February 6, 2024 • 36 mins
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy reacts to today's D.C. appeals court decision against Trump's immunity argument, what Trump should do next, and what it means to the Trump trials timing. Tucker goes to Moscow to interview Putin, liberal media loses its mind. Biden blames Trump for keeping the border open.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton Show.
We appreciate all of you hanging out with us. Encourage
you to go subscribe to Clay and Buck vip. You
can watch us every single day on video there. We
are waving at you right now. We appreciate all of you.
We also love all of you listening on our five
hundred plus AMFM stations in all fifty states, plus the
(00:27):
millions of downloads that are taking place every single month
on the podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
We love Tutor Dixon.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We also love Carol Markowitz, part of our podcast network.
More to come in the near future. We head now
to our friend Andy McCarthy, who is still in Chicago,
I think watching his son play for the University of
Chicago baseball team.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
I understand that we sent him a New York Mets mug.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
It's good for a Mets fan to get something since
most of the time all they get is losses from
my Atlanta Braves. Right off the top. Shots at Andy,
Clay bringing the heat. Oh right away.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Andy, By the way, who do you like in the
Super Bowl?
Speaker 2 (01:04):
We probably won't talk to you before then, do you
have a strong lean one way or the other forty
nine Ers or chiefs.
Speaker 5 (01:09):
Yeah, I think the chiefs or I just think mahomes
is to get into that sort of Montana Brady category,
he's got to like go on the road, win those
playoff games and get a championship, and then I think
he's in that conversation. So I think that's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
I'm on the other side, by the way, the forty
nine ers, but that, Yeah, there we go. We got
an easy, easy battle going on there. All right, let's
dive into what we got today. DC Court of Appeals.
I think you would probably say not a surprising ruling
that they're not buying Donald Trump's presidential immunity argument he
now faces the Trump does in his legal team the question,
(01:48):
does he appeal on bank to the entirety of the
DC Court of Appeals knowing that the DC Court of
Appeals is not going to accept his argument, and then would.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Appeal to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Or do you think he skips the en banc appeal
and goes straight to the Supreme Court. How would you
assess where we are right now as it pertains to
this jan six case based on the ruling that came
down this morning.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Clay, I think equally important with the fifty seven page opinion, which,
as you suggest, is a pretty thorough rejection of the
merits of his immunity claim, but probably equally important with
it is this one page, really essentially one paragraph order
(02:34):
that the court issued in conjunction with the opinion. And
it's very interesting. What it does is it says to Trump,
you have until Monday to file an appeal to the
Supreme Court, in which case we'll continue to hold the
case in abance until the Supreme Court acts on it.
But if you instead decide to take your thirty days
(02:58):
that the rules of appellate procedure give you to appeal
to the full court on bank and only then you
know which would have What would happen there is it
would get instantly denied and then he would try to
appeal to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
What the court basically says, if you could.
Speaker 5 (03:15):
Try to go the rehearing un bank route first, that
is not going to stop proceedings in the District court anymore.
So you either appeal to the Supreme Court Monday, or
this case is going back to Judge chuck in so
she can start having hearings and do the jury questionnaire
and all the stuff she has to do to get
ready for trial.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Have you ever seen that before?
Speaker 5 (03:36):
I know I've never seen Well also, I mean, is
there anything about this where you couldn't put that question
to me?
Speaker 3 (03:44):
You know there's nothing about that.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
But ill the reason I'm saying, I've never seen a
court say if you appeal to us, then we will
allow the lower court proceedings to start. Basically telling Trump
you're not going to be able to use any more
time here, you better go straight to the Supreme Court.
If you were advising, I've never seen something like this.
So and then to your point, none of us have
(04:06):
ever seen anything like this. What would you tell Trump
and his team if they came to you in the wake.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Of this appeal?
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And we all understand that Trump's goal is to avoid
this case going to trial, ideally until after the elections
already happened, but in a minimum, as long as possible,
what advice would you give him based on this ruling?
Speaker 5 (04:29):
I tell him we have to appeal to the Supreme
Court on Monday, because I think the other thing, Clay,
that there's like another moving part here that we have
to consider, which is actually superseded the immunity in importance,
and that is that the Supreme Court has already said
they're going to hear the obstruction case in connection with
some of the January sixth defendants. And even though Trump
(04:51):
is not a defendant in that action, he's not a
party to that, it's immensely important because the two main
charges against Trump and the election interference are the obstruction charges.
So I think as a practical matter, because the Supreme
Court is not going to decide the obstruction case until
the end of June, Judge Chuckin can't start a trial
(05:15):
until sometime after that, I would say, you know, probably
late July at the earliest, because she's got a wait
for what the Court's going to say on obstruction. So
if I'm Trump's lawyers, I think I would say, well, look,
we've gotten as much as of this immunity thing that,
like on substance, was meritless, but was valuable to, you know,
(05:36):
to getting the case put on ice in the district
court and achieving some delay. But at this point his
eggs are in the obstruction basket. It's no longer an
immunity thing.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
Andy, what is the from the perspective of Jack Smith,
the anti Trump Democrats, given what we've seen so far,
what are they hoping this is going to play out
as right?
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Like?
Speaker 4 (05:58):
What what is their best scenario as you see it
from here on out in terms of obviously a guilty verdict,
but in terms of the timing and how it comes down.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
I think she's determined to go to trial. They go
to trial in late July. I've been saying July fifteenth,
but it was pointed out to me not long ago
that July fifteenth is apparently the start of the Republican Convention.
I think that would be a little much to start
the trial on that day. But I imagine, you know,
after that, the hope for them would be the Supreme
(06:33):
Court doesn't do much with the obstruction case that would
disturb Smith's indictment, and then with little or no tweaking,
he can just go to trial a few weeks later,
and in the meantime, Chucken can use this time that
she now has or probably will have to do all
the pre trial stuff that you need to get ready
(06:54):
so that they can hit the ground running and go
to trial in July, and then they hope buck to
you know, in a federal criminal trial, the defendant has
to be there every day, and this is estimated to
be a two to three month trial. So I think
they would hope to have Trump sort of not only
chained to a courtroom from late like late July into October,
(07:17):
but also day after day after day, the evidence in
the case is going to be coming out and being
in the public domain and reminding the public of everything
they disliked about Andy.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
So yeah, I wanted to take it from that perspective.
So we can kind of know worst case now from
the Trump perspective, obviously heavily involving the Supreme Court's actions. Here,
what's best case from here on out?
Speaker 5 (07:40):
That Smith that the Supreme Court issues an opinion in
the obstruction case that not only dismantles the imaginative uses
that prosecutors have made of the obstruction statute, but also says,
you know, look, just like we said last term in
the case involving the two Cuomo pronies whose convictions they
(08:03):
threw out, we were telling prosecutors not to creatively use
these statutes and stretch them in a way that they
were never intended to be used in order to fight
political corruption. If Congress wants to write political corruption statutes,
they can do that, but it's not up to prosecutors
(08:24):
to use the.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Law this way.
Speaker 5 (08:26):
And if they wrote an opinion like that, and I
don't think that's out of the realm of possibility, I
wouldn't bet my life on it. That would be a
problem for Smith, not only in connection with the obstruction
but also with the civil rights charge and the fraud charge.
So I think that's Trump's biggest hope that the Supreme
Court blows it out of the water forum on the
obstruction case.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Okay, Traditionally, and again we're talking about we're talking to
any McCarthy. Everything we're talking about is unprecedented, non traditional.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yes, in the legitimate use of the word.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
General rule. The Department of Justice has a policy that
they do not do political trials in the middle of elections.
This has been the standard rule for a long time,
even with the idea being that was at twenty twenty
two when they raided mar A Lago. I think they
tried to do it in August instead of doing it
(09:20):
in October.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And what we're talking about now, and I agree with
you on timing.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Is the possibility that this case would go to trial
right in the middle of the election. Right to your point,
Trump could leave the Republican Convention and go straight to
a courtroom in d C. And be there for the
rest of July, August, September on potentially into October.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
This is really crazy. What do you think MARYK.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Garland would say about that timing and how that would
play from a Department of Justice perspective.
