July 16, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show focused on major political developments, election integrity debates, White House news, U.S. policy toward Iran, media credibility, Senate rules, national security strategy, and listener-driven discussions on daylight saving time. The final hour delivered a mix of breaking news analysis, political commentary, foreign policy debate, and audience engagement while emphasizing several key issues expected to shape upcoming elections.
The hour opened with discussion of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's return to the briefing room following maternity leave and her preview of President Donald Trump's highly anticipated primetime address. Clay and Buck analyzed Leavitt's comments suggesting the president would present significant evidence related to election security concerns and alleged foreign influence in previous elections. Both hosts argued that regardless of the evidence presented, major legacy media organizations would continue to dismiss or minimize Trump's claims due to longstanding opposition to the president. The discussion centered on media bias, election security, voter confidence, and the ongoing national debate surrounding election integrity reforms.
A substantial portion of Hour 3 focused on what Trump was expected to reveal regarding the 2020 election and broader concerns about voting procedures. Clay and Buck debated the political impact of revisiting election controversies, comparing media treatment of allegations surrounding Russian interference in 2016 with reactions to claims of election irregularities in 2020. The hosts examined voter turnout figures, public trust in elections, the SAVE Act, voter identification requirements, and the challenges Republicans face in passing election-security legislation despite strong public support. Listener calls further highlighted concerns about election administration, ballot security, and the importance of maintaining confidence in democratic institutions.
The hosts also explored the political consequences of Senate procedural rules, expressing frustration that Republican priorities such as election-security legislation continue to face obstacles in the Senate. Discussion centered on the filibuster, legislative strategy, partisan gridlock, and concerns that future Democratic majorities could eliminate procedural barriers to advance progressive policies while Republicans remain hesitant to do the same when in power. The broader conversation connected election reform efforts to the upcoming 2026 midterm elections and the overall direction of American governance.
Foreign policy and national security became the dominant subject during the middle portion of the hour as breaking news emerged that U.S. forces had resumed military strikes against Iranian targets. Clay and Buck analyzed the latest developments in the ongoing confrontation with Iran, discussing the collapse of previous diplomatic efforts, the effectiveness of economic pressure, and the challenges of forcing meaningful concessions from Tehran. The hosts debated whether air strikes alone can achieve strategic objectives or whether any lasting solution would ultimately require more aggressive action against Iran's ruling regime and military infrastructure.
A lengthy discussion examined the strategic dilemma facing the Trump administration regarding Iran. The hosts considered the effectiveness of sanctions, oil export restrictions, and military operations aimed at weakening the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). They debated whether military pressure alone can force regime change, how Iranian leadership calculates long-term risks differently than Western governments, and the limits of relying on internal uprisings to alter political outcomes. The conversation also touched on the role of Kurdish populations, the possibility of regional instability, and the geopolitical consequences of prolonged military confrontation in the Middle East.
The hosts further analyzed the risks associated with any potential deployment of American ground forces. Drawing comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan, they discussed the political and military consequences of large-scale intervention, the difficulty of nation-building efforts, and why many Americans remain skeptical of new military commitments in the region. Buck argued that air power alone rarely achieves decisive political transformation, while Clay questioned whether any viable path exists to permanently resolve tensions with Iran without direct military involvement. The discussion explored broader themes of American foreign policy, interventionism, deterrence, and national security strategy.
The conversation also examined Vice President JD Vance's public defense of the administration's Iran policy. Clay and Buck suggested Vance occupies a challenging position within the administration, balancing loyalty to President Trump with concerns held by porti
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, third hour, Clay and Buck kicks off right now.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Thanks for being here with us, everybody, And we just
had Caroline Levitt back from attorney leave talking to the
nation from the West wing of the White House, and
we have some updates from that for you. We've pulled
all the most newsworthy and relevant clips and we're going
to make sure you're up to speed. As you know,
we are live, we are in real time, and we
(00:24):
are on YouTube also in real time.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
So go subscribe to the play in Buck YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
If you're a YouTube you were out there and in
the meantime, we've got this play a few things. By
the way, we have some funny stuff to get to
at the back of this hour involving a license plate.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
That's all I can say.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
That will be the only tease I have for this one.
We will have to get there though, Clay, so remind me.
But first the serious business of the republic and what's
going on with Caroline Levitt's preview of the speech tonight
that President trumple gave at nine o'clock on his nine
eastern Is that right we're talking about that, yes, yeah,
(01:06):
talking about the time changes on. Well, here's what Caroline
this is cut thirty guys. Here's Caroline Levitt previewing Trump's
speech tonight.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Let's hear it.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Part of the problem is that the media has refused
to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the
country share the concerns of this president about the sanctity
of our elections. And your premise of your question, you're
jumping ahead to a conclusion in this speech before even
hearing it yourself. I think that everyone should tune in tonight,
including the people in this room, and you should report
on the President's speech and the findings that he is
(01:36):
going to reveal in this speech with a little bit
of honesty and a little bit of integrity, because it
does it will shock you if you have an honest
eye listening to the president tonight, and everything he is
saying will be backed by facts and by evidence that
will be provided this evening. And again, Garrett, again, I
think all Americans, Democrat Republicans should agree that we are
the greatest country in the history of the world. We
should have the safest and most secure elections in the
(01:59):
history of the world. And what the President will be
speaking about tonight will show you that perhaps that is
not the case, and we need to make some adjustments
moving forward, including the Save America Act, as Rachel pointed out,
is a key legislative priority for this president on Capitol.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Hill, Clay, I don't know what the President's going to
say tonight, and I'm very curious to see it. I
will watch it tonight, But I do know, and I
would put money on this one that the people in
the press corps who are Trump haters doesn't matter what
he says, it doesn't matter. I can appreciate Caroline Levitt
(02:35):
asking them to please just once try to be honest.
Spoiler alert, everybody that Trump hating media will not be
honest about whatever it is that he says, so we
should at least all be prepared for that as we
wait to see what the President has to say.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Yeah, that's what I was saying earlier, is even if
President Trump came out and provided the most died in
the wall, beyond self doubt, beyond criticism, beyond reasonable doubt,
evidence that our elections are insecure and that they have
been influenced in a way that makes them unsafe. MSNBC, CNN,
(03:14):
New York Times, They're not going to cover it. They're
just not and they have decided that President Trump is.
They cared drastically. It is kind of funny. In twenty sixteen,
all of them bought the Russia collusion hoax and covered
the idea that Russia had rigged our election as if
(03:34):
it were the biggest story in.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
The history of the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
In twenty twenty, Trump said our election was rigged, and
none of them would cover it. And now in twenty
twenty four, I think Trump won so comfortably that everybody's
just kind of said, yeah, Kamala was an awful candidate.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Trump won.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
I do think buck one of the big lasting questions
that is still out there. You and I talked about
a yet yesterday. I'll be honest. In twenty twenty, I
didn't believe anywhere near as much as I do now
that the eighty one million Biden votes were illegitimate. And
(04:14):
I looked at it and I said, Okay, maybe Trump
is uniquely able to in twenty twenty. We know they
changed all the rules with ballots and everything else. The
fact that Kamala is six million less than Biden in
twenty twenty four made me go back to twenty twenty
and look at it and say there's no way that
(04:35):
Biden got eighty one million legitimate votes.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
There just isn't.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
And I think increasing majorities of Americans just look at it,
take away the politics, whether you're a Trump person, whether
you're a Biden person. The question I think you have
to ask is is Joe Biden the most popular presidential
candidate to ever run in the history of the United States.
