May 15, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a high-energy, in-depth analysis of the latest political and legal developments shaping the 2024 election cycle and beyond. The hour opens with a discussion of explosive claims from OH Rep. Jim Jordan, who alleges that Pfizer executives may have deliberately withheld COVID-19 vaccine trial results before the 2020 election—potentially influencing the outcome. Clay and Buck connect this to broader concerns about election integrity, media manipulation, and the growing list of revelations surrounding the so-called “rig job” of 2020.
A major focus of this hour is the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on two critical issues: the legality of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship and the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions issued by federal district court judges. The hosts break down the legal complexities, emphasizing how a single lower court judge currently holds outsized power to block presidential actions nationwide—an imbalance that undermines the separation of powers. Justice Clarence Thomas’s remarks are highlighted to show how this practice only emerged in the 1960s and has since exploded, particularly in left-leaning circuits like the Ninth.
Clay and Buck also explore the political fallout from President Biden’s cognitive decline, revisiting his now-infamous challenge to Trump for two debates—an invitation that backfired spectacularly. They argue that Biden’s mental fitness was knowingly concealed by Democratic operatives and media allies, calling it a “vast left-wing conspiracy.” The hosts praise Jake Tapper’s involvement in a new book exposing Biden’s condition, noting that Tapper’s mainstream credibility forces liberal media outlets to finally confront the truth.
The hour also touches on Trump’s successful Middle East diplomacy, with praise—even from Democrats—for his ability to command respect and cooperation from nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. Clay and Buck highlight how Trump’s foreign policy achievements, including isolating Iran and potentially securing a nuclear deal, are being met with grudging admiration from former critics.
In a lighter segment, the hosts share humorous insights into married life, including the universal experience of being held accountable for actions in a spouse’s dream—offering a relatable and comedic break from the heavy political discourse.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in our number two Klay Travis buck Sexton show.
We got a lot of you reacting. We're going to
get to some of those eight hundred and two A
two two eight A two. Obviously as the phone line,
we'll try to take a couple of your calls.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
No guest today.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
By the way, we did mention we're going to talk
to Jim Jordan tomorrow about explosive information that he has
uncovered which suggests that the COVID shot, which we now
know is a lemon and basically worthless, but that top
executives worked to keep news about the what they thought
was the success of the COVID shot from going public
(00:36):
before the twenty twenty election, which Trump has said publicly
he believed happened, which may well have swung the election
by itself because the race came down to forty thousand
votes in Wisconsin, at Georgia and Arizona.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
So who knows.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I mean, if you had thought, hey, there's going to
be a vaccine coming, would people have been more likely
to vote differently?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
I don't think that's a crazy idea.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Certainly, we know if Hunter Biden's business dealings, if Joe
Biden's dementia. I mean, the rig job in twenty twenty
just continues to add different layers. But there was a
big Spring Court case that I want to talk some about, Buck,
And you mentioned off the top of the show that
you listened to a lot of it.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
I was not.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'll tell you where I was in a sec I
was reading about it. But I do want to play
this because it ties in with the first hour. Do
you know what happened one year ago today? Joe Biden
publicly challenged Donald Trump to an early debate. Do you
remember this, Buck? This is what it sounded like for
those of you who had forgotten. This was one year
(01:41):
ago today.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Listen, Donald Trump lost two debates to me in twenty twenty.
Since that, he hadn't shown up for debates. Now he's
acting like he wants to debate me again. Will make
my day, pal, I'll even do it twice. So let's
pick the dace. Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So and that was because Trump was going to criminal
court on wednesdays. Ha ha ha. With the preposterous efforts
to destroy Trump's ability to run.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Which they try to day pal it, Buck, is that
the most disastrous political taunt in history, given what happened later.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
If if they had just listened to me, they would
have been in a much better spot because their best
option was Biden. But their best option was Biden with
no by the time he was making that taunt with
no debates, That's what they should have done. That was
the the the fatal flaw in all of this was
they thought they could pull one over with the debates
(02:37):
one more time, and given that Trump hadn't debated in
the primary, the Democrats could have very easily said, well
we won't. You know, people have seen enough of these
two anyway. I know it's at some level water under
the bridge. But they just misplayed this thing. They just
screwed it up, the same way they misplayed running against
Trump across the board. Yeah, they totally did.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And I think, as you break all of this down again,
that was one year ago and Biden completely blown up.
And I still think and I wonder if in the
book they're going to kind of give us an idea
of what they intended with the June twenty seventh, because
I had forgotten that he said he'd debate him twice. Remember,
they didn't even attempt the second debate because the first
(03:21):
one went so disastrously. But it was Biden making that
video and taunting Trump about how much he wanted to
debate that actually put this on the calendar and bucks right.
If they had listened to him, they could have at
least continued the vast left wing conspiracy about his health
until September or October when they did a debate, and
(03:43):
maybe then they could have shot up Biden with enough
stuff to make him able to go out and debate.
I tend to think that it would have been even
more of an implosion if they had been able to
keep him in and not been able to make the
change till September. But he would have been able to run.
They wouldn't have been able to replace him like they
(04:03):
did and switch to Kamala at the last possible minute.
But I did want to get into this. You listen
to a lot of the discussion, like and I get
an hour of it. I was pretty deep into it. Yeah,
for those of you who don't know, major discussed debate,
major oral argument at the Supreme Court today, and it
(04:24):
was actually a little bit complicated because there's kind of
two different parts of what they were arguing, and I'm
going to try to lay out why.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
I think it's significant.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
And producer Ali, I sent you a cut of Clarence
Thomas that I think gets to the essence of this
really really well. So let me know when that cut
is ready. But it is ready, Okay, So Buck here
is So for those of you out there who were
not following this, it is a little bit complicated, and
just the whole Trump era has been steeped and complicated
(04:55):
legal arcana as we have been breaking it all down.
But really this is kind of a two parter that
they were arguing today. One is the big issue is, hey,
is it possible for Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship
to be legal and for him to have the power
(05:16):
to say that birthright citizenship has been misapplied effectively and
citizen and kids, children, babies born to illegal immigrants do
not become automatic American citizens right. People who are here
in this country illegally do not have the ability to
come across our border have a baby, and then your
baby automatically becomes an American citizen. That's a big picture question.
(05:40):
But structurally this is impacting everything that Trump is trying
to do. The question is should a federal district court
judge be able to effectively enjoin a presidential action nationwide.
They're around six hundred and fifty ish of these federal
district court judges, right, And the only person who has
(06:04):
that level of universal constitutional authority based on just what
he thinks or she thinks it's always been a heat
is the president. So there's a problem here.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
No one Supreme Court justice can say this is the
deal for everybody all across the country. But one federal judge,
a lower and even lower than an appeals court judge,
one one circuit court judge could say this is where
we're getting into the universal universal injunction issue. And I
(06:36):
think it's very interesting to Clay because you know, with
the two sides arguing this morning, the side that was
arguing against on behalf of I guess the state of
New Jersey, which is saying our welfare programs will be
too burdened by not knowing if somebody is a citizen
or you know, if they've been given citizenship, whether born
in the state or outside the state. I mean this
(06:58):
It is a pretty complicated series of interlocking legal issues here,
but I can say this one of the things that
kept coming up was they said, yeah, okay, sure, it's
a problem for a federal judge to just be able
to do that unless it's like really important and they're
really sure. And that's more or less what the anti
(07:18):
Trump side is kept saying, to which the judges, you know,
the justices, had to say, you guys do this a lot,
and I'm sure you always think that the people that
you like are doing this because it's so extreme and
so necessary. But it can't just be on the whim
of a lower circuit or a lower circuit court judge.
