September 3, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show was highlighted by an extensive interview with Attorney General Todd Blanche, who discussed the Trump administration's Department of Justice priorities, including violent crime reduction, border security, fraud prevention, drug trafficking enforcement, and public safety initiatives. The conversation focused heavily on law enforcement efforts in Atlanta, where federal, state, and local agencies are working together through Homeland Security task forces to combat narcotics trafficking, gang activity, human trafficking, and financial crimes. Blanche highlighted recent prosecutions involving repeat drug offenders and criminal networks accused of distributing fentanyl and other narcotics while allegedly trafficking weapons to Mexican cartels, presenting these cases as examples of the administration's broader law-and-order agenda.
A major topic during Hour 3 was the state of crime in America and the Trump administration's claim that the country is experiencing historically low murder rates. Clay and Buck asked Blanche about reports showing homicide rates continuing to decline nationwide. Blanche argued that improvements in public safety are the result of coordination between federal agencies, border enforcement, local police departments, prosecutors, and community-level law enforcement partnerships. The hosts described the decline in violent crime as one of the most underreported stories in the country and discussed how crime reduction has become a central message of the administration heading into the 2026 midterm election season.
The discussion then shifted to government fraud, COVID-era relief programs, welfare fraud, daycare fraud, and misuse of federal funds. Blanche outlined new Department of Justice efforts aimed at identifying schemes that divert taxpayer money into fraudulent businesses and shell organizations. He described fraud investigations involving COVID relief funds, fraudulent benefit programs, fake service providers, and government grant abuse, emphasizing that recovering taxpayer dollars and preventing future abuse has become a top priority. Clay and Buck examined how these investigations connect with Vice President JD Vance's work on anti-fraud initiatives and efforts to reduce wasteful government spending.
Another significant segment focused on a recent Supreme Court decision involving President Donald Trump's plans to build a new White House ballroom. Blanche explained the administration's legal victory, arguing that opponents lacked standing to challenge the project simply because they objected to the appearance of the proposed addition. The conversation explored broader constitutional questions surrounding executive authority, federal property management, judicial standing, and separation of powers. Blanche emphasized that the ballroom project is privately funded rather than taxpayer funded and described it as both a practical and security-related improvement to the White House complex.
Following the interview, Clay and Buck reflected on their longstanding professional relationships with several Trump administration officials, including Sean Parnell and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Responding to a caller who questioned recent personnel changes inside the Pentagon, the hosts defended their support for Parnell's reported consideration for a senior Defense Department role while acknowledging their personal familiarity with him. They argued that understanding an individual's experience, work ethic, and character provides useful context when evaluating leadership appointments within government agencies. The hosts also discussed media coverage surrounding military leadership transitions and questioned whether public reporting fully reflects internal policy disagreements and organizational priorities inside the Pentagon.
The hour also included analysis of Vice President JD Vance's White House press briefing, which took place during the broadcast. While the hosts noted that no major headline immediately emerged from the briefing, they discussed the significance of Vance stepping into a prominent public communications role following the departure of former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The conversation connected broader administration messaging efforts to the upcoming midterm election cycle and ongoing policy debates surrounding crime, immigration, and economic issues.
In a lighter but highly spirited segment, Clay introduced a developing legal battle involving LSU, the Southeastern Conference, college football eligibility rules, NIL compensation, and the future of college athletics. The hosts examined lawsuits surrounding whether former professional athletes should be allowed to return to college football after participating in NFL camps and professional sports environments. Clay detailed competing lawsuits in Louisiana and Alabama involving LSU and the SEC, framing the dispute as ano
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Third hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now,
and we are very thankful to be joined by the
Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Mr.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Attorney General, thank you for calling in. I believe you're
in the Atlanta area. Appreciate you making the time for us.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No problem. Yes, I am.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I'm in Atlanta. It's great to be here. Thanks for
letting me join.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And I know that the work being done there by U.S.
Attorney Theodore Hertzberg has been phenomenal. It's been getting Press,
even at the national level, because it's going right to
some of the priorities, the top priorities of the Department
of Justice under this Trump administration. Can you speak to that?
Some of what has been worked on specifically in the
(00:42):
Atlanta area, some of the cases you're highlighting there as
examples of the sorts of high profile drug trafficking, corruption
and other cases that are an absolute focus for your
Department of Justice.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
So yes, Atlanta is a shining star at the Department
of Justice for the great work that they're doing combating
violent crime, combating the narcotics problem in Georgia and Atlanta
and everywhere in the country. Fraud, which is a big
issue in every city, but Atlanta is not excluded from that.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
And so down here, what they do, like.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
In a lot of our cities, is the Homeland Security
Task Force, which is A group of federal, state, and
local law enforcement kind of get around a big table,
and they tackle a problem, whether it's a gang, whether
it's a fraud problem, whether it's human trafficking. And that's
what they've been doing here. I think there's two great
cases to talk about that I think your listeners will
(01:41):
resonate with them. The first is a guy that they
just indicted this week. He's a drug dealer. He was
arrested in North Carolina. for selling heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl
in large quantities in the Atlanta and neighboring areas. Now,
you might say, no big deal, there's drug dealers that
are arrested every day. Well, this guy has the amazing
(02:04):
badge of honor of having been convicted of a drug
felony for selling cocaine in 1999, went to prison, got
convicted again in 2010 for selling marijuana, went to prison,
got convicted again in 2020 of selling large quantities of drugs,
got sentenced to a federal 10 years in prison. Okay,
(02:25):
so now you have a guy who's been convicted three
times of selling drugs all over Georgia. And then President Biden,
in his wisdom.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
commuted his sentence.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Right at the end of his term. This guy got
out and now is allegedly dealing drugs again. And so
you have an individual who's literally dedicated his life to
poisoning Georgians, and thankfully the U.S. attorney is doing a
great job in that case. The second case, which is
just as, I think, phenomenal from a law enforcement standpoint,
(02:55):
is there's a group of individuals who were selling fentanyl
and other drugs in the Atlanta area and making a
ton of money. What they were doing with the money
is they were going and purchasing weapons, including high-caliber magazines
and handheld, hand-fed submachine guns, and shipping them to the
cartels in Mexico. And so we've already arrested and convicted
(03:19):
17 guys, but we've just arrested some more participants in
this scheme. And if you think about that, What you
have is you have drug dealers peddling poison to people
in Atlanta. Fentanyl kills dozens of people every single day
and then taking the profits.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Going and buying guns and getting the.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Guns shipped down to Mexico to the cartels. So the
perfect two examples of real crime happening, but that.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
You have a great U.S.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Attorney executing on President Trump's agenda, stopping it.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
This ties in also with what I think is probably
the most underreported story of the Trump second administration so far,
which is we're on pace to set an all time
record low for murders in 2026 last year, at least
going back to 1900 last year was that record. They're
down about 20% so far in 2026. What can you
(04:15):
tell us about that data? And do you agree that
it should be talked about way more because based on
that data, uh, You've never been less likely to be
a victim of murder in the country, maybe in the
history of the United States.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Oh, man, listen, I totally agree with you. It drives
me bananas that I'll stand in front of a bunch
of reporters and they'll ask me questions about anything under
the sun except for that issue. Because if you think
about that, you're right. Since over 125 years, we've never
had the murder rate this low. So what does that mean?
Does that mean the federal government and federal law enforcement
(04:50):
are doing everything? Absolutely positively not. Does that mean that
it's just the state and locals? Absolutely positively not. What
this shows, and the reason why the murder rate is
so low, is because it's an all-government, everybody approach.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
It means that our borders are secure.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
It means that everybody's working together to arrest bad guys
so they can't go out and commit murder. It means
that our local cops... are doing what they need to
do in the schools. They're doing what they need to
do in our communities to keep violence from happening.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
And guess what?
Speaker 3 (05:19):
That is all because of President Trump. It's all because
he ran and he said, what we're going to do
is we're going to make America safe again. in every
way that we can. So not only with the border,
not only with the FBI, not only with the DEA,
but also with our sheriffs and our police department. And
yet this is something that everybody should be shouting from
the rooftops because you're right. That means if you're in
(05:40):
this country, you're a lot less likely to be the
victim of a violent crime or murder than at any
point really in our history for the past 125 years.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Speaking to Attorney General Todd Blanch and Mr. Attorney General,
also in the Atlanta... jurisdiction, there was someone named Atala
Williams who was sentenced to six years, six months in
prison for taking bribes for millions in fraudulent COVID relief loans.
