you know, you put yourself in situations, law enforcement,
you could get shot in the line of duty. Military,
you could get shot in situations. I'm saying, you know,
No one's ever like, I'm taking a risk where I
might end up in a gas chamber, really. You know,
that's not a thing. So just to me, it strikes
me that we're already living in a world where the possibility,
you know, where I just think it's the least barbaric.
(17:16):
If you're going to think that all executions are barbaric,
I think a firing squad is the least barbaric version
of it. Well, I just don't know what happens now.
So they weren't.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Able to do the scheduled execution. Then they took her
to a hospital. For those of you who don't know,
Tennessee had a woman that was being– executed and they
had issues with the the drugs that they put in
and this is.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
A huge win for the anti-death penalty crowd huge huge
i mean they i bet money is flowing into all
the ngos and by the way that's a legitimate i
i don't disparage people that oppose the death penalty at
all the catholic church certainly opposes the death penalty i'm
a catholic but i'm just saying this is a huge
win for the people uh or you know huge uh
point in the direction of those who are anti-death penalties.
(18:01):
So that's also a part of the discussion, to be sure.
The results are in a consumer study of cell phone
service companies. Only one company got a perfect five-star rating
across all four categories surveyed, and that's Pure Talk, my
cell phone service provider. Value, coverage, data, and support. Pure
Talk got a five-star review by more than 123,000 people.
It's not easy to do. 100% of Pure Talk's customer
(18:24):
service team is based here in the U.S., making it
very easy to communicate when you switch over to Pure
Talk in as little as 10 minutes via your cell phone.
Their unlimited data plan, along with unlimited calls and text messages,
is just $ 34.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
99.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
If you've got a plan like that with AT & T, Verizon,
or T-Mobile, what are you paying? I bet it's $ 30
or more a month than that. Stop overpaying for subpar service.
Join Pure Talk. Dial pound 250. Say the keywords Clay
and Buck. You'll save 50% off your first month. That's
pound 250. Say our names, Clay and Buck, to make
the switch to Pure Talk today. Welcome back in, Clay
(18:56):
and Buck. Tons of reaction rolling in to both our
discussion about the botched execution in Tennessee and and also
to the Cornell rape case. Should we go to phone lines, Buck,
and get some of these suggestions? You said you want
the firing squad. Marsha Blackburn, who is going to be
(19:16):
the next governor from Tennessee, said she wants to bring
back the electric chair. J.R. in Naples, fire away.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
I was just saying we should just get a tall
tree and a shorter rope and save the money and
continue to reuse the rope.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Go back to hanging. Yeah, thank you for the question.
Thank you for the call. Hanging is like– no, I
understand this. People are going to say, oh, there's a
way you can do it where someone snaps their neck
and it's immediate and essentially I think all consciousness goes
and the person's effectively dead right away. But sometimes that
(19:54):
doesn't happen. And sometimes then you have a slow asphyxiation,
which is not a good way to go. Buck, I'm
going to blow your mind.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Did you know that back in the day when the
French debuted the guillotine during the French Revolution, that when
your head is chopped off, you can still see for
a short period of time and your brain is still
functional because of the blood? So when they hold your
head up. without your body there, you can be conscious
(20:28):
of the fact that that occurred.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Do you know that? Is that true? I know that
the eyes can move and stuff, but I thought that
was like a reflex after, like a chicken with its
head removed.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Well, I guess technically to no one billion percent since
everybody is dead who has their head chopped off. But
the reports are that basically the head continues to live
for a very short period of time after your head
is chopped off.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
I believe it was a doctor who came up with
the guillotine. Well, the idea was that it was humane.
That was a nice way.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
To do one of the best ways, most flawless ways
to go was because it replaced the chopper.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
Right.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Which people would think about that. I actually have a
book that I read, which is a fascinating book. It
was written by I think he's actually a Tennessee based
professor and historian, Clay. I forget the guy's name, but
it's called The Faithful Executioner. And it's about a– gosh,
(21:24):
I read the book a while ago. I think it
was late 16th century German executioner who was paid by the–
it wasn't Bavaria, but something like the municipality of Bavaria
to conduct, by the way, not just executions, but also
torture and execution on behalf of the state– And but
(21:46):
the list of things you could get executed for would
shock people to faking coins. So if you were if
you were messing with with currency, treasury, they would they
would execute you for that. Obviously, witchcraft. And I talked
to you about there's a whole Germany was the the
epicenter of. of which thousands, really over tens of thousands
(22:07):
of women, mostly burned at the stake. By the way,
cutting their head off was considered a... Sorry, guys, this
is a really bleak day, but this is all true.