What the policy for the whole country is.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, and it actually goes to me and this is
me nerding out a little bit legally. It actually goes
to the essence of separation of powers because there are,
in theory three co equal branches of the United States government, right,
take you back to eighth grade history or whatever. The executive,
the congressional branch, and the judicial. The judicial branch rely
(07:59):
on the authority of the Supreme Court. That's why it's
called the Supreme Court. In order for something to happen,
five Supreme Court justices have to agree on it. Circuit
Court's buck in order for a circuit court ruling to
be an effect, at least two out of three circuit
court judges have to agree on something. What is happening
(08:20):
with the federal district court is one judge is basically
executing on a level that Circuit Court judges who are
above them, and Supreme Court judges who are above those
circuit those circuit court judges do not have. In other words,
the single authority of a district court judge is actually
(08:41):
higher on the flow chart than two of their superior
court judges. And that might sound a little complicated, but
I'm trying to explain. And Clarence Thomas pointed out that
this has really only become an issue in the modern day,
and this is the cut I pulled because I think
he does a good job of distilling how things have changed.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
General. When were the first universal injunctions used.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
We believe that the best reading of that is what
you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wartz
in nineteen sixty three was really the first universal injunction.
There's a dispute about Perkins against Luken's Oil going back
to nineteen forty, and of course we point to the
Court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the
d C Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong. Now, if
you look at the cases at the either party site,
(09:35):
you see a common theme the cases that we cite,
like National Treasury Treasury's Employment Union, Perkins against Lukens Oil Frothingham,
and Massachusetts against Melon, going back to Scott against Donald
and all of those, those are cases where the court
considered and addressed the sort of universal in that case,
statewide issue of provision of injunctive relief. When the court
(09:56):
is considered it addressed, this is consistently said, have to
limit the remedy to the plane of Supperian court and
complaining of that remedy.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
So we survived until the nineteen sixties without universal injunctions.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
That's exactly correct, and in fact.
Speaker 5 (10:09):
Those are very limited, very rare, even in the nineteen sixties.
It really exploded in two thousand and seven in our
curre petition in Summers against Earth Island Institute, we pointed
out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in
a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Okay, now again this is in the weeds, but I
thought that Clarence Thomas did a really good job. This
is only something that's happened recently in our two hundred
and fifty ish year history. And usually Bucking again, this
is going into the weeds.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Just also the Ninth The Ninth Circuit is the most
lunatic left training activist judicial circuit in the country, so
that's where they started doing this no surprise.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Most Supreme Court cases come about because the circuit Court's
ruled different directions. That is, as Buck just mentioned, the
Ninth Circuit is like the West Coast California prominent where
I live. I am in the sixth Circuit. That's Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan.
(11:04):
I think a couple of states like that. The Fifth
Circuit is traditionally seen as one of the most conservative.
That's Texas, Louisiana. I don't have the circuits in front
of me right now. Usually the Supreme Court is called
on to address circuit splits. That's where the Ninth Circuit,
in the Fifth Circuit may have had a different interpretation
of the law. Those are the most fertile, the most
(11:25):
germane for the Supreme Court to step in on because
we need a nationwide decision, and there are two different
circuit courts ruling differently. Here you have one random judge
and I don't know, Boston, Massachusetts, deciding what the law
should be for the whole nation, or it could be
one random judge in middle of nowhere, Texas. It is
(11:46):
a direct attack upon the entire legitimacy of the courts
to give a district court judge more power than his
superiors on the Circuit and Supreme.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Court, and they can effectively order the entire federal government
as though they run the federal government. I mean, yes
there will be appeals, and yes they'll go to the
Supreme Court, but for a period of time they get
to be the legal emperor, if you will, of America.
And this wasn't a problem really until they made it
(12:18):
a problem, and they made it a problem by having
these by these left wing judges. We all know how
this works. You know. They don't feel bound by the
constraints of language or law or tradition or anything else.
It's this is so so important that we have to
smash the things that we used to rely on to
keep us from doing this. And that's really a large part.
(12:40):
I think a lot of the argument today. So I mean,
this is really this wasn't even about the merits of
whether a birthright citizenship extends to those who are in
the country illegally or not, although it could if it
went against the administration terribly. The Supreme Court right could
come down and say, you know what, we think, even
just taking a peek at the merits, this is so
(13:01):
bad that we're actually gonna uphold this universal injunction until
we hear the merits on the case, and that would
be a huge win for the non Trump side. The
other side of this, I think Clay is right. They
could issue guidance on the scope of the injunction specifically
in this case. That would probably be the best thing
you could get from the Supreme Court on this. But
(13:24):
to me, I just sit here saying, Okay, eventually, we're
gonna have to look at whether you can steal citizenship
or not, because if citizenship can be given to people
who have broken the law to get it, you have
debased and and I know it's been going on, and
it has been wrong the whole time. You have debased
and devalued what it means to be an American in
(13:45):
a way that I think unfortunately is irreparable. I agree
one hundred percent with that.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Here's the question for you, and we can debate it
or discuss when we come back, because I think it's
one of the challenges the Court's going to be grappling with.
How do you address all of the people who had
citizenship for decades based on the belief that birthright citizenship
did convey American city.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, the EO makes this. The EO only affects those
after the EO goes into effect.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I get that, but I think there's going to be
an equal protection argument on behalf of everybody else. They're
going to say, this is an arbitrary thing for a
president to be able to do under his executive authority.
I agree that it should happenship is inherently kind of
arbitrary when you think about it, the whole.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Totally, totally is.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I mean, look, I think it's an interesting discussion because
I think that's one of the challenges they're going to
grapple with the most is that all of a sudden anyway,
we'll talk about it when we come back.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Some opportunities are immediate, others take time to develop. Consider this.
There are some very well informed people who really believe
that our nation has an asset that could be worth
as much as one hundred and fifty trillion dollars, and
that asset has been buried under American soil and may
well be the basis for creating such a fund. Just
to give you an idea of the impact of this resource,
it could pay off our national debt four times over.
(15:01):
You might say this asset is hiding in plain sight.
Time will tell if the Trump administration releases it to
the public. But Jim Rickards, former advisor of the White
House and Federal Reserve, says, if you're over fifty, this
could be your best chance to build lasting wealth from
a once in a century event. To hear more of
Jim's thinking, go online to birthright twenty twenty five dot com.
If he's right, it could make President Trump the most
(15:22):
popular presidents in history and help millions of investors retire wealthy.
Go to birthright twenty twenty five dot com to get
the details free of charge. That's Birthright twenty twenty five
dot com paid for by Paradigm Press.
Speaker 6 (15:36):
Stories are freedom stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all each day, spend time with Clay and
find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Remember, Don Lemon, you used to have a show at CNN.
I in fact went on that show many times when
CNN was paying me very little to be ambushed by
morons on TV, and then they asked me to keep
doing it, and I said no. This was in the
pre Scott Jennings era where you would have three people
and they would just cut your mic and they would
(16:11):
chat at you and they didn't actually allow you to speak. Really,
So yeah, Don Lemon is still out there talking about
things here. He is very upset Clay about the South
African africaner refugees play nineteen this.
Speaker 7 (16:27):
South African Farmer bullet, which is the most blatantly obvious
racist ever. It is blatantly obvious the way that we
treat white South Africans, who, by the way, for the
most part, and I am generalizing here, some of the
wealthiest people are well to do people in the country.