This just, first of all, it's more good work by
a U.S. attorney's office out of Atlanta, but it's also
(06:13):
indicative or ties into an issue that I know is
top of, because the vice president is really ahead of
a task force on it. And that is just all
the fraud. In this case, talking about bribes, but also
more broadly, just the defrauding of the system that's going on.
How is your DOJ tackling those problems, and what are
(06:34):
the kind of primary areas of fraud that you're going
to be looking to bring prosecutions against?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yes, I mean, that is the focus.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I was talking to our U.S. attorney today, and he
said to me, wow, President Trump and this administration have
a lot of priorities today. And I said, that's absolutely.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Right, we do.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And then he very much agreed and is enthusiastic about it.
And fraud is certainly one as well. I think the
case you just spoke of, you're right. She not only
was accepting bribes, but she was also applying for fraudulent
loans herself. So not only accepting bribes to help others,
But also doing it herself. So, yes, we're working closely
with the vice president, with the task force. We just
(07:14):
started a fraud division whose primary and sole purpose is.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
To root out fraud everywhere. But then every U.S.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Attorney's office, including here in Atlanta, has an entire section
and group of prosecutors trying to do that. And here's
the focus.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
There are many, many individuals out there. Many of them
are here illegally, but some are not. who are literally
just stealing money from the federal government.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Your tax dollars are going right to the federal government
and they're right into somebody's pocket so they can buy
a Ferrari. So this isn't about a single mother trying
to feed her kids. This isn't about a doctor who
maybe just checks the slightly right form to say that
there was a certain type of procedure when it really
was a different procedure, all of which are still potentially crimes.
We're talking about pure thievery. We're talking about individuals who
(08:00):
say they're running a homeless shelter, for example, and collecting
millions of dollars from the federal government, and there's no shelter,
there's nobody homeless, they're not providing any service. We're talking
about the daycare center fraud that have been talked about.
So we have these programs that.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Gives millions and millions of dollars to states.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
To give to what should be a good program, helping
the most needy among us have access to daycare and
after-school care.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
And this money is there's no daycare center.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
There's no after school care. There's no kids. It's just
going into people's pockets. We've seen tremendous success already just
in the past several months with the vice president and the.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Work that we're all doing.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
I expect that if folks pay attention to you and
to other media over the next several months, they're going
to continue to see great work that we're going all
over the country for the next several months. with takedowns
and with really positive results in this space. And what
everybody should know is every time we arrest somebody, we
are saving this country anywhere from, however, you know, depending
(09:01):
on the fraud, a million to sometimes $ 100 million in
money that was stolen from the FISC.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
I know that you can't comment on cases that are ongoing.
So we're getting a lot of people saying, ask about Fauci,
ask about Comey, ask about a lot of these other
different cases. As a lawyer, I don't want to get
you in trying to comment on those because of your position.
So let me ask you about a case that was
recently decided, the ballroom that President Trump is building today.
(09:28):
The Supreme Court basically said, you guys can do that.
I thought it was super interesting. I'm curious your take.
They went and looked at standing, which used to be
kind of a significant aspect of any case to prove
a concrete injury, basically. And you can't say, hey, I'm
a person who walks by the White House and I
felt injured by the way that the White House was
(09:49):
being in changed. I was at the White House Correspondents Dinner,
the first one, when the shooting happened. A lot of
people saw that chaos. The need for a ballroom, to me,
is beyond a shadow of a doubt. What did the
court say, the Supreme Court, and why was it significant?
I'll let you analyze it.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Yes, so I was at the Correspondents' Dinner, too, and
that's the best example anybody can give on.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Why we need a ballroom.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
But beyond that, It's not just a room for people,
for the president and future presidents to host dinners, but
it's also incredibly important for the safety of the president
and his family and his leadership. And so this was
something that needed to be done for a very long time.
And so I'll talk about the case in a second.
But don't forget that not a dollar of tax dollars,
(10:33):
no tax dollars went to this. This is all privately
raised funds from companies and places in this great country
who wanted to see this ballroom built. And further, what
you had in the design and the construction of it
was a lot of process and thought so that it
looks beautiful.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
It's right in.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Line with the way the White House looks today. And
presidents for the next 50, 100 years are going to
get to enjoy it. Now, what the Supreme Court said
is you're right, is that just because somebody walks by
and observes and says, you.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Know what, I might not like the way it looks.
That doesn't give you standing to sue.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
And when a non-lawyer that's told that, it's almost common sense.
And so what we had in DC and at the
DC Circuit before we got to the Supreme Court, is
we had judges that really were not looking at the,
in our view, weren't looking at the underlying reason and
cost and what we were saying we wanted to do.
They were just more or less saying, I don't like
(11:30):
President Trump and you can't build a ballroom. And so we're, look,
we were very happy for the Supreme Court to rule
the way we did, the way that it did. We
weren't surprised because we knew that we were right on
the law. And what we were saying to the court
is the same thing that President Trump's been saying over
and over again. which is that this is a privately
funded effort and that Congress long ago gave the executive,
(11:54):
which is President Trump, permission to make changes to buildings
like the White House, which is exactly what he's doing here.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
We're excited.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
You should be excited because hopefully, if not next year,
then the year after that, the Correspondence Center will be
in that great ballroom.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
It's going to be beautiful.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
It's going to be a great place to celebrate this country,
and we're really happy that You know, and just to
give a shout out to our lawyers, the lawyers.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
On this case, the Civil Division and the.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Solicitor General's Office, the White House Counsel's Office, they worked
for really the past year in achieving the result we
got last week. So it was a good day.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
It's all good.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Attorney General Todd Blanch, appreciate you making the time for us.
Please keep it up. Come back on any time you
want to talk about some of these top initiatives from
the Trump White House and also Give our regards and
tell U.S. Attorney Hertzberg he's doing a great job. Our
Atlanta listeners would want me to pass that along.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Absolutely. I'd love to join you guys again, and thank
you for having me on. You guys are great, and
keep up the good work.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
Will do, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Look, I want to tell you guys, that's the Attorney
General of the United States, Todd Blanche. We'll get to
some of your calls. You can react to that. Does
that mean we've had pretty much everybody on, Buck? I
think in the entire administration from a cabinet perspective. I
can't think of any that have not been on at
some point in time since they've become cabinet secretaries.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Marco comes on, but he comes on to talk to
you about football, even though he's got six jobs in
the six cabinet roles. But it's okay.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Yeah, we got a cut for that with J.D. Vance,
who continues to answer questions in the White House right now. Look,
I want to tell you all about one of our
newest sponsors here that I'm really excited about. It's Hard Rock.
Hard Rock Bet in particular. We got a good game tonight,
and some of you are going to say, you know what, Clay,
I love this pick. Others of you are going to say, Clay,
you are completely wrong. Georgia Tech is playing against Colorado.
(13:53):
This is a rematch of last year's game. We got
a lot of Atlanta area listeners. You just heard the
Attorney General. He's down in Atlanta. Got a lot of
Colorado listeners as well. Georgia Tech's a six-and-a-half point favorite.
I am taking Georgia Tech to cover that six-and-a-half point
line in a big... Thursday night, college football kickoff action.
Right now, if you go to hardrock.bet.clay, that's hardrock.bet.clay, you can,
(14:21):
for a $ 5 bet, get $ 100 in bonus bets in
your account.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
That's pretty awesome.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Now, this is a company that has the exclusive license
in Florida, but they're also in Arizona. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, and my home state of Tennessee.
If you're going to be going to Florida or any
of those states, or certainly if you live in any
of them, you get $ 100 right now. If you go
(14:49):
to hardrock.bet slash clay, that's hardrock.bet slash clay for $ 100
when you play $ 5. Georgia Tech's the pick. We'll see
how I do tomorrow. Georgia Tech, minus 6.5 going up.
against Colorado. Hardrock.bet slash Clay.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Level up your brain.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Mental mugging with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
We appreciate the Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche,
coming on the program just a moment ago. We got
a couple of callers who want to weigh in. We
got a bunch of talkbacks, and I'm going to blow
Buck's mind with that's an important addition there. We're going
to blow Buck's mind with a story when we come back.
