July 9, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show dives deep into a mix of political controversy, media influence, and high-profile investigations, delivering sharp commentary and listener engagement. The hour opens with a strong push for audience participation, encouraging listeners to subscribe to the show’s rapidly growing YouTube channel—currently at 75,000 subscribers—with a goal of surpassing 100,000. The hosts emphasize how platforms like YouTube and TikTok shape the political and cultural views of younger generations, making digital outreach a key strategy.
The conversation then pivots to a major political flashpoint: President Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, invoking the Fifth Amendment. Utah Senator Mike Lee’s tweet questioning whether Dr. O’Connor should be granted immunity to testify sparks a detailed legal discussion. Clay and Buck explore the boundaries of doctor-patient confidentiality, HIPAA laws, and the potential for testimony if political pressure influenced public medical statements about Biden’s fitness for office.
A significant portion of the hour is dedicated to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and the public’s frustration with the Department of Justice’s handling of the case. The hosts critique AG Pam Bondi’s communication strategy, arguing that her messaging lacked clarity and failed to address public concerns. They clarify that the child pornography found in Epstein’s possession was downloaded from the internet and did not depict Epstein himself—an important distinction that has been poorly communicated. The discussion also touches on broader suspicions of a blackmail operation and the belief that other high-profile individuals may have been involved, though no prosecutable evidence has surfaced.
Listeners call in to express skepticism about the official narrative, with some suggesting that critical evidence may have been destroyed or suppressed. The hosts respond by defending the integrity of individuals like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, asserting that they would never cover up sex crimes. They also argue that while Epstein’s crimes were horrific, the current DOJ and FBI likely do not possess actionable evidence against others, and that Trump’s recent dismissal of the Epstein topic was likely a strategic messaging decision rather than a cover-up.
The hour concludes with breaking news about a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the Trump-Russia probe. Trump’s comments suggest he believes both men acted dishonestly, though the hosts caution that the statute of limitations may prevent any legal consequences. They also revisit the discredited Steele dossier and the media’s role in perpetuating the Russia collusion narrative.
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):
Glay Travis Buck Sexton show our number three. We appreciate
all of you hanging out with us. No guest schedule
this hour, so we'll take some of your calls some
of your talkbacks as well. Also, I was talking about
this with Buck off the air. We want you to
subscribe to our YouTube channel. It has been growing quite
(00:21):
a lot, but I want it to go over one
hundred thousand subscribers. It is in the neighborhood of seventy
five thousand right now. And I was just kind of
scrolling through because my kids are on YouTube all the time,
and my thought is that if you have kids or
grandkids and you hear an argument on this show and
(00:43):
you are thinking, man, I wish my kids would pay
attention to this, because maybe they're being taught something different
in high school, college. Grandkids, they are much more likely
to respond to something that they see on YouTube that's
just the truth and the reality. And maybe if you
send them YouTube blinks from us and they are willing
to watch them, they'll start getting exposed to other aspects
(01:06):
of the algorithm that are also feeding them things. And
I just got to tell you my kids get almost
all of their news from two places YouTube and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
They don't watch television other than sporting events with me.
They are on YouTube and they are on TikTok. And
I bet if you have kids or grandkids that are
similar in age to mine, mine are seventeen to ten,
three boys, as you guys know, and they all that's
where they get their news from. That's where they get
their worldview from. And so we need to bump up
(01:42):
our numbers on YouTube in a significant way. And so
I would ask you guys, get out there, search us
out Clay and Buck on YouTube and subscribe. And you
can sometimes be pulling video clips waving at you right
now that your kids are we're likely to pay attention to.
They may not listen to the radio that they may
(02:03):
not listen to news on podcasts, but they may very
well see it on YouTube. So I would like to
bump those numbers up. You can search out my name
Clay Travis Buck Sexton and you'll find the Clay and
Buck Show. If you just go to YouTube dot com
type in Clay and Buck boom, we will come in.
Make sure you spell Buck correctly, because otherwise I don't
(02:24):
know what's gonna I don't.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Know what it's gonna show up. It's a whole different,
whole different situation here. That's a very different world.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Hit bee, gotta hit the gotta hit the bee, Gotta
hit the bee. All Right, a lot of you out
there wanting to react to a variety of different things.
Let me hit you with this. We talked about Biden's
doctor taking the Fifth Amendment on the top of the show,
Senator Mike Lee, and maybe we should offer him an
invite to come on and talk about this. Just tweeted
in the last five minutes. Now that doctor O'Connor has
(02:53):
invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, should he be offered immunity
to get him to testify? Really interesting question from Senator Lee.
Interestant question question for you. I don't know this.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Generally, I go through life knowing more than lawyers about
a lot of legal questions. But that's put that aside.
I don't know this one. So you helped me out
because you actually went to law school. Couldn't How does
it work when you have the It's like, isn't it
like attorney client privilege? A bit with a doctor and
a patient, so you can't compel testimony. This is important yes,
(03:31):
it's a great question. So okay, So there, I would
say there's two pathways here. One.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Yes, you cannot have the doctor testify about what his
medical review necessarily.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Showed of Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
All right, Like hippolaws, he can't say without the patient's
consent usually, which makes sense. By the way, Now you
can maybe say for presidents there should be a different standard,
but I don't think most of you would want your
doctor sitting down in test.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Doctors, lawyers, priests should have true confidential. There's an important
reason for that, yes, and that which is also why
the law historically has said you can't be compelled to
testify against Okay, but that is not what I think
his most interesting testimony would be. I'm not asking and
this is important. I'm glad you asked this question, because
(04:22):
the key for him is not his medical diagnosis of
Joe Biden. It is asking him whether people told him
and h and conspired with him to have him say
things publicly that he did not believe were true. That's
different than the medical analysis. This gets a little bit
(04:44):
into the fraud exception for attorney client privilege. Right, if
if your lawyer is like a mob lawyer, and he's
involved in helping you orchestrate actual criminal activity knowingly, attorney
client privilege is out the window on that all of
a sudden. Right, So, if a doctor is being asked
to testify about criminality around him, that's a different thing
(05:09):
than when you touched his you know, when you touch
your patient's knee with the little hammer thing that it,
you know, did the flick. If somebody sits down and says, hey,
I'm obviously not a doctor. That was the best I
could do. Sorry, Yeah, No, here's a good way to
explain it.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
If if I sit down with the doctor, if I'm
one of Biden's polyt Burrow, if I'm one of his
top advisors, and I sit down with the doctor and
I say, hey, I don't care what this physical examination shows.
You're coming out of it, and you're telling us Joe
Biden is one hundred percent able to be president, right,
(05:44):
And that is a conspiracy, right, like, because you're not
actually asking him what his medical diagnosis was. As soon
as they tell you, let me take it outside of
the president.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
There have been conflicts in the world of sports because
team doctors are treating players and the coaches are always like, hey,
we want this guy good to go.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Hell, this is right, this is in any given Sunday
with one of my favorites, James Woods, when he's the
team doctor for that football team. I've seen that movie
for some reason. Many it's a great it's actually a
great movie. And he actually gives this whole speech. He's like,
these are warriors. I knew that they wanted to He
does the whole thing. It's a very good role for
mister Woods, who I don't know, maybe even listens to
the show sometimes, maybe I've met James a few times. So,
(06:29):
but yes, that's the same principle right where it's.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
The conflict between what your actual medical diagnosis is and
the reality of what the expectation of your medical diagnosis
should be. So if I like again, if you take
it outside of the world of Biden and politics and
you say, okay, you are the coach and you've got
a player who's injured, and that player may not be
one hundred percent and it may not even be healthy
(06:52):
for him to be on the field, but if he's
on the field, your team has a better chance of winning.