I think there's not one single person in America that
would say that. I'll put it this way, Buck, we're
(05:01):
making fun of Biden announcing that he You're releasing a
book this week. Have you ever seen anybody wear Biden gear?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
H yes, no, no, excuse me, excuse me, sir.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Some of the illegals who were showing up at the
border were wearing Biden T shirts. They were very excited,
very excited about vice presidency.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
So the reason why I bring it up, you might say, Okay, Clay,
why would you even bring up the idea of Biden
gear when you wear some like right now, I'm wearing
an Atlanta Braves T shirt right When you wear something
that you are committed to, that shows you are a
member of a tribe, It shows a depth of commitment.
Whatever you think about Trump, the red Maga hat is
(05:43):
an unbelievably powerful sign of how much depth of support
there is for Trump.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
I don't ever remember seeing anyone wear in their normally
existing life Biden gear, and so I think you just
reasonably look at all of this and say, is there
a depth of support of Joe Biden? You went through
with Groc was yesterday. I think you were reading what
Groc said about the eighty one million votes that Biden
(06:12):
got in the wake of the twenty twenty four election.
We can test Trump twenty sixteen twenty twenty twenty four.
There are twelve years basically of Trump data out there
now since he came down the escalator and began his
political career. There's about twelve years of data ish of
(06:33):
what Trump represents on the American political landscape. There's no
way Biden got eighty one million legal votes, just I
do not believe it now. I don't think there's any
way that a New York Times reporter would ever say
what I just said, no matter what the evidence is.
I don't think there's any way a CNN reporter would
say it. I don't think there's any way an MSNBC
(06:55):
reporter would say it, So, no matter what Trump lays
out tonight, it's not going to impact the way that
this is covered. And half the country is not going
to hear what he says at all, and they're going
to be told that.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
He's just lying to them.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
My concern, and we just asked Tommy Laern about this
at the top of the next hour, is is this
going to help in the mid terms or is it
going to be people saying, hey, like that was six
years ago, and I'm talking about people who are persuadable voters.
What I care about now is cost of living. What
I care about now is mortgage rates, which are way
(07:31):
too high. What I care about is the rate on
my credit card debt. That's what I think the average
American wants to hear. And my concern is this is
going to be discordant because it's going to sound like Trump. Again,
we haven't read this speech, and we haven't seen the
speech or anything else, but it's going to sound like
Trump is retrospectively focused on events instead of prospective, prospectively
(07:55):
well focused.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
My sense play is he may present to numbers and
data to support his very clear view on the twenty
twenty election, and he's doing so not just to re
litigate the pass, which will certainly be an accusation that
people a criticism people will make about this, but also
(08:18):
because of the Save America Act and the desire that
the President and many other Republicans have to further secure
and solidify elections going forward. So there is a I think,
going to be an action piece of this other than
Trump wanting to address something that he feels very passionately
(08:38):
and personally about for obvious reasons. My sense is that
it will tie into the Save America Act as well, which, unfortunately,
then you get into why isn't it being passed. It's
not being passed because of the assumption of a Democrat filibuster,
and unless people are willing to change that rule in
the Senate, that's where it goes and dies. I don't
(08:59):
think there's any willingness to change it in the Senate.
So we get into industry. This is where it just
gets frustrated.
Speaker 5 (09:05):
To this.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
You and I are frustrated as much as many listeners are.
The Save Act has eighty percent public support. Majorities of black, white,
Asian Hispanic people all say this is very basic let's
have elemental security when it comes to casting about it.
And yet, and yet we cannot get this basic bill passed.
(09:28):
We got a lot of people. Jack in Virginia wants
to weigh in on this, Jack, what you got?
Speaker 5 (09:34):
Yes, your colle spooner and I have talked about this.
We don't want to relitigate it. But don't think that
this can't happen again. The Democrats are very good at this,
and if you know anything about American history, this isn't
the first time they did this. So we need to
get the facts out and just let the people decide themselves.
(10:00):
To me, there was no doubt that election night. I
stayed up till two or three in the morning and
to see what happened. By the next morning, I'm like, huh,
what you know, where did all these votes come from?
So I hear a lot of people in the media say, oh,
this is not a big deal. We need to move on. No,
(10:21):
we don't need to move on. I mean this is
this is what men fight and die in wars for.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
I agree with everything you're saying. The question that I'm
asking is this audience agrees with everything that you're saying.
This audience is going to watch whatever Trump says tonight
and say, yes, I agree. Is there an ability to
actually tangibly change something?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Right now?
Speaker 4 (10:47):
We have control of the Senate, and the argument is,
thank you for the call, we need at least sixty
votes to get anything done. Well bucket, I have said,
and I think President Trump's one hundred percent right about this.
As soon as Democrats get back control of the United
States Senate and the House and the White House, which
could happen as soon as twenty twenty eight, They're going
(11:08):
to immediately do away with the filibuster, and they are
going to implement radical left wing agendas. And everybody on
the Republican side who set around and said we have
to remain committed to principle and procedure and history is
going to look like a patsy because Democrats are going
(11:28):
to run roughshot over whenever they have the power to
do so. That's my concern. So I just think in
many ways Trump is going to be preaching to the
choir that already believes everything he has said. I want
to see the speech. I do think having the head
of the FBI or the CIA deliver this speech as well.
(11:52):
If there's tangible evidence of cheating and also prosecutions. This
is where I get really frustrated, and I know you
do too, Buck. If we've got people cheating on everything
related to COVID, and if we've got everybody cheating on
many different things relating to relating to elections, who's paid
the consequences for any.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Of this, Well, there's all that's all true.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
There's also a component of this clay of the continued
beating that the Democrat media takes formerly the formerly known
as the legacy corporate media that they take over the
I think there's going to be an obvious double standard
at play. If he talks about China influencing the election,
(12:37):
doing anything that's based in either mainland China or perhaps
North Korea on perhaps of China behalf of China, the
Democrats in the media are all just going to say, oh,
but you know, it didn't matter, it didn't do much,
right like the Russia one hundred thousand dollars on Facebook
in twenty sixteen really shifted. So he'll expose them for
the total frauds and phonies they are once again, and
(12:58):
there is value to that as well, assuming that's part
of the presentation tonight. But I still think that the
midterms here and how this factors into that is probably
the most important component. So well, we got to see
we're just previewing it right now. We'll see where it goes.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
We'll take your calls eight hundred and two A two
two eight eight two, your talkbacks as well. Home break
ins happen twice a minute on average nationwide. Only time
you really think about how to protect yourself is when
it happens close to your home. If someone you know,
even a neighbor experience is a home break in, then
you start thinking about your own plan and the event
it happens to you. That's why we recommend having products
(13:36):
from Saber spelled Sabre. The website is saberprotect dot com.