They speak their language, they own most of the land
(16:48):
and the property, and somehow they're being granted a fast
track to become Americans while they're trying to cut down
on immigration from other countries.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
You know you get that from where from the brown people?
First of all, believe it or not done. There have
been times in history in other countries where a small
minority of the population or even a considerable minority of
the population had a lot of wealth and prestige in society,
and society turned against them and got really racist and
(17:17):
things got really really bad. See the twentieth century in Europe. Right, Like,
I just but people just want to be upset about this.
What it's fifty people, Clay, I think that there is
very limited things I think to criticize Trump for. I
really mean that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
I mean, stock market is up for the year, border
is secure, prices of almost all goods or down. War
is less likely. You have to work really hard to
find things to be angry about, like a Mariland man
who's a human trafficker being an l Salvador. I mean,
they're really really grasping it, strawsy Er, pure talk of you.
(18:00):
Incredible offer right now, better than you could get from
AT and T, T Mobile and for Horizon because they
don't have the same overhead costs like stores and all
those other shenanigans. You benefit as a result with way
better pricing right now, you can get a brand new
Samsung Galaxy from Puretalk for free. Qualifying plan starts at
just thirty five bucks a month, unlimited talk, text, fifteen
(18:24):
gigs of data, and a mobile hotspot on America's most
dependable five gen network. You can switch to pure Talk
for just thirty five bucks a month, cut your cell
phone bill in half and get a brand new Samsung
Galaxy for free. Dial pound two five zero Say the
keywords Clay and Buck. Puretalk's US customer service team can
help you switch in as little as ten minutes. Again,
(18:46):
dial pound two five zero say the keywords Clay and
Bucks to make the switch to pure Talk today. Welcome
back in Clay, Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all of
you hanging out with us. We are rolling through the
Thursday edition of the program and there is a ton
out there. We were just talking about the importance of
the Supreme Court hearing that is underway or was underway
(19:10):
earlier today having to do with birthright citizenship and also
with the power of federal District Court judges to issue
these universal injunctions and how that can impact things going forward.
And I do think it's worth circling back around as
(19:30):
Trump two point zero is underway. The entire Democrat Party
is in disarray, the fallout of the vast left wing
conspiracy relating to Biden's dementia and the cover up the
fact that Kamala Harris is a joke, and there is,
alongside of Tim Wall's, no real chief spokesperson for the
(19:53):
Democrat Party to even fight back. The Resistance two point
zero base league doesn't exist. There's not even women walking
around in Vagina hats now crying in the streets. There
isn't even anything at all to push back against what
Trump is doing but for Buck, these universal injunctions.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
And I want to mention.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
This too, because this morning I've read about Trump's trip
to the Middle East. These are top Democrat officials. This
is Axios this morning. I want you to listen that
speech that Trump gave in Saudi Arabia. It was really
pretty incredible. This is what top Democrat officials told Axios.
(20:42):
Listen to this Buck quote, Gosh, I wish I could
work for an administration that could move that quickly. These
are top Democrat officials. Listen to these quotes. He does
all of this and it's kind of silence. It's met
with a shrug, said Ned Price, a former senior State
Department official. He has the ability to do things politically
(21:05):
that previous presidents did not because he has complete, unquestioned
authority over the Republican Caucus.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Another quote, it's men and I work together at the CIA.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
By the way, Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Here's a third quote.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's hard not to be simultaneously terrified at the thought
of the damage he can cause with such power and
awed by his willingness to brazenly shatter so many harmful taboos,
said Rob Malley, relating to what Trump is doing in
the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Did you even speech? Yeah? I did. It was incredible.
I listened to the whole thing as I was making
to carry eggs and watching the baby, double tasking like
a dad does. And Clay it was a phenomenal speech, truly, Yes.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And what but what I thought was interesting is it
was such a good speech that even Democrats who hate
Trump are kind of in awe of how this trip
has gone. And I do think and you'll really appreciate this, obviously,
with the CIA background, how challenging what he has managed
(22:15):
to pull off is he's got the UAE Qatar and
Saudi Arabia all competing to see who can throw him
the best state visit party. He's got Syria celebrating America
in the streets, and he has isolated Iran now to
(22:37):
the point where, other than Russia and maybe China, which
we know already were traditional allies, who in the Middle
East has even got Iran's back now.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
I know some people in.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Israel are upset about Trump's closeness to the UAE Qatar
in Saudi Arabia, but I would suggest that that has
led to Trump being able to put more pressure on
Iran than maybe any president in modern history has ever been.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Able to do. Trump says that as of today, he
is very close to a deal with Iran that was
as part of this part of this trip. That's what's
going on there. And when he was speaking at that
Katari round table, he said, iron can't have a nuclear weapon.
They get it, but they're very they're getting very close
to doing maybe a deal. I just want to say,
(23:32):
we've made this joke for about a decade now, Clay
that if Trump came out and said, guys, we've got
great news. We have managed the administration's project to cure
cancer is a success, there would be some way the democrat.
First of all, the Democrats wouldn't believe it, and then
they would say, you know what funding did he use
(23:54):
for this? And they would have all of these objections,
whether it's process objections or whatever, doesn't matter what it is,
they'll find a way. I do not be happy for
whatever Trump does. If he gets a nuclear deal, which
has been a Democrat dream, I know that say, oh,
we got one with Obama, wasn't a very good deal.
If Trump gets a deal, are they going to say, well,
(24:15):
I guess they'll just say it's not a good deal.
There's nothing he can do that will make them say,
you know what, this guy's actually got something. Even though
he can't run again and everything else, they will just
oppose him to op pose. And this is I think
what you see with the whole trip, and also with
a lot of what the not everything, but a lot
of what the administration is doing so far. You just say,
(24:37):
these are just objectively good things to be trying to accomplish,
and there's objectively real progress happening on them all. And
you get people that are still saying that this is
like fascism or something. I mean, there's this delusion they.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Live in well, and I think this is why the
putting them on the defense with the Joe Biden aspect
is so important. You and I think it was ludicrous
that the twenty twenty two election in any way turned
on January sixth. Whatever you think about Dobbs, at least
that was a tangible political action that people felt compelled
(25:14):
to respond to. But the idea that anybody in November
of twenty twenty two reacted in their voting patterns based
on what happened on January sixth is frankly crazy. But
the media made it seem like such a big deal
that I think some people were motivated by that. I think,
what what I jotted this now during one of the breaks,
(25:36):
I'm going to give Jake Tapper a small measure of
praisier Buck and I just I see your face. I
understand that many of you out there also. He likes football,
Clay likes football. I knew this was going to happen.
I'm telling you why, Jake Tapper writing this book is
going to be impossible for Democrats to avoid because it's
(26:00):
one of their own writing it. If there are lots
of very talented quote unquote right wing authors who could
write a book about Biden's dementia, and they would forswear it.
They would ignore it, just like they have ignored you
and me and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and all
(26:22):
the other people on the Premiere Network, Jesse Kelly pointing
this out for years, just like they have ignored many
of the people on Fox News, just like they have ignored, frankly,
even the Wall Street Journal, when the Wall Street Journal
had a big piece about Biden's clear lack of cognitive ability.
They can't ignore Jake Tapper. It's like if Rachel Maddow
(26:46):
suddenly sits down and says, we got major problems. Joe
Biden has dementia which she knew, but which she covered
up and pretended she didn't. They have to cover it
on CNN, they have to cover it on MSNBC, they
have to cover it in The New Yorker, at ABC,
at CBS, at NBC. It's one of their own telling
(27:10):
the story. And that is the only praise I can
give Jake Tapper. If Jesse Waters writes this book, they
just say, oh, yeah, of course, that Fox News host.