And if you sit down with the doctor before he
goes in for his console and you say, Doc, we
know that no matter what you see, that quarterback is
going to be on the field Saturday or Sunday. Right
fist pound. He could, theoretically, without having to go into
(07:16):
his actual diagnosis, say there was pressure being put on
me to say Joe Biden was fine, even without me
having to have done my analysis of Biden. By the way,
I think this was true. Here's another example of something
he could testify about. Was he involved in any way
in a debate about whether Joe Biden should have a
cognitive test or not?
Speaker 4 (07:38):
Right?
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Did he sit around as the politics people without knowing
what the test results might be. Did they sit around
and say, hey, Doc, will you lie and say he
passed a cognitive test even if he didn't, Like, we
need to know what you're going to say before we
even do this test.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
What if he fails? Will you lie?
Speaker 1 (07:55):
I mean again, I think Senator Mike Lee is asking
a really good question here, which is, hey, is was
there a conspiracy that did not involve directly your medical analysis?
He could theoretically testify to that without having to worry
about hipA related issues. A bunch of you want to
(08:15):
weigh in on a variety of different topics. All right,
so let's see Ty and san Antonio want was whole.
Let's start with Tommy and Clearwater. First, Tommy, what you got.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Hey, brother?
Speaker 5 (08:30):
First of all, I want to say thank God for
your guys to show after Rush Limball died. I thought
the AM radio was over for me, but then you
guys came along, So.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Thank you, Thank you for that.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
But I called about your dam BONDI the Epstein files.
You guys seemed like you were mad at her, and
I think she's a hero. I think she was the
only one who is willing to get out there and
talk about it, and she obviously got shut down by
people above her.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I I appreciate, I appreciate to call you can make
that argument. I think that's not the good argument to make.
And in fact, Pambondy, we should play this audio because
there has been a ton of talk. Pambondy, I think
has not been articulate enough about many of the issues
(09:20):
that she is dealing with. She has tended to I
think over promise and underdeliver in some of her media availabilities.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
I'd also just say no one should have thought like
if Pam had called me. Okay, you know she can
get my number. She knows plenty of people who know me. Said, Hey,
we're just gonna drop a kind of I think the
good a good word for it is perfunctory, meaning, you know,
just the most sort of basic and limited stuff. A
(09:51):
perfunctory memo on a Sunday night. That's just like, yeah,
nothing to see, we've done everything, see you later. Of
course that wasn't going to work. That was not a
good idea. You need to say, Hey, guys, announcer from
the DOJ, we're gonna have a presser. The Attorney General's
going to address America. She's going to read from a
prepared statement. She's going to know what she's going to
(10:12):
say in advance, you know, maybe be flanked by Cash
and Bongino, who are both patriots and warriors, and you know,
just like that's what needed to happen here. So I'm sorry,
from an I'm not even talking. Don't even get into
the oh but the conspiracy and the cover of I'm
just saying the we can talk about that too. The
optics of how this was handled was just abominable.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
It was not only not only that statement, what about
giving the binders with no actual information in it to
all of those Well, that was strike that was strike one,
and maybe strike one and two.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
That's what I mean. You know, she had time to
learn about what's going on here.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Okay, But so I want to play this because I
had them pull this. In fact, two things. Uh, First,
this is Pam Bondi. There's lots of talk about, Hey,
there's thousands of child porn documents and videos and everything
else that were in the possession of Jeffrey Epstein. Why
are there no charges coming. I'm gonna have to make
(11:11):
this clearer than Pam Bondi has been able to. That's
stuff that Epstein downloaded from the Internet, everything that they
have in their possession in the FBI, in the Department
of Justice relating to Epstein, this is something that I
didn't know because I think they've not addressed this publicly
very well. I thought, oh, this must be Epstein in
(11:34):
videos with minors like engaging in criminal behavior. Yes, this
is just stuff he downloaded off the Internet of child porn,
kitty porn. I mean, it's awful, but it's something that
they prosecute all the time. She said that yesterday. It
didn't get very much attention. This was in the Cabinet office.
This is important. This is what they actually have. It's
(11:57):
kitty porn that was downloaded by Epstein that he's not in.
Speaker 6 (12:01):
Listen to the tens of thousands of video they turned
out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.
Child porn is what they were never going to be released,
never going to see the light of day.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Okay, she hasn't done a good job. I had a
bunch of conversations. This is important. It's not actually Epstein
in the child porn. It's not other people that he
knows in the child porn. It's just nasty stuff on
the Internet that he was attracted to.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
This is what they have, Okay, And to your point,
they need you very clear. This is the evidence that
the FBI has. This is what they've Okay, and this
is stuff that would send anybody away for you know,
twenty five to life and okay, all true. That needs
to be more clear. That does not mean, for those
of you who still have questions, that the surveillance set
(12:49):
up that we all know Epstein had in these homes
was not used at an earlier time for Epstein recording himself,
which I assume he did. Why else did he do
this and possibly, and I believe likely other people as
part of a blackmail operation. This isn't a very important
separation to understand. There's what Bondi and Bongino and cash,
(13:13):
and there's the evidence that they have when they took
over the FBI. They haven't been running the FBI for
twenty years. There's the evidence that they have. And then
there's what we know about Epstein previously and what we
can surmise and believe and analyze he was doing. Additionally,
one does not negate the other. So I can say
(13:35):
these guys are showing us what they have, right Clay,
but also say I still believe that Epstein, that there
were other quote unquote clients, and that there was blackmail
going on. That's not to say that the FBI is
lying to us about it. I don't believe they're lying
about what they have now, correct And I think that
Pam Bondi has actually not been articulate enough in explaining
(13:58):
these things, and that's why we're having to talk to
you guys with it right now.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
I mean, I just played that audio. She didn't even
I don't think in that scenario, do a great job
of it. And for those of you out there, this
is why Trump let's quickly play this all or actually
we'll play when we come back.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So we gotta go to creaks. Let's get a job.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
But this is why Trump is saying, like we got
to move on. This guy was an awful pedophile and
there's evidence of that. He killed himself. He's dead. Even
if you don't believe he killed himself. There are no
other crimes out there in the FBI file that are prosecutable.
And I would just say this as we go to break.
Do you think Dan Bongino and Cash Patel wouldn't love
(14:35):
to be able to prosecute somebody. They wouldn't love more
than anything in their hearts, desire to have found evidence
to allow more people to be prosecuted. It isn't there.
It just isn't there. Now to bucks point, I think
there's a good chance that's not there because it got
destroyed and when they came into office, it's just there's
(14:55):
not anything there. There's no one to be prosecuted. Uh,
we'll play t and I'll explain what I think is
saying too.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
In a second. We come back.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
A lot of retailers venues going cash lists now, and
while it's super convenient, it also prevents more opportunities for
cyber hackers. Online identity theft thrives with credit card only options.
The way it works is cyber hackers plant malware reads
every credit card pin number. It's important to understand how
it works, and it's important to understand the dangers out
(15:23):
there on Internet purchases. And that's why you need to
be a LifeLock member. If you're a LifeLock member and
you become a victim of identity theft, it dedicated US
based LifeLock restoration specialists will fix it guaranteed or your
money back. Join now, say forty percent off your first
year with my name Clay as the promo code. That's
LifeLock dot com. My name Clay as the promo code.
(15:46):
You can call one eight hundred LifeLock. Go online to
LifeLock dot com use promo code Clay for forty percent off.
That's LifeLock dot Com. Promo code Clay forty percent off.
Speaker 7 (15:56):
You know him as conservative radio hosts, Now to get
to know them as guys on this Sunday Hang podcast
with Clay and fuck. Find it in their podcast feed
on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
A welcome back in everybody. Just a reminder from yesterday
during the cabinet, very lengthy cabinet meeting. Here's how Trump
reacted to the president that we all know him love.
Here's how he reacted to that question about Jeffrey Epstein
playing your memo and released yesterday.
Speaker 8 (16:25):
Jeffrey Epstein less some leadering mysteries. One of the biggest
ones is whether he ever worked for an American for
foreign intelligence agency. The former leader secretary who was in Miami,
he was attorney Alasa. He allegedly said that he did
work for intelligence agency. So could you resolve whether or
(16:46):
not he did? And also could you see why there
was a minute missing from the jail House featin So yeah.