One device they have, the Saber Home Defense Launcher non
lethal projectile device empowers you to thwart an invader an
intruder with pepper projectiles. It can stop an intruder from
as far as fifty or sixty feet away. We have
(13:58):
them in our house. The Saber Home Defense Launcher easy
to use, deliver seven powerful pepper or impact projectiles, two
more than most competitors, and right now you can save
up to fifteen percent on select bundles. When safety matters,
America chooses Saber, the number one brand trusted by police
and millions worldwide. Don't wait for a close call. Get
(14:21):
protection now at saber protect dot com. That's Sabre protect
dot com. You can also call eight four four eight
two four sa fe that's Saber protect dot com.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
Level up your brain, mental mugging with Clay and Bucker.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
Welcome back in play and Buck. We got loaded lines.
Let me run through bunch of these calls. We appreciate
all of you. Eight hundred and two A two two
eight eight two. Uh, let's see who's been waiting the
longest Tanner in Texas. You wanted to weigh in on
the situation in Iran fire Away, Yeah.
Speaker 7 (15:01):
I heard a report a number number of months ago
and it's about the about the Iran situation, and I've
my comment is nothing's gonna happen on these negotiations until
we take out the our GC. They got all the guns,
(15:22):
so they're making all the rules right now and enforcing them.
My understanding is that the Kurdish people are still still
have a little bit of a hard owned for the
Iranians because of some uh some of their land being
annexed here a number of years ago.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
So Tanner, let me ask you. Let me let me
ask you a question. Would you put boots on the ground.
Would you send American troops into Iran?
Speaker 7 (15:53):
Not American understand people would like to get a little
bit of revent the land.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Thank you for the call. Thanks you for the call. Buck,
you have been involved in this before. I think what
the concern is that the Kurds would basically be walking
into a massacre. They don't have this the military support
to be able to take on the existing Iranian government.
Speaker 5 (16:18):
No.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Look, the Kurds are like ten to fifteen percent of
Iran population wise, and they're all consolidated really in the
northwest along the Iraq or the western side of the
country along the border with Iraq. Some are contiguous with
some of the pockets of Kurds in Iraq. You just
don't have the numbers. I mean you can't. There's no
there's no way that they would be a He asked,
(16:41):
what the IRGC. You're talking about five hundred thousand at
least under it by the numbers men under arms for
the IRGC. About the I think the Iranians actually are
one of the there are only a few militaries in
the Middle East, and I could be wrong here, so
Grock fact check me.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
The Kurds have female frontline combatants out of necessity. The
Israelis have like female fighter pilots, and the Israelis have
women in combat roles. I believe the Iranians have used
women in combat roles too. I could be wrong on that,
but I think that may have happened. Kadafi had a
female bodyguard, but that like her, his bodyguards were females.
(17:20):
That's a very different situation, and they had multiple roles. Yeah,
there's other stuff going on there, I think. So that
then brings me to, oh, we have more talkbacks and
more fun things to talk about here.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Uh h. Chris Chris from Oceanside, play it all right, clam.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Bok, you guys been there poking about them grandon packing
all that.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
You guys can get a splassipation role branded pack your
rocket coffee called the Crockett Pocket.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Guys, if you're gonna call in with a talkback, don't
be spilunking in the middle of your of your talkback.
But yes, the Crockett Pocket would be a great product
for a fanny pack from Crocket Coffee Clay. Yes, I'll
tell you all about our friends at the IFCJ. They
had a big election of vote in the House over
(18:10):
who supports Israel who doesn't. Almost all of the Republicans
still support Israel, very few Democrats do. It was in
flact split fifty to fifty with the majority of the
Democrat party not believing that Israel should be supported. If
you disagree with that decision, you can go register your
disagreement by going online to FLAGPENIFCJ dot org. That easy
(18:35):
to receive a US and Israeli flagpen.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
It's free.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
You can go to the website you can express your
disapproval with the Democrat vote. Flag pen PI NIFCJ dot org.
One more time, flag PI NIFCJ dot org.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Welcome back in here too, play and buck. Okay, we
got an update here for you. In a real time
US forces are conducting a new wave of strikes against
Iran as we talk to you. So they are degrading
Iranian military capabilities. Sent comput this out. Yes we are.
We are bombing them again the MoU Is Donzo Memorandum
(19:20):
of understanding and we are continuing to watch this.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I so very interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Just one note about this, and I don't want to
spend too much time on it because not much has
really changed. We're back where we were and this is
a lot of stop start. But Clay, when we talked
about it looks like we don't have I said to you,
it looks like we don't have Iran quite where we
thought we did with cutting off their oil. Well, and
you said, well, yeah, during the opening they just rushed
(19:52):
it all out. Yeah, but this is both of these
statements are true. We don't have Iran right where we
want them with the oil because they use the thirty
days of negotiations when Trump said okay, you can sell
your oil again to just flood as much of their
oil out as possible, which now means that now their
(20:14):
storage capacity is back to a place where they have
some time. They filled their coffers with some hard currency,
done all this, so now it's like we're we're starting
not from square one, because I know there's a lot
of degraded military capability on the ground there, But in
terms of using the oil as the choke point, this
could be.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
This could be a little while.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Look, the question that President Trump is going to be
confronted with and we've talked about this a lot on
the program over the past several months. If you really
want to control the situation in Iran, you have to
take Carg Island. You have to take Carg Island, and
you have to then be in control of the means
(20:55):
of production of oil and gas in Iran. If you
do that, it would require putting American troops on that island,
and it would put them in peril and danger. That
is to me, the uh that is the decision that
President Trump is going to be faced with, because I
(21:16):
think we have established that we're not going to get
significant regime change.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Through all of these bombs.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
You were on this from the get go, Buck that
in order to really force out the IRGC, you're going
to have to replace that government. And the only way
you can replace that government is by putting troops on
the ground. So to me, the kind of the middle
ground here would be taking over the financial means of
the funding of the government, which would require troops on
(21:46):
the ground in Cargo Island, and US taking over the
oil and gas production capabilities of Iran, which is an accelerant.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
And at that point, when you have US troops who
are engaging in gun battles with whatever Iranian resistance is there.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
It's a war.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
You can argue about the scale or you can debate
the scale of the war, but it's certainly a war.
Right now, Trump is saying it's more of a military
action than a war. However, we want to really an
air campaign or an air and missile I guess aerial
campaign includes the missiles. But there hasn't been a ground
troop component really yet. I know we had to save
a down pilot, but we're not doing the landing large
(22:29):
numbers of soldiers. That would be an obvious escalation from
the perspective of US US risk and also politically here
at home, it's a lot harder to say, oh, but
this is just something that we're doing a pressure the Iranians.
If we have any especially if we start losing any
number of Americans, that changes the calculation for a.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Lot of people.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
So Clay, you're right about what we would need for
the pressure the Iranians. I don't think we'll be able
to bring the Iranians to heal, so to speak, by
cutting off their oil for I mean, based on the
numbers in the past, will take a couple of months
really here, So how long are you going to do
the air strikes?