Speaker 5 (09:56):
I think Garland will say, you know, gee whiz, I
appointed a special counsel here and President Biden and I
don't have anything to do with the cases against President Trump,
which was the reason you know there shouldn't be a
special counsel in this case. The reason he appointed this
a conflict of interest between the Biden Justice Department and Trump. Right,
there's a conflict of interest between the Biden Justice Department
(10:18):
and Biden and Hunter, but not with Trump. But the
only reason he appointed the council was so that we
could indulge this that he doesn't have anything to do
with it. The Biden Justice Department doesn't have anything to
do with the President. Biden doesn't even though Jack Smith
is executing President Biden's power under the auspices of the
(10:38):
Justice Department. They're pretending they have nothing to do with it,
and then they'll just say Smith's going to do whatever
he's going to do. And it looks like he's hell
bent on going to trial whenever he can go. That's
clear they've made up this fantasy new right that the
public has an interest in a speedy trial, when the
Constitution said it's the defendant who has an interest in
(10:58):
speedy trial. Look has an interest in a just trial.
Trump doesn't want to speedy trial. He wants more time.
So I think Smith is absolutely going for it whenever
he can start the trial. And it's really going to
be up to Judge Chuck and to decide how does
she want to be perceived and remembered. Does she think
(11:21):
it's unseemly for the judiciary to participate in what would
be to my mind, the Biden Justice Departments obviously politicize
desire to get this case to trial at a time
that's propitious for them under the election calendar.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Is there any so Andy, It sounds like either Supreme
Court steps in here or this thing is going to trial?
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Right? Is that?
Speaker 4 (11:47):
I mean meeting either Supreme Court shoots it down in
a way where they can't get the outcome they want,
or else you think they will be able to get
it through on the schedule where it would happen before
the election.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Is that the right read?
Speaker 5 (11:58):
Yeah, I think it would be to do it that way,
But I will that Smith is determined to go to trial,
and I don't see from everything I've seen from Judge
chuck Now. Look, chuck In has frozen the case. And
Smith did go to her and say, well, even though
the case is on appeal, there's other things we could
(12:19):
be dealing, we could be dealing with motions, we could
be dealing with the jury quist And she said, no,
it's shut down. So she hasn't been a complete rubber
stamp for him, and I don't think she's going to
like the perception that, like, if they start this trial
in August and you're running right into election day. If
I'm a judge, I don't want to be You know,
(12:39):
the judiciary is supposed to be there as the protection
to the defendant from abusive actions by the executive branch
the prosecution in this instance, and I think it would
be abusive under circumstances where the public has an interest
in deciding the election itself rather than having the system decided.
(13:02):
To me, there's no public interest in having this case
before election day, you know. Smith says, well, you know,
we the public has a right to the public knows
plenty the public has there the indictment, the public had
the January sixth committee hearing. There's nothing about January. We
watched January sixth on television. There's nothing about this that
(13:22):
the public is going to find out at the trial.
That is not something we don't already know. What the
Democrats I'm hoping for is it's like it's one big
election ad in the run up to the election, to
remind the public when they're thinking about a million other
things how much they hated the Capitol riot.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Last question for you, Andy, there's another complexity here, clearly
based on the schedule being changed, and I agree with you,
I think late July probably the earliest at best that
they could take this to trial in DC, the Jack
Smith case. What do you think Democrats are telling Alvin
Bragg now, because he would theoretically be first up on
(14:02):
the docket, do they push this one back and wait
and put all their eggs in the jack Smith basket.
What if that case gets dragged on and ends up
pushing because that could happen, right like, somehow things get
bogged down there and they can't start the jack Smith
case right like, and or we still have South Florida.
What do you think they're selling Alvin Bragg right now?
(14:24):
Do you think that case goes to trial first or
do you think they tell him to put that on hiatus.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
Well, there's two things with that Clay. One is that
you know, Alvin Bragg and the Democrats have you know,
the National Democrats, they have kind of the same agenda.
You know, they want to see Trump defeat it. But
Brago also has his own constituency in New York, right,
which is why he indicted this Takamami case in the
first place. So if I'm the Democrats, I don't want
(14:52):
the Alvin Bragg case to go to trial because to me,
that's a no lose proposition for Trump. If he beats
the case, it's like a nanza for him because he
could he's got a powerful argument that this whole lawfair
thing was just a bunch of you made up nonsense.
Then it'll be a powerful argument for him on the
other hand, if he gets convicted, it's a really bad case,
(15:14):
and I think people are just going to say, look,
that's New York. They have it in for Trump, and
they're not going to care that much about it. So
if I'm the Democrats, there's nothing good that comes out
of Alvin Bragg going first. But if Brad wants to
go first, and he's got a trial date that the
judge gave him a March twenty fifth, and there's no
federal troth, he said he would back off for a
(15:36):
federal trial. If there's no federal trial going in March,
it'll be up to him whether he wants to push
it forward or not.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Just the future of the Republicans take everybody, no big
deal Andnny macarth, everybody of National Review, Andy, thanks for
being with us.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
Thanks guys.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Can you capitalize on the AI technology innovations without working
for one of the tech companies involved in developing this tech, Well,
sure you can, because artificial intelligence is having impact all
around us and there are opportunities to realize a positive
return if you choose to invest carefully. Tech expert Colin
ted Ards believes this is the beginning of a new
(16:12):
era that could make you rich. Colin has been watching
the markets closely. When the stock market hit rock bottom
at the end of twenty twenty two, he recommended shares
of a top software company, speculating the upside, and the
company was there. This same software company is up over
two hundred percent since then, and anyone who listened to
Colin had a chance to more than double in less
than a year. Now he's recommending a new AI company
(16:32):
that he says could do even better, and he's found
a way for you to profit from this as well.
It's NEWAI project dot com. That's the website you want
to go check out New aiproject dot com. NEWAI project
dot Com paid for by Brownstone Research.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
One truth revealed after another Clay Travis and Buck Sexton,
welcome back.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Into Clay and Buck. We're gonna dive in and make
a little more. Uh maike a little more of this
discussion we just had with Andy McCarthy about where the
lawfair against Trump is going to go at this point, Uh,
it's sounded like it's for it's for all the marvels,
whether they can actually get this thing done against Trump,
(17:19):
the J six trial. I think Clay, you me and
Andy all see New York the same way at this point,
which to me is not quite gospel, but it means
we're we're probably on the on the on the side
of of correct on that one. That doesn't mean that
I think to his point that Bragg won't bring the case,
but there certainly are additional considerations. If they can get
(17:39):
this J six thing set up so that it's August
September into October, he's in a federal criminal trial. If
nothing else, they slow down his entire campaign, even if
he beats it.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Yeah, it's gonna I mean again, so much of this
is unprecedented, but it is wild to think about where
we are headed and what the next several months are
going to be. Like, buckle up, We've set it for
some time. There truly is no storyline that has been
similar to this in the history of the United States.
My Pillows put together a great sale to start off
twenty twenty four, so good in fact, it's extending into
(18:10):
February to sale their best selling products, not just the
overstocked items or off season items, but all the great
ones too. New flannel sheets for cold winter nights on
sale fifty percent off, Mattress toppers make your older mattress
feel new. YEP available and with a price reduced by
fifty percent, or get fifty percent off the MyPillow two
(18:31):
point zero, not to mention their six piece towel sets
at the lo loo price of just twenty nine to
ninety eight. Take advantage of the free shipping, especially on
larger items like the mattress toppers. You still get the
sixty day money back guarantee and the ten year warranty
on your purchases. To find this offer, go to MyPillow
dot com, click on the radio listeners special square to
(18:53):
check out everything. Use our names Clay and Buck as
your promo code for the specials plus free shipping. Welcome
back in Clay, Travis, Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all of
you hanging out with us. Encourage you to go check out.