Speaker 9 (16:51):
Sir, I just said you are you still talking about
Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're
asking we have Texas, we have this, we have all
of the things, and are people still talking about this guy,
this creep that is unbelievable. Do you want to waste
the time and do you feel like answered?
Speaker 6 (17:12):
I don't mind you.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
I just I want to point out here, you know,
because people are people are there's a lot of criticism
being directed at it's really Bondy Cash and Bongino. Clay
and I can both speak for Cash and Bongino as
guys that we know and trust and are and and
there's no there's no way to twist either their arms
to get them to cover up something that they know of.
I'm sorry, it doesn't exist. BONDI, I think has made
(17:34):
some optical mistakes or you know, rather you know, the
pr aspect of it. Communication has not been elite. Is Trump?
Trump is compromised? Guys, Come on, come on, like, let's
let's all let's all take a moment here. Trump is
I do not believe for one second Trump is compromised.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Well, and he knows what the evidence is, and he's like,
this guy is just an awful pedophile and he's dead.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Let's focus on the things that really matter, all right.
Let's talk about how beneath this great nation of ours
is an asset that some people believe is worth more
than one hundred and sixty trillion dollars. That's not just
some wild speculation, it's a documented fact. This endowment, so
to speak is so large it could pay off our
national debt four times over. But why has it been
kept secret for so long and not contemplated as a
(18:16):
potential asset for all of us to enjoy? Time will
reveal those details. But thanks to a Supreme Court decision
that Trump administration could soon release this endowment for the public.
This is all Jim Rickards idea my friends, former advisor
of the White House and Federal Reserve. He says, if
you're over fifty, this could be your best chance to
build lasting well from a once in a century event.
That's a big statement, but you should hear for yourself
(18:38):
why Jim believes this. Jim Rickards is a long track
record of big prediction. Go to Birthright twenty twenty five
dot com to hear right. Jim Rickards thinks this endowment
could be a huge opportunity for Americans who take advantage
of it. Again, that's Birthright twenty twenty five dot com,
paid for by Paradigm Press. Welcome back in.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Clay Travis Bucks Exton show. We got a lot of
you who want to weigh in. If you'll update me
Greg on the absolute latest there. But I do want
to play this because a lot of things. Okay, what's
the FBI doing? What is the They're doing a lot
of things. They're moving the headquarters, remember they've been there
six months. They're trying to change the overall culture. But
(19:21):
they're also opening an investigation into James Coney, James Comy,
and John Brennan. And there are potentially criminal charges coming
over the twenty seventeen Russia Russia Russia conspiracy and hoax.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
This is underway. Here is President Trump talking about that
earlier today in a press availability. Cut thirty three.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
James Comy and John Brennan now under criminal investigation.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Related to the Trump Russia probe. Do you want to
see these two guys behind bars?
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Well, I know nothing about it other than what I
read today, but I will tell you I think they're
very dishonest people. I think they're crooked as hell, and
maybe they have to pay a price for that. I
believe they are truly bad people and dishonest people. So
whatever happens happens.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
And I think this is evidence of trying to clean
out and address the culture there, and there are a
lot of things that have to be cleaned up, and
I think these guys are doing their best and it's
easy to sit around and I will say this. I
mean again, this is why I think logic oftentimes plays
into this substantially. Maybe the most dishonest thing that has
(20:39):
happened in Trump two point zero. Leaving aside the judges,
I'm curious if you would sign off on two point
zero is the idea that Trump is somehow involved with Epstein, right.
I mean, it's the most ludicrous thing on the planet,
because do you really think Democrats wouldn't have put that
around Trump's neck and tried to drown him with it
for the last decade. It doesn't exist, and so I
(21:03):
think that is almost a version of Trump two point zero.
The Russia collusion. Russia collusion was a total lie. I mean,
you really lived this buck from the intelligence analyst perspective,
they laundered a garbage steel report, steel dossier, and they
tried to create based on I know this well because
(21:24):
I bought Facebook ads as someone who runs a media
company and was involved in a lot of the Facebook
ad universe. They manufactured a couple one hundred thousand dollars
of crappy ads that were bought on Facebook by Russian
interest into somehow swinging the outcome of the twenty sixteen election,
(21:44):
and they really sold that to a lot of morons
in the media who ran with that as the truth.
And I think the secondary argument here of somehow Trump
is involved with Epstein is every bit is dishonest as
the Russia collusion hoax.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
They they wanted to run with it. That's part one
of it, right. So it's always hard to separate where
where where the lib journals are just dumb versus where
they're dishonest, because they're both. But you know, well there
is sort of occasionally one is a dominant theme and
the other one receives a little bit.
Speaker 6 (22:21):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
But Clay on the I have good news bad news
on the Brennan and Clapper thing. You want, you want
the good news bad news on this. This is gonna
be well. My concern is immediately when I when I
hear this is just statute of limitations. So like that,
you're already you're already it's cool, you're stealing my thunder
a little bit here, that's all right. No, So on
(22:42):
the good news part of it, I think that you're
going to see revelations of even more just underhanded bureaucratic
skullduggery from the uh, you know, investigation of what they
were doing. Essentially, you're gonna have to be You're gonna
(23:03):
have to be somebody who will embrace feigned stupid a
level of stupidity that's not plausible. To think that these
guys didn't know what they were doing is wrong. I
think that should come out. I think that will come
out more on the on the wampwomp side of it,
the not so good side of it. I would be
absolutely shocked if criminal charges were brought against Brennan or
(23:24):
Clapper for a combination reasons. Statue limitations, which you already
said on most federal, low level federal things is five
years low level. You know, there's a lot of there's
a lot of federal crimes which there was no statute limitations,
but for most low level kind of things like you know,
lying under oath kind of stuff, and you're looking at
five years, and so the statue limitations probably run on
(23:47):
a lot of that. And uh, I think that beyond
that a lot of the disguise they're slippery. Someone like
a comy, a Brennan, a Clapper, they know this system,
they know the game, they know what to put an
email and what not to uh, And I just don't think.
I just don't want you guys to get to I
don't want anyone to get their hopes up that anyone
(24:09):
is going to face real consequences for that Russia collusion thing.
At this point, I said this about ben Ghazi and Hillary,
and I got so much hate and it was not
hate but anger from people. And I was right. No
one's getting arrested or frog marched out of their out
of their office or their their home based on Russia
collusion stuff at this point in my mind. If I'm wrong,
(24:31):
I will come on the air and I will admit it.
But I'm just preparing you for Yes, it's good to
get the truth out. I'm not I'm not saying otherwise.
They're not going to get prosecuted and imprisoned based on
Russia collusion at this point in my opinion. So we'll see.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
Let's take some of these calls, a lot of you
stacking up variety of different takes out there. Tie in
San Antonio, what you got for us?
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Hey, guys, thanks for taking my call first time, long time.
So this Epstein situation, it seems like to me and
this is my personal opinion that there's a bit of
insulting of the intelligence here. And I want to address
Pambondi's explanation first, and it comes across to me as
low IQ and low energy. If she wants and I'll
(25:19):
just speak for Maga, right, if she wants the Maga
nation to believe that all they found was kitty porn,
child porn and Epstein had, you know, was just viewing
this nothing there, then it really doesn't. But a guy
with his sexual deviate nature, his connections, his money, and
not to mention guys, he needed to fly people to
(25:41):
an island to have sex with them. Okay, I'm a
forty two year old bachelor.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I don't need an island, guys.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
I got a house with rooms, right, all.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
Right, But so let me let me, let me let
me ask you this question.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
If you're right about all that, and I'm not saying
you're wrong, why would the FBI keep all of that
information for years if they were protecting Epstein.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
Brother. I think there are and I really want to
get to Trump here also, but I think there are
names on this on this connection book that he had
that could that could really really upset the the world
in an economic devastating way, potentially you know different things
(26:27):
that man extrapulating it out. Uh, there are big time
names on there, and and and and to say, you know,
well he was picking people up in a private jet,
taking them to this island, winding and dining them, and
nothing the farious criminal or you know, sinister happened.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
There is there's a differ.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
I appreciate that argument, but there's a difference between I
think something inappropriate, illegal, whatever words you want to put
in indefensible happened and what can be proven. What I'm
saying is, if you are protecting Epstein, let's presume that
your argument is correct.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Let's just I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm
just saying what's logically follow It's really not protecting Epstein,
to be clear, it's if the argument is protecting the
people that Epstein's clients so to speak, you know, his uh,
the other individuals who are involved in the sex crimes.