Speaker 4 (23:09):
It would put it into the American political mid term process, right,
So the question is does President Trump try to jump
ahead of that and decide to make a decision that
would be an accelerant but also in theory would in
an ideal world accelerate some form of resolution. I think
(23:29):
the challenges buck and I think you probably would sign
off on this too. This is never going to be
a resolved situation unless you're willing to actually commit boots
on the ground to try to wipe out the IRGC
once and for all right, to send them for.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
This is why you know, people will talk about, you know,
whether or not they thought the Bush administration in Iraq
was a It was a total disaster. Do they make
some smart moves, some dumb moves, whatever it may be. Yeah,
if they thought they could get the whole thing done
from the air, they would have, right. And this was
also true. We had a no fly zone over a
rock for many years, which was part of a part
(24:10):
of the UN resolution, and a carrots and sticks approach
to Saddam Hussein and all this. You can't get it
all done from the sky, and that is something that
I think the Trump administration knew and they were testing
this out. There has been some miscalculation here. I think
it's fair to say with the amount of Iranian dissent
(24:32):
slash resistance uprising, you would see as a result, Like
I really do think the hope here was we will
be the Iranian counter Revolutions air force if we're really
just being honest about what I think the administration believed
at the beginning. Though they'll say not now, they'll say
that's not true, and maybe they're right, maybe they're not,
(24:54):
but I do believe that that's what was thought, and
there's there's actually a fair amount of reporting to support.
And then it was okay, well we did this thing,
they're not rising up. What's the most that we can
get out of this. We're gonna have to accelerate the
punishment from the air to force the concessions we want.
I think that has been harder than we anticipated as well.
(25:16):
I think the other part of this, and it does
deserve to be talked about, Israel was wrong when they
told Trump that they believed they had a process by
which regime change could occur. I also think this is
the question will Israel put boots on the ground if
the United States said, hey, we'll give you air support.
(25:39):
Is there a willingness in Israel for Israeli soldiers to
go into Iran? And then what does that do in
the Middle East? Because Buck, as you well know.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
Having spent time in the Middle East, there is a
different dynamic at play. I think when American troops are
on the ground, because we are seen as less of
a religious war, right than when Israeli troops are on
the ground and it is seen as Jews versus Muslims.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
Now we're pretty much seen the same, you.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
Think, pretty much just as bad for US troops on
the ground as it is.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
When they were trying to blow us up in a rock.
They were calling US crusaders and Jews. Crusaders and Jews.
I'm just telling you it's bad. They're not like, oh,
the Americans are here.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Well, I'm thinking that Americans would be a little bit better.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
No, not really. They think that we're just the army
of Israel, essentially, that we're the army arm of the
Israeli government, like we do Israel's bidding.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
So no, they do. They would not be uh.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
So, the question then becomes did the circles very back around?
I was trying to find a middle ground where Israel
is acting and we're not right, where they're putting boots
on the ground and taking more risks than we are.
Is there a will to do that in Israel? Would
it play worse in the Middle East? If the answer
is no, then basically we're just back to the question.
(26:58):
And this is one of the legacies, unfortuately of Iraq.
It could be the case in Afghanistan. It could be
the case that if we put boots on the ground
in Iran it could actually work out. Okay, Right, that's
a possibility, the idea, the idea that it could be,
but not the risk factor.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Right, The risk factor of blowing up a bunch of
their installations and stuff in Iran is pretty low for us, Yes, correct,
the risk factor of once you start landing, look, once
people are in harm's way, it.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Changes dynamic overnight. I do think that the failure of
Iraq and Afghanistan has basically now for a generation plus,
it's created a world where everyone says, I don't want
American troops on the ground anywhere in the Middle East,
and the result is we can't solve anything, you know,
(27:51):
and this is where you start to get into an
intractable never ending. You use the phrase you constantly got
to mow the grass. And this is where I think
a lot of Americans just we don't have a lot
of patients. They think in one hundred year terms in
Iran and in many of these Middle Eastern countries, and
we're thinking about months.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
This is also part of the problem with the approach.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
And I know, didn't JD went on the Joe Rogan
know right and talked about a bunch of the stuff.
And JD's frustrated with the criticism about this. Okay, but
JD can come on and talk to us whenever he wants.
It should be criticized. This is not working out as planned,
all right. We should be able to have a conversation
about where this is and what's true and what's not.
(28:35):
This is obviously I mean, as you know, Clay, I mean,
everyone knows who listens to the show. I've been saying
the Iranians are just going to entangle us in negotiations
and then they're gonna lie, and then they're gonna cheat
and steal, They're gonna do everything. This is just that
this was pretty clearly going to be the case. And
the background of all this as well is whatever agreement
they do, whatever they would even theoretically sign on to,
(28:56):
as soon as there's a Democrat administration, they know that
there will be no consequences, So they don't have they
don't have they can sign anything they want. Ultimately, all
they have to do is wait until there's Heaven forbid,
but a President Kamalaw or President Newsome, and then all
of a sudden they know it's totally game on. They
do whatever they want. Here's JD by the way on
(29:17):
Iran cut twenty play it.
Speaker 6 (29:20):
What the president has done, I think very very capably,
is said, we're going to use military force in the
in this situation when it's connected to something we're trying
to achieve. So if you shoot at ships, we're going
to shoot at the facilities at which you used to
shoot at the ships. But we're not just going to
do something open ended indefinitely. We're not just going to
bomb and bomb and bomb. We're going to try to
use our military force as one of the many tools
(29:42):
that we.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Have to solve the problem.
Speaker 6 (29:44):
And obviously, like I'm biased, but I think that's exactly
the right approach.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
No, that's by the way, that's he basically contradicts himself
without recognizing in the statement, we can shoot at whatever
they've shot at the ships with for the next twenty
years and they'll still have stuff to shoot at the ships.
So this is actually open ended. I mean, I would
just disagree with JD on that portion of what he said.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
I would also point out JD vance in a really
tough position because he doesn't agree. I think it's fair
to say with the policies that have been implemented so far,
that it is public that he argued against going into
Iran and didn't like a lot of these decisions. But
as the VP, his job is to defend the choices
(30:26):
that the President of the United States makes. He has
to be an advocate for policies that he individually may
not have embraced himself, which is a tough spot. I mean,
this is I think that's one reason to your point, Buck,
that he's kind of on each side of the issue
and isn't able to just say exactly. I think the
(30:48):
truth of the matter is the President made a choice
that JD. Mance disagrees with, and he can't just come
out and say I disagree with the president because his
job is to execute the president's well. And I think
he's been chosen for this role of spokesperson on this
because a lot of the pro Trump Trump voting right
(31:08):
that didn't really support this Iran situation.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
You know, JD is more uh say.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Palatable to them than they some of the more interventionist
members of the administration.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
So he's a buffer.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
He's a buffer for this Trump administration because at least
the people that feel like the Iran move wasn't the
wise move or saying, well, JD's there, we know he
didn't like this. He's trying to get this done. He's
trying to get us out of this. So there's an
optics component of this that that I think is pretty clear.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Would you agree with this? I think Pete hag Seth,
Marco Rubio would be on the more aggressive anti Iran response.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Would that be a fair I think Secretary of Hegseth
was like, we will destroy them down to the lizards,
if you remember from Bora. Yes, yeah, So I think
those guys are on one side.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
JD.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Vance is on the other, and President Trump is in between.