(15:37):
It's a tough word to get caught on. Blaze in Pennsylvania,
what you got for us?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Hey, guys, can you hear me?
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Yeah, we're here.
Speaker 6 (15:48):
Hey, I kind of wanted to call in here about
the Sean Parnell, the Driscoll. The issue I have is
that We're talking about Sean was an employee of yours,
a friend, and you got Pete, Secretary of War, is
(16:10):
a friend, and I get all that. But you guys
aren't telling us why Driscoll is resigning or– let's just
say General Donahue, who just was resigned, you guys got
to start telling us the why a little bit.
Speaker 5 (16:27):
Well, I think the why is pretty clear.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Hold on.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
I think the why is pretty clear. They have a
different vision of.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
Where the Secretary of War, the entire Defense Department should
go than Pete Hegseth does.
Speaker 7 (16:41):
It just seems that these guys have an outrageous track
record of of military service and an understanding of what,
of what a strong country is.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
So, so what would, so your position is that you
think Pete Hegseth is doing a bad job and we
should say that and that.
Speaker 5 (16:58):
You want to play clay.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
No.
Speaker 7 (17:02):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (17:02):
So what, I guess my question is, what is your
position then?
Speaker 6 (17:07):
I believe there was a purge last year and I
think it was, I think it was needed.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
I do.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
But I think now is a reset time. I think
we've got to reset where we're at with the commanders
that are in play that have a good 20 or
30 years of where we've been and the trials and
tribulations of where we're at in the world. I just
(17:33):
want to know why.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Well, look, I can tell you one thing, one reason.
I can speak to this a little bit. One thing is...
that this guy who just resigned, there's a lot of
one-way fire coming from his camp now about what he
sees as the problems and everything else. You'll notice the administration,
they've been pretty quiet on this. That may change if
he continues. I think they're trying to be respectful at
(17:55):
this point that he has a different opinion. But I
think there's also been a little bit of a PR
off that's been run here by this one individual. So
we'll talk more about this. Look, it's a fair point
to bring up. Pure Talk has a compelling offer for you,
particularly if you're open to the idea of changing your
cell phone service from one company to theirs. For a
limited time, when you switch your cell phone service to
(18:16):
Pure Talk, your first three months of service is just
$ 15 a month. When you switch to Pure Talk, you're
going to benefit from their 5G nationwide coverage on the
exact same towers and same network as the better-known cell
phone service companies, but at a much lower monthly price.
We talk about prices all the time here, guys. How
about you save some money? You're still going to have
the great service that you're used to in terms of
cell towers, but better customer service. And just at a
(18:38):
much better price point with Pure Talk. Pick out any
of the monthly service plans that work best for you.
Sign up today. And whatever plan you choose, including the
$ 34. 99 unlimited data calls and text plan, just $ 15 a
month through the end of November. Dial pound 250. Say
our names, Clay and Buck. Pure Talk will help you
switch today. Dial pound 250. Say Clay and Buck. Welcome
(19:00):
back into Clay and Buck. Clay, it looks like we're
still not going to have any verdicts, any end state here.
for the Lindsay Clancy trial, another day of deliberations, I
have to think it is extremely tense and frustrating or
frustrated in that jury room, in the jury deliberation room,
(19:22):
because the only reason for this is they cannot come
to an agreement on any of the charges. So there
won't even be a, okay, we'll go for the second
highest charge, which is often the way that juries will
solve this issue. They'll say, Well, you think it's murder one.
I think it should be manslaughter. Let's go down the
middle and do murder two if that's an option. As
(19:43):
strange as this may sound, that does happen in jury rooms.
And in this case, I think it's there are there is.
I would assume there's a handful of women who just
refuse to convict her on any charge and want her
to go to a mental hospital. And I will assume
and I am assuming, by the way, I am not
I have no sources on this or whatever. I'm assuming
that the three men on the jury are just absolutely not.
(20:07):
Absolutely not. That is what I think is happening. That
is my intuition for whatever it's worth. Clay, what do
you think?
Speaker 5 (20:14):
That's my take.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
I actually saw Nancy Grace yesterday on Fox News as
I was waiting to go on with Jesse Waters yesterday,
I think it was.
Speaker 5 (20:23):
No, sorry, Sean Hannity. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
I was on Fox News waiting to go on. And
Nancy Grace, who has a decent amount of experience in
this world, She's convinced they're just disputing what she's guilty of.
In other words, she doesn't think this is going to
be a mistrial. She thinks they can't agree on is
this first-degree murder, is this a derivation, lower-level murder.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
I hope she's right. I disagree with Nancy, just to
be clear. I think that's wrong. But maybe I'm wrong.
We'll see.
Speaker 5 (20:52):
I hope she's right. By the way, last caller.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Ultimately, I'm told by producer Greg, he was upset because
we were advocating too strongly for Sean Parnell to get
the job that is open right now.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
I mean, if your criticism of us.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Is going to be people that we know, like, and
believe have done a good job and that we have
personal relationships with that we disclose to you as a
basis for why we believe they're entitled to a promotion
or should get a promotion... If that's the criticism, I mean,
I would rather be criticized for being honest about having
personal relationships than doing what a lot of people do
(21:30):
in media, as you know, to be true, Buck, which
is not talk about personal relationships at all and just
give you an aggressive case for why someone should or
should not get a job. which they claim is based
in a completely unbiased analysis. The reality is we know
and like Sean. He did a great job with us.
We think he's done a great job with Pete so far,
(21:52):
and we think he would do a good job if
he got promoted. people don't choose to promote or not
promote anyone based on our decision, uh, our arguments necessarily. So, uh,
if you have an issue with that, so be it. Um,
I'd rather be criticized for being too kind to someone
that we are friends with than, uh, either pretend that
(22:12):
we weren't, uh, in some way connected or to like
tee off on somebody that's your friend in a public
fashion that also seems, uh, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
That's a that's a snake. It's a snake maneuver. I mean,
I always tell people don't expect me, especially over policy
disputes or something, to hit my friends on the air.
And beyond that, we do tell people we have I mean,
I've known Pete and Sean for almost the entire time
I've been doing media. I met them when I was
at the Blaze and sort of working with them both.
(22:43):
I want to say 2012, 2013 in that time frame.
So I've known these guys a long time, spent a
lot of time with them, worked with them both. So
it's not just the, oh, I've interviewed this person and
I like them. It's I know these individuals and can
attest to things like their competency, their character, their ability
(23:04):
to handle stress, all of these things. And so I
have a high degree of faith in them, not because
I have– I have a high degree of faith in
Sean Parnell as Pentagon spokesman. and Undersecretary of Defense. I
have a high degree of faith in Pete Hegseth as
Secretary of War. I'm sorry, I should have said Undersecretary
of War, because I know them, not because somebody told
(23:27):
me that they're good guys. So that's one part of this.
And something else, Clay, I'll just say, when it comes
to personnel disputes inside of agencies, things like this, you're
always being fed a line. You need to understand that.
Right now there's all this, oh, this is why he left.
You know who's saying that? You'll notice the White House
has been very quiet about this. You know who's saying
(23:49):
why Driscoll left? People from the Driscoll camp. Obviously, right?
You leave, you resign under these circumstances. He was allowed
to leave really of his own volition. He wasn't fired.
But you resign and you go on, and then you're
telling people why you left. Is that the whole story?