If you or I write this book. They're like, oh,
of course, the guys who sit where Rush used to
the Jake Tapper is one of their own, and he
(27:32):
is holding up the dementia and they feel compelled to
have to cover it now. Is partly to your point,
the fact that they they'd rather be dumb than be
seen as dishonest. Yes, Are they going to claim that
they got lied to? Yes, which is why I liked
your tweet yesterday that you brought up yesterday. Why don't
you tell us who lied about Karie Jean Pierre. You know,
(27:56):
has there ever been a more public liar in the
history of the United States than Karine Jean Pierre Zensaki,
who has her own show on MSNBC. She didn't know,
She didn't know when when Jake Sullivan, when Biden can't
remember his name. They didn't talk about it inside of
the they.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
All knew, they all knew. I wish they would come
forward actually and just say, yeah, we knew he had dementia.
But we figured that was a better outcome for the
country than the fascist Donald Trump. And that was the
decision we made. That would show how at some level
craven they are. But at least I could respect that, Like,
(28:35):
at least I could say, all right, you guys are
ruthless and you're liar.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Is that is also honest? At least it's honest. Yes,
at least it is honest.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
At least they would be telling us what really happened, which,
let me just be clear, that is what happened. It's
not I think that's what happened. That is what happened.
We all know it the same way we knew Biden
had dementia. We know that they knew, and they knew that,
we knew. Everybody knows, and now the Hubrist to try
to pretend like nobody knew. This is really a But
(29:10):
if I point on the Tapper thing, Tapper is one
of them, it would be like if Joe Scarborough wrote
Biden has dementia, he wouldn't do it. Also, why why
couldn't Alex Thompson do this himself?
Speaker 4 (29:21):
Though?
Speaker 2 (29:21):
What I would Well, that's my question that I've had
from the start. Right, if he's the one that people
say but he was more honest about it, it's like,
why do I think he's adding Tapper? Because Tapper's whole
thing within the Democrats is like that is first of all,
if he came on, which who knows if you will
or not, or if we want to have him or not,
he would still claim that he's an objective reporter and
does not actually he's I mean, he's a clear Democrat activist,
(29:43):
but he would say he's an objective reporter. He would
hold to that, and he is the last gasp of
the Democrats clinging to that fiction. So he has a
lot of power within the Democrat media ranks because of that.
Because if everyone just and when I say everybody, everyone
on the right already knows. But if the country, by
sort of overwhelming consensus that that pays attention to news
(30:06):
a lot of your fortune, you don't even care about
this crap. But the country that pays attention to, you know,
news media, it was all like, you know what, Jake
Tapper was a big partisan fraud too. It's all over
for them now. It's just it's MSNBC and it's Fox.
It's two different teams. We all know it, we all
get it. There's no more of the pretense because the
pretense has been a built in advantage. The pretense of
(30:27):
journalism as an objective thing instead of journalism is really
just the term given to left wing activists who write
stories for left wing news organizations. If that goes away,
they lose something that they've been able to rely on
for a long time, and it's been going away. But
I think this is the death throes of it.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
I do think there's a small realization dawning in a
lot of people's minds that they thought they were the
good guys and they're actually going to be the bad
guys of history. They got everything wrong on COVID, they
covered up dementia from Joe Biden. I think slowly they
(31:06):
are thinking, uh, oh, I always said this buck. If
you are a history guy or history gal, be very
very nervous when people say, oh, I'm sure we're on
the right side of history, because history has a way
of revealing sometimes things that people did not see in
(31:26):
the moment. And my argument for a long time has
been they are going to be everyone who thinks they're
the hero of this era is actually going to be
the villains of history. Fauci Biden, everyone who held them
up and protected them. If history does its job, those
(31:46):
guys one hundred years from now are going to be
seen as the biggest villains in America. I really believe.
And I think that's where we're headed. And I think
doctor Joe Biden may end up being one of the
greatest villainess.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Is that a right word. I think that's the right word.
She's the Cruella Deville of American politics, and she's headed
there in a real hurry. Do you catch the great
news on prescription drug prices? Earlier this week?
Speaker 1 (32:13):
President Trump recently signed an executive order slashing the cost
of prescription drugs and going after the price gouging for
drugs you're now getting with Obamacare, taking on big Pharma,
something RFK Junior said he never thought he would see
in his lifetime. Now the real fight begins. But you
don't have to wait until the fight's over. We want
to introduce you to a healthcare insurance provider, Ease for
(32:35):
Everyone Compared to Obamacare. Ease for Everyone comes with a
monthly cost as low as two hundred and sixty two dollars.
You get access to over four hundred prescription drugs for free.
They're not just at a lower cost, but no cost
zero dollars. And unlike the broken promise of Obamacare, you
actually get to keep your doctor. Plus you get free
(32:55):
unlimited virtual primary care. You can have affordable healthcare for
as low on hundred and sixty two dollars a month today.
Go online to easefo everyone dot com slash Clay.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
That's e A S E ease e A S.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
E four f O R everyone dot com slash Clay.
You can also find it on the Clayanbuck dot com
sponsors page.
Speaker 6 (33:20):
You ain't imagining it. The world has gone insane. Reclaim
your sanity with Clay and Fun. Find them on the
free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
All right, it's that time on the show, and I
need to remind myself and Clay and all of you
to get a little pick me up from Crockett Cooffee.
Go to Crocketcoffee dot com. Please subscribe. If you do
and use codebook, you'll get a signed copy of Clay's
American Playbook. Get them while you can. Got two new
books coming out end of this year and beginning of
next year from the Clay and Buck Library, I guess
(33:53):
you could say, and uh much other good stuff on
that site. New mugs available now, including over Mountain Club mug,
which is very special and it's delicious. Coffee you should
go check it out. If you've never had mushroom coffee,
let me add it's really good. It's great in the afternoon,
about half the caffeine a normal coffee, plus all kinds
of antioxidants and good health benefits stuff Crocketcoffee dot com.
(34:15):
Please go check it out. Don't drink whatever coffee you're drinking.
If it's not Crocket, it's not good enough for you.
My friends, go check it out at Crocketcoffee dot com. Clay,
I also found out something this morning, more marital experience here.
I was not really aware of this, and now I'm there,
such a young man in the marriage game. When yeah,
(34:38):
I'm I'm I'm I'm a newbie into all this. Uh,
your wife can look at you and be a little unhappy,
quite unhappy, quite sternly, and you can ask her, hey, honey,
what's going on. She said nothing, I'm fine, and you
say are you sure. She goes, I'm fine, and then
you know she's not fine, and then you say okay,
(35:01):
and then you try to like escape the situation, and
right before you leave the room, she goes, you know
what you did in my dream last night? And now
the answer to that is of course no, But play
I just grow that you could be in trouble as
husband for whatever the wife has had a dream about.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
All right, so here's the flip side. Can you imagine
holding her accountable in any way or being angry for
her based on something that she did in your dream?
Has this happened at any point in your relationship that
you can remember so far?
Speaker 2 (35:36):
No? Yes?
Speaker 5 (35:37):
No?
Speaker 2 (35:37):
So do you think it's only I don't know because
I'm with no. But my understanding is these are the
rules of marriage. Like wife is allowed to be annoyed
over morning coffee for at least a little bit, if
you were naughty in the dream that she had, even
if she knows it was a dream, these are the rules.