To both sides of the argument, and on any given day,
I think President Trump is just frustrated at the degree
to which Iran is lying to him in negotiation, and
that's coloring much of his response at this point is Hey,
(32:17):
we had a deal. You guys are just total liars.
And he's just almost defended as a deal maker more
than anything else.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
So I think what people have to understand about the
Trump approach to this, especially for those of you who
are MMA fans, Trump has them a in a like
an armlock and is saying okay, tap out, and they're
like no, and then he snaps the arm and then
he goes, Okay, I'm gonna do this to your other arm.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
You're gonna tap out right.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
No, because they're crazy, and it's really not their arm
that's being broken. It's the arm of the Iranian people
in their economy. So that's the problem here, is that
a normal leader would say, all right, Trump's gois box
day and there's nothing else to do. The Iranians who
were calling the shots are like, yeah, whatever, it's horrible
for people. Our guys are getting blown up. Well, that's
(33:08):
what we signed up for.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
And again, buck, the other part of this is it's
part of this just thinking in one hundred year windows, right,
I mean being in an awful position for years for
them is just it's part of the part of the game,
all right.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
To honor the twenty fifth anniversary of nine to eleven
the Tunnel, the Towers Foundation has planned the most comprehensive
commemoration in its history. Through September, the Foundation Steal Across
America Tour is transporting a powerful symbol of resilience to
communities across the country, an authentic steal being from the
World Trade Center. Tomorrow, it'll be in Seattle at the
ballpark where the Mariners play, available to the public. In
(33:44):
honor of the three hundred and forty three members of
the New York City Fire Department who made the ultimate
sacrifice on nine to eleven, the Foundation is delivering three
hundred and forty three mortgage free homes to heroes and
their families, while continuing their efforts to eradicate veteran homelessness.
The nine to eleven Institute's educational curriculum is reaching classrooms nationwide,
while first hand accounts are being shared through the nine
to eleven Speakers Bureau. Throughout this year, the Foundation is
(34:07):
holding hundreds of runs, walks, climbs, golf ountings, including their
iconic Tower Climb and five K events in New York City.
My wife Kerrie, for example, has done the Tower climb
a few times and it's a great event. Donate eleven
dollars a month the tunnel, the towers, or amplify your
impact with a car or land donation.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Go to T two t dot org. That's t the
number two T dot org.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Miss the show while you're on the go, wind down
your day with the Daily Review podcast. Find it on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcast. Welcome
back in. If you are out there and you want
a great lawyer, guess what, Claytravislaw dot com buck, We're
signing up people like crazy. They had an article in
the Alabama newspaper about it. I even said, I'll even
(34:51):
help out Alabama football fans. That's how much I'm trying
to help out everybody. You're going up against thousand dollars
an hour, lawyers, big business. To be hooked up. We
can take care of your nationwide. Claytravislaw dot com. Put
it in, Go fill out the forms Claytravislaw dot com.
Carly is one hundred percent wrong, but because we believe
(35:13):
in free speech, she can tell me that I'm one
hundred percent wrong.
Speaker 8 (35:16):
Fire away, Carly, and I will you and Buck both
one hundred percent wrong, and I'm not alone. I hate
daylight savings time. I love it when it starts getting
dark in the afternoon. You build a fire, You've got
something in the oven. Things are nice and cozy. That's
what it's all about. If we're going to check you
(35:36):
leave it to standard time.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
I need to know something.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Do you get weird feelings when you're near garlic by
any chance?
Speaker 7 (35:47):
Are you no garlic?
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Are you to say? Are you scared of a fix?
Does holywater burn your hands?
Speaker 5 (35:55):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (35:56):
I think you're right. I think Carly's a vampire. Big
vampire is coming out in favor of it getting dark earlier.
I think I think you've hit on something important. Thank
you for I just heard a fang there hitting the
side of the phone. I don't know my sense a vampire.
Are there people disappearing in Colorado? Carly might be to
blame because she's flying around sucking their blood. Big vampire
(36:17):
wants time to get dark earlier. We as people who
embrace daylight, want there to be light upon the land.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
I believe the phrase let there be lights applies here.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Let they're kind of a popular phrase, Let there be light,
kind of an important moment in the world, kind of
matter for the universe, and and you know, the everlasting.
I'm not gonna lie blaming people who want to keep
it dark earlier and saying that they're vampires. You might
have hit on a real strategy. We're not gonna let
big vampire win. Embrace the light, fight the darkness. We'll
(36:50):
be back tomorrow.
All right, third hour, Clay and Buck kicks off right now.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Thanks for being here with us, everybody, And we just
had Caroline Levitt back from attorney leave talking to the
nation from the West wing of the White House, and
we have some updates from that for you. We've pulled
all the most newsworthy and relevant clips and we're going
to make sure you're up to speed. As you know,
we are live, we are in real time, and we
(00:24):
are on YouTube also in real time.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
So go subscribe to the play in Buck YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
If you're a YouTube you were out there and in
the meantime, we've got this play a few things. By
the way, we have some funny stuff to get to
at the back of this hour involving a license plate.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
That's all I can say.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
That will be the only tease I have for this one.
We will have to get there though, Clay, so remind me.
But first the serious business of the republic and what's
going on with Caroline Levitt's preview of the speech tonight
that President trumple gave at nine o'clock on his nine
eastern Is that right we're talking about that, yes, yeah,
(01:06):
talking about the time changes on. Well, here's what Caroline
this is cut thirty guys. Here's Caroline Levitt previewing Trump's
speech tonight.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Let's hear it.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Part of the problem is that the media has refused
to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the
country share the concerns of this president about the sanctity
of our elections. And your premise of your question, you're
jumping ahead to a conclusion in this speech before even
hearing it yourself. I think that everyone should tune in tonight,
including the people in this room, and you should report
on the President's speech and the findings that he is
(01:36):
going to reveal in this speech with a little bit
of honesty and a little bit of integrity, because it
does it will shock you if you have an honest
eye listening to the president tonight, and everything he is
saying will be backed by facts and by evidence that
will be provided this evening. And again, Garrett, again, I
think all Americans, Democrat Republicans should agree that we are
the greatest country in the history of the world. We
should have the safest and most secure elections in the
(01:59):
history of the world. And what the President will be
speaking about tonight will show you that perhaps that is
not the case, and we need to make some adjustments
moving forward, including the Save America Act, as Rachel pointed out,
is a key legislative priority for this president on Capitol.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Hill, Clay, I don't know what the President's going to
say tonight, and I'm very curious to see it. I
will watch it tonight, But I do know, and I
would put money on this one that the people in
the press corps who are Trump haters doesn't matter what
he says, it doesn't matter. I can appreciate Caroline Levitt
(02:35):
asking them to please just once try to be honest.