That is not the whole story. So I just think
(24:09):
that it's worth keeping in mind. Whenever you have somebody
who exits any of these positions, bureaucracies, agencies, their version
of the story is one version of the story. And
it may be true, but there is another version of
why they were no longer there. And I think the
White House, out of respect for Driscoll's service, has just
(24:29):
been quiet and allowed him to go. But I'm just
saying we would be going off of half the story
if you're going to go to Politico or something and
tell me, well, this is what they're reporting. Yeah, because
the guy called... reporter and said, this is why I left.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Is that the story?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Let me tell you, I don't think that's the way
these things actually go.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
J.D.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Vance just finished his White House press briefing. We had
our guys running on it. We'll give you any cuts
that are particularly newsworthy. I haven't seen anything that has
really popped going through social media during the course of
which he talked. It was the first White House press
briefing since Caroline Levitt. left the White House.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Okay, Buck, I got a fun story for you. This
is going to be crazy.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
So LSU is trying to bring a player to play
for them who was last in the Cleveland Browns preseason
training camp. Cleveland Browns, obviously an NFL team. There is
a lawsuit going on right now in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
(25:36):
between the Southeastern Conference and LSU. LSU has also just
been sued in the state of Alabama by the Southeastern Conference,
which is based in the state of Alabama.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
And the dispute.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Basically is over whether pro athletes are allowed to return
to college and play college sports. The attorney general of
Louisiana is involved.
Speaker 5 (26:02):
We talked to it. Was it earlier this week?
Speaker 4 (26:04):
I think it was when Senator Kennedy of Louisiana had
a great quote for us about Lane Kiffin. We've had
the governor on. We've had everybody on. This was the
Attorney General of Louisiana. She showed up for this hearing, Buck,
in a purple top. The LSU colors, of course, are purple.
This is a crazy Southern college football story. This is
(26:28):
what she said before she began her press conference on
this lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Listen.
Speaker 6 (26:34):
Go Tigers!
Speaker 4 (26:38):
If you couldn't tell, she said, go Tigers. Buck, as
a lifelong New Yorker, what is your take on college
lawsuits having to do with who is allowed to play,
including guys who went and played NFL football during the
summer that now want to come back to college and
(26:59):
play college football?
Speaker 5 (27:00):
Is this all insane to you? What is your take
on this?
Speaker 1 (27:04):
I love how Clay asking the Manhattan kid, about college football,
it's like he's asking an Eskimo about the best bullfighter
in the world. It's like, what?
Speaker 5 (27:15):
Who?
Speaker 1 (27:15):
What's going on here? I would say on this issue,
the reality has been for a long time that in
these major programs, and this will be an unpopular opinion,
these are essentially, and it's actually the way that Tom
Wolfe described them in his book, I Am Charlotte Simmons,
which I think was based on Duke effectively. It wasn't
called Duke, but he said that these are athletic mercenaries.
(27:38):
Meaning that these players who get pulled in these top programs,
they're clearly not there for academics nor for the academics.
And there are minor league sports franchises that are subsidized by–
and everyone's booing. They're like, shut up. Minor league sports franchises,
really just football, basketball, maybe one or two other sports
(27:59):
you throw into the mix. that are subsidized by the
rest of the university. And now people are going to
say it makes university money. Clay, as you know, that
is true for some of the big elite programs. Actually,
most sports programs lose schools money.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
That's what ends up, you know, if you look at
the vast majority of athletics programs, they are a net
loss for the school. They're not selling enough tickets to
pay for all the staff and the stadiums and everything else.
Not the case. I'm sure with like a, you know,
with a, Texas and Oklahoma and A & M and
Auburn and Alabama and all this stuff, they're making money
for their schools. That's different. But now they've essentially wiped
(28:38):
away the facade by allowing somebody who is effectively a
professional athlete to come back and get paid to pretend
to be a college athlete. That's gone full circle now
because all along there was this game of these are
student athletes and they shouldn't be paid, but we should
(28:58):
make millions and millions of dollars off them. And our
coach should make like 10 million bucks, you know, and
have some cool nickname that everybody in the South knows.
Like that was an unsustainable reality. And now I think
people are seeing that they got to figure out something
that makes this And I also tell you, I feel
bad because I used to see these stories. These kids,
(29:20):
they were kids in some cases, right, who were like
freshmen or sophomores at some program. And they accepted a
steak dinner or a jacket from a booster. And they're
banned for four years from the NCAA because the NCAA
is some sacrosanct student athlete. Go walk off a short pier. Like,
give me a break.
Speaker 5 (29:37):
And this, to your point, all sports.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Started because the NCAA lost 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Which is almost impossible to do.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
You got everybody in the entire NCAA said, hey, we
in no way can support your argument that these are amateurs.
And I think a lot of people out there are
fed up with what's going on. I would say this,
and we have a big listenership, I know, in Louisiana
and also in Alabama. The Southeastern Conference Buck is based
(30:14):
in Alabama. They're in Birmingham. They are suing LSU in
the state of Alabama. Forum shopping is a huge part
of all legal proceedings. The SEC suing one of the
most hated schools of both Alabama and Auburn. in the
(30:34):
state of Alabama where in theory they would get judges
but also jurors who are not necessarily in favor of
LSU while LSU is suing the SEC in Louisiana is
one of the funniest, most ridiculous examples of how judicial
(30:55):
favoritism can be implemented in cases that I can think
of in a recent history.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Now that I've given everyone my crusty nerd take so
they can all give me a wedgie and slam me
into lockers and stuff, Clay, how do you fix this problem?
Because you really can't have people saying that this is
college athletics and this is somehow fair when you can
just go out and pay somebody more money who's a
professional athlete to go compete in college in their late 20s?
(31:24):
You've got 30-year-olds that are going to be suiting up, say, oh,
I'm the number two QB for this team, but I
could go play at LSU and make $ 8 million a year.
It's just not sustainable. So how do you fix it?
Speaker 4 (31:34):
Yeah, you're right, and I think the answer is that
we have to get this bill passed in the Senate
and in the House that would end the attacking of
all rules. which is why we've had some senators on
talking about it. By the way, guys, am I correct?
Because sometimes my quad boxes get a little bit slow.
The judge has gotten another jury note in the Clancy trial.
(31:58):
Is that updated? I just want to make sure that
that's on the actual... That is right now happening in
real time, Buck. Do you want to go to a
pause here, and then we'll come back and see what
the note is? Yeah, let's go to commercial break. We'll
see if that happens before we finish the show today,
if we find out what that note might be saying.
But I want to tell you about Legacy Box. Legacy
(32:18):
Box can make a tremendous difference for your family. If
preserving your family's history is important, if you want to
make sure that you have the ability to Share those
great photos, those great videotapes, those great film reels with
the next generation of your family. This is a way
to preserve your family's history. I've been to their facilities
(32:38):
in Chattanooga. I've seen all those memories taking place. They
probably have the largest collection of VCRs anywhere in the
world right now. It's done right where my mom grew
up in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They have all sorts of facilities
of dedicated employees making sure that your family's history is preserved.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
It's super easy.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
You put your original devices, the videotapes, the pictures, whatever
you want digitized into a legacy box. You send it
to them. They will then send it back to you,
and you will be able to make sure that you
can share those digital images with anyone that they are
preserved forever. You can take advantage of a great Legacy
(33:16):
Box sale right now before the holiday crush begins at
LegacyBox.com slash Clay. That's LegacyBox.com slash Clay.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
Miss the show while you're on the go?
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Wind down your day with the Daily Review Podcast.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
Find it on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
App or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
Welcome back in, Clay Travis.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
We're going to talk legal issues as the Lindsay Clancy
case is ongoing. If you have legal issues anywhere in
the country right now, ClayTravisLaw.com. They will respond within five
minutes if you call and get a phone message left, 877-222-4444.
You can go to the website, ClayTravisLaw.com. You can also
call 877-222-4444. OK, Buck, I think what's likely to happen
(34:06):
here again, judge getting a jury note in the Clancy trial.
I think the jurors are done. I think they are finished.
I think they are letting it be known that they
have reached a point where no one is changing their mind.
They are effectively all locked in. And I think there's
a decent chance that later this afternoon, an official jury
verdict is going to come down. Unfortunately, I think this
(34:28):
is going to end in a mistrial. Do you sign off?
Do you co-sign? And if it does, I would suspect
that tomorrow we will spend a substantial amount of time
discussing this case.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
Yeah, I think we're heading for a mistrial. And I
think the challenge of this particular mistrial is that a
second jury pool is very likely to run into the
same problem. But now we're getting to a place where, guys,
if she got a mistrial and they Chose not to
retry the case, which the state can do. She just walks.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, she just walks. And then all these, you know,
tick tock moms or at least alleged moms, they claim
their moms who are saying, oh, but like Lindsay Clancy
and you don't understand and postpartum and all this stuff.