We've had a couple of great interviews. Dave McCormick in
the second hour running for Senate from Pennsylvania. A top
of this hour, our friend Andy McCarthy breaking down all
the latest on the law fair against Donald Trump, its consequences,
(19:16):
its significance.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
I think you will learn quite a lot from that.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
If you missed it, you can go grab it in
the podcast, or you can go subscribe to the Clay
and Buck of VIP and you can watch the video
version of the interview on once.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
The show is over.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
You can also obviously watch us live for three hours
every single day at Clayanbuck dot com. Okay, Donald, we've talked.
I think we might have mentioned on the show earlier,
maybe yesterday, that Tucker Carlson was in Russia. If we didn't,
we certainly have talked about it off air. Sometimes the
conversations are very similar. But Tucker just released a video saying, yes,
(19:53):
he's in Russia and he's there to interview Vladimir Putin.
I think that's an interesting decision. I agree that if
you can interview some somebody at the center of a
geopolitical universe, you should Here's Tucker talking about his decision
to interview Putin.
Speaker 6 (20:06):
Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or
what his goals are.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Now you've never heard his voice.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
That's wrong.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
Americans have a right to know all they can about
a war they're implicated in, and we have the right
to tell them about it because we are Americans too.
Freedom to speech is our birthright. We were born with
the right to say what we believe. That right cannot
be taken away no matter who is in the White House.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
But they're trying anyway.
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on
our text messages and then leaked the contents to their
servants in the news media. They did this in order
to stop a Putin interview that we were planning last
month for pretty certain they did exactly the same thing
once again, but this time we came to Moscow. Anyway,
we are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin
(20:54):
may say in this interview, but we.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Are urging you to watch it.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
You should know as much as you can, and then,
like a free citizen and not a slave, you can
decide for yourself.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
I agree with everything he said there, Buck, I mean,
I don't know what Putin's gonna say.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Obviously some people are gonna rip him.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
But I think if CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, any
of these outlets had the opportunity to sit down one
on one with Vladimir Putin, you would have to take it.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
I'm not sure what you lose by this.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
To me, it's a big get from a journalist. We
got to see how it goes. I respect I like Tucker.
You like Tucker, and I respect his his HUTSPA a
lot and what he's done over the years. Does this
turn into just Vladimir Putin with the same talking points
(21:44):
about the threat for NATO et cetera, et cetera. Or
is there something that we glean from this that is
that is new, that is novel. You know there are limits, right,
I mean, after nine to eleven if you said, I'm
not saying Putin is osamamd Lauden, but it would be
quite had an interview to sit down with oslaom and
Lauden a fter nine to eleven and ask him, hey,
so why do you do that? But I think people
(22:05):
have a problem with that, right, So it's not just
you talk to anybody because it's interesting, although maybe some
people disagree, maybe they say, oh my god, I.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Have any I mean it, bin Laden, I mean, I think, honestly,
if your job is to.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Be a journalist and there is a news maker.
Speaker 4 (22:21):
When you interview someone, this is my perspective is not
I'm not a journalist. Do you think of yourself as
a journalist? Though this is word I mean it's a
little you know, I have opinions and views, right, I don't.
I don't pretend to be neutral ever.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Yeah right, but I I yes, on this show, you
and I are saying exactly what we think. But if,
for instance, I'm just tossing it out because you mentioned
Bin Laden he's dead.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
If somebody from North Korea reached out.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
To me and they said, Kim Jong un wants to
do a sit down interview because he saw your opinion
on the Chicago Bulls and he likes, he likes, He's
chosen you of all journalists that he would want to
sit down with. I think I could say I would
go and I would sit down across from Kim Jong u.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
I mean, I'd be worried about all the time everybody.
I would look clay.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
But I mean I wouldn't give my opinion. So I think,
you know, I would say, Megan.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Kelly has a super opinionated show, right, but I think
she would argue, hey, I can sit down and also
you can give a interview. Yeah, I think what would
fall under journalistic approach. But I just you know, the title.
I mean, I think journalists as a title is almost
always a fraud regardless. But that's not that's not I know,
that's kind of secondary to the fit to the main point,
(23:33):
which is to go and sit down and talk to Putin.
You know, I think I gotta see what I.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
See how it goes.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
I would say, I would say, yes, I think if
if I were in that position and the guy who's
currently in war, and I would say, look if somebody
could have talked to Hitler during World War Two and
actually heard whatever Hitler was going to say, again, you're
not endorsing to me. Leaders Giving speech and answering questions
in general is something that should be encouraged, even if
(24:03):
sometimes they're all see.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
The problem though, play with with interviewing Putin is you're
interviewing him in Russia. You're not going to you know,
did the the home her home turf advantage here isn't
Oh I'm gonna get It's not like when I go
on the Bill mahershow and the imbeciles in the audience boomy.
It's they might just say you're not going back, yeah,
and I get it. They might decide that they're going
(24:25):
to hold you. That's not being Look what they just did.
They had to have the whole thing with Britney Rener.
I mean they've they've still got they've got that Wall
Street Journal journalist right now. You know much more in
the moment here, Evan Gorskovic. They're holding him, he's a
Wall Street Journal report everybody. They're holding him. They're keeping
him in a prison cell there.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
He did nothing, And I hope and I hope Tucker
would say, hey, I think based on all the evidence
I've seen, that guy should be released.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Really I don't know.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Well, but what I'm saying is, are you really able
to do an interview and speak truth to power when
the person sitting down with you as soon as those
lights go off could be like, yeah, no, we're just
gonna hold him for six months.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
And so that's the risk of going right, that's the
risk of gouding. So there's more dynamics here. This isn't like, oh,
Putin's at the un and you get to sit down
and have a chat with them where you can actually
really push him. I mean, I think I know what
he's going to say before he's First of all, it's
all through a translator, which means there's a lot that's
lost in translation. Obviously I'm not judging it either way.
(25:21):
I'm just saying this is tricky, you know, because I
remember a long time ago, at the height of the
Syrian Civil War. It's a long story, but someone came
to me in back channel and was saying, hey, I
think I could arrange for you and maybe a couple
of other people to sit down with Asad. Oh wow,
and uh and I It ended up not happening, and
it was very early stage, and I didn't even agree
(25:42):
to it. This is just an offer that was made.
Someone said, Hey, I think I could do that. I said, ah,
let me, let me think about that, and then you know,
it sort of fell apart. But I mean, remember what
happened with Tulcy Gabbard when she did that afterwards. Now,
some people thought that that was an act of bravery
for her to talk to the Assad regime, go to
Syria all of that. But there's a fine line between,
(26:02):
you know, there's a fine line in some instances between
speaking truth to power, getting the answers people need. And
I'm hopeful that Tucker is going to do exactly that
and getting a little closer to like a Jane Fonda
experience where you're hanging out with the enemy and letting
them use you as a mountain. Now, that won't happen
with Tucker. But I'm just saying these are the addition
(26:24):
when you show up in a tyrants layer, there are
additional considerations that don't apply if you're just talking to
somebody here in the States.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
One challenge, by the way, too, which you just raised
about being in Russia. I don't know how many countries
Vladimir Putin can even travel to right now, given that
there are war crimes accusations against him, where there wouldn't
be the threat that he might be arrested or detained
in some way.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Absolutely, I mean I'm not even sure. I mean that
would be interesting to know.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Did Tucker say, hey, can we meet in a neutral
location outside of Russia? I don't know how many countries
I think Putin has traveled to China. I don't think
you'd feel much more you know, favorable in China than
you would in in Russia.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
There.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I just I don't think there's very many democracies that
would allow Vladimir Putin on.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
I mean, if I got you, if I got you
to sit down in China with Shi Jinping, would you
be like, hey, man, the million people you have in
concentration camps. That's a crime against humanity. You need to
stop that, you need to step down from power. I mean, Clay,
I don't know if you'd make it back if you did, honestly.