Spoiler alert, everybody that Trump hating media will not be
honest about whatever it is that he says, so we
should at least all be prepared for that as we
wait to see what the President has to say.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Yeah, that's what I was saying earlier, is even if
President Trump came out and provided the most died in
the wall, beyond self doubt, beyond criticism, beyond reasonable doubt,
evidence that our elections are insecure and that they have
been influenced in a way that makes them unsafe. MSNBC, CNN,
(03:14):
New York Times, They're not going to cover it. They're
just not and they have decided that President Trump is.
They cared drastically. It is kind of funny. In twenty sixteen,
all of them bought the Russia collusion hoax and covered
the idea that Russia had rigged our election as if
(03:34):
it were the biggest story in.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
The history of the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
In twenty twenty, Trump said our election was rigged, and
none of them would cover it. And now in twenty
twenty four, I think Trump won so comfortably that everybody's
just kind of said, yeah, Kamala was an awful candidate.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Trump won.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
I do think buck one of the big lasting questions
that is still out there. You and I talked about
a yet yesterday. I'll be honest. In twenty twenty, I
didn't believe anywhere near as much as I do now
that the eighty one million Biden votes were illegitimate. And
(04:14):
I looked at it and I said, Okay, maybe Trump
is uniquely able to in twenty twenty. We know they
changed all the rules with ballots and everything else. The
fact that Kamala is six million less than Biden in
twenty twenty four made me go back to twenty twenty
and look at it and say there's no way that
(04:35):
Biden got eighty one million legitimate votes.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
There just isn't.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
And I think increasing majorities of Americans just look at it,
take away the politics, whether you're a Trump person, whether
you're a Biden person. The question I think you have
to ask is is Joe Biden the most popular presidential
candidate to ever run in the history of the United States.
I think there's not one single person in America that
would say that. I'll put it this way, Buck, we're
(05:01):
making fun of Biden announcing that he You're releasing a
book this week. Have you ever seen anybody wear Biden gear?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
H yes, no, no, excuse me, excuse me, sir.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Some of the illegals who were showing up at the
border were wearing Biden T shirts. They were very excited,
very excited about vice presidency.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
So the reason why I bring it up, you might say, Okay, Clay,
why would you even bring up the idea of Biden
gear when you wear some like right now, I'm wearing
an Atlanta Braves T shirt right When you wear something
that you are committed to, that shows you are a
member of a tribe, It shows a depth of commitment.
Whatever you think about Trump, the red Maga hat is
(05:43):
an unbelievably powerful sign of how much depth of support
there is for Trump.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
I don't ever remember seeing anyone wear in their normally
existing life Biden gear, and so I think you just
reasonably look at all of this and say, is there
a depth of support of Joe Biden? You went through
with Groc was yesterday. I think you were reading what
Groc said about the eighty one million votes that Biden
(06:12):
got in the wake of the twenty twenty four election.
We can test Trump twenty sixteen twenty twenty twenty four.
There are twelve years basically of Trump data out there
now since he came down the escalator and began his
political career. There's about twelve years of data ish of
(06:33):
what Trump represents on the American political landscape. There's no
way Biden got eighty one million legal votes, just I
do not believe it now. I don't think there's any
way that a New York Times reporter would ever say
what I just said, no matter what the evidence is.
I don't think there's any way a CNN reporter would
say it. I don't think there's any way an MSNBC
(06:55):
reporter would say it, So, no matter what Trump lays
out tonight, it's not going to impact the way that
this is covered. And half the country is not going
to hear what he says at all, and they're going
to be told that.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
He's just lying to them.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
My concern, and we just asked Tommy Laern about this
at the top of the next hour, is is this
going to help in the mid terms or is it
going to be people saying, hey, like that was six
years ago, and I'm talking about people who are persuadable voters.
What I care about now is cost of living. What
I care about now is mortgage rates, which are way
(07:31):
too high. What I care about is the rate on
my credit card debt. That's what I think the average
American wants to hear. And my concern is this is
going to be discordant because it's going to sound like Trump. Again,
we haven't read this speech, and we haven't seen the
speech or anything else, but it's going to sound like
Trump is retrospectively focused on events instead of prospective, prospectively
(07:55):
well focused.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
My sense play is he may present to numbers and
data to support his very clear view on the twenty
twenty election, and he's doing so not just to re
litigate the pass, which will certainly be an accusation that
people a criticism people will make about this, but also
(08:18):
because of the Save America Act and the desire that
the President and many other Republicans have to further secure
and solidify elections going forward. So there is a I think,
going to be an action piece of this other than
Trump wanting to address something that he feels very passionately
(08:38):
and personally about for obvious reasons. My sense is that
it will tie into the Save America Act as well, which, unfortunately,
then you get into why isn't it being passed. It's
not being passed because of the assumption of a Democrat filibuster,
and unless people are willing to change that rule in
the Senate, that's where it goes and dies. I don't
(08:59):
think there's any willingness to change it in the Senate.
So we get into industry. This is where it just
gets frustrated.
Speaker 5 (09:05):
To this.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
You and I are frustrated as much as many listeners are.
The Save Act has eighty percent public support. Majorities of black, white,
Asian Hispanic people all say this is very basic let's
have elemental security when it comes to casting about it.
And yet, and yet we cannot get this basic bill passed.
(09:28):
We got a lot of people. Jack in Virginia wants
to weigh in on this, Jack, what you got?
Speaker 5 (09:34):
Yes, your colle spooner and I have talked about this.
We don't want to relitigate it. But don't think that
this can't happen again. The Democrats are very good at this,
and if you know anything about American history, this isn't
the first time they did this. So we need to
get the facts out and just let the people decide themselves.
(10:00):
To me, there was no doubt that election night. I
stayed up till two or three in the morning and
to see what happened. By the next morning, I'm like, huh,
what you know, where did all these votes come from?
So I hear a lot of people in the media say, oh,
this is not a big deal. We need to move on. No,
(10:21):
we don't need to move on. I mean this is
this is what men fight and die in wars for.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
I agree with everything you're saying. The question that I'm
asking is this audience agrees with everything that you're saying.
This audience is going to watch whatever Trump says tonight
and say, yes, I agree. Is there an ability to
actually tangibly change something?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Right now?
Speaker 4 (10:47):
We have control of the Senate, and the argument is,
thank you for the call, we need at least sixty
votes to get anything done. Well bucket, I have said,
and I think President Trump's one hundred percent right about this.
As soon as Democrats get back control of the United
States Senate and the House and the White House, which
could happen as soon as twenty twenty eight, They're going
(11:08):
to immediately do away with the filibuster, and they are
going to implement radical left wing agendas. And everybody on
the Republican side who set around and said we have
to remain committed to principle and procedure and history is
going to look like a patsy because Democrats are going
(11:28):
to run roughshot over whenever they have the power to
do so. That's my concern. So I just think in
many ways Trump is going to be preaching to the
choir that already believes everything he has said. I want
to see the speech. I do think having the head
of the FBI or the CIA deliver this speech as well.