Is that what you want? She kills her three kids
and she walks away like nothing happened.
Speaker 6 (35:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
Really murders her three small children. And she walks scot free.
That could happen because there are, I am sorry to say,
women in this jury pool who If we're right, if
there's a mistrial, maybe they get an agreement on a
lesser charge. But, Clay, if they were going to get
an agreement on a lesser charge, they would have already
done so. I think that's why I don't believe it's
a lesser charge argument.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
I also, yeah, I think all of your analysis is right.
The other part of this, I would say, is we
don't know if there was an offer to her to
plead guilty to a lesser charge. Her defense attorney now
is never agreeing. to any sort of substantial punishment that
she would agree to because he's looking at this, and
I think he's doing this calculus too, and saying there's
(35:59):
no way they're going to get her convicted now because
how do you even get an unbiased jury? Certainly not
anywhere in Massachusetts, but I'm not sure you could go
anywhere in the country at this point given how much
attention has been on this case.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
We'll see. There is a possibility that we are talking
to you about a woman who is effectively free pending
retrial after admitting to brutally murdering her three children. There
is an insanity, a dark insanity that has spread around
the country on this issue and on other issues too,
but this is showing it in a way that I
(36:32):
think it is unavoidable for us to have to focus
in on this and look at this. So Clay, that's
a bleak way to end the show today. But we
do have on the rest of the show a lot
of fun, a lot of great stuff. Go back and
check out clay and buck podcast guys it is up
all three hours each hour for your viewing enjoyment and
on youtube we are on youtube now go subscribe to
(36:53):
clay and buck on youtube
Third hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now,
and we are very thankful to be joined by the
Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Mr.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Attorney General, thank you for calling in. I believe you're
in the Atlanta area. Appreciate you making the time for us.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No problem. Yes, I am.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I'm in Atlanta. It's great to be here. Thanks for
letting me join.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And I know that the work being done there by U.S.
Attorney Theodore Hertzberg has been phenomenal. It's been getting Press,
even at the national level, because it's going right to
some of the priorities, the top priorities of the Department
of Justice under this Trump administration. Can you speak to that?
Some of what has been worked on specifically in the
(00:42):
Atlanta area, some of the cases you're highlighting there as
examples of the sorts of high profile drug trafficking, corruption
and other cases that are an absolute focus for your
Department of Justice.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
So yes, Atlanta is a shining star at the Department
of Justice for the great work that they're doing combating
violent crime, combating the narcotics problem in Georgia and Atlanta
and everywhere in the country. Fraud, which is a big
issue in every city, but Atlanta is not excluded from that.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
And so down here, what they do, like.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
In a lot of our cities, is the Homeland Security
Task Force, which is A group of federal, state, and
local law enforcement kind of get around a big table,
and they tackle a problem, whether it's a gang, whether
it's a fraud problem, whether it's human trafficking. And that's
what they've been doing here. I think there's two great
cases to talk about that I think your listeners will
(01:41):
resonate with them. The first is a guy that they
just indicted this week. He's a drug dealer. He was
arrested in North Carolina. for selling heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl
in large quantities in the Atlanta and neighboring areas. Now,
you might say, no big deal, there's drug dealers that
are arrested every day. Well, this guy has the amazing
(02:04):
badge of honor of having been convicted of a drug
felony for selling cocaine in 1999, went to prison, got
convicted again in 2010 for selling marijuana, went to prison,
got convicted again in 2020 of selling large quantities of drugs,
got sentenced to a federal 10 years in prison. Okay,
(02:25):
so now you have a guy who's been convicted three
times of selling drugs all over Georgia. And then President Biden,
in his wisdom.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
commuted his sentence.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Right at the end of his term. This guy got
out and now is allegedly dealing drugs again. And so
you have an individual who's literally dedicated his life to
poisoning Georgians, and thankfully the U.S. attorney is doing a
great job in that case. The second case, which is
just as, I think, phenomenal from a law enforcement standpoint,
(02:55):
is there's a group of individuals who were selling fentanyl
and other drugs in the Atlanta area and making a
ton of money. What they were doing with the money
is they were going and purchasing weapons, including high-caliber magazines
and handheld, hand-fed submachine guns, and shipping them to the
cartels in Mexico. And so we've already arrested and convicted
(03:19):
17 guys, but we've just arrested some more participants in
this scheme. And if you think about that, What you
have is you have drug dealers peddling poison to people
in Atlanta. Fentanyl kills dozens of people every single day
and then taking the profits.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Going and buying guns and getting the.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Guns shipped down to Mexico to the cartels. So the
perfect two examples of real crime happening, but that.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
You have a great U.S.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Attorney executing on President Trump's agenda, stopping it.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
This ties in also with what I think is probably
the most underreported story of the Trump second administration so far,
which is we're on pace to set an all time
record low for murders in 2026 last year, at least
going back to 1900 last year was that record. They're
down about 20% so far in 2026. What can you
(04:15):
tell us about that data? And do you agree that
it should be talked about way more because based on
that data, uh, You've never been less likely to be
a victim of murder in the country, maybe in the
history of the United States.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Oh, man, listen, I totally agree with you. It drives
me bananas that I'll stand in front of a bunch
of reporters and they'll ask me questions about anything under
the sun except for that issue. Because if you think
about that, you're right. Since over 125 years, we've never
had the murder rate this low. So what does that mean?
Does that mean the federal government and federal law enforcement
(04:50):
are doing everything? Absolutely positively not. Does that mean that
it's just the state and locals? Absolutely positively not. What
this shows, and the reason why the murder rate is
so low, is because it's an all-government, everybody approach.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
It means that our borders are secure.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
It means that everybody's working together to arrest bad guys
so they can't go out and commit murder. It means
that our local cops... are doing what they need to
do in the schools. They're doing what they need to
do in our communities to keep violence from happening.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
And guess what?
Speaker 3 (05:19):
That is all because of President Trump. It's all because
he ran and he said, what we're going to do
is we're going to make America safe again. in every
way that we can. So not only with the border,
not only with the FBI, not only with the DEA,
but also with our sheriffs and our police department. And
yet this is something that everybody should be shouting from
the rooftops because you're right. That means if you're in
(05:40):
this country, you're a lot less likely to be the
victim of a violent crime or murder than at any
point really in our history for the past 125 years.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Speaking to Attorney General Todd Blanch and Mr. Attorney General,
also in the Atlanta... jurisdiction, there was someone named Atala
Williams who was sentenced to six years, six months in
prison for taking bribes for millions in fraudulent COVID relief loans.
This just, first of all, it's more good work by
a U.S. attorney's office out of Atlanta, but it's also
(06:13):
indicative or ties into an issue that I know is
top of, because the vice president is really ahead of
a task force on it. And that is just all
the fraud. In this case, talking about bribes, but also
more broadly, just the defrauding of the system that's going on.
How is your DOJ tackling those problems, and what are
(06:34):
the kind of primary areas of fraud that you're going
to be looking to bring prosecutions against?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yes, I mean, that is the focus.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I was talking to our U.S. attorney today, and he
said to me, wow, President Trump and this administration have
a lot of priorities today. And I said, that's absolutely.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Right, we do.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And then he very much agreed and is enthusiastic about it.
And fraud is certainly one as well. I think the
case you just spoke of, you're right. She not only
was accepting bribes, but she was also applying for fraudulent
loans herself. So not only accepting bribes to help others,
But also doing it herself. So, yes, we're working closely
with the vice president, with the task force. We just
(07:14):
started a fraud division whose primary and sole purpose is.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
To root out fraud everywhere. But then every U.S.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Attorney's office, including here in Atlanta, has an entire section
and group of prosecutors trying to do that. And here's
the focus.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
There are many, many individuals out there. Many of them
are here illegally, but some are not. who are literally
just stealing money from the federal government.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Your tax dollars are going right to the federal government
and they're right into somebody's pocket so they can buy
a Ferrari. So this isn't about a single mother trying
to feed her kids. This isn't about a doctor who
maybe just checks the slightly right form to say that
there was a certain type of procedure when it really
was a different procedure, all of which are still potentially crimes.