So this, this is the reality I get that we
live in, right.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
I mean, I get it. I mean that is that
is the challenge. So we'll see what happens. But I
do think it's worth mentioning that that's going to go on.
It's fascinating, right, look at it.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
Look at us sitting here talking about all the different
possibilities but also the implications. And you know, Tucker is
one of my favorite people to watch and listen to
in the space generally. So I mean, I'm I'm I'm
definitely gonna listen to this interview. I'm just saying, there's
a it's there's it's a field of land mines, there
are land And.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
By the way, we didn't even mention yes, obviously you're
in Russia, but also how long does the inner you go?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Do you get to keep your tapes? Right?
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Like, who is recording it? There are many and to
your point, it's translated. So the difficulty there is you
have to rely that the translator is telling you the truth,
which is its own dynamic. Does Tucker have his own
translator translating the translator? It is going to be amazing,
I think to follow when we come back. By the way,
we should play this audio too. Biden did what we
(28:26):
told you he was going to do. He says, if
this border bill doesn't get passed, then the lack of
security at the border is Donald Trump's fault. And all
the MAGA Republicans will play that audio for you. We
told you it was coming, but I think it's important
for you all to hear it that just happened in
the last couple of hours as well.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
You know, one thing we like to do here is
not only identify the problems, but also try to identify
solutions or ways to make things better. Saving the lives
of unborn children is a top priority for anybody who
considers themselves pro life. Right right now, there are still
so many abortions going on across the country, but there's
something you can do about it. Thanks to the Preborn
(29:06):
Network of Clinics, something that takes you to the front
lines and saves lives. Preborn welcomes pregnant mothers with care
and support and resources including maternity clothing, diapers, and much more.
Beside their unconditional love, their most valuable gift to that
mother in the first meeting is an ultrasound. That experience
of the ultrasound so often creates that additional moment of
(29:28):
bonding between mother and child because when she hears that heartbeat,
witnesses those those first movements going on within her, the
tiny hands, the tiny feet. That experience alone can save
the live of an unborn child, and it only happens
because of your support. So please, if you can donate,
twenty eight dollars is the cost of a single ultrasound.
Five of those ultrasounds, It's just one hundred and forty dollars.
(29:50):
This is a tax deductible donation. Use your cell phone
dial pound two five zero and say baby. That's pound
two five zero, Say baby. Or go online to preborn
dot com slash buck. That's preborn dot com. Slash b uck.
Preborn has a one hundred percent charity rating so you
(30:10):
can give with confidence. Sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Don't miss a minute of playing buck and get behind
the scene access to special.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
Content for members only.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Subscribe to C and B twenty four to seven. Close
enough shop on Clay and Buck. Great time to tell
you about the podcast because if you missed anything, if
you want to listen again because it was that good,
or you want to hear some of our extra content.
The Buck Brief, Carol Markowitz's podcast, Tutor Dixon Podcast amazing
options for your on demand listening enjoyment. Download the iHeartRadio
(30:43):
app and you can subscribe for free and listen to
it all. There also our political Recap of the Week
podcast twenty four which is quite good. Clay, you had
a clip of Biden that you want to play. Am
I remembering this correctly from a few minutes ago. I'm
pulling a Biden right now. Go ahead call see it
up because I want everyone to hear it as well.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, Biden is now. I believe this has cut twenty six.
We told you that as soon as the border bill
was rejected, Biden would say, now Trump is responsible for
the lack of security. Republicans, the MAGA Republicans are responsible.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
This was a clear.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Attempt to defray blame here. He is directly saying that
earlier today.
Speaker 7 (31:25):
But if the bill fails, I want to be absolutely
clear about something. American people are going to know why
it failed. I'll be taking this issue to the country
and the voters are going to know that is not
just a moment, just at the moment. We're going to
secure the border and fund these other programs. Trump and
the MAGA Republicans said no because they're afraid of Donald Trump.
Afraid of Donald Trump every day between now and November.
(31:47):
The American people are going to know that the only
reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and
as Magga Republican friends, it's time for Republicans in the
Congress to show a little courage, to show the spine,
to make it clear to the American people that you
work for them, not for anyone else, and who I
work for, I work for the American people.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
He's thirty five points underwater on the border right now.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Buck.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
The worst of all of Joe Biden's approval ratings on
any issue is the border. This was inevitable that he
put to forward a bad bill. A lot of Republicans,
because they're gullible and dumb, frankly went for it. And
now he is going to try to defray that minus
thirty five number on the border by shifting the blame
(32:38):
and saying Republicans and Trump are responsible for that.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Buck.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
I don't think even people who are died in the
wool Democrats are of the belief that Joe Biden would
have a secure border.
Speaker 4 (32:51):
Again, Steven Miller's great on this. He says, all he
has to do is.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Just put back in place all the policies that Trump
had via executive order, that he doesn't actually need any
bill passed in order to resecure the border.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (33:04):
One of the greatest impediments to better border security, better
safety on the streets, a whole range of things is
that the people who have made the wrong decisions would
have to admit that the other people, Republicans the right,
were correct. And that alone, I think is a big block.
It's one of the reasons why the crime policies are
(33:26):
so slow to change in cities, even though people are suffering.
And with a border that Biden is, he's acting like
he inherited some problem when in fact he created it.
And because other people won't go along and take you know,
mutual blame effectively for what's going on there, he tells
this story about how they don't want to fix it,
(33:47):
and even what he's doing isn't going to fix it.
I should just note the bill is not a good bill, correct,
and I think that's why it has been so soundly defeated.
But this was all just meant to give the Democrats
a talking point, which then brings up why would Republicans
go along with it at all? What's the point? Why
do this? Why give them this something to say it's bipartisan.
It should have been a strict party line. Democrats are
(34:09):
trying to get this nonsense done.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
We say no.
Speaker 4 (34:12):
I wanted to hit this. I meant to hit it yesterday.
This is a VIP listener email.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Nick wrote in we had the conversation about the South
Carolina primary, and we had multiple callers saying different things.
I wanted to read this because this is accurate, and
I'm meant to get to it yesterday. Nick says, I'm
a former poll clerk in South Carolina. South Carolina election
law allows each individual to choose which primary in which
(34:37):
to vote. A Democrat can vote in the GOP primary
and or Republican can vote in the Democrat primary. You
can't vote in both. If you voted as a dem
you can only vote in the DEM runoff. That's if
there's a runoff if you voted in the general election
any Canada you wish. So Again, the point on the
extremely low turnout in the Democrat primary Saturday in South
(35:01):
Carolina is there are still theoretically a lot of people
who didn't vote in that primary only twenty five percent
of Democrats did, who could show up and vote.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
In the Republican primary.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
I just think that's something to keep in your mind
as we move closer to that primary season. And so
I appreciate that email from Nick, who is a former
poll observer in South Carolina. That is actually common. I
think eleven of the sixteen states buck on Super Tuesday,
including my home state of Tennessee. You just walk in
(35:33):
and say, I want to vote in the Democrat primary.
I want to vote in the Republican primary. That's actually
very common across the country, as opposed to being a
registered member officially of either party and only able to
vote in one or the other.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
Soames and Louisville, we'll get you in here at the end.
What's up, James.
Speaker 8 (35:51):
From the home of the Kentucky Derby First Area and
may most famous base horse in the world. I just
wanted to bring up a little point about this border bill.
It's not really a border bill. It's the let's save
our big blue cities, the sanctuary city type bill. There's
a provisions in there that is going to give tens
of millions of dollars to bail out these these thirty
(36:15):
sneaky scumbags. Democratic socialists and their senators are trying to
help out the blue Democrat socialist mayors and just like
they did with the COVID just like they did with
the COVID moneys, saving all the blue state pensions with
the tens of if not hundreds of billions of dollars
(36:37):
that they snuck in there.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
So it's important.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
They're trying to make all of us taxpayers bail out
the left wing excesses and the sanctuary cities. Don't forget
what they're trying to do here. Don't forget the blame shifting.