Why wouldn't they destroy all of that evidence? Well, this
(27:23):
is my thing. I don't believe that that evidence hasn't
long since been destroyed. And that's that's.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
That's my that's my that's my question for ty if
I'm saying, you're right, like all of these things are true.
If you believe that that existed, why would it still
exist when the Trump two point zero team comes in.
That's my that's my argument. I'm not saying that any
of the things you're saying are incorrect. I'm saying you're
(27:48):
in order for this to still be true, what you
are saying is all of the evidence is there of inappropriate, illegal,
impermissible behavior, right, and that the people that are now
there with Trump two point zero see all of it,
reviewed it all, and are now choosing to lie to
(28:10):
you about what is in the possession of the FBI
in the Department of Justice. That to me doesn't add
up destroying evidence.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Go ahead, Yeah, you know, much of the evidence that
I'm speaking too, I think is circumstantial, guys, to be
honest with you and.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Right, but that can't necessarily be proven in a court
of law. Tie. Right. That's there. They're about execution.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Though, No, I'm just I'm just saying to me that,
you know, for for for them to come out and
say that there is nothing to see here, guys, that
is that is it's just beyond my belief.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
They're saying, hold on I think specificity, tie, I think
specific matters. I think Clay and I agree with you
more than maybe it has come across. I do not
believe that, for example, allegedly Prince Andrew is the only
other guy who got involved with one of the one
of the you know, Epstein traffic women. I do not
(29:07):
believe that, Okay. I don't believe that, full stop. I
do not believe that. I also don't believe that Epstein
was not operating a blackmail operation. I do not believe that, okay.
But I don't believe that Bondi, Bongino Cash have evidence
of those things in their possession and they are suppressing
(29:31):
that because of pressure on them. I mean, look, I've
known Dan for fifteen years. I've known Cash for certainly
since the beginning of TROW, now about ten years. Those
guys would cut off their arm before they covered for
somebody committing the kind of sex crimes. It just would
not happen. It would not happen. So you know that's
I can just speak to you honestly, time, Manda Man,
(29:52):
Dan and Cash are not sitting there going yeah, it
would look bad politically, So we're going to cover for
these petos they would not do it. They would put
their lives at risk before they would do it. So
I promise you that is not and people can get
mad at me for this, that is not happening. That
doesn't mean that the other things that I said did
(30:14):
not happen previously. We have to keep these thoughts in
our mind. At the same time, I think there were
more people who committed sex crimes, and I think there
was blackmail going on, But the current FBI and the
current dj I do not believe has in their possession
evidence of those crimes.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
They may think that's the messaging here, you know, maybe
maybe the messaging here and particularly by Pam Bondi was.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Terrible because yes, you know Trump, yes we agree.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
You know what, Trump actually campaigned on shining light on
this Jeffrey Epstein situation, and you know I did, yes,
because Magnation. Magnation understands that America suffers from a pedophilia
problem and we suffer from a human sex trafficking problem,
and Jeffrey Epstein was the post child for everything that
fills us in terms of that conversation. Trump ran on
(31:05):
that and for him to come out yesterday and just
batted away guys, I don't know what it was. It's
it's almost like you've listened to your child for for
thirteen years, tell you the truth reflexively, and one day
they lie to you, and your your street smarts just
stands up and you know that they're being disingenuous. Because
you have listened to them, you have come to be
(31:26):
able to you know, basically predict what they're gonna do.
Trump never turns his back on magnation. He knows better
than that. And yesterday was the first time I've ever
saw him do it.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Guys, it's a I think it's a messaging mistake that
has been made. I do not believe that. You know,
people look Clay, let's just say. People are saying that
they flipped Trump, and I'm like, guys, the guy who
can can I just take a moment here? The guy
who doesn't need this, who's the billionaire who took a
bullet in the ear and said fight he got flipped
(31:58):
on this way? No way. It's argument. It's an insane
that doesn't mean Again, like I said, I think there
were more sex criminals. I think they've so far gotten
away with it. I think there was a blackmail ring
but that doesn't mean that that evidence just sat around
for twenty years and the FBI is now sitting on
this trove of the evidence and going we don't want
(32:19):
people to know the truth. That's a different thing. I
totally agree, and I actually agree with Tye also in
that I think Pam Bondi did not do a good
job with this.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
I think she created a mess. I think Trump has
seen all the evidence and all the reports. And this
is my honest address of Trump's comments yesterday. I think
he's seen all the evidence. He knows that Jeffrey Epstein
was a bad dude in a pedophile. But we're in
the middle of the floods in Texas, We're in the
middle of ice agents trying to get murdered, and I
(32:51):
think he honestly believes that Epstein is old news and
he wants to focus on the things that he can address. Now,
whatever you think about Epstein, the guy's dead. The guy
appears to have been an awful, disgusting pedophile, and he's dead,
and all the lawsuits have played out, most of his
money has been taken away and paid off to his victims.
(33:14):
I don't see Epstein as someone who has dodged responsibility
for his criminal culpability.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
There are other people I grew with Buck.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
I think that it's highly unlikely that Prince Andrew was
the only super rich, super famous person who was involved
with the women that were being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
And there's also there's the things here you've raised this too.
I mean some of EPs, some of the women that
Epstein was around, and you know, we're of age, to
be very clear, we're nineteen, we're twenty, and so is
you know, is that now that's not criminal for anyone
to be engaged unless there's some coercion that they're a
(33:51):
part of or then you know, So there's all this,
but that evidence it's been you know, we're talking about
some of this stuff happened fifteen twenty years ago.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
Yes, And also I think you would speak to this.
I think there was probably intelligence related asset using some
of this was honeypot stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
And trust me, you're not going to leave that stuff
around for the FBI to find in twenty in twenty nineteen. Look,
I share your frustrations. I went on the Sean Ryan
Show three years two years ago, three years ago now
and went in detail about how outraged I was about
the FBI rate in twenty nineteen in his house, and
people thought what I was saying was so crazy, Clay
couldn't be true. It was true. Yes, and we've been
(34:28):
on this beat for a long time. But let's keep
this in perspective. Let's not start to you know, I
do not question Trump, Dan Cash or Pam's integrity. I
think Pam has made I think the AG has made
some errors in presentation and has misspoken about the way
this has been presented in a few ways that's not
(34:50):
been helpful.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
And even yesterday we didn't get much attention. We got
to go to break. But the thousands and tens of thousands,
I thought that that was Epstein video. It's just stuff
that he was downloaded poorn off of the internet. For
people out there who are like, what about these victims, Yeah,
I want them all caught. But it wasn't Epstein's videos.
(35:11):
It was him just finding awful child porn stuff on
the internet. We'll close up shop next segment. Good call, Tie.
I think raised a lot of points and questions that
a lot of you have and that Buck and I
have had as well. Look, rapid radio makes a huge difference.
Walkie talkies great communication insurance policy when things can go wrong.
They work and work nationwide, coast to coast. They're simple
(35:32):
to use right out of the box. You got aging
parents don't really use cell phones. Well, you got young
kids and you don't want them to have a cell phone.
How about teenagers that just use cell phones all too well,
and you want them to not be able to be
on their cell phones as much. This can be great
good vacation attribute. We've used them going to college football games.