We're talking about pure thievery. We're talking about individuals who
(08:00):
say they're running a homeless shelter, for example, and collecting
millions of dollars from the federal government, and there's no shelter,
there's nobody homeless, they're not providing any service. We're talking
about the daycare center fraud that have been talked about.
So we have these programs that.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Gives millions and millions of dollars to states.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
To give to what should be a good program, helping
the most needy among us have access to daycare and
after-school care.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
And this money is there's no daycare center.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
There's no after school care. There's no kids. It's just
going into people's pockets. We've seen tremendous success already just
in the past several months with the vice president and the.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Work that we're all doing.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
I expect that if folks pay attention to you and
to other media over the next several months, they're going
to continue to see great work that we're going all
over the country for the next several months. with takedowns
and with really positive results in this space. And what
everybody should know is every time we arrest somebody, we
are saving this country anywhere from, however, you know, depending
(09:01):
on the fraud, a million to sometimes $ 100 million in
money that was stolen from the FISC.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
I know that you can't comment on cases that are ongoing.
So we're getting a lot of people saying, ask about Fauci,
ask about Comey, ask about a lot of these other
different cases. As a lawyer, I don't want to get
you in trying to comment on those because of your position.
So let me ask you about a case that was
recently decided, the ballroom that President Trump is building today.
(09:28):
The Supreme Court basically said, you guys can do that.
I thought it was super interesting. I'm curious your take.
They went and looked at standing, which used to be
kind of a significant aspect of any case to prove
a concrete injury, basically. And you can't say, hey, I'm
a person who walks by the White House and I
felt injured by the way that the White House was
(09:49):
being in changed. I was at the White House Correspondents Dinner,
the first one, when the shooting happened. A lot of
people saw that chaos. The need for a ballroom, to me,
is beyond a shadow of a doubt. What did the
court say, the Supreme Court, and why was it significant?
I'll let you analyze it.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Yes, so I was at the Correspondents' Dinner, too, and
that's the best example anybody can give on.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Why we need a ballroom.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
But beyond that, It's not just a room for people,
for the president and future presidents to host dinners, but
it's also incredibly important for the safety of the president
and his family and his leadership. And so this was
something that needed to be done for a very long time.
And so I'll talk about the case in a second.
But don't forget that not a dollar of tax dollars,
(10:33):
no tax dollars went to this. This is all privately
raised funds from companies and places in this great country
who wanted to see this ballroom built. And further, what
you had in the design and the construction of it
was a lot of process and thought so that it
looks beautiful.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
It's right in.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Line with the way the White House looks today. And
presidents for the next 50, 100 years are going to
get to enjoy it. Now, what the Supreme Court said
is you're right, is that just because somebody walks by
and observes and says, you.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Know what, I might not like the way it looks.
That doesn't give you standing to sue.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
And when a non-lawyer that's told that, it's almost common sense.
And so what we had in DC and at the
DC Circuit before we got to the Supreme Court, is
we had judges that really were not looking at the,
in our view, weren't looking at the underlying reason and
cost and what we were saying we wanted to do.
They were just more or less saying, I don't like
(11:30):
President Trump and you can't build a ballroom. And so we're, look,
we were very happy for the Supreme Court to rule
the way we did, the way that it did. We
weren't surprised because we knew that we were right on
the law. And what we were saying to the court
is the same thing that President Trump's been saying over
and over again. which is that this is a privately
funded effort and that Congress long ago gave the executive,
(11:54):
which is President Trump, permission to make changes to buildings
like the White House, which is exactly what he's doing here.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
We're excited.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
You should be excited because hopefully, if not next year,
then the year after that, the Correspondence Center will be
in that great ballroom.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
It's going to be beautiful.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
It's going to be a great place to celebrate this country,
and we're really happy that You know, and just to
give a shout out to our lawyers, the lawyers.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
On this case, the Civil Division and the.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Solicitor General's Office, the White House Counsel's Office, they worked
for really the past year in achieving the result we
got last week. So it was a good day.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
It's all good.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Attorney General Todd Blanch, appreciate you making the time for us.
Please keep it up. Come back on any time you
want to talk about some of these top initiatives from
the Trump White House and also Give our regards and
tell U.S. Attorney Hertzberg he's doing a great job. Our
Atlanta listeners would want me to pass that along.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Absolutely. I'd love to join you guys again, and thank
you for having me on. You guys are great, and
keep up the good work.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
Will do, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
Look, I want to tell you guys, that's the Attorney
General of the United States, Todd Blanche. We'll get to
some of your calls. You can react to that. Does
that mean we've had pretty much everybody on, Buck? I
think in the entire administration from a cabinet perspective. I
can't think of any that have not been on at
some point in time since they've become cabinet secretaries.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Marco comes on, but he comes on to talk to
you about football, even though he's got six jobs in
the six cabinet roles. But it's okay.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Yeah, we got a cut for that with J.D. Vance,
who continues to answer questions in the White House right now. Look,
I want to tell you all about one of our
newest sponsors here that I'm really excited about. It's Hard Rock.
Hard Rock Bet in particular. We got a good game tonight,
and some of you are going to say, you know what, Clay,
I love this pick. Others of you are going to say, Clay,
you are completely wrong. Georgia Tech is playing against Colorado.
(13:53):
This is a rematch of last year's game. We got
a lot of Atlanta area listeners. You just heard the
Attorney General. He's down in Atlanta. Got a lot of
Colorado listeners as well. Georgia Tech's a six-and-a-half point favorite.
I am taking Georgia Tech to cover that six-and-a-half point
line in a big... Thursday night, college football kickoff action.
Right now, if you go to hardrock.bet.clay, that's hardrock.bet.clay, you can,
(14:21):
for a $ 5 bet, get $ 100 in bonus bets in
your account.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
That's pretty awesome.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Now, this is a company that has the exclusive license
in Florida, but they're also in Arizona. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, and my home state of Tennessee.
If you're going to be going to Florida or any
of those states, or certainly if you live in any
of them, you get $ 100 right now. If you go
(14:49):
to hardrock.bet slash clay, that's hardrock.bet slash clay for $ 100
when you play $ 5. Georgia Tech's the pick. We'll see
how I do tomorrow. Georgia Tech, minus 6.5 going up.
against Colorado. Hardrock.bet slash Clay.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Level up your brain.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Mental mugging with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
We appreciate the Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche,
coming on the program just a moment ago. We got
a couple of callers who want to weigh in. We
got a bunch of talkbacks, and I'm going to blow
Buck's mind with that's an important addition there. We're going
to blow Buck's mind with a story when we come back.
(15:37):
It's a tough word to get caught on. Blaze in Pennsylvania,
what you got for us?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Hey, guys, can you hear me?
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Yeah, we're here.
Speaker 6 (15:48):
Hey, I kind of wanted to call in here about
the Sean Parnell, the Driscoll. The issue I have is
that We're talking about Sean was an employee of yours,
a friend, and you got Pete, Secretary of War, is
(16:10):
a friend, and I get all that. But you guys
aren't telling us why Driscoll is resigning or– let's just
say General Donahue, who just was resigned, you guys got
to start telling us the why a little bit.
Speaker 5 (16:27):
Well, I think the why is pretty clear.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Hold on.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
I think the why is pretty clear. They have a
different vision of.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
Where the Secretary of War, the entire Defense Department should
go than Pete Hegseth does.
Speaker 7 (16:41):
It just seems that these guys have an outrageous track
record of of military service and an understanding of what,
of what a strong country is.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
So, so what would, so your position is that you
think Pete Hegseth is doing a bad job and we
should say that and that.
Speaker 5 (16:58):
You want to play clay.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
No.
Speaker 7 (17:02):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (17:02):
So what, I guess my question is, what is your
position then?
Speaker 6 (17:07):
I believe there was a purge last year and I
think it was, I think it was needed.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
I do.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
But I think now is a reset time. I think
we've got to reset where we're at with the commanders
that are in play that have a good 20 or
30 years of where we've been and the trials and
tribulations of where we're at in the world. I just
(17:33):
want to know why.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Well, look, I can tell you one thing, one reason.