(11:52):
If there's tangible evidence of cheating and also prosecutions. This
is where I get really frustrated, and I know you
do too, Buck. If we've got people cheating on everything
related to COVID, and if we've got everybody cheating on
many different things relating to relating to elections, who's paid
the consequences for any.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Of this, Well, there's all that's all true.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
There's also a component of this clay of the continued
beating that the Democrat media takes formerly the formerly known
as the legacy corporate media that they take over the
I think there's going to be an obvious double standard
at play. If he talks about China influencing the election,
(12:37):
doing anything that's based in either mainland China or perhaps
North Korea on perhaps of China behalf of China, the
Democrats in the media are all just going to say, oh,
but you know, it didn't matter, it didn't do much,
right like the Russia one hundred thousand dollars on Facebook
in twenty sixteen really shifted. So he'll expose them for
the total frauds and phonies they are once again, and
(12:58):
there is value to that as well, assuming that's part
of the presentation tonight. But I still think that the
midterms here and how this factors into that is probably
the most important component. So well, we got to see
we're just previewing it right now. We'll see where it goes.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
We'll take your calls eight hundred and two A two
two eight eight two, your talkbacks as well. Home break
ins happen twice a minute on average nationwide. Only time
you really think about how to protect yourself is when
it happens close to your home. If someone you know,
even a neighbor experience is a home break in, then
you start thinking about your own plan and the event
it happens to you. That's why we recommend having products
(13:36):
from Saber spelled Sabre. The website is saberprotect dot com.
One device they have, the Saber Home Defense Launcher non
lethal projectile device empowers you to thwart an invader an
intruder with pepper projectiles. It can stop an intruder from
as far as fifty or sixty feet away. We have
(13:58):
them in our house. The Saber Home Defense Launcher easy
to use, deliver seven powerful pepper or impact projectiles, two
more than most competitors, and right now you can save
up to fifteen percent on select bundles. When safety matters,
America chooses Saber, the number one brand trusted by police
and millions worldwide. Don't wait for a close call. Get
(14:21):
protection now at saber protect dot com. That's Sabre protect
dot com. You can also call eight four four eight
two four sa fe that's Saber protect dot com.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
Level up your brain, mental mugging with Clay and Bucker.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
Welcome back in play and Buck. We got loaded lines.
Let me run through bunch of these calls. We appreciate
all of you. Eight hundred and two A two two
eight eight two. Uh, let's see who's been waiting the
longest Tanner in Texas. You wanted to weigh in on
the situation in Iran fire Away, Yeah.
Speaker 7 (15:01):
I heard a report a number number of months ago
and it's about the about the Iran situation, and I've
my comment is nothing's gonna happen on these negotiations until
we take out the our GC. They got all the guns,
(15:22):
so they're making all the rules right now and enforcing them.
My understanding is that the Kurdish people are still still
have a little bit of a hard owned for the
Iranians because of some uh some of their land being
annexed here a number of years ago.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
So Tanner, let me ask you. Let me let me
ask you a question. Would you put boots on the ground.
Would you send American troops into Iran?
Speaker 7 (15:53):
Not American understand people would like to get a little
bit of revent the land.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Thank you for the call. Thanks you for the call. Buck,
you have been involved in this before. I think what
the concern is that the Kurds would basically be walking
into a massacre. They don't have this the military support
to be able to take on the existing Iranian government.
Speaker 5 (16:18):
No.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Look, the Kurds are like ten to fifteen percent of
Iran population wise, and they're all consolidated really in the
northwest along the Iraq or the western side of the
country along the border with Iraq. Some are contiguous with
some of the pockets of Kurds in Iraq. You just
don't have the numbers. I mean you can't. There's no
there's no way that they would be a He asked,
(16:41):
what the IRGC. You're talking about five hundred thousand at
least under it by the numbers men under arms for
the IRGC. About the I think the Iranians actually are
one of the there are only a few militaries in
the Middle East, and I could be wrong here, so
Grock fact check me.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
The Kurds have female frontline combatants out of necessity. The
Israelis have like female fighter pilots, and the Israelis have
women in combat roles. I believe the Iranians have used
women in combat roles too. I could be wrong on that,
but I think that may have happened. Kadafi had a
female bodyguard, but that like her, his bodyguards were females.
(17:20):
That's a very different situation, and they had multiple roles. Yeah,
there's other stuff going on there, I think. So that
then brings me to, oh, we have more talkbacks and
more fun things to talk about here.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Uh h. Chris Chris from Oceanside, play it all right, clam.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Bok, you guys been there poking about them grandon packing
all that.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
You guys can get a splassipation role branded pack your
rocket coffee called the Crockett Pocket.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Guys, if you're gonna call in with a talkback, don't
be spilunking in the middle of your of your talkback.
But yes, the Crockett Pocket would be a great product
for a fanny pack from Crocket Coffee Clay. Yes, I'll
tell you all about our friends at the IFCJ. They
had a big election of vote in the House over
(18:10):
who supports Israel who doesn't. Almost all of the Republicans
still support Israel, very few Democrats do. It was in
flact split fifty to fifty with the majority of the
Democrat party not believing that Israel should be supported. If
you disagree with that decision, you can go register your
disagreement by going online to FLAGPENIFCJ dot org. That easy
(18:35):
to receive a US and Israeli flagpen.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
It's free.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
You can go to the website you can express your
disapproval with the Democrat vote. Flag pen PI NIFCJ dot org.
One more time, flag PI NIFCJ dot org.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Welcome back in here too, play and buck. Okay, we
got an update here for you. In a real time
US forces are conducting a new wave of strikes against
Iran as we talk to you. So they are degrading
Iranian military capabilities. Sent comput this out. Yes we are.
We are bombing them again the MoU Is Donzo Memorandum
(19:20):
of understanding and we are continuing to watch this.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I so very interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Just one note about this, and I don't want to
spend too much time on it because not much has
really changed. We're back where we were and this is
a lot of stop start. But Clay, when we talked
about it looks like we don't have I said to you,
it looks like we don't have Iran quite where we
thought we did with cutting off their oil. Well, and
you said, well, yeah, during the opening they just rushed
(19:52):
it all out. Yeah, but this is both of these
statements are true. We don't have Iran right where we
want them with the oil because they use the thirty
days of negotiations when Trump said okay, you can sell
your oil again to just flood as much of their
oil out as possible, which now means that now their
(20:14):
storage capacity is back to a place where they have
some time. They filled their coffers with some hard currency,
done all this, so now it's like we're we're starting
not from square one, because I know there's a lot
of degraded military capability on the ground there, But in
terms of using the oil as the choke point, this
could be.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
This could be a little while.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Look, the question that President Trump is going to be
confronted with and we've talked about this a lot on
the program over the past several months. If you really
want to control the situation in Iran, you have to
take Carg Island. You have to take Carg Island, and
you have to then be in control of the means
(20:55):
of production of oil and gas in Iran. If you
do that, it would require putting American troops on that island,
and it would put them in peril and danger. That
is to me, the uh that is the decision that
President Trump is going to be faced with, because I
(21:16):
think we have established that we're not going to get
significant regime change.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Through all of these bombs.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
You were on this from the get go, Buck that
in order to really force out the IRGC, you're going
to have to replace that government. And the only way
you can replace that government is by putting troops on
the ground. So to me, the kind of the middle
ground here would be taking over the financial means of
the funding of the government, which would require troops on
(21:46):
the ground in Cargo Island, and US taking over the
oil and gas production capabilities of Iran, which is an accelerant.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
And at that point, when you have US troops who
are engaging in gun battles with whatever Iranian resistance is there.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
It's a war.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
You can argue about the scale or you can debate
the scale of the war, but it's certainly a war.