I don't make the rules. No, No, I get it.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
I'm just trying to think why would women be able
to get mad at their husbands? But I'm just asking
because I I can't recall ever being angry at my
wife over something that she did in my dream? Right,
has Laura ever been mad at you for what you
did in her dream? That's a great question. We've been
married for almost twenty one years. I'm sure I've given
her ample reasons to be mad at me for many reasons,
(36:15):
both awake and dreaming over those twenty one years, but
I can't remember, but it feels like probably yes is
the answer.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
But it is an interesting question because my.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Point is if you had been angry at her, I
don't think it would be accepted.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
No, of course not. I'm a dude. We can't do that.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
Yeah, why is it acceptable the opposite direction? I think
it's an interesting question. I'm gonna go downstairs and ask you.
Men and women are different, buddy.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
You know that. I do know. No way, next second
you're gonna tell me men shouldn't be able to play
women's sports
Welcome in our number two Klay Travis buck Sexton show.
We got a lot of you reacting. We're going to
get to some of those eight hundred and two A
two two eight A two. Obviously as the phone line,
we'll try to take a couple of your calls.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
No guest today.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
By the way, we did mention we're going to talk
to Jim Jordan tomorrow about explosive information that he has
uncovered which suggests that the COVID shot, which we now
know is a lemon and basically worthless, but that top
executives worked to keep news about the what they thought
was the success of the COVID shot from going public
(00:36):
before the twenty twenty election, which Trump has said publicly
he believed happened, which may well have swung the election
by itself because the race came down to forty thousand
votes in Wisconsin, at Georgia and Arizona.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
So who knows.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I mean, if you had thought, hey, there's going to
be a vaccine coming, would people have been more likely
to vote differently?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
I don't think that's a crazy idea.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Certainly, we know if Hunter Biden's business dealings, if Joe
Biden's dementia. I mean, the rig job in twenty twenty
just continues to add different layers. But there was a
big Spring Court case that I want to talk some about, Buck,
And you mentioned off the top of the show that
you listened to a lot of it.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
I was not.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'll tell you where I was in a sec I
was reading about it. But I do want to play
this because it ties in with the first hour. Do
you know what happened one year ago today? Joe Biden
publicly challenged Donald Trump to an early debate. Do you
remember this, Buck? This is what it sounded like for
those of you who had forgotten. This was one year
(01:41):
ago today.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Listen, Donald Trump lost two debates to me in twenty twenty.
Since that, he hadn't shown up for debates. Now he's
acting like he wants to debate me again. Will make
my day, pal, I'll even do it twice. So let's
pick the dace. Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So and that was because Trump was going to criminal
court on wednesdays. Ha ha ha. With the preposterous efforts
to destroy Trump's ability to run.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Which they try to day pal it, Buck, is that
the most disastrous political taunt in history, given what happened later.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
If if they had just listened to me, they would
have been in a much better spot because their best
option was Biden. But their best option was Biden with
no by the time he was making that taunt with
no debates, That's what they should have done. That was
the the the fatal flaw in all of this was
they thought they could pull one over with the debates
(02:37):
one more time, and given that Trump hadn't debated in
the primary, the Democrats could have very easily said, well
we won't. You know, people have seen enough of these
two anyway. I know it's at some level water under
the bridge. But they just misplayed this thing. They just
screwed it up, the same way they misplayed running against
Trump across the board. Yeah, they totally did.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And I think, as you break all of this down again,
that was one year ago and Biden completely blown up.
And I still think and I wonder if in the
book they're going to kind of give us an idea
of what they intended with the June twenty seventh, because
I had forgotten that he said he'd debate him twice. Remember,
they didn't even attempt the second debate because the first
(03:21):
one went so disastrously. But it was Biden making that
video and taunting Trump about how much he wanted to
debate that actually put this on the calendar and bucks right.
If they had listened to him, they could have at
least continued the vast left wing conspiracy about his health
until September or October when they did a debate, and
(03:43):
maybe then they could have shot up Biden with enough
stuff to make him able to go out and debate.
I tend to think that it would have been even
more of an implosion if they had been able to
keep him in and not been able to make the
change till September. But he would have been able to run.
They wouldn't have been able to replace him like they
(04:03):
did and switch to Kamala at the last possible minute.
But I did want to get into this. You listen
to a lot of the discussion, like and I get
an hour of it. I was pretty deep into it. Yeah,
for those of you who don't know, major discussed debate,
major oral argument at the Supreme Court today, and it
(04:24):
was actually a little bit complicated because there's kind of
two different parts of what they were arguing, and I'm
going to try to lay out why.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
I think it's significant.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
And producer Ali, I sent you a cut of Clarence
Thomas that I think gets to the essence of this
really really well. So let me know when that cut
is ready. But it is ready, Okay, So Buck here
is So for those of you out there who were
not following this, it is a little bit complicated, and
just the whole Trump era has been steeped and complicated
(04:55):
legal arcana as we have been breaking it all down.
But really this is kind of a two parter that
they were arguing today. One is the big issue is, hey,
is it possible for Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship
to be legal and for him to have the power
(05:16):
to say that birthright citizenship has been misapplied effectively and
citizen and kids, children, babies born to illegal immigrants do
not become automatic American citizens right. People who are here
in this country illegally do not have the ability to
come across our border have a baby, and then your
baby automatically becomes an American citizen. That's a big picture question.
(05:40):
But structurally this is impacting everything that Trump is trying
to do. The question is should a federal district court
judge be able to effectively enjoin a presidential action nationwide.
They're around six hundred and fifty ish of these federal
district court judges, right, And the only person who has
(06:04):
that level of universal constitutional authority based on just what
he thinks or she thinks it's always been a heat
is the president. So there's a problem here.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
No one Supreme Court justice can say this is the
deal for everybody all across the country. But one federal judge,
a lower and even lower than an appeals court judge,
one one circuit court judge could say this is where
we're getting into the universal universal injunction issue. And I
(06:36):
think it's very interesting to Clay because you know, with
the two sides arguing this morning, the side that was
arguing against on behalf of I guess the state of
New Jersey, which is saying our welfare programs will be
too burdened by not knowing if somebody is a citizen
or you know, if they've been given citizenship, whether born
in the state or outside the state. I mean this
(06:58):
It is a pretty complicated series of interlocking legal issues here,
but I can say this one of the things that
kept coming up was they said, yeah, okay, sure, it's
a problem for a federal judge to just be able
to do that unless it's like really important and they're
really sure. And that's more or less what the anti
(07:18):
Trump side is kept saying, to which the judges, you know,
the justices, had to say, you guys do this a lot,
and I'm sure you always think that the people that
you like are doing this because it's so extreme and
so necessary. But it can't just be on the whim
of a lower circuit or a lower circuit court judge.
What the policy for the whole country is.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, and it actually goes to me and this is
me nerding out a little bit legally. It actually goes
to the essence of separation of powers because there are,
in theory three co equal branches of the United States government, right,
take you back to eighth grade history or whatever. The executive,
the congressional branch, and the judicial. The judicial branch rely
(07:59):
on the authority of the Supreme Court. That's why it's
called the Supreme Court. In order for something to happen,
five Supreme Court justices have to agree on it. Circuit
Court's buck in order for a circuit court ruling to
be an effect, at least two out of three circuit
court judges have to agree on something. What is happening
(08:20):
with the federal district court is one judge is basically
executing on a level that Circuit Court judges who are
above them, and Supreme Court judges who are above those
circuit those circuit court judges do not have. In other words,
the single authority of a district court judge is actually
(08:41):
higher on the flow chart than two of their superior
court judges. And that might sound a little complicated, but
I'm trying to explain. And Clarence Thomas pointed out that
this has really only become an issue in the modern day,
and this is the cut I pulled because I think
he does a good job of distilling how things have changed.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
General. When were the first universal injunctions used.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
We believe that the best reading of that is what
you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wartz
in nineteen sixty three was really the first universal injunction.