I can speak to this a little bit. One thing is...
that this guy who just resigned, there's a lot of
one-way fire coming from his camp now about what he
sees as the problems and everything else. You'll notice the administration,
they've been pretty quiet on this. That may change if
he continues. I think they're trying to be respectful at
(17:55):
this point that he has a different opinion. But I
think there's also been a little bit of a PR
off that's been run here by this one individual. So
we'll talk more about this. Look, it's a fair point
to bring up. Pure Talk has a compelling offer for you,
particularly if you're open to the idea of changing your
cell phone service from one company to theirs. For a
limited time, when you switch your cell phone service to
(18:16):
Pure Talk, your first three months of service is just
$ 15 a month. When you switch to Pure Talk, you're
going to benefit from their 5G nationwide coverage on the
exact same towers and same network as the better-known cell
phone service companies, but at a much lower monthly price.
We talk about prices all the time here, guys. How
about you save some money? You're still going to have
the great service that you're used to in terms of
cell towers, but better customer service. And just at a
(18:38):
much better price point with Pure Talk. Pick out any
of the monthly service plans that work best for you.
Sign up today. And whatever plan you choose, including the
$ 34. 99 unlimited data calls and text plan, just $ 15 a
month through the end of November. Dial pound 250. Say
our names, Clay and Buck. Pure Talk will help you
switch today. Dial pound 250. Say Clay and Buck. Welcome
(19:00):
back into Clay and Buck. Clay, it looks like we're
still not going to have any verdicts, any end state here.
for the Lindsay Clancy trial, another day of deliberations, I
have to think it is extremely tense and frustrating or
frustrated in that jury room, in the jury deliberation room,
(19:22):
because the only reason for this is they cannot come
to an agreement on any of the charges. So there
won't even be a, okay, we'll go for the second
highest charge, which is often the way that juries will
solve this issue. They'll say, Well, you think it's murder one.
I think it should be manslaughter. Let's go down the
middle and do murder two if that's an option. As
(19:43):
strange as this may sound, that does happen in jury rooms.
And in this case, I think it's there are there is.
I would assume there's a handful of women who just
refuse to convict her on any charge and want her
to go to a mental hospital. And I will assume
and I am assuming, by the way, I am not
I have no sources on this or whatever. I'm assuming
that the three men on the jury are just absolutely not.
(20:07):
Absolutely not. That is what I think is happening. That
is my intuition for whatever it's worth. Clay, what do
you think?
Speaker 5 (20:14):
That's my take.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
I actually saw Nancy Grace yesterday on Fox News as
I was waiting to go on with Jesse Waters yesterday,
I think it was.
Speaker 5 (20:23):
No, sorry, Sean Hannity. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
I was on Fox News waiting to go on. And
Nancy Grace, who has a decent amount of experience in
this world, She's convinced they're just disputing what she's guilty of.
In other words, she doesn't think this is going to
be a mistrial. She thinks they can't agree on is
this first-degree murder, is this a derivation, lower-level murder.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
I hope she's right. I disagree with Nancy, just to
be clear. I think that's wrong. But maybe I'm wrong.
We'll see.
Speaker 5 (20:52):
I hope she's right. By the way, last caller.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Ultimately, I'm told by producer Greg, he was upset because
we were advocating too strongly for Sean Parnell to get
the job that is open right now.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
I mean, if your criticism of us.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
Is going to be people that we know, like, and
believe have done a good job and that we have
personal relationships with that we disclose to you as a
basis for why we believe they're entitled to a promotion
or should get a promotion... If that's the criticism, I mean,
I would rather be criticized for being honest about having
personal relationships than doing what a lot of people do
(21:30):
in media, as you know, to be true, Buck, which
is not talk about personal relationships at all and just
give you an aggressive case for why someone should or
should not get a job. which they claim is based
in a completely unbiased analysis. The reality is we know
and like Sean. He did a great job with us.
We think he's done a great job with Pete so far,
(21:52):
and we think he would do a good job if
he got promoted. people don't choose to promote or not
promote anyone based on our decision, uh, our arguments necessarily. So, uh,
if you have an issue with that, so be it. Um,
I'd rather be criticized for being too kind to someone
that we are friends with than, uh, either pretend that
(22:12):
we weren't, uh, in some way connected or to like
tee off on somebody that's your friend in a public
fashion that also seems, uh, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
That's a that's a snake. It's a snake maneuver. I mean,
I always tell people don't expect me, especially over policy
disputes or something, to hit my friends on the air.
And beyond that, we do tell people we have I mean,
I've known Pete and Sean for almost the entire time
I've been doing media. I met them when I was
at the Blaze and sort of working with them both.
(22:43):
I want to say 2012, 2013 in that time frame.
So I've known these guys a long time, spent a
lot of time with them, worked with them both. So
it's not just the, oh, I've interviewed this person and
I like them. It's I know these individuals and can
attest to things like their competency, their character, their ability
(23:04):
to handle stress, all of these things. And so I
have a high degree of faith in them, not because
I have– I have a high degree of faith in
Sean Parnell as Pentagon spokesman. and Undersecretary of Defense. I
have a high degree of faith in Pete Hegseth as
Secretary of War. I'm sorry, I should have said Undersecretary
of War, because I know them, not because somebody told
(23:27):
me that they're good guys. So that's one part of this.
And something else, Clay, I'll just say, when it comes
to personnel disputes inside of agencies, things like this, you're
always being fed a line. You need to understand that.
Right now there's all this, oh, this is why he left.
You know who's saying that? You'll notice the White House
has been very quiet about this. You know who's saying
(23:49):
why Driscoll left? People from the Driscoll camp. Obviously, right?
You leave, you resign under these circumstances. He was allowed
to leave really of his own volition. He wasn't fired.
But you resign and you go on, and then you're
telling people why you left. Is that the whole story?
That is not the whole story. So I just think
(24:09):
that it's worth keeping in mind. Whenever you have somebody
who exits any of these positions, bureaucracies, agencies, their version
of the story is one version of the story. And
it may be true, but there is another version of
why they were no longer there. And I think the
White House, out of respect for Driscoll's service, has just
(24:29):
been quiet and allowed him to go. But I'm just
saying we would be going off of half the story
if you're going to go to Politico or something and
tell me, well, this is what they're reporting. Yeah, because
the guy called... reporter and said, this is why I left.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Is that the story?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Let me tell you, I don't think that's the way
these things actually go.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
J.D.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
Vance just finished his White House press briefing. We had
our guys running on it. We'll give you any cuts
that are particularly newsworthy. I haven't seen anything that has
really popped going through social media during the course of
which he talked. It was the first White House press
briefing since Caroline Levitt. left the White House.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Okay, Buck, I got a fun story for you. This
is going to be crazy.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
So LSU is trying to bring a player to play
for them who was last in the Cleveland Browns preseason
training camp. Cleveland Browns, obviously an NFL team. There is
a lawsuit going on right now in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
(25:36):
between the Southeastern Conference and LSU. LSU has also just
been sued in the state of Alabama by the Southeastern Conference,
which is based in the state of Alabama.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
And the dispute.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
Basically is over whether pro athletes are allowed to return
to college and play college sports. The attorney general of
Louisiana is involved.
Speaker 5 (26:02):
We talked to it. Was it earlier this week?
Speaker 4 (26:04):
I think it was when Senator Kennedy of Louisiana had
a great quote for us about Lane Kiffin. We've had
the governor on. We've had everybody on. This was the
Attorney General of Louisiana. She showed up for this hearing, Buck,
in a purple top. The LSU colors, of course, are purple.
This is a crazy Southern college football story. This is
(26:28):
what she said before she began her press conference on
this lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Listen.
Speaker 6 (26:34):
Go Tigers!
Speaker 4 (26:38):
If you couldn't tell, she said, go Tigers. Buck, as
a lifelong New Yorker, what is your take on college
lawsuits having to do with who is allowed to play,
including guys who went and played NFL football during the
summer that now want to come back to college and
(26:59):
play college football?
Speaker 5 (27:00):
Is this all insane to you? What is your take
on this?