We told you it was going to happen, It's already
happening nine months.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Make your voice heard
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton Show.
We appreciate all of you hanging out with us. Encourage
you to go subscribe to Clay and Buck vip. You
can watch us every single day on video there. We
are waving at you right now. We appreciate all of you.
We also love all of you listening on our five
hundred plus AMFM stations in all fifty states, plus the
(00:27):
millions of downloads that are taking place every single month
on the podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
We love Tutor Dixon.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We also love Carol Markowitz, part of our podcast network.
More to come in the near future. We head now
to our friend Andy McCarthy, who is still in Chicago,
I think watching his son play for the University of
Chicago baseball team.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
I understand that we sent him a New York Mets mug.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
It's good for a Mets fan to get something since
most of the time all they get is losses from
my Atlanta Braves. Right off the top. Shots at Andy,
Clay bringing the heat. Oh right away.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Andy, By the way, who do you like in the
Super Bowl?
Speaker 2 (01:04):
We probably won't talk to you before then, do you
have a strong lean one way or the other forty
nine Ers or chiefs.
Speaker 5 (01:09):
Yeah, I think the chiefs or I just think mahomes
is to get into that sort of Montana Brady category,
he's got to like go on the road, win those
playoff games and get a championship, and then I think
he's in that conversation. So I think that's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
I'm on the other side, by the way, the forty
nine ers, but that, Yeah, there we go. We got
an easy, easy battle going on there. All right, let's
dive into what we got today. DC Court of Appeals.
I think you would probably say not a surprising ruling
that they're not buying Donald Trump's presidential immunity argument he
now faces the Trump does in his legal team the question,
(01:48):
does he appeal on bank to the entirety of the
DC Court of Appeals knowing that the DC Court of
Appeals is not going to accept his argument, and then would.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Appeal to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Or do you think he skips the en banc appeal
and goes straight to the Supreme Court. How would you
assess where we are right now as it pertains to
this jan six case based on the ruling that came
down this morning.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Clay, I think equally important with the fifty seven page opinion, which,
as you suggest, is a pretty thorough rejection of the
merits of his immunity claim, but probably equally important with
it is this one page, really essentially one paragraph order
(02:34):
that the court issued in conjunction with the opinion. And
it's very interesting. What it does is it says to Trump,
you have until Monday to file an appeal to the
Supreme Court, in which case we'll continue to hold the
case in abance until the Supreme Court acts on it.
But if you instead decide to take your thirty days
(02:58):
that the rules of appellate procedure give you to appeal
to the full court on bank and only then you
know which would have What would happen there is it
would get instantly denied and then he would try to
appeal to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
What the court basically says, if you could.
Speaker 5 (03:15):
Try to go the rehearing un bank route first, that
is not going to stop proceedings in the District court anymore.
So you either appeal to the Supreme Court Monday, or
this case is going back to Judge chuck in so
she can start having hearings and do the jury questionnaire
and all the stuff she has to do to get
ready for trial.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Have you ever seen that before?
Speaker 5 (03:36):
I know I've never seen Well also, I mean, is
there anything about this where you couldn't put that question
to me?
Speaker 3 (03:44):
You know there's nothing about that.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
But ill the reason I'm saying, I've never seen a
court say if you appeal to us, then we will
allow the lower court proceedings to start. Basically telling Trump
you're not going to be able to use any more
time here, you better go straight to the Supreme Court.
If you were advising, I've never seen something like this.
So and then to your point, none of us have
(04:06):
ever seen anything like this. What would you tell Trump
and his team if they came to you in the wake.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Of this appeal?
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And we all understand that Trump's goal is to avoid
this case going to trial, ideally until after the elections
already happened, but in a minimum, as long as possible,
what advice would you give him based on this ruling?
Speaker 5 (04:29):
I tell him we have to appeal to the Supreme
Court on Monday, because I think the other thing, Clay,
that there's like another moving part here that we have
to consider, which is actually superseded the immunity in importance,
and that is that the Supreme Court has already said
they're going to hear the obstruction case in connection with
some of the January sixth defendants. And even though Trump
(04:51):
is not a defendant in that action, he's not a
party to that, it's immensely important because the two main
charges against Trump and the election interference are the obstruction charges.
So I think as a practical matter, because the Supreme
Court is not going to decide the obstruction case until
the end of June, Judge Chuckin can't start a trial
(05:15):
until sometime after that, I would say, you know, probably
late July at the earliest, because she's got a wait
for what the Court's going to say on obstruction. So
if I'm Trump's lawyers, I think I would say, well, look,
we've gotten as much as of this immunity thing that,
like on substance, was meritless, but was valuable to, you know,
(05:36):
to getting the case put on ice in the district
court and achieving some delay. But at this point his
eggs are in the obstruction basket. It's no longer an
immunity thing.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
Andy, what is the from the perspective of Jack Smith,
the anti Trump Democrats, given what we've seen so far,
what are they hoping this is going to play out
as right?
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Like?
Speaker 4 (05:58):
What what is their best scenario as you see it
from here on out in terms of obviously a guilty verdict,
but in terms of the timing and how it comes down.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
I think she's determined to go to trial. They go
to trial in late July. I've been saying July fifteenth,
but it was pointed out to me not long ago
that July fifteenth is apparently the start of the Republican Convention.
I think that would be a little much to start
the trial on that day. But I imagine, you know,
after that, the hope for them would be the Supreme
(06:33):
Court doesn't do much with the obstruction case that would
disturb Smith's indictment, and then with little or no tweaking,
he can just go to trial a few weeks later,
and in the meantime, Chucken can use this time that
she now has or probably will have to do all
the pre trial stuff that you need to get ready
(06:54):
so that they can hit the ground running and go
to trial in July, and then they hope buck to
you know, in a federal criminal trial, the defendant has
to be there every day, and this is estimated to
be a two to three month trial. So I think
they would hope to have Trump sort of not only
chained to a courtroom from late like late July into October,
(07:17):
but also day after day after day, the evidence in
the case is going to be coming out and being
in the public domain and reminding the public of everything
they disliked about Andy.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
So yeah, I wanted to take it from that perspective.
So we can kind of know worst case now from
the Trump perspective, obviously heavily involving the Supreme Court's actions. Here,
what's best case from here on out?
Speaker 5 (07:40):
That Smith that the Supreme Court issues an opinion in
the obstruction case that not only dismantles the imaginative uses
that prosecutors have made of the obstruction statute, but also says,
you know, look, just like we said last term in
the case involving the two Cuomo pronies whose convictions they
(08:03):
threw out, we were telling prosecutors not to creatively use
these statutes and stretch them in a way that they
were never intended to be used in order to fight
political corruption. If Congress wants to write political corruption statutes,
they can do that, but it's not up to prosecutors
(08:24):
to use the.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Law this way.
Speaker 5 (08:26):
And if they wrote an opinion like that, and I
don't think that's out of the realm of possibility, I
wouldn't bet my life on it. That would be a
problem for Smith, not only in connection with the obstruction
but also with the civil rights charge and the fraud charge.
So I think that's Trump's biggest hope that the Supreme
Court blows it out of the water forum on the
obstruction case.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Okay, Traditionally, and again we're talking about we're talking to
any McCarthy. Everything we're talking about is unprecedented, non traditional.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yes, in the legitimate use of the word.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
General rule. The Department of Justice has a policy that
they do not do political trials in the middle of elections.
This has been the standard rule for a long time,
even with the idea being that was at twenty twenty
two when they raided mar A Lago. I think they
tried to do it in August instead of doing it
(09:20):
in October.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And what we're talking about now, and I agree with
you on timing.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Is the possibility that this case would go to trial
right in the middle of the election. Right to your point,
Trump could leave the Republican Convention and go straight to
a courtroom in d C. And be there for the
rest of July, August, September on potentially into October.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
This is really crazy. What do you think MARYK.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Garland would say about that timing and how that would
play from a Department of Justice perspective.