Cutting their head off was considered the lesser punishment. For
a witch. Because it's rapid. Because it's rapid, exactly.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Which is why you want the best executioner, which I'm
sure this guy, like sometimes you would pick a guy.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
So you would pay him.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Clay, you would tip your executioner in advance so that
he would make it quick and easy for you and
not kind of miss a little bit. That is a
real thing.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Sometimes they had to do it two, three, or four
times to get the head off.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
So you really wanted that executioner to be good at
his job, and there was even a, you know, hey, man, please,
here you go. Here's a little extra. Make it quick
and painless. So that was a— and by the way, they
call it the faithful execution. This guy had a family.
He was a Christian. He was, you know, this was
his job, was to go around and lob people's heads off.
(23:03):
It was a real thing. Anyway. It was also kind
of considered, though, even then a well, the book, The
Faithful Executioner. Go get it. You guys, those are interested.
It's good.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
What are the calls we got? Mary in Connecticut. Mary,
you want to weigh in on the Cornell situation?
Speaker 5 (23:20):
I do. Hey, I don't know how you can make
any kind of viable argument in defense of these boys.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Well, hold on. Do you mean morally or do you
mean legally? Because there's a difference.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
That's a fine line in this particular case.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
I don't think so. Hold on.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Let me explain.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Hold on.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Well, let me explain why I think that's a significant difference.
You can say, I don't agree with what the boys did.
The men in the fraternity house, like engaging in group
sex with a girl, all those things.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
But there's a difference between I disagree with your behavior
and And you belong in prison potentially for decades. Right. Like,
I think there's a zero percent chance that these guys
belong in prison for decades legally. I think you can
make a strong argument morally. They made a poor choice.
But to me, there is a very big difference between
(24:12):
what is moral and what is legal. And the criminal
code is directly focused on what is and is not illegal.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Let's hear from Mary, though. So what's your point on this?
Go ahead. You've heard kind of Clay. Clay and I
agree on this, but I'll let you talk it out.
Go for it.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
Okay. He's talking like a lawyer. I get that. I
think it's a fine line.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
He is a lawyer.
Speaker 5 (24:32):
These boys will not go to jail. These boys should
be punished. I think it's less about the girl. The girl,
these are not grownups. These are children in my book.
I have sons. I said to my sons, if you
came upon this, you better do something.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Get the girl out of there.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
Call the cops. I don't know enough about the law.
You find somebody drunk, incapacitated, a young woman, so you
get to jump on her?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Everybody was drinking. Everybody was doing drugs. She asked the
boys to do drugs off of her naked body, and
she did drugs off of their naked body.
Speaker 5 (25:07):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
She said she consented to— To me, that does not matter.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
That does not matter. That is not the point. The
point is— Okay, wait.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Hold on.
Speaker 5 (25:14):
This is a young woman— So why?
Speaker 4 (25:17):
Hold on.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
I mean, to me, that's a girl.
Speaker 5 (25:19):
Is compliant, but it doesn't give these seven guys to
put the call out and all this.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
OK, Mary, let me flip it. Let me flip it.
A boy is in the sorority house. Girls are saying
do drugs off of me.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
And he has. sex with multiple sorority girls. He is
doing drugs. He's drunk.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
And then two years later, he sues and says, they
raped me. They took advantage of me. They were sending
messages saying, hey, there's a guy here. He's sleeping with anybody.
Would you support that guy filing that lawsuit?
Speaker 5 (25:56):
A hundred percent. It comes down to humanity. you know
we expect people to be human we don't expect people
to be animals and again the whole do break case
my boys are very young and i did say to
them people that you shouldn't say this to your sons
when they bring in the strippers get out of the
party and someone needs help you get them out of
the party but by.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
The way you're right you're right about your advice man
thank you for calling in uh we appreciate you appreciate
you sharing your opinion mary in connecticut um Clay, she's
right morally and ethically. And this is the thing. We
agree with her on that. I mean, I agree that,
you know, this is this is a phrase that sometimes
in certain contexts, like in pop culture, they're ridicule. Like
the nerdy guy will be the strip club. But this
(26:36):
is somebody's daughter. No, it's true. It is somebody's daughter.