Speaker 1 (27:04):
I love how Clay asking the Manhattan kid, about college football,
it's like he's asking an Eskimo about the best bullfighter
in the world. It's like, what?
Speaker 5 (27:15):
Who?
Speaker 1 (27:15):
What's going on here? I would say on this issue,
the reality has been for a long time that in
these major programs, and this will be an unpopular opinion,
these are essentially, and it's actually the way that Tom
Wolfe described them in his book, I Am Charlotte Simmons,
which I think was based on Duke effectively. It wasn't
called Duke, but he said that these are athletic mercenaries.
(27:38):
Meaning that these players who get pulled in these top programs,
they're clearly not there for academics nor for the academics.
And there are minor league sports franchises that are subsidized by–
and everyone's booing. They're like, shut up. Minor league sports franchises,
really just football, basketball, maybe one or two other sports
(27:59):
you throw into the mix. that are subsidized by the
rest of the university. And now people are going to
say it makes university money. Clay, as you know, that
is true for some of the big elite programs. Actually,
most sports programs lose schools money.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
That's what ends up, you know, if you look at
the vast majority of athletics programs, they are a net
loss for the school. They're not selling enough tickets to
pay for all the staff and the stadiums and everything else.
Not the case. I'm sure with like a, you know,
with a, Texas and Oklahoma and A & M and
Auburn and Alabama and all this stuff, they're making money
for their schools. That's different. But now they've essentially wiped
(28:38):
away the facade by allowing somebody who is effectively a
professional athlete to come back and get paid to pretend
to be a college athlete. That's gone full circle now
because all along there was this game of these are
student athletes and they shouldn't be paid, but we should
(28:58):
make millions and millions of dollars off them. And our
coach should make like 10 million bucks, you know, and
have some cool nickname that everybody in the South knows.
Like that was an unsustainable reality. And now I think
people are seeing that they got to figure out something
that makes this And I also tell you, I feel
bad because I used to see these stories. These kids,
(29:20):
they were kids in some cases, right, who were like
freshmen or sophomores at some program. And they accepted a
steak dinner or a jacket from a booster. And they're
banned for four years from the NCAA because the NCAA
is some sacrosanct student athlete. Go walk off a short pier. Like,
give me a break.
Speaker 5 (29:37):
And this, to your point, all sports.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Started because the NCAA lost 9-0 at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Which is almost impossible to do.
Speaker 4 (29:50):
You got everybody in the entire NCAA said, hey, we
in no way can support your argument that these are amateurs.
And I think a lot of people out there are
fed up with what's going on. I would say this,
and we have a big listenership, I know, in Louisiana
and also in Alabama. The Southeastern Conference Buck is based
(30:14):
in Alabama. They're in Birmingham. They are suing LSU in
the state of Alabama. Forum shopping is a huge part
of all legal proceedings. The SEC suing one of the
most hated schools of both Alabama and Auburn. in the
(30:34):
state of Alabama where in theory they would get judges
but also jurors who are not necessarily in favor of
LSU while LSU is suing the SEC in Louisiana is
one of the funniest, most ridiculous examples of how judicial
(30:55):
favoritism can be implemented in cases that I can think
of in a recent history.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Now that I've given everyone my crusty nerd take so
they can all give me a wedgie and slam me
into lockers and stuff, Clay, how do you fix this problem?
Because you really can't have people saying that this is
college athletics and this is somehow fair when you can
just go out and pay somebody more money who's a
professional athlete to go compete in college in their late 20s?
(31:24):
You've got 30-year-olds that are going to be suiting up, say, oh,
I'm the number two QB for this team, but I
could go play at LSU and make $ 8 million a year.
It's just not sustainable. So how do you fix it?
Speaker 4 (31:34):
Yeah, you're right, and I think the answer is that
we have to get this bill passed in the Senate
and in the House that would end the attacking of
all rules. which is why we've had some senators on
talking about it. By the way, guys, am I correct?
Because sometimes my quad boxes get a little bit slow.
The judge has gotten another jury note in the Clancy trial.
(31:58):
Is that updated? I just want to make sure that
that's on the actual... That is right now happening in
real time, Buck. Do you want to go to a
pause here, and then we'll come back and see what
the note is? Yeah, let's go to commercial break. We'll
see if that happens before we finish the show today,
if we find out what that note might be saying.
But I want to tell you about Legacy Box. Legacy
(32:18):
Box can make a tremendous difference for your family. If
preserving your family's history is important, if you want to
make sure that you have the ability to Share those
great photos, those great videotapes, those great film reels with
the next generation of your family. This is a way
to preserve your family's history. I've been to their facilities
(32:38):
in Chattanooga. I've seen all those memories taking place. They
probably have the largest collection of VCRs anywhere in the
world right now. It's done right where my mom grew
up in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They have all sorts of facilities
of dedicated employees making sure that your family's history is preserved.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
It's super easy.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
You put your original devices, the videotapes, the pictures, whatever
you want digitized into a legacy box. You send it
to them. They will then send it back to you,
and you will be able to make sure that you
can share those digital images with anyone that they are
preserved forever. You can take advantage of a great Legacy
(33:16):
Box sale right now before the holiday crush begins at
LegacyBox.com slash Clay. That's LegacyBox.com slash Clay.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
Miss the show while you're on the go?
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Wind down your day with the Daily Review Podcast.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
Find it on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
App or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
Welcome back in, Clay Travis.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
We're going to talk legal issues as the Lindsay Clancy
case is ongoing. If you have legal issues anywhere in
the country right now, ClayTravisLaw.com. They will respond within five
minutes if you call and get a phone message left, 877-222-4444.
You can go to the website, ClayTravisLaw.com. You can also
call 877-222-4444. OK, Buck, I think what's likely to happen
(34:06):
here again, judge getting a jury note in the Clancy trial.
I think the jurors are done. I think they are finished.
I think they are letting it be known that they
have reached a point where no one is changing their mind.
They are effectively all locked in. And I think there's
a decent chance that later this afternoon, an official jury
verdict is going to come down. Unfortunately, I think this
(34:28):
is going to end in a mistrial. Do you sign off?
Do you co-sign? And if it does, I would suspect
that tomorrow we will spend a substantial amount of time
discussing this case.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
Yeah, I think we're heading for a mistrial. And I
think the challenge of this particular mistrial is that a
second jury pool is very likely to run into the
same problem. But now we're getting to a place where, guys,
if she got a mistrial and they Chose not to
retry the case, which the state can do. She just walks.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, she just walks. And then all these, you know,
tick tock moms or at least alleged moms, they claim
their moms who are saying, oh, but like Lindsay Clancy
and you don't understand and postpartum and all this stuff.
Is that what you want? She kills her three kids
and she walks away like nothing happened.
Speaker 6 (35:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
Really murders her three small children. And she walks scot free.
That could happen because there are, I am sorry to say,
women in this jury pool who If we're right, if
there's a mistrial, maybe they get an agreement on a
lesser charge. But, Clay, if they were going to get
an agreement on a lesser charge, they would have already
done so. I think that's why I don't believe it's
a lesser charge argument.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
I also, yeah, I think all of your analysis is right.
The other part of this, I would say, is we
don't know if there was an offer to her to
plead guilty to a lesser charge. Her defense attorney now
is never agreeing. to any sort of substantial punishment that
she would agree to because he's looking at this, and
I think he's doing this calculus too, and saying there's
(35:59):
no way they're going to get her convicted now because
how do you even get an unbiased jury? Certainly not
anywhere in Massachusetts, but I'm not sure you could go
anywhere in the country at this point given how much
attention has been on this case.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
We'll see. There is a possibility that we are talking
to you about a woman who is effectively free pending
retrial after admitting to brutally murdering her three children. There
is an insanity, a dark insanity that has spread around
the country on this issue and on other issues too,
but this is showing it in a way that I
(36:32):
think it is unavoidable for us to have to focus
in on this and look at this. So Clay, that's
a bleak way to end the show today. But we
do have on the rest of the show a lot
of fun, a lot of great stuff. Go back and
check out clay and buck podcast guys it is up
all three hours each hour for your viewing enjoyment and
on youtube we are on youtube now go subscribe to
(36:53):
clay and buck on youtube
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.