There's a dispute about Perkins against Luken's Oil going back
to nineteen forty, and of course we point to the
Court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the
d C Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong. Now, if
you look at the cases at the either party site,
(09:35):
you see a common theme the cases that we cite,
like National Treasury Treasury's Employment Union, Perkins against Lukens Oil Frothingham,
and Massachusetts against Melon, going back to Scott against Donald
and all of those, those are cases where the court
considered and addressed the sort of universal in that case,
statewide issue of provision of injunctive relief. When the court
(09:56):
is considered it addressed, this is consistently said, have to
limit the remedy to the plane of Supperian court and
complaining of that remedy.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
So we survived until the nineteen sixties without universal injunctions.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
That's exactly correct, and in fact.
Speaker 5 (10:09):
Those are very limited, very rare, even in the nineteen sixties.
It really exploded in two thousand and seven in our
curre petition in Summers against Earth Island Institute, we pointed
out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in
a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Okay, now again this is in the weeds, but I
thought that Clarence Thomas did a really good job. This
is only something that's happened recently in our two hundred
and fifty ish year history. And usually Bucking again, this
is going into the weeds.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Just also the Ninth The Ninth Circuit is the most
lunatic left training activist judicial circuit in the country, so
that's where they started doing this no surprise.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Most Supreme Court cases come about because the circuit Court's
ruled different directions. That is, as Buck just mentioned, the
Ninth Circuit is like the West Coast California prominent where
I live. I am in the sixth Circuit. That's Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan.
(11:04):
I think a couple of states like that. The Fifth
Circuit is traditionally seen as one of the most conservative.
That's Texas, Louisiana. I don't have the circuits in front
of me right now. Usually the Supreme Court is called
on to address circuit splits. That's where the Ninth Circuit,
in the Fifth Circuit may have had a different interpretation
of the law. Those are the most fertile, the most
(11:25):
germane for the Supreme Court to step in on because
we need a nationwide decision, and there are two different
circuit courts ruling differently. Here you have one random judge
and I don't know, Boston, Massachusetts, deciding what the law
should be for the whole nation, or it could be
one random judge in middle of nowhere, Texas. It is
(11:46):
a direct attack upon the entire legitimacy of the courts
to give a district court judge more power than his
superiors on the Circuit and Supreme.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Court, and they can effectively order the entire federal government
as though they run the federal government. I mean, yes
there will be appeals, and yes they'll go to the
Supreme Court, but for a period of time they get
to be the legal emperor, if you will, of America.
And this wasn't a problem really until they made it
(12:18):
a problem, and they made it a problem by having
these by these left wing judges. We all know how
this works. You know. They don't feel bound by the
constraints of language or law or tradition or anything else.
It's this is so so important that we have to
smash the things that we used to rely on to
keep us from doing this. And that's really a large part.
(12:40):
I think a lot of the argument today. So I mean,
this is really this wasn't even about the merits of
whether a birthright citizenship extends to those who are in
the country illegally or not, although it could if it
went against the administration terribly. The Supreme Court right could
come down and say, you know what, we think, even
just taking a peek at the merits, this is so
(13:01):
bad that we're actually gonna uphold this universal injunction until
we hear the merits on the case, and that would
be a huge win for the non Trump side. The
other side of this, I think Clay is right. They
could issue guidance on the scope of the injunction specifically
in this case. That would probably be the best thing
you could get from the Supreme Court on this. But
(13:24):
to me, I just sit here saying, Okay, eventually, we're
gonna have to look at whether you can steal citizenship
or not, because if citizenship can be given to people
who have broken the law to get it, you have
debased and and I know it's been going on, and
it has been wrong the whole time. You have debased
and devalued what it means to be an American in
(13:45):
a way that I think unfortunately is irreparable. I agree
one hundred percent with that.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Here's the question for you, and we can debate it
or discuss when we come back, because I think it's
one of the challenges the Court's going to be grappling with.
How do you address all of the people who had
citizenship for decades based on the belief that birthright citizenship
did convey American city.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, the EO makes this. The EO only affects those
after the EO goes into effect.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I get that, but I think there's going to be
an equal protection argument on behalf of everybody else. They're
going to say, this is an arbitrary thing for a
president to be able to do under his executive authority.
I agree that it should happenship is inherently kind of
arbitrary when you think about it, the whole.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Totally, totally is.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I mean, look, I think it's an interesting discussion because
I think that's one of the challenges they're going to
grapple with the most is that all of a sudden anyway,
we'll talk about it when we come back.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
Some opportunities are immediate, others take time to develop. Consider this.
There are some very well informed people who really believe
that our nation has an asset that could be worth
as much as one hundred and fifty trillion dollars, and
that asset has been buried under American soil and may
well be the basis for creating such a fund. Just
to give you an idea of the impact of this resource,
it could pay off our national debt four times over.
(15:01):
You might say this asset is hiding in plain sight.
Time will tell if the Trump administration releases it to
the public. But Jim Rickards, former advisor of the White
House and Federal Reserve, says, if you're over fifty, this
could be your best chance to build lasting wealth from
a once in a century event. To hear more of
Jim's thinking, go online to birthright twenty twenty five dot com.
If he's right, it could make President Trump the most
(15:22):
popular presidents in history and help millions of investors retire wealthy.
Go to birthright twenty twenty five dot com to get
the details free of charge. That's Birthright twenty twenty five
dot com paid for by Paradigm Press.
Speaker 6 (15:36):
Stories are freedom stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all each day, spend time with Clay and
find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Remember, Don Lemon, you used to have a show at CNN.
I in fact went on that show many times when
CNN was paying me very little to be ambushed by
morons on TV, and then they asked me to keep
doing it, and I said no. This was in the
pre Scott Jennings era where you would have three people
and they would just cut your mic and they would
(16:11):
chat at you and they didn't actually allow you to speak. Really,
So yeah, Don Lemon is still out there talking about
things here. He is very upset Clay about the South
African africaner refugees play nineteen this.
Speaker 7 (16:27):
South African Farmer bullet, which is the most blatantly obvious
racist ever. It is blatantly obvious the way that we
treat white South Africans, who, by the way, for the
most part, and I am generalizing here, some of the
wealthiest people are well to do people in the country.
They speak their language, they own most of the land
(16:48):
and the property, and somehow they're being granted a fast
track to become Americans while they're trying to cut down
on immigration from other countries.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
You know you get that from where from the brown people?
First of all, believe it or not done. There have
been times in history in other countries where a small
minority of the population or even a considerable minority of
the population had a lot of wealth and prestige in society,
and society turned against them and got really racist and
(17:17):
things got really really bad. See the twentieth century in Europe. Right, Like,
I just but people just want to be upset about this.
What it's fifty people, Clay, I think that there is
very limited things I think to criticize Trump for. I
really mean that.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
I mean, stock market is up for the year, border
is secure, prices of almost all goods or down. War
is less likely. You have to work really hard to
find things to be angry about, like a Mariland man
who's a human trafficker being an l Salvador. I mean,
they're really really grasping it, strawsy Er, pure talk of you.