Rappid Radio is great to use. In addition to the
(35:53):
LT coverage, they're one hundred percent private, no contracts, no
monthly fees. Get hooked up now at rappid radios dot com.
Six percent off up to free shipping from Michigan, and
when you use the promo code Radio, you get an
extra five percent off. That's code Radio. Order today rapid
Radios dot com. Code Radio. That's Rappid Radios dot com.
Code Radio.
Speaker 7 (36:15):
Keep up with the biggest political comeback in world history
on the Team forty seven podcast, Plain Book Highlight Trump
free plays from.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
The week Sunday's at noon Eastern. Find it on the
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Closing up shop. Here a lot of great calls. We'll
continue to react. You can get on the talkback. We'll
play some of those for you as well. Appreciate all
of the fun and spice and the excitement. One thing
that I think is worth noting, every day feels like
Christmas morning. Lots of great things happening inside of our government.
(36:52):
We will talk about all of this and more tomorrow.
Appreciate y'all. Thursday should be fun
Glay Travis Buck Sexton show our number three. We appreciate
all of you hanging out with us. No guest schedule
this hour, so we'll take some of your calls some
of your talkbacks as well. Also, I was talking about
this with Buck off the air. We want you to
subscribe to our YouTube channel. It has been growing quite
(00:21):
a lot, but I want it to go over one
hundred thousand subscribers. It is in the neighborhood of seventy
five thousand right now. And I was just kind of
scrolling through because my kids are on YouTube all the time,
and my thought is that if you have kids or
grandkids and you hear an argument on this show and
(00:43):
you are thinking, man, I wish my kids would pay
attention to this, because maybe they're being taught something different
in high school, college. Grandkids, they are much more likely
to respond to something that they see on YouTube that's
just the truth and the reality. And maybe if you
send them YouTube blinks from us and they are willing
to watch them, they'll start getting exposed to other aspects
(01:06):
of the algorithm that are also feeding them things. And
I just got to tell you my kids get almost
all of their news from two places YouTube and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
They don't watch television other than sporting events with me.
They are on YouTube and they are on TikTok. And
I bet if you have kids or grandkids that are
similar in age to mine, mine are seventeen to ten,
three boys, as you guys know, and they all that's
where they get their news from. That's where they get
their worldview from. And so we need to bump up
(01:42):
our numbers on YouTube in a significant way. And so
I would ask you guys, get out there, search us
out Clay and Buck on YouTube and subscribe. And you
can sometimes be pulling video clips waving at you right
now that your kids are we're likely to pay attention to.
They may not listen to the radio that they may
(02:03):
not listen to news on podcasts, but they may very
well see it on YouTube. So I would like to
bump those numbers up. You can search out my name
Clay Travis Buck Sexton and you'll find the Clay and
Buck Show. If you just go to YouTube dot com
type in Clay and Buck boom, we will come in.
Make sure you spell Buck correctly, because otherwise I don't
(02:24):
know what's gonna I don't.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Know what it's gonna show up. It's a whole different,
whole different situation here. That's a very different world.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Hit bee, gotta hit the gotta hit the bee, Gotta
hit the bee. All Right, a lot of you out
there wanting to react to a variety of different things.
Let me hit you with this. We talked about Biden's
doctor taking the Fifth Amendment on the top of the show,
Senator Mike Lee, and maybe we should offer him an
invite to come on and talk about this. Just tweeted
in the last five minutes. Now that doctor O'Connor has
(02:53):
invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, should he be offered immunity
to get him to testify? Really interesting question from Senator Lee.
Interestant question question for you. I don't know this.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Generally, I go through life knowing more than lawyers about
a lot of legal questions. But that's put that aside.
I don't know this one. So you helped me out
because you actually went to law school. Couldn't How does
it work when you have the It's like, isn't it
like attorney client privilege? A bit with a doctor and
a patient, so you can't compel testimony. This is important yes,
(03:31):
it's a great question. So okay, So there, I would
say there's two pathways here. One.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Yes, you cannot have the doctor testify about what his
medical review necessarily.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Showed of Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
All right, Like hippolaws, he can't say without the patient's
consent usually, which makes sense. By the way, Now you
can maybe say for presidents there should be a different standard,
but I don't think most of you would want your
doctor sitting down in test.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Doctors, lawyers, priests should have true confidential. There's an important
reason for that, yes, and that which is also why
the law historically has said you can't be compelled to
testify against Okay, but that is not what I think
his most interesting testimony would be. I'm not asking and
this is important. I'm glad you asked this question, because
(04:22):
the key for him is not his medical diagnosis of
Joe Biden. It is asking him whether people told him
and h and conspired with him to have him say
things publicly that he did not believe were true. That's
different than the medical analysis. This gets a little bit
(04:44):
into the fraud exception for attorney client privilege. Right, if
if your lawyer is like a mob lawyer, and he's
involved in helping you orchestrate actual criminal activity knowingly, attorney
client privilege is out the window on that all of
a sudden. Right, So, if a doctor is being asked
to testify about criminality around him, that's a different thing
(05:09):
than when you touched his you know, when you touch
your patient's knee with the little hammer thing that it,
you know, did the flick. If somebody sits down and says, hey,
I'm obviously not a doctor. That was the best I
could do. Sorry, Yeah, No, here's a good way to
explain it.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
If if I sit down with the doctor, if I'm
one of Biden's polyt Burrow, if I'm one of his
top advisors, and I sit down with the doctor and
I say, hey, I don't care what this physical examination shows.
You're coming out of it, and you're telling us Joe
Biden is one hundred percent able to be president, right,
(05:44):
And that is a conspiracy, right, like, because you're not
actually asking him what his medical diagnosis was. As soon
as they tell you, let me take it outside of
the president.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
There have been conflicts in the world of sports because
team doctors are treating players and the coaches are always like, hey,
we want this guy good to go.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Hell, this is right, this is in any given Sunday
with one of my favorites, James Woods, when he's the
team doctor for that football team. I've seen that movie
for some reason. Many it's a great it's actually a
great movie. And he actually gives this whole speech. He's like,
these are warriors. I knew that they wanted to He
does the whole thing. It's a very good role for
mister Woods, who I don't know, maybe even listens to
the show sometimes, maybe I've met James a few times. So,
(06:29):
but yes, that's the same principle right where it's.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
The conflict between what your actual medical diagnosis is and
the reality of what the expectation of your medical diagnosis
should be. So if I like again, if you take
it outside of the world of Biden and politics and
you say, okay, you are the coach and you've got
a player who's injured, and that player may not be
one hundred percent and it may not even be healthy
(06:52):
for him to be on the field, but if he's
on the field, your team has a better chance of winning.
And if you sit down with the doctor before he
goes in for his console and you say, Doc, we
know that no matter what you see, that quarterback is
going to be on the field Saturday or Sunday. Right
fist pound. He could, theoretically, without having to go into
(07:16):
his actual diagnosis, say there was pressure being put on
me to say Joe Biden was fine, even without me
having to have done my analysis of Biden. By the way,
I think this was true. Here's another example of something
he could testify about. Was he involved in any way
in a debate about whether Joe Biden should have a
cognitive test or not?
Speaker 4 (07:38):
Right?
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Did he sit around as the politics people without knowing
what the test results might be. Did they sit around
and say, hey, Doc, will you lie and say he
passed a cognitive test even if he didn't, Like, we
need to know what you're going to say before we
even do this test.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
What if he fails? Will you lie?
Speaker 1 (07:55):
I mean again, I think Senator Mike Lee is asking
a really good question here, which is, hey, is was
there a conspiracy that did not involve directly your medical analysis?
He could theoretically testify to that without having to worry
about hipA related issues. A bunch of you want to
(08:15):
weigh in on a variety of different topics. All right,
so let's see Ty and san Antonio want was whole.
Let's start with Tommy and Clearwater. First, Tommy, what you got.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Hey, brother?