And this was somebody's daughter. And these guys engage in
this should have thought, you know, it wasn't one guy
with one girl. And, you know, maybe they had feelings
for each other. They did some drugs and things got,
you know. And you can discuss how you feel about
the ethics of that situation. There is no situation in
which seven guys having sex with a girl who's doing
(26:57):
drugs is ethical, moral, decent, upright, and something that shouldn't
be condemned.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (27:04):
In my opinion. I mean, again, a moral question, but
there's no world in which, oh, seven guys have sex
with one girl. That's okay. It's not okay. But to
Clay's point, and to my point, it's not.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
remotely enjoyable like that seems weird to me to want
to like just personally right like it seems very strange
to me but.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah i mean i that that also i think is
true but that is different than it is criminal and
and to the point about oh but she had done
some drugs she chose to do drugs if a woman
can come around after saying first of all that she
considered the drugs and she initially considered the sex after
the fact not even during after the fact what you've
done is you've opened up legally the ability to of
(27:46):
anyone who is angry and wants to even the score
with a man. And this does happen. I'm not saying
it is all the time, but we've cited some of
the we cited the Duke lacrosse case. We have cited
times where this has been the factual reality. You leave
the door wide open for somebody to come back and say, well, actually,
I was raped. And now that person has to be arrested, prosecuted,
(28:07):
their life ruined, and maybe they spend a really long
time in prison. And that's what that's the law cannot
do that and be considered just. I agree with all that.
I would also add this. Sometimes people say I'm controversial
for this opinion. Go figure. We should do away with
rape shield laws. You should not be able to accuse someone.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Of rape and not have your name public and everybody
that you accuse is immediately made public. I just don't
agree with it. I think it's antiquated. Look, if someone
rapes you, They should go to prison for the rest
of their lives. And you being a victim of rape,
it isn't 1940 anymore. You're not scarlet lettered like you
(28:54):
might have been 100 years ago. But I also think
that the rape shield laws, which were initially put in
place because there was concern women wouldn't come forward. I
think in this day and age, they actually encourage people
to sometimes file cases just to get the guys in trouble.
(29:16):
Because once your name goes out, Buck, here's the truth.
Every guy that has ever been accused of rape, his name,
when you Google it, for the rest of their life,
it's there, even if they didn't do it.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
And look, there's a difference.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
I respect Mary's call, but to me, there's a big
difference between morally, is this right? Did you sin? Are
you a just person? And do you deserve to spend
decades in prison? That's a huge difference to me. I
would say in this case, I would expand that out.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I agree. But I would expand it to is it
is it moral can be for some people? Well, you know,
they're they're they're not married. And this is, you know,
this is fornication. And that's that's a moral argument. This
goes beyond that to this is grotesque, right? You might
think two individuals getting really drunk who don't know each
other having sex is a bad idea and you think
(30:07):
it's unethical. That's one level, right? Maybe wherever on the scale.
Seven guys having sex with a girl who is clearly
intoxicated and also the way they were texting about her.
I mean, the level of sort of. of lack of
human compassion and disrespect for another human being in this.
I know people, just to be clear, there are some
sort of ultra-feminist leftist types who might say, the ones
(30:30):
who say that sex work is real work, they might say, no,
this is actually fine. You will have that too, meaning
that if she consented, there's nothing wrong with what she did.
I do not take that position. Clay does not take
that position. But ethically, they say, if she consented. But
on the legal part of this, we have to have
a standard That is fair to both the accused and
the accuser for how you can adjudicate this. And to me, Clay,
(30:56):
I have seen nothing based on, you know, I shouldn't
say I've seen nothing. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence
so far supports the prosecution of the prosecutor's decision not
to charge this case. Look, yes, I agree. And I
would also add this.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
I also think this ties in with the Trump allegations
that were brought by E.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Jean Carroll.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
This is also why statutes of limitation should matter in
a big way. It's almost impossible to defend yourself from
something that happened years ago.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
You were at a fraternity party 30 years ago. There
was a girl who was there. You haven't seen her since,
but she decides that you're a risk to abortion because
you might be on the Supreme Court. And she says
you raped her. How do you disprove that? It's impossible.