(18:00):
Incredible offer right now, better than you could get from
AT and T, T Mobile and for Horizon because they
don't have the same overhead costs like stores and all
those other shenanigans. You benefit as a result with way
better pricing right now, you can get a brand new
Samsung Galaxy from Puretalk for free. Qualifying plan starts at
just thirty five bucks a month, unlimited talk, text, fifteen
(18:24):
gigs of data, and a mobile hotspot on America's most
dependable five gen network. You can switch to pure Talk
for just thirty five bucks a month, cut your cell
phone bill in half and get a brand new Samsung
Galaxy for free. Dial pound two five zero Say the
keywords Clay and Buck. Puretalk's US customer service team can
help you switch in as little as ten minutes. Again,
(18:46):
dial pound two five zero say the keywords Clay and
Bucks to make the switch to pure Talk today. Welcome
back in Clay, Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all of
you hanging out with us. We are rolling through the
Thursday edition of the program and there is a ton
out there. We were just talking about the importance of
the Supreme Court hearing that is underway or was underway
(19:10):
earlier today having to do with birthright citizenship and also
with the power of federal District Court judges to issue
these universal injunctions and how that can impact things going forward.
And I do think it's worth circling back around as
(19:30):
Trump two point zero is underway. The entire Democrat Party
is in disarray, the fallout of the vast left wing
conspiracy relating to Biden's dementia and the cover up the
fact that Kamala Harris is a joke, and there is,
alongside of Tim Wall's, no real chief spokesperson for the
(19:53):
Democrat Party to even fight back. The Resistance two point
zero base league doesn't exist. There's not even women walking
around in Vagina hats now crying in the streets. There
isn't even anything at all to push back against what
Trump is doing but for Buck, these universal injunctions.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
And I want to mention.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
This too, because this morning I've read about Trump's trip
to the Middle East. These are top Democrat officials. This
is Axios this morning. I want you to listen that
speech that Trump gave in Saudi Arabia. It was really
pretty incredible. This is what top Democrat officials told Axios.
(20:42):
Listen to this Buck quote, Gosh, I wish I could
work for an administration that could move that quickly. These
are top Democrat officials. Listen to these quotes. He does
all of this and it's kind of silence. It's met
with a shrug, said Ned Price, a former senior State
Department official. He has the ability to do things politically
(21:05):
that previous presidents did not because he has complete, unquestioned
authority over the Republican Caucus.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Another quote, it's men and I work together at the CIA.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
By the way, Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Here's a third quote.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's hard not to be simultaneously terrified at the thought
of the damage he can cause with such power and
awed by his willingness to brazenly shatter so many harmful taboos,
said Rob Malley, relating to what Trump is doing in
the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Did you even speech? Yeah? I did. It was incredible.
I listened to the whole thing as I was making
to carry eggs and watching the baby, double tasking like
a dad does. And Clay it was a phenomenal speech, truly, Yes.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And what but what I thought was interesting is it
was such a good speech that even Democrats who hate
Trump are kind of in awe of how this trip
has gone. And I do think and you'll really appreciate this, obviously,
with the CIA background, how challenging what he has managed
(22:15):
to pull off is he's got the UAE Qatar and
Saudi Arabia all competing to see who can throw him
the best state visit party. He's got Syria celebrating America
in the streets, and he has isolated Iran now to
(22:37):
the point where, other than Russia and maybe China, which
we know already were traditional allies, who in the Middle
East has even got Iran's back now.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
I know some people in.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Israel are upset about Trump's closeness to the UAE Qatar
in Saudi Arabia, but I would suggest that that has
led to Trump being able to put more pressure on
Iran than maybe any president in modern history has ever been.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Able to do. Trump says that as of today, he
is very close to a deal with Iran that was
as part of this part of this trip. That's what's
going on there. And when he was speaking at that
Katari round table, he said, iron can't have a nuclear weapon.
They get it, but they're very they're getting very close
to doing maybe a deal. I just want to say,
(23:32):
we've made this joke for about a decade now, Clay
that if Trump came out and said, guys, we've got
great news. We have managed the administration's project to cure
cancer is a success, there would be some way the democrat.
First of all, the Democrats wouldn't believe it, and then
they would say, you know what funding did he use
(23:54):
for this? And they would have all of these objections,
whether it's process objections or whatever, doesn't matter what it is,
they'll find a way. I do not be happy for
whatever Trump does. If he gets a nuclear deal, which
has been a Democrat dream, I know that say, oh,
we got one with Obama, wasn't a very good deal.
If Trump gets a deal, are they going to say, well,
(24:15):
I guess they'll just say it's not a good deal.
There's nothing he can do that will make them say,
you know what, this guy's actually got something. Even though
he can't run again and everything else, they will just
oppose him to op pose. And this is I think
what you see with the whole trip, and also with
a lot of what the not everything, but a lot
of what the administration is doing so far. You just say,
(24:37):
these are just objectively good things to be trying to accomplish,
and there's objectively real progress happening on them all. And
you get people that are still saying that this is
like fascism or something. I mean, there's this delusion they.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Live in well, and I think this is why the
putting them on the defense with the Joe Biden aspect
is so important. You and I think it was ludicrous
that the twenty twenty two election in any way turned
on January sixth. Whatever you think about Dobbs, at least
that was a tangible political action that people felt compelled
(25:14):
to respond to. But the idea that anybody in November
of twenty twenty two reacted in their voting patterns based
on what happened on January sixth is frankly crazy. But
the media made it seem like such a big deal
that I think some people were motivated by that. I think,
what what I jotted this now during one of the breaks,
(25:36):
I'm going to give Jake Tapper a small measure of
praisier Buck and I just I see your face. I
understand that many of you out there also. He likes football,
Clay likes football. I knew this was going to happen.
I'm telling you why, Jake Tapper writing this book is
going to be impossible for Democrats to avoid because it's
(26:00):
one of their own writing it. If there are lots
of very talented quote unquote right wing authors who could
write a book about Biden's dementia, and they would forswear it.
They would ignore it, just like they have ignored you
and me and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and all
(26:22):
the other people on the Premiere Network, Jesse Kelly pointing
this out for years, just like they have ignored many
of the people on Fox News, just like they have ignored, frankly,
even the Wall Street Journal, when the Wall Street Journal
had a big piece about Biden's clear lack of cognitive ability.
They can't ignore Jake Tapper. It's like if Rachel Maddow
(26:46):
suddenly sits down and says, we got major problems. Joe
Biden has dementia which she knew, but which she covered
up and pretended she didn't. They have to cover it
on CNN, they have to cover it on MSNBC, they
have to cover it in The New Yorker, at ABC,
at CBS, at NBC. It's one of their own telling
(27:10):
the story. And that is the only praise I can
give Jake Tapper. If Jesse Waters writes this book, they
just say, oh, yeah, of course, that Fox News host.
If you or I write this book. They're like, oh,
of course, the guys who sit where Rush used to
the Jake Tapper is one of their own, and he
(27:32):
is holding up the dementia and they feel compelled to
have to cover it now. Is partly to your point,
the fact that they they'd rather be dumb than be
seen as dishonest. Yes, Are they going to claim that
they got lied to? Yes, which is why I liked
your tweet yesterday that you brought up yesterday. Why don't
you tell us who lied about Karie Jean Pierre. You know,
(27:56):
has there ever been a more public liar in the
history of the United States than Karine Jean Pierre Zensaki,
who has her own show on MSNBC. She didn't know,
She didn't know when when Jake Sullivan, when Biden can't
remember his name. They didn't talk about it inside of
the they.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
All knew, they all knew. I wish they would come
forward actually and just say, yeah, we knew he had dementia.