Speaker 5 (08:30):
First of all, I want to say thank God for
your guys to show after Rush Limball died. I thought
the AM radio was over for me, but then you
guys came along, So.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Thank you, Thank you for that.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
But I called about your dam BONDI the Epstein files.
You guys seemed like you were mad at her, and
I think she's a hero. I think she was the
only one who is willing to get out there and
talk about it, and she obviously got shut down by
people above her.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I I appreciate, I appreciate to call you can make
that argument. I think that's not the good argument to make.
And in fact, Pambondy, we should play this audio because
there has been a ton of talk. Pambondy, I think
has not been articulate enough about many of the issues
(09:20):
that she is dealing with. She has tended to I
think over promise and underdeliver in some of her media availabilities.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
I'd also just say no one should have thought like
if Pam had called me. Okay, you know she can
get my number. She knows plenty of people who know me. Said, Hey,
we're just gonna drop a kind of I think the
good a good word for it is perfunctory, meaning, you know,
just the most sort of basic and limited stuff. A
(09:51):
perfunctory memo on a Sunday night. That's just like, yeah,
nothing to see, we've done everything, see you later. Of
course that wasn't going to work. That was not a
good idea. You need to say, Hey, guys, announcer from
the DOJ, we're gonna have a presser. The Attorney General's
going to address America. She's going to read from a
prepared statement. She's going to know what she's going to
(10:12):
say in advance, you know, maybe be flanked by Cash
and Bongino, who are both patriots and warriors, and you know,
just like that's what needed to happen here. So I'm sorry,
from an I'm not even talking. Don't even get into
the oh but the conspiracy and the cover of I'm
just saying the we can talk about that too. The
optics of how this was handled was just abominable.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
It was not only not only that statement, what about
giving the binders with no actual information in it to
all of those Well, that was strike that was strike one,
and maybe strike one and two.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
That's what I mean. You know, she had time to
learn about what's going on here.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Okay, But so I want to play this because I
had them pull this. In fact, two things. Uh, First,
this is Pam Bondi. There's lots of talk about, Hey,
there's thousands of child porn documents and videos and everything
else that were in the possession of Jeffrey Epstein. Why
are there no charges coming. I'm gonna have to make
(11:11):
this clearer than Pam Bondi has been able to. That's
stuff that Epstein downloaded from the Internet, everything that they
have in their possession in the FBI, in the Department
of Justice relating to Epstein, this is something that I
didn't know because I think they've not addressed this publicly
very well. I thought, oh, this must be Epstein in
(11:34):
videos with minors like engaging in criminal behavior. Yes, this
is just stuff he downloaded off the Internet of child porn,
kitty porn. I mean, it's awful, but it's something that
they prosecute all the time. She said that yesterday. It
didn't get very much attention. This was in the Cabinet office.
This is important. This is what they actually have. It's
(11:57):
kitty porn that was downloaded by Epstein that he's not in.
Speaker 6 (12:01):
Listen to the tens of thousands of video they turned
out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.
Child porn is what they were never going to be released,
never going to see the light of day.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Okay, she hasn't done a good job. I had a
bunch of conversations. This is important. It's not actually Epstein
in the child porn. It's not other people that he
knows in the child porn. It's just nasty stuff on
the Internet that he was attracted to.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
This is what they have, Okay, And to your point,
they need you very clear. This is the evidence that
the FBI has. This is what they've Okay, and this
is stuff that would send anybody away for you know,
twenty five to life and okay, all true. That needs
to be more clear. That does not mean, for those
of you who still have questions, that the surveillance set
(12:49):
up that we all know Epstein had in these homes
was not used at an earlier time for Epstein recording himself,
which I assume he did. Why else did he do
this and possibly, and I believe likely other people as
part of a blackmail operation. This isn't a very important
separation to understand. There's what Bondi and Bongino and cash,
(13:13):
and there's the evidence that they have when they took
over the FBI. They haven't been running the FBI for
twenty years. There's the evidence that they have. And then
there's what we know about Epstein previously and what we
can surmise and believe and analyze he was doing. Additionally,
one does not negate the other. So I can say
(13:35):
these guys are showing us what they have, right Clay,
but also say I still believe that Epstein, that there
were other quote unquote clients, and that there was blackmail
going on. That's not to say that the FBI is
lying to us about it. I don't believe they're lying
about what they have now, correct And I think that
Pam Bondi has actually not been articulate enough in explaining
(13:58):
these things, and that's why we're having to talk to
you guys with it right now.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
I mean, I just played that audio. She didn't even
I don't think in that scenario, do a great job
of it. And for those of you out there, this
is why Trump let's quickly play this all or actually
we'll play when we come back.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
So we gotta go to creaks. Let's get a job.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
But this is why Trump is saying, like we got
to move on. This guy was an awful pedophile and
there's evidence of that. He killed himself. He's dead. Even
if you don't believe he killed himself. There are no
other crimes out there in the FBI file that are prosecutable.
And I would just say this as we go to break.
Do you think Dan Bongino and Cash Patel wouldn't love
(14:35):
to be able to prosecute somebody. They wouldn't love more
than anything in their hearts, desire to have found evidence
to allow more people to be prosecuted. It isn't there.
It just isn't there. Now to bucks point, I think
there's a good chance that's not there because it got
destroyed and when they came into office, it's just there's
(14:55):
not anything there. There's no one to be prosecuted. Uh,
we'll play t and I'll explain what I think is
saying too.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
In a second. We come back.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
A lot of retailers venues going cash lists now, and
while it's super convenient, it also prevents more opportunities for
cyber hackers. Online identity theft thrives with credit card only options.
The way it works is cyber hackers plant malware reads
every credit card pin number. It's important to understand how
it works, and it's important to understand the dangers out
(15:23):
there on Internet purchases. And that's why you need to
be a LifeLock member. If you're a LifeLock member and
you become a victim of identity theft, it dedicated US
based LifeLock restoration specialists will fix it guaranteed or your
money back. Join now, say forty percent off your first
year with my name Clay as the promo code. That's
LifeLock dot com. My name Clay as the promo code.
(15:46):
You can call one eight hundred LifeLock. Go online to
LifeLock dot com use promo code Clay for forty percent off.
That's LifeLock dot Com. Promo code Clay forty percent off.
Speaker 7 (15:56):
You know him as conservative radio hosts, Now to get
to know them as guys on this Sunday Hang podcast
with Clay and fuck. Find it in their podcast feed
on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
A welcome back in everybody. Just a reminder from yesterday
during the cabinet, very lengthy cabinet meeting. Here's how Trump
reacted to the president that we all know him love.
Here's how he reacted to that question about Jeffrey Epstein
playing your memo and released yesterday.
Speaker 8 (16:25):
Jeffrey Epstein less some leadering mysteries. One of the biggest
ones is whether he ever worked for an American for
foreign intelligence agency. The former leader secretary who was in Miami,
he was attorney Alasa. He allegedly said that he did
work for intelligence agency. So could you resolve whether or
(16:46):
not he did? And also could you see why there
was a minute missing from the jail House featin So yeah.
Speaker 9 (16:51):
Sir, I just said you are you still talking about
Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're
asking we have Texas, we have this, we have all
of the things, and are people still talking about this guy,
this creep that is unbelievable. Do you want to waste
the time and do you feel like answered?
Speaker 6 (17:12):
I don't mind you.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
I just I want to point out here, you know,
because people are people are there's a lot of criticism
being directed at it's really Bondy Cash and Bongino. Clay
and I can both speak for Cash and Bongino as
guys that we know and trust and are and and
there's no there's no way to twist either their arms
to get them to cover up something that they know of.
I'm sorry, it doesn't exist. BONDI, I think has made
(17:34):
some optical mistakes or you know, rather you know, the
pr aspect of it. Communication has not been elite. Is Trump?