Speaker 5 (09:56):
I think Garland will say, you know, gee whiz, I
appointed a special counsel here and President Biden and I
don't have anything to do with the cases against President Trump,
which was the reason you know there shouldn't be a
special counsel in this case. The reason he appointed this
a conflict of interest between the Biden Justice Department and Trump. Right,
there's a conflict of interest between the Biden Justice Department
(10:18):
and Biden and Hunter, but not with Trump. But the
only reason he appointed the council was so that we
could indulge this that he doesn't have anything to do
with it. The Biden Justice Department doesn't have anything to
do with the President. Biden doesn't even though Jack Smith
is executing President Biden's power under the auspices of the
(10:38):
Justice Department. They're pretending they have nothing to do with it,
and then they'll just say Smith's going to do whatever
he's going to do. And it looks like he's hell
bent on going to trial whenever he can go. That's
clear they've made up this fantasy new right that the
public has an interest in a speedy trial, when the
Constitution said it's the defendant who has an interest in
(10:58):
speedy trial. Look has an interest in a just trial.
Trump doesn't want to speedy trial. He wants more time.
So I think Smith is absolutely going for it whenever
he can start the trial. And it's really going to
be up to Judge Chuck and to decide how does
she want to be perceived and remembered. Does she think
(11:21):
it's unseemly for the judiciary to participate in what would
be to my mind, the Biden Justice Departments obviously politicize
desire to get this case to trial at a time
that's propitious for them under the election calendar.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Is there any so Andy, It sounds like either Supreme
Court steps in here or this thing is going to trial?
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Right? Is that?
Speaker 4 (11:47):
I mean meeting either Supreme Court shoots it down in
a way where they can't get the outcome they want,
or else you think they will be able to get
it through on the schedule where it would happen before
the election.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Is that the right read?
Speaker 5 (11:58):
Yeah, I think it would be to do it that way,
But I will that Smith is determined to go to trial,
and I don't see from everything I've seen from Judge
chuck Now. Look, chuck In has frozen the case. And
Smith did go to her and say, well, even though
the case is on appeal, there's other things we could
(12:19):
be dealing, we could be dealing with motions, we could
be dealing with the jury quist And she said, no,
it's shut down. So she hasn't been a complete rubber
stamp for him, and I don't think she's going to
like the perception that, like, if they start this trial
in August and you're running right into election day. If
I'm a judge, I don't want to be You know,
(12:39):
the judiciary is supposed to be there as the protection
to the defendant from abusive actions by the executive branch
the prosecution in this instance, and I think it would
be abusive under circumstances where the public has an interest
in deciding the election itself rather than having the system decided.
(13:02):
To me, there's no public interest in having this case
before election day, you know. Smith says, well, you know,
we the public has a right to the public knows
plenty the public has there the indictment, the public had
the January sixth committee hearing. There's nothing about January. We
watched January sixth on television. There's nothing about this that
(13:22):
the public is going to find out at the trial.
That is not something we don't already know. What the
Democrats I'm hoping for is it's like it's one big
election ad in the run up to the election, to
remind the public when they're thinking about a million other
things how much they hated the Capitol riot.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Last question for you, Andy, there's another complexity here, clearly
based on the schedule being changed, and I agree with you,
I think late July probably the earliest at best that
they could take this to trial in DC, the Jack
Smith case. What do you think Democrats are telling Alvin
Bragg now, because he would theoretically be first up on
(14:02):
the docket, do they push this one back and wait
and put all their eggs in the jack Smith basket.
What if that case gets dragged on and ends up
pushing because that could happen, right like, somehow things get
bogged down there and they can't start the jack Smith
case right like, and or we still have South Florida.
What do you think they're selling Alvin Bragg right now?
(14:24):
Do you think that case goes to trial first or
do you think they tell him to put that on hiatus.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
Well, there's two things with that Clay. One is that
you know, Alvin Bragg and the Democrats have you know,
the National Democrats, they have kind of the same agenda.
You know, they want to see Trump defeat it. But
Brago also has his own constituency in New York, right,
which is why he indicted this Takamami case in the
first place. So if I'm the Democrats, I don't want
(14:52):
the Alvin Bragg case to go to trial because to me,
that's a no lose proposition for Trump. If he beats
the case, it's like a nanza for him because he
could he's got a powerful argument that this whole lawfair
thing was just a bunch of you made up nonsense.
Then it'll be a powerful argument for him on the
other hand, if he gets convicted, it's a really bad case,
(15:14):
and I think people are just going to say, look,
that's New York. They have it in for Trump, and
they're not going to care that much about it. So
if I'm the Democrats, there's nothing good that comes out
of Alvin Bragg going first. But if Brad wants to
go first, and he's got a trial date that the
judge gave him a March twenty fifth, and there's no
federal troth, he said he would back off for a
(15:36):
federal trial. If there's no federal trial going in March,
it'll be up to him whether he wants to push
it forward or not.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Just the future of the Republicans take everybody, no big
deal Andnny macarth, everybody of National Review, Andy, thanks for
being with us.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
Thanks guys.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Can you capitalize on the AI technology innovations without working
for one of the tech companies involved in developing this tech, Well,
sure you can, because artificial intelligence is having impact all
around us and there are opportunities to realize a positive
return if you choose to invest carefully. Tech expert Colin
ted Ards believes this is the beginning of a new
(16:12):
era that could make you rich. Colin has been watching
the markets closely. When the stock market hit rock bottom
at the end of twenty twenty two, he recommended shares
of a top software company, speculating the upside, and the
company was there. This same software company is up over
two hundred percent since then, and anyone who listened to
Colin had a chance to more than double in less
than a year. Now he's recommending a new AI company
(16:32):
that he says could do even better, and he's found
a way for you to profit from this as well.
It's NEWAI project dot com. That's the website you want
to go check out New aiproject dot com. NEWAI project
dot Com paid for by Brownstone Research.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
One truth revealed after another Clay Travis and Buck Sexton,
welcome back.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Into Clay and Buck. We're gonna dive in and make
a little more. Uh maike a little more of this
discussion we just had with Andy McCarthy about where the
lawfair against Trump is going to go at this point, Uh,
it's sounded like it's for it's for all the marvels,
whether they can actually get this thing done against Trump,
(17:19):
the J six trial. I think Clay, you me and
Andy all see New York the same way at this point,
which to me is not quite gospel, but it means
we're we're probably on the on the on the side
of of correct on that one. That doesn't mean that
I think to his point that Bragg won't bring the case,
but there certainly are additional considerations. If they can get
(17:39):
this J six thing set up so that it's August
September into October, he's in a federal criminal trial. If
nothing else, they slow down his entire campaign, even if
he beats it.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Yeah, it's gonna I mean again, so much of this
is unprecedented, but it is wild to think about where
we are headed and what the next several months are
going to be. Like, buckle up, We've set it for
some time. There truly is no storyline that has been
similar to this in the history of the United States.
My Pillows put together a great sale to start off
twenty twenty four, so good in fact, it's extending into
(18:10):
February to sale their best selling products, not just the
overstocked items or off season items, but all the great
ones too. New flannel sheets for cold winter nights on
sale fifty percent off, Mattress toppers make your older mattress
feel new. YEP available and with a price reduced by
fifty percent, or get fifty percent off the MyPillow two
(18:31):
point zero, not to mention their six piece towel sets
at the lo loo price of just twenty nine to
ninety eight. Take advantage of the free shipping, especially on
larger items like the mattress toppers. You still get the
sixty day money back guarantee and the ten year warranty
on your purchases. To find this offer, go to MyPillow
dot com, click on the radio listeners special square to
(18:53):
check out everything. Use our names Clay and Buck as
your promo code for the specials plus free shipping. Welcome
back in Clay, Travis, Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all of
you hanging out with us. Encourage you to go check out.