But we figured that was a better outcome for the
country than the fascist Donald Trump. And that was the
decision we made. That would show how at some level
craven they are. But at least I could respect that, Like,
(28:35):
at least I could say, all right, you guys are
ruthless and you're liar.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Is that is also honest? At least it's honest. Yes,
at least it is honest.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
At least they would be telling us what really happened, which,
let me just be clear, that is what happened. It's
not I think that's what happened. That is what happened.
We all know it the same way we knew Biden
had dementia. We know that they knew, and they knew that,
we knew. Everybody knows, and now the Hubrist to try
to pretend like nobody knew. This is really a But
(29:10):
if I point on the Tapper thing, Tapper is one
of them, it would be like if Joe Scarborough wrote
Biden has dementia, he wouldn't do it. Also, why why
couldn't Alex Thompson do this himself?
Speaker 4 (29:21):
Though?
Speaker 2 (29:21):
What I would Well, that's my question that I've had
from the start. Right, if he's the one that people
say but he was more honest about it, it's like,
why do I think he's adding Tapper? Because Tapper's whole
thing within the Democrats is like that is first of all,
if he came on, which who knows if you will
or not, or if we want to have him or not,
he would still claim that he's an objective reporter and
does not actually he's I mean, he's a clear Democrat activist,
(29:43):
but he would say he's an objective reporter. He would
hold to that, and he is the last gasp of
the Democrats clinging to that fiction. So he has a
lot of power within the Democrat media ranks because of that.
Because if everyone just and when I say everybody, everyone
on the right already knows. But if the country, by
sort of overwhelming consensus that that pays attention to news
(30:06):
a lot of your fortune, you don't even care about
this crap. But the country that pays attention to, you know,
news media, it was all like, you know what, Jake
Tapper was a big partisan fraud too. It's all over
for them now. It's just it's MSNBC and it's Fox.
It's two different teams. We all know it, we all
get it. There's no more of the pretense because the
pretense has been a built in advantage. The pretense of
(30:27):
journalism as an objective thing instead of journalism is really
just the term given to left wing activists who write
stories for left wing news organizations. If that goes away,
they lose something that they've been able to rely on
for a long time, and it's been going away. But
I think this is the death throes of it.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
I do think there's a small realization dawning in a
lot of people's minds that they thought they were the
good guys and they're actually going to be the bad
guys of history. They got everything wrong on COVID, they
covered up dementia from Joe Biden. I think slowly they
(31:06):
are thinking, uh, oh, I always said this buck. If
you are a history guy or history gal, be very
very nervous when people say, oh, I'm sure we're on
the right side of history, because history has a way
of revealing sometimes things that people did not see in
(31:26):
the moment. And my argument for a long time has
been they are going to be everyone who thinks they're
the hero of this era is actually going to be
the villains of history. Fauci Biden, everyone who held them
up and protected them. If history does its job, those
(31:46):
guys one hundred years from now are going to be
seen as the biggest villains in America. I really believe.
And I think that's where we're headed. And I think
doctor Joe Biden may end up being one of the
greatest villainess.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Is that a right word. I think that's the right word.
She's the Cruella Deville of American politics, and she's headed
there in a real hurry. Do you catch the great
news on prescription drug prices? Earlier this week?
Speaker 1 (32:13):
President Trump recently signed an executive order slashing the cost
of prescription drugs and going after the price gouging for
drugs you're now getting with Obamacare, taking on big Pharma,
something RFK Junior said he never thought he would see
in his lifetime. Now the real fight begins. But you
don't have to wait until the fight's over. We want
to introduce you to a healthcare insurance provider, Ease for
(32:35):
Everyone Compared to Obamacare. Ease for Everyone comes with a
monthly cost as low as two hundred and sixty two dollars.
You get access to over four hundred prescription drugs for free.
They're not just at a lower cost, but no cost
zero dollars. And unlike the broken promise of Obamacare, you
actually get to keep your doctor. Plus you get free
(32:55):
unlimited virtual primary care. You can have affordable healthcare for
as low on hundred and sixty two dollars a month today.
Go online to easefo everyone dot com slash Clay.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
That's e A S E ease e A S.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
E four f O R everyone dot com slash Clay.
You can also find it on the Clayanbuck dot com
sponsors page.
Speaker 6 (33:20):
You ain't imagining it. The world has gone insane. Reclaim
your sanity with Clay and Fun. Find them on the
free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
All right, it's that time on the show, and I
need to remind myself and Clay and all of you
to get a little pick me up from Crockett Cooffee.
Go to Crocketcoffee dot com. Please subscribe. If you do
and use codebook, you'll get a signed copy of Clay's
American Playbook. Get them while you can. Got two new
books coming out end of this year and beginning of
next year from the Clay and Buck Library, I guess
(33:53):
you could say, and uh much other good stuff on
that site. New mugs available now, including over Mountain Club mug,
which is very special and it's delicious. Coffee you should
go check it out. If you've never had mushroom coffee,
let me add it's really good. It's great in the afternoon,
about half the caffeine a normal coffee, plus all kinds
of antioxidants and good health benefits stuff Crocketcoffee dot com.
(34:15):
Please go check it out. Don't drink whatever coffee you're drinking.
If it's not Crocket, it's not good enough for you.
My friends, go check it out at Crocketcoffee dot com. Clay,
I also found out something this morning, more marital experience here.
I was not really aware of this, and now I'm there,
such a young man in the marriage game. When yeah,
(34:38):
I'm I'm I'm I'm a newbie into all this. Uh,
your wife can look at you and be a little unhappy,
quite unhappy, quite sternly, and you can ask her, hey, honey,
what's going on. She said nothing, I'm fine, and you
say are you sure. She goes, I'm fine, and then
you know she's not fine, and then you say okay,
(35:01):
and then you try to like escape the situation, and
right before you leave the room, she goes, you know
what you did in my dream last night? And now
the answer to that is of course no, But play
I just grow that you could be in trouble as
husband for whatever the wife has had a dream about.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
All right, so here's the flip side. Can you imagine
holding her accountable in any way or being angry for
her based on something that she did in your dream?
Has this happened at any point in your relationship that
you can remember so far?
Speaker 2 (35:36):
No? Yes?
Speaker 5 (35:37):
No?
Speaker 2 (35:37):
So do you think it's only I don't know because
I'm with no. But my understanding is these are the
rules of marriage. Like wife is allowed to be annoyed
over morning coffee for at least a little bit, if
you were naughty in the dream that she had, even
if she knows it was a dream, these are the rules.
I don't make the rules. No, No, I get it.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
I'm just trying to think why would women be able
to get mad at their husbands? But I'm just asking
because I I can't recall ever being angry at my
wife over something that she did in my dream? Right,
has Laura ever been mad at you for what you
did in her dream? That's a great question. We've been
married for almost twenty one years. I'm sure I've given
her ample reasons to be mad at me for many reasons,
(36:15):
both awake and dreaming over those twenty one years, but
I can't remember, but it feels like probably yes is
the answer.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
But it is an interesting question because my.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Point is if you had been angry at her, I
don't think it would be accepted.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
No, of course not. I'm a dude. We can't do that.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
Yeah, why is it acceptable the opposite direction? I think
it's an interesting question. I'm gonna go downstairs and ask you.
Men and women are different, buddy.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
You know that. I do know. No way, next second
you're gonna tell me men shouldn't be able to play
women's sports
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.