Trump is compromised? Guys, Come on, come on, like, let's
let's all let's all take a moment here. Trump is
I do not believe for one second Trump is compromised.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Well, and he knows what the evidence is, and he's like,
this guy is just an awful pedophile and he's dead.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Let's focus on the things that really matter, all right.
Let's talk about how beneath this great nation of ours
is an asset that some people believe is worth more
than one hundred and sixty trillion dollars. That's not just
some wild speculation, it's a documented fact. This endowment, so
to speak is so large it could pay off our
national debt four times over. But why has it been
kept secret for so long and not contemplated as a
(18:16):
potential asset for all of us to enjoy? Time will
reveal those details. But thanks to a Supreme Court decision
that Trump administration could soon release this endowment for the public.
This is all Jim Rickards idea my friends, former advisor
of the White House and Federal Reserve. He says, if
you're over fifty, this could be your best chance to
build lasting well from a once in a century event.
That's a big statement, but you should hear for yourself
(18:38):
why Jim believes this. Jim Rickards is a long track
record of big prediction. Go to Birthright twenty twenty five
dot com to hear right. Jim Rickards thinks this endowment
could be a huge opportunity for Americans who take advantage
of it. Again, that's Birthright twenty twenty five dot com,
paid for by Paradigm Press. Welcome back in.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Clay Travis Bucks Exton show. We got a lot of
you who want to weigh in. If you'll update me
Greg on the absolute latest there. But I do want
to play this because a lot of things. Okay, what's
the FBI doing? What is the They're doing a lot
of things. They're moving the headquarters, remember they've been there
six months. They're trying to change the overall culture. But
(19:21):
they're also opening an investigation into James Coney, James Comy,
and John Brennan. And there are potentially criminal charges coming
over the twenty seventeen Russia Russia Russia conspiracy and hoax.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
This is underway. Here is President Trump talking about that
earlier today in a press availability. Cut thirty three.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
James Comy and John Brennan now under criminal investigation.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Related to the Trump Russia probe. Do you want to
see these two guys behind bars?
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Well, I know nothing about it other than what I
read today, but I will tell you I think they're
very dishonest people. I think they're crooked as hell, and
maybe they have to pay a price for that. I
believe they are truly bad people and dishonest people. So
whatever happens happens.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
And I think this is evidence of trying to clean
out and address the culture there, and there are a
lot of things that have to be cleaned up, and
I think these guys are doing their best and it's
easy to sit around and I will say this. I
mean again, this is why I think logic oftentimes plays
into this substantially. Maybe the most dishonest thing that has
(20:39):
happened in Trump two point zero. Leaving aside the judges,
I'm curious if you would sign off on two point
zero is the idea that Trump is somehow involved with Epstein, right.
I mean, it's the most ludicrous thing on the planet,
because do you really think Democrats wouldn't have put that
around Trump's neck and tried to drown him with it
for the last decade. It doesn't exist, and so I
(21:03):
think that is almost a version of Trump two point zero.
The Russia collusion. Russia collusion was a total lie. I mean,
you really lived this buck from the intelligence analyst perspective,
they laundered a garbage steel report, steel dossier, and they
tried to create based on I know this well because
(21:24):
I bought Facebook ads as someone who runs a media
company and was involved in a lot of the Facebook
ad universe. They manufactured a couple one hundred thousand dollars
of crappy ads that were bought on Facebook by Russian
interest into somehow swinging the outcome of the twenty sixteen election,
(21:44):
and they really sold that to a lot of morons
in the media who ran with that as the truth.
And I think the secondary argument here of somehow Trump
is involved with Epstein is every bit is dishonest as
the Russia collusion hoax.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
They they wanted to run with it. That's part one
of it, right. So it's always hard to separate where
where where the lib journals are just dumb versus where
they're dishonest, because they're both. But you know, well there
is sort of occasionally one is a dominant theme and
the other one receives a little bit.
Speaker 6 (22:21):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
But Clay on the I have good news bad news
on the Brennan and Clapper thing. You want, you want
the good news bad news on this. This is gonna
be well. My concern is immediately when I when I
hear this is just statute of limitations. So like that,
you're already you're already it's cool, you're stealing my thunder
a little bit here, that's all right. No, So on
(22:42):
the good news part of it, I think that you're
going to see revelations of even more just underhanded bureaucratic
skullduggery from the uh, you know, investigation of what they
were doing. Essentially, you're gonna have to be You're gonna
(23:03):
have to be somebody who will embrace feigned stupid a
level of stupidity that's not plausible. To think that these
guys didn't know what they were doing is wrong. I
think that should come out. I think that will come
out more on the on the wampwomp side of it,
the not so good side of it. I would be
absolutely shocked if criminal charges were brought against Brennan or
(23:24):
Clapper for a combination reasons. Statue limitations, which you already
said on most federal, low level federal things is five
years low level. You know, there's a lot of there's
a lot of federal crimes which there was no statute limitations,
but for most low level kind of things like you know,
lying under oath kind of stuff, and you're looking at
five years, and so the statue limitations probably run on
(23:47):
a lot of that. And uh, I think that beyond
that a lot of the disguise they're slippery. Someone like
a comy, a Brennan, a Clapper, they know this system,
they know the game, they know what to put an
email and what not to uh, And I just don't think.
I just don't want you guys to get to I
don't want anyone to get their hopes up that anyone
(24:09):
is going to face real consequences for that Russia collusion thing.
At this point, I said this about ben Ghazi and Hillary,
and I got so much hate and it was not
hate but anger from people. And I was right. No
one's getting arrested or frog marched out of their out
of their office or their their home based on Russia
collusion stuff at this point in my mind. If I'm wrong,
(24:31):
I will come on the air and I will admit it.
But I'm just preparing you for Yes, it's good to
get the truth out. I'm not I'm not saying otherwise.
They're not going to get prosecuted and imprisoned based on
Russia collusion at this point in my opinion. So we'll see.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
Let's take some of these calls, a lot of you
stacking up variety of different takes out there. Tie in
San Antonio, what you got for us?
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Hey, guys, thanks for taking my call first time, long time.
So this Epstein situation, it seems like to me and
this is my personal opinion that there's a bit of
insulting of the intelligence here. And I want to address
Pambondi's explanation first, and it comes across to me as
low IQ and low energy. If she wants and I'll
(25:19):
just speak for Maga, right, if she wants the Maga
nation to believe that all they found was kitty porn,
child porn and Epstein had, you know, was just viewing
this nothing there, then it really doesn't. But a guy
with his sexual deviate nature, his connections, his money, and
not to mention guys, he needed to fly people to
(25:41):
an island to have sex with them. Okay, I'm a
forty two year old bachelor.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I don't need an island, guys.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
I got a house with rooms, right, all.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
Right, But so let me let me, let me let
me ask you this question.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
If you're right about all that, and I'm not saying
you're wrong, why would the FBI keep all of that
information for years if they were protecting Epstein.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
Brother. I think there are and I really want to
get to Trump here also, but I think there are
names on this on this connection book that he had
that could that could really really upset the the world
in an economic devastating way, potentially you know different things
(26:27):
that man extrapulating it out. Uh, there are big time
names on there, and and and and to say, you know,
well he was picking people up in a private jet,
taking them to this island, winding and dining them, and
nothing the farious criminal or you know, sinister happened.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
There is there's a differ.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
I appreciate that argument, but there's a difference between I
think something inappropriate, illegal, whatever words you want to put
in indefensible happened and what can be proven. What I'm
saying is, if you are protecting Epstein, let's presume that
your argument is correct.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Let's just I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm
just saying what's logically follow It's really not protecting Epstein,
to be clear, it's if the argument is protecting the
people that Epstein's clients so to speak, you know, his uh,
the other individuals who are involved in the sex crimes.
Why wouldn't they destroy all of that evidence? Well, this
(27:23):
is my thing. I don't believe that that evidence hasn't
long since been destroyed. And that's that's.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
That's my that's my that's my question for ty if
I'm saying, you're right, like all of these things are true.