We've had a couple of great interviews. Dave McCormick in
the second hour running for Senate from Pennsylvania. A top
of this hour, our friend Andy McCarthy breaking down all
the latest on the law fair against Donald Trump, its consequences,
(19:16):
its significance.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
I think you will learn quite a lot from that.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
If you missed it, you can go grab it in
the podcast, or you can go subscribe to the Clay
and Buck of VIP and you can watch the video
version of the interview on once.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
The show is over.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
You can also obviously watch us live for three hours
every single day at Clayanbuck dot com. Okay, Donald, we've talked.
I think we might have mentioned on the show earlier,
maybe yesterday, that Tucker Carlson was in Russia. If we didn't,
we certainly have talked about it off air. Sometimes the
conversations are very similar. But Tucker just released a video saying, yes,
(19:53):
he's in Russia and he's there to interview Vladimir Putin.
I think that's an interesting decision. I agree that if
you can interview some somebody at the center of a
geopolitical universe, you should Here's Tucker talking about his decision
to interview Putin.
Speaker 6 (20:06):
Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or
what his goals are.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Now you've never heard his voice.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
That's wrong.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
Americans have a right to know all they can about
a war they're implicated in, and we have the right
to tell them about it because we are Americans too.
Freedom to speech is our birthright. We were born with
the right to say what we believe. That right cannot
be taken away no matter who is in the White House.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
But they're trying anyway.
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on
our text messages and then leaked the contents to their
servants in the news media. They did this in order
to stop a Putin interview that we were planning last
month for pretty certain they did exactly the same thing
once again, but this time we came to Moscow. Anyway,
we are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin
(20:54):
may say in this interview, but we.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
Are urging you to watch it.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
You should know as much as you can, and then,
like a free citizen and not a slave, you can
decide for yourself.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
I agree with everything he said there, Buck, I mean,
I don't know what Putin's gonna say.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Obviously some people are gonna rip him.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
But I think if CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, any
of these outlets had the opportunity to sit down one
on one with Vladimir Putin, you would have to take it.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
I'm not sure what you lose by this.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
To me, it's a big get from a journalist. We
got to see how it goes. I respect I like Tucker.
You like Tucker, and I respect his his HUTSPA a
lot and what he's done over the years. Does this
turn into just Vladimir Putin with the same talking points
(21:44):
about the threat for NATO et cetera, et cetera. Or
is there something that we glean from this that is
that is new, that is novel. You know there are limits, right,
I mean, after nine to eleven if you said, I'm
not saying Putin is osamamd Lauden, but it would be
quite had an interview to sit down with oslaom and
Lauden a fter nine to eleven and ask him, hey,
so why do you do that? But I think people
(22:05):
have a problem with that, right, So it's not just
you talk to anybody because it's interesting, although maybe some
people disagree, maybe they say, oh my god, I.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Have any I mean it, bin Laden, I mean, I think, honestly,
if your job is to.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Be a journalist and there is a news maker.
Speaker 4 (22:21):
When you interview someone, this is my perspective is not
I'm not a journalist. Do you think of yourself as
a journalist? Though this is word I mean it's a
little you know, I have opinions and views, right, I don't.
I don't pretend to be neutral ever.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Yeah right, but I I yes, on this show, you
and I are saying exactly what we think. But if,
for instance, I'm just tossing it out because you mentioned
Bin Laden he's dead.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
If somebody from North Korea reached out.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
To me and they said, Kim Jong un wants to
do a sit down interview because he saw your opinion
on the Chicago Bulls and he likes, he likes, He's
chosen you of all journalists that he would want to
sit down with. I think I could say I would
go and I would sit down across from Kim Jong u.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
I mean, I'd be worried about all the time everybody.
I would look clay.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
But I mean I wouldn't give my opinion. So I think,
you know, I would say, Megan.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Kelly has a super opinionated show, right, but I think
she would argue, hey, I can sit down and also
you can give a interview. Yeah, I think what would
fall under journalistic approach. But I just you know, the title.
I mean, I think journalists as a title is almost
always a fraud regardless. But that's not that's not I know,
that's kind of secondary to the fit to the main point,
(23:33):
which is to go and sit down and talk to Putin.
You know, I think I gotta see what I.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
See how it goes.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
I would say, I would say, yes, I think if
if I were in that position and the guy who's
currently in war, and I would say, look if somebody
could have talked to Hitler during World War Two and
actually heard whatever Hitler was going to say, again, you're
not endorsing to me. Leaders Giving speech and answering questions
in general is something that should be encouraged, even if
(24:03):
sometimes they're all see.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
The problem though, play with with interviewing Putin is you're
interviewing him in Russia. You're not going to you know,
did the the home her home turf advantage here isn't
Oh I'm gonna get It's not like when I go
on the Bill mahershow and the imbeciles in the audience boomy.
It's they might just say you're not going back, yeah,
and I get it. They might decide that they're going
(24:25):
to hold you. That's not being Look what they just did.
They had to have the whole thing with Britney Rener.
I mean they've they've still got they've got that Wall
Street Journal journalist right now. You know much more in
the moment here, Evan Gorskovic. They're holding him, he's a
Wall Street Journal report everybody. They're holding him. They're keeping
him in a prison cell there.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
He did nothing, And I hope and I hope Tucker
would say, hey, I think based on all the evidence
I've seen, that guy should be released.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Really I don't know.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Well, but what I'm saying is, are you really able
to do an interview and speak truth to power when
the person sitting down with you as soon as those
lights go off could be like, yeah, no, we're just
gonna hold him for six months.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
And so that's the risk of going right, that's the
risk of gouding. So there's more dynamics here. This isn't like, oh,
Putin's at the un and you get to sit down
and have a chat with them where you can actually
really push him. I mean, I think I know what
he's going to say before he's First of all, it's
all through a translator, which means there's a lot that's
lost in translation. Obviously I'm not judging it either way.
(25:21):
I'm just saying this is tricky, you know, because I
remember a long time ago, at the height of the
Syrian Civil War. It's a long story, but someone came
to me in back channel and was saying, hey, I
think I could arrange for you and maybe a couple
of other people to sit down with Asad. Oh wow,
and uh and I It ended up not happening, and
it was very early stage, and I didn't even agree
(25:42):
to it. This is just an offer that was made.
Someone said, Hey, I think I could do that. I said, ah,
let me, let me think about that, and then you know,
it sort of fell apart. But I mean, remember what
happened with Tulcy Gabbard when she did that afterwards. Now,
some people thought that that was an act of bravery
for her to talk to the Assad regime, go to
Syria all of that. But there's a fine line between,
(26:02):
you know, there's a fine line in some instances between
speaking truth to power, getting the answers people need. And
I'm hopeful that Tucker is going to do exactly that
and getting a little closer to like a Jane Fonda
experience where you're hanging out with the enemy and letting
them use you as a mountain. Now, that won't happen
with Tucker. But I'm just saying these are the addition
(26:24):
when you show up in a tyrants layer, there are
additional considerations that don't apply if you're just talking to
somebody here in the States.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
One challenge, by the way, too, which you just raised
about being in Russia. I don't know how many countries
Vladimir Putin can even travel to right now, given that
there are war crimes accusations against him, where there wouldn't
be the threat that he might be arrested or detained
in some way.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Absolutely, I mean I'm not even sure. I mean that
would be interesting to know.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Did Tucker say, hey, can we meet in a neutral
location outside of Russia? I don't know how many countries
I think Putin has traveled to China. I don't think
you'd feel much more you know, favorable in China than
you would in in Russia.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
There.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I just I don't think there's very many democracies that
would allow Vladimir Putin on.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
I mean, if I got you, if I got you
to sit down in China with Shi Jinping, would you
be like, hey, man, the million people you have in
concentration camps. That's a crime against humanity. You need to
stop that, you need to step down from power. I mean, Clay,
I don't know if you'd make it back if you did, honestly.
So this, this is the reality I get that we
live in, right.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
I mean, I get it. I mean that is that
is the challenge. So we'll see what happens. But I
do think it's worth mentioning that that's going to go on.