How do you defend yourself against that? That is what
(31:50):
they did to Brett Kavanaugh. By the way, it was
even worse than that because he wasn't even at a
fraternity party. I don't think she was even in the
same house as him, but that's a separate issue. Yes,
but also this is why statutes of limitation exist. Sometimes,
I know it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
People before us were actually kind of smart in the
way that they set up rules. And tearing them down
willy-nilly because somebody's upset on social media is not the
way to bring justice. By the way, we've got a
ton of people who still want to weigh in on
the executions as well.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
A lot of good calls. I'm sure we're going to
get real quickly. That book, the faithful executioner of Vanderbilt
university historian. Oh, there you go. I knew it was,
I remember it was Tennessee, but yeah, he was actually
the guy I'll give him a shout out. Cause I
enjoyed the, I enjoyed the book. Um, Now, of course,
I just made it disappear. I'll tell you later, but
it's a good book.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
It is kind of crazy, isn't it, that you would
tip your executioner so that you would hope that he
would be great at chopping your head off as quickly
and without.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Joel Harrington, Joel Harrington of Vanderbilt University 2013 book. Anyway,
there you go. Joel Harrington. All right. Look, I am.
I've got to pick for you Thursday, Thursday night football.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I am on. believe it or not, the Browns, who
are hosting the Steelers tonight. And I'm also on the over.
Both teams have been scoring a little bit more maybe
than you would anticipate. This will be up in the
tab with popular bets at hardrock.bet.com. And if you are
(33:24):
right now in the state of Ohio where this game
is going to be played, or if you're in Tennessee, Virginia,
New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Arizona, and also the
state of Florida, you can get $ 100 when you play $ 5. Again,
I'm on the Browns, and I am on the over
(33:44):
in tonight's game. And you can go play along with me.
Bet $ 5, get $ 100 in bonus bets. This is a
fantastic company with great relationships all over the state of Florida.
one of our nation's best states, if I might say
so myself. Hardrock.bet.clay. That is Hardrock.bet.clay. Get hooked up today.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
$ 100 when you bet $ 5. Hardrock.bet.clay. Smart, fun, sane commentary.
The Clay and Buck Show. Stick around.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
More is coming up just the way you'd expect it.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
How about that? Welcome back into Clay and Buck. A
lot of talkbacks, a lot of thoughts on all this.
Let's get to it. Henry from Orlando, Florida. See on
our talkback list. Listen on WFLA, the great station. Play it.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
You guys are talking about what song really gets you
pumped up and ready to go into the gym or.
maybe getting ready to play a game or whatever. I
got to tell you, there's this little known punk rock
band called Lit, my own worst enemy.
Speaker 2 (34:51):
Oh, that's right.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
It's your theme song. I got to tell you, since 99,
that does it for me. I can't wait to get
to the gym after I hear that.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
Henry, solid, solid talk back, my friend. High five. I
do think that our theme song, I think Lit is
a great 90s anthem that guitar riff that's why we
chose it really this was this was clay's brainchild full
credit to him to go to those guys who are
also ideologically uh patriotic let's just put it that way
they're patriots um i mean i would put it up
(35:22):
there clay also with uh from the 90s hero by
foo fighters you know there's a few songs that are
kind of iconic 90s hype-up songs, but I'm really curious
what your son's, like, his generation with their hype-up song is.
It will be something that you've never heard of because
he likes, again, a lot of rappers.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
I've mentioned this before. I do think you would like
Juice WRLD, who's unfortunately passed.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I'm unfamiliar. I'm unfamiliar. I would figure that you probably
wouldn't know Mr.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
WRLD's work. This is a good take from Hans. Hans
in Florida. Hans, what you got for us?
Speaker 4 (35:58):
Yeah, hey, guys. How you doing? How you doing? Great. Good.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
You got about 45 seconds, Doc, so go fast. All right.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
I'm a retired anesthesiologist. That was a screw-up. Should never
have happened. If I were to choose a lethal way
to die, it would be by injection. As an anesthesiologist,
having put over 30,000 people, quote, asleep, what they did
is they had a bad IV. Almost no question of that. malpractice.
And there's a way to test that before you get going.
(36:26):
Should have never happened.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
Bad IV, by the way, Doc, that would mean that
you just don't have it correctly into the vein. So
the substance is not getting into the vein. Is that accurate?
Speaker 4 (36:37):
Right. So they thought they had it in the vein.
It's called it's infiltrating. So it's going into subcutaneous tissue. Now,
the woman said, I feel it burning.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
That was great. We had to go to break.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.