If you believe that that existed, why would it still
exist when the Trump two point zero team comes in.
That's my that's my argument. I'm not saying that any
of the things you're saying are incorrect. I'm saying you're
(27:48):
in order for this to still be true, what you
are saying is all of the evidence is there of inappropriate, illegal,
impermissible behavior, right, and that the people that are now
there with Trump two point zero see all of it,
reviewed it all, and are now choosing to lie to
(28:10):
you about what is in the possession of the FBI
in the Department of Justice. That to me doesn't add
up destroying evidence.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Go ahead, Yeah, you know, much of the evidence that
I'm speaking too, I think is circumstantial, guys, to be
honest with you and.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Right, but that can't necessarily be proven in a court
of law. Tie. Right. That's there. They're about execution.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Though, No, I'm just I'm just saying to me that,
you know, for for for them to come out and
say that there is nothing to see here, guys, that
is that is it's just beyond my belief.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
They're saying, hold on I think specificity, tie, I think
specific matters. I think Clay and I agree with you
more than maybe it has come across. I do not
believe that, for example, allegedly Prince Andrew is the only
other guy who got involved with one of the one
of the you know, Epstein traffic women. I do not
(29:07):
believe that, Okay. I don't believe that, full stop. I
do not believe that. I also don't believe that Epstein
was not operating a blackmail operation. I do not believe that, okay.
But I don't believe that Bondi, Bongino Cash have evidence
of those things in their possession and they are suppressing
(29:31):
that because of pressure on them. I mean, look, I've
known Dan for fifteen years. I've known Cash for certainly
since the beginning of TROW, now about ten years. Those
guys would cut off their arm before they covered for
somebody committing the kind of sex crimes. It just would
not happen. It would not happen. So you know that's
I can just speak to you honestly, time, Manda Man,
(29:52):
Dan and Cash are not sitting there going yeah, it
would look bad politically, So we're going to cover for
these petos they would not do it. They would put
their lives at risk before they would do it. So
I promise you that is not and people can get
mad at me for this, that is not happening. That
doesn't mean that the other things that I said did
(30:14):
not happen previously. We have to keep these thoughts in
our mind. At the same time, I think there were
more people who committed sex crimes, and I think there
was blackmail going on, But the current FBI and the
current dj I do not believe has in their possession
evidence of those crimes.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
They may think that's the messaging here, you know, maybe
maybe the messaging here and particularly by Pam Bondi was.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Terrible because yes, you know Trump, yes we agree.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
You know what, Trump actually campaigned on shining light on
this Jeffrey Epstein situation, and you know I did, yes,
because Magnation. Magnation understands that America suffers from a pedophilia
problem and we suffer from a human sex trafficking problem,
and Jeffrey Epstein was the post child for everything that
fills us in terms of that conversation. Trump ran on
(31:05):
that and for him to come out yesterday and just
batted away guys, I don't know what it was. It's
it's almost like you've listened to your child for for
thirteen years, tell you the truth reflexively, and one day
they lie to you, and your your street smarts just
stands up and you know that they're being disingenuous. Because
you have listened to them, you have come to be
(31:26):
able to you know, basically predict what they're gonna do.
Trump never turns his back on magnation. He knows better
than that. And yesterday was the first time I've ever
saw him do it.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Guys, it's a I think it's a messaging mistake that
has been made. I do not believe that. You know,
people look Clay, let's just say. People are saying that
they flipped Trump, and I'm like, guys, the guy who
can can I just take a moment here? The guy
who doesn't need this, who's the billionaire who took a
bullet in the ear and said fight he got flipped
(31:58):
on this way? No way. It's argument. It's an insane
that doesn't mean Again, like I said, I think there
were more sex criminals. I think they've so far gotten
away with it. I think there was a blackmail ring
but that doesn't mean that that evidence just sat around
for twenty years and the FBI is now sitting on
this trove of the evidence and going we don't want
(32:19):
people to know the truth. That's a different thing. I
totally agree, and I actually agree with Tye also in
that I think Pam Bondi did not do a good
job with this.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
I think she created a mess. I think Trump has
seen all the evidence and all the reports. And this
is my honest address of Trump's comments yesterday. I think
he's seen all the evidence. He knows that Jeffrey Epstein
was a bad dude in a pedophile. But we're in
the middle of the floods in Texas, We're in the
middle of ice agents trying to get murdered, and I
(32:51):
think he honestly believes that Epstein is old news and
he wants to focus on the things that he can address. Now,
whatever you think about Epstein, the guy's dead. The guy
appears to have been an awful, disgusting pedophile, and he's dead,
and all the lawsuits have played out, most of his
money has been taken away and paid off to his victims.
(33:14):
I don't see Epstein as someone who has dodged responsibility
for his criminal culpability.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
There are other people I grew with Buck.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
I think that it's highly unlikely that Prince Andrew was
the only super rich, super famous person who was involved
with the women that were being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
And there's also there's the things here you've raised this too.
I mean some of EPs, some of the women that
Epstein was around, and you know, we're of age, to
be very clear, we're nineteen, we're twenty, and so is
you know, is that now that's not criminal for anyone
to be engaged unless there's some coercion that they're a
(33:51):
part of or then you know, So there's all this,
but that evidence it's been you know, we're talking about
some of this stuff happened fifteen twenty years ago.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
Yes, And also I think you would speak to this.
I think there was probably intelligence related asset using some
of this was honeypot stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
And trust me, you're not going to leave that stuff
around for the FBI to find in twenty in twenty nineteen. Look,
I share your frustrations. I went on the Sean Ryan
Show three years two years ago, three years ago now
and went in detail about how outraged I was about
the FBI rate in twenty nineteen in his house, and
people thought what I was saying was so crazy, Clay
couldn't be true. It was true. Yes, and we've been
(34:28):
on this beat for a long time. But let's keep
this in perspective. Let's not start to you know, I
do not question Trump, Dan Cash or Pam's integrity. I
think Pam has made I think the AG has made
some errors in presentation and has misspoken about the way
this has been presented in a few ways that's not
(34:50):
been helpful.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
And even yesterday we didn't get much attention. We got
to go to break. But the thousands and tens of thousands,
I thought that that was Epstein video. It's just stuff
that he was downloaded poorn off of the internet. For
people out there who are like, what about these victims, Yeah,
I want them all caught. But it wasn't Epstein's videos.
(35:11):
It was him just finding awful child porn stuff on
the internet. We'll close up shop next segment. Good call, Tie.
I think raised a lot of points and questions that
a lot of you have and that Buck and I
have had as well. Look, rapid radio makes a huge difference.
Walkie talkies great communication insurance policy when things can go wrong.
They work and work nationwide, coast to coast. They're simple
(35:32):
to use right out of the box. You got aging
parents don't really use cell phones. Well, you got young
kids and you don't want them to have a cell phone.
How about teenagers that just use cell phones all too well,
and you want them to not be able to be
on their cell phones as much. This can be great
good vacation attribute. We've used them going to college football games.
Rappid Radio is great to use. In addition to the
(35:53):
LT coverage, they're one hundred percent private, no contracts, no
monthly fees. Get hooked up now at rappid radios dot com.
Six percent off up to free shipping from Michigan, and
when you use the promo code Radio, you get an
extra five percent off. That's code Radio. Order today rapid
Radios dot com. Code Radio. That's Rappid Radios dot com.
Code Radio.
Speaker 7 (36:15):
Keep up with the biggest political comeback in world history
on the Team forty seven podcast, Plain Book Highlight Trump
free plays from.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
The week Sunday's at noon Eastern. Find it on the
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Closing up shop. Here a lot of great calls. We'll
continue to react. You can get on the talkback. We'll
play some of those for you as well. Appreciate all
of the fun and spice and the excitement. One thing
that I think is worth noting, every day feels like
Christmas morning. Lots of great things happening inside of our government.
(36:52):
We will talk about all of this and more tomorrow.
Appreciate y'all. Thursday should be fun
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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
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.