It's fascinating, right, look at it.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
Look at us sitting here talking about all the different
possibilities but also the implications. And you know, Tucker is
one of my favorite people to watch and listen to
in the space generally. So I mean, I'm I'm I'm
definitely gonna listen to this interview. I'm just saying, there's
a it's there's it's a field of land mines, there
are land And.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
By the way, we didn't even mention yes, obviously you're
in Russia, but also how long does the inner you go?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Do you get to keep your tapes? Right?
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Like, who is recording it? There are many and to
your point, it's translated. So the difficulty there is you
have to rely that the translator is telling you the truth,
which is its own dynamic. Does Tucker have his own
translator translating the translator? It is going to be amazing,
I think to follow when we come back. By the way,
we should play this audio too. Biden did what we
(28:26):
told you he was going to do. He says, if
this border bill doesn't get passed, then the lack of
security at the border is Donald Trump's fault. And all
the MAGA Republicans will play that audio for you. We
told you it was coming, but I think it's important
for you all to hear it that just happened in
the last couple of hours as well.
Speaker 4 (28:44):
You know, one thing we like to do here is
not only identify the problems, but also try to identify
solutions or ways to make things better. Saving the lives
of unborn children is a top priority for anybody who
considers themselves pro life. Right right now, there are still
so many abortions going on across the country, but there's
something you can do about it. Thanks to the Preborn
(29:06):
Network of Clinics, something that takes you to the front
lines and saves lives. Preborn welcomes pregnant mothers with care
and support and resources including maternity clothing, diapers, and much more.
Beside their unconditional love, their most valuable gift to that
mother in the first meeting is an ultrasound. That experience
of the ultrasound so often creates that additional moment of
(29:28):
bonding between mother and child because when she hears that heartbeat,
witnesses those those first movements going on within her, the
tiny hands, the tiny feet. That experience alone can save
the live of an unborn child, and it only happens
because of your support. So please, if you can donate,
twenty eight dollars is the cost of a single ultrasound.
Five of those ultrasounds, It's just one hundred and forty dollars.
(29:50):
This is a tax deductible donation. Use your cell phone
dial pound two five zero and say baby. That's pound
two five zero, Say baby. Or go online to preborn
dot com slash buck. That's preborn dot com. Slash b uck.
Preborn has a one hundred percent charity rating so you
(30:10):
can give with confidence. Sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Don't miss a minute of playing buck and get behind
the scene access to special.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
Content for members only.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Subscribe to C and B twenty four to seven. Close
enough shop on Clay and Buck. Great time to tell
you about the podcast because if you missed anything, if
you want to listen again because it was that good,
or you want to hear some of our extra content.
The Buck Brief, Carol Markowitz's podcast, Tutor Dixon Podcast amazing
options for your on demand listening enjoyment. Download the iHeartRadio
(30:43):
app and you can subscribe for free and listen to
it all. There also our political Recap of the Week
podcast twenty four which is quite good. Clay, you had
a clip of Biden that you want to play. Am
I remembering this correctly from a few minutes ago. I'm
pulling a Biden right now. Go ahead call see it
up because I want everyone to hear it as well.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, Biden is now. I believe this has cut twenty six.
We told you that as soon as the border bill
was rejected, Biden would say, now Trump is responsible for
the lack of security. Republicans, the MAGA Republicans are responsible.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
This was a clear.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Attempt to defray blame here. He is directly saying that
earlier today.
Speaker 7 (31:25):
But if the bill fails, I want to be absolutely
clear about something. American people are going to know why
it failed. I'll be taking this issue to the country
and the voters are going to know that is not
just a moment, just at the moment. We're going to
secure the border and fund these other programs. Trump and
the MAGA Republicans said no because they're afraid of Donald Trump.
Afraid of Donald Trump every day between now and November.
(31:47):
The American people are going to know that the only
reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and
as Magga Republican friends, it's time for Republicans in the
Congress to show a little courage, to show the spine,
to make it clear to the American people that you
work for them, not for anyone else, and who I
work for, I work for the American people.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
He's thirty five points underwater on the border right now.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
Buck.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
The worst of all of Joe Biden's approval ratings on
any issue is the border. This was inevitable that he
put to forward a bad bill. A lot of Republicans,
because they're gullible and dumb, frankly went for it. And
now he is going to try to defray that minus
thirty five number on the border by shifting the blame
(32:38):
and saying Republicans and Trump are responsible for that.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Buck.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
I don't think even people who are died in the
wool Democrats are of the belief that Joe Biden would
have a secure border.
Speaker 4 (32:51):
Again, Steven Miller's great on this. He says, all he
has to do is.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Just put back in place all the policies that Trump
had via executive order, that he doesn't actually need any
bill passed in order to resecure the border.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (33:04):
One of the greatest impediments to better border security, better
safety on the streets, a whole range of things is
that the people who have made the wrong decisions would
have to admit that the other people, Republicans the right,
were correct. And that alone, I think is a big block.
It's one of the reasons why the crime policies are
(33:26):
so slow to change in cities, even though people are suffering.
And with a border that Biden is, he's acting like
he inherited some problem when in fact he created it.
And because other people won't go along and take you know,
mutual blame effectively for what's going on there, he tells
this story about how they don't want to fix it,
(33:47):
and even what he's doing isn't going to fix it.
I should just note the bill is not a good bill, correct,
and I think that's why it has been so soundly defeated.
But this was all just meant to give the Democrats
a talking point, which then brings up why would Republicans
go along with it at all? What's the point? Why
do this? Why give them this something to say it's bipartisan.
It should have been a strict party line. Democrats are
(34:09):
trying to get this nonsense done.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
We say no.
Speaker 4 (34:12):
I wanted to hit this. I meant to hit it yesterday.
This is a VIP listener email.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Nick wrote in we had the conversation about the South
Carolina primary, and we had multiple callers saying different things.
I wanted to read this because this is accurate, and
I'm meant to get to it yesterday. Nick says, I'm
a former poll clerk in South Carolina. South Carolina election
law allows each individual to choose which primary in which
(34:37):
to vote. A Democrat can vote in the GOP primary
and or Republican can vote in the Democrat primary. You
can't vote in both. If you voted as a dem
you can only vote in the DEM runoff. That's if
there's a runoff if you voted in the general election
any Canada you wish. So Again, the point on the
extremely low turnout in the Democrat primary Saturday in South
(35:01):
Carolina is there are still theoretically a lot of people
who didn't vote in that primary only twenty five percent
of Democrats did, who could show up and vote.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
In the Republican primary.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
I just think that's something to keep in your mind
as we move closer to that primary season. And so
I appreciate that email from Nick, who is a former
poll observer in South Carolina. That is actually common. I
think eleven of the sixteen states buck on Super Tuesday,
including my home state of Tennessee. You just walk in
(35:33):
and say, I want to vote in the Democrat primary.
I want to vote in the Republican primary. That's actually
very common across the country, as opposed to being a
registered member officially of either party and only able to
vote in one or the other.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
Soames and Louisville, we'll get you in here at the end.
What's up, James.
Speaker 8 (35:51):
From the home of the Kentucky Derby First Area and
may most famous base horse in the world. I just
wanted to bring up a little point about this border bill.
It's not really a border bill. It's the let's save
our big blue cities, the sanctuary city type bill. There's
a provisions in there that is going to give tens
of millions of dollars to bail out these these thirty
(36:15):
sneaky scumbags. Democratic socialists and their senators are trying to
help out the blue Democrat socialist mayors and just like
they did with the COVID just like they did with
the COVID moneys, saving all the blue state pensions with
the tens of if not hundreds of billions of dollars
(36:37):
that they snuck in there.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
So it's important.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
They're trying to make all of us taxpayers bail out
the left wing excesses and the sanctuary cities. Don't forget
what they're trying to do here. Don't forget the blame shifting.
We told you it was going to happen, It's already
happening nine months.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Make your voice heard
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
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!