Right now, Trump is saying it's more of a military
action than a war. However, we want to really an
air campaign or an air and missile I guess aerial
campaign includes the missiles. But there hasn't been a ground
troop component really yet. I know we had to save
a down pilot, but we're not doing the landing large
(22:29):
numbers of soldiers. That would be an obvious escalation from
the perspective of US US risk and also politically here
at home, it's a lot harder to say, oh, but
this is just something that we're doing a pressure the Iranians.
If we have any especially if we start losing any
number of Americans, that changes the calculation for a.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Lot of people.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
So Clay, you're right about what we would need for
the pressure the Iranians. I don't think we'll be able
to bring the Iranians to heal, so to speak, by
cutting off their oil for I mean, based on the
numbers in the past, will take a couple of months
really here, So how long are you going to do
the air strikes?
Speaker 4 (23:09):
It would put it into the American political mid term process, right,
So the question is does President Trump try to jump
ahead of that and decide to make a decision that
would be an accelerant but also in theory would in
an ideal world accelerate some form of resolution. I think
(23:29):
the challenges buck and I think you probably would sign
off on this too. This is never going to be
a resolved situation unless you're willing to actually commit boots
on the ground to try to wipe out the IRGC
once and for all right, to send them for.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
This is why you know, people will talk about, you know,
whether or not they thought the Bush administration in Iraq
was a It was a total disaster. Do they make
some smart moves, some dumb moves, whatever it may be. Yeah,
if they thought they could get the whole thing done
from the air, they would have, right. And this was
also true. We had a no fly zone over a
rock for many years, which was part of a part
(24:10):
of the UN resolution, and a carrots and sticks approach
to Saddam Hussein and all this. You can't get it
all done from the sky, and that is something that
I think the Trump administration knew and they were testing
this out. There has been some miscalculation here. I think
it's fair to say with the amount of Iranian dissent
(24:32):
slash resistance uprising, you would see as a result, Like
I really do think the hope here was we will
be the Iranian counter Revolutions air force if we're really
just being honest about what I think the administration believed
at the beginning. Though they'll say not now, they'll say
that's not true, and maybe they're right, maybe they're not,
(24:54):
but I do believe that that's what was thought, and
there's there's actually a fair amount of reporting to support.
And then it was okay, well we did this thing,
they're not rising up. What's the most that we can
get out of this. We're gonna have to accelerate the
punishment from the air to force the concessions we want.
I think that has been harder than we anticipated as well.
(25:16):
I think the other part of this, and it does
deserve to be talked about, Israel was wrong when they
told Trump that they believed they had a process by
which regime change could occur. I also think this is
the question will Israel put boots on the ground if
the United States said, hey, we'll give you air support.
(25:39):
Is there a willingness in Israel for Israeli soldiers to
go into Iran? And then what does that do in
the Middle East? Because Buck, as you well know.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
Having spent time in the Middle East, there is a
different dynamic at play. I think when American troops are
on the ground, because we are seen as less of
a religious war, right than when Israeli troops are on
the ground and it is seen as Jews versus Muslims.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
Now we're pretty much seen the same, you.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
Think, pretty much just as bad for US troops on
the ground as it is.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
When they were trying to blow us up in a rock.
They were calling US crusaders and Jews. Crusaders and Jews.
I'm just telling you it's bad. They're not like, oh,
the Americans are here.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
Well, I'm thinking that Americans would be a little bit better.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
No, not really. They think that we're just the army
of Israel, essentially, that we're the army arm of the
Israeli government, like we do Israel's bidding.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
So no, they do. They would not be uh.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
So, the question then becomes did the circles very back around?
I was trying to find a middle ground where Israel
is acting and we're not right, where they're putting boots
on the ground and taking more risks than we are.
Is there a will to do that in Israel? Would
it play worse in the Middle East? If the answer
is no, then basically we're just back to the question.
(26:58):
And this is one of the legacies, unfortuately of Iraq.
It could be the case in Afghanistan. It could be
the case that if we put boots on the ground
in Iran it could actually work out. Okay, Right, that's
a possibility, the idea, the idea that it could be,
but not the risk factor.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Right, The risk factor of blowing up a bunch of
their installations and stuff in Iran is pretty low for us, Yes, correct,
the risk factor of once you start landing, look, once
people are in harm's way, it.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Changes dynamic overnight. I do think that the failure of
Iraq and Afghanistan has basically now for a generation plus,
it's created a world where everyone says, I don't want
American troops on the ground anywhere in the Middle East,
and the result is we can't solve anything, you know,
(27:51):
and this is where you start to get into an
intractable never ending. You use the phrase you constantly got
to mow the grass. And this is where I think
a lot of Americans just we don't have a lot
of patients. They think in one hundred year terms in
Iran and in many of these Middle Eastern countries, and
we're thinking about months.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
This is also part of the problem with the approach.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
And I know, didn't JD went on the Joe Rogan
know right and talked about a bunch of the stuff.
And JD's frustrated with the criticism about this. Okay, but
JD can come on and talk to us whenever he wants.
It should be criticized. This is not working out as planned,
all right. We should be able to have a conversation
about where this is and what's true and what's not.
(28:35):
This is obviously I mean, as you know, Clay, I mean,
everyone knows who listens to the show. I've been saying
the Iranians are just going to entangle us in negotiations
and then they're gonna lie, and then they're gonna cheat
and steal, They're gonna do everything. This is just that
this was pretty clearly going to be the case. And
the background of all this as well is whatever agreement
they do, whatever they would even theoretically sign on to,
(28:56):
as soon as there's a Democrat administration, they know that
there will be no consequences, So they don't have they
don't have they can sign anything they want. Ultimately, all
they have to do is wait until there's Heaven forbid,
but a President Kamalaw or President Newsome, and then all
of a sudden they know it's totally game on. They
do whatever they want. Here's JD by the way on
(29:17):
Iran cut twenty play it.
Speaker 6 (29:20):
What the president has done, I think very very capably,
is said, we're going to use military force in the
in this situation when it's connected to something we're trying
to achieve. So if you shoot at ships, we're going
to shoot at the facilities at which you used to
shoot at the ships. But we're not just going to
do something open ended indefinitely. We're not just going to
bomb and bomb and bomb. We're going to try to
use our military force as one of the many tools
(29:42):
that we.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Have to solve the problem.
Speaker 6 (29:44):
And obviously, like I'm biased, but I think that's exactly
the right approach.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
No, that's by the way, that's he basically contradicts himself
without recognizing in the statement, we can shoot at whatever
they've shot at the ships with for the next twenty
years and they'll still have stuff to shoot at the ships.
So this is actually open ended. I mean, I would
just disagree with JD on that portion of what he said.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
I would also point out JD vance in a really
tough position because he doesn't agree. I think it's fair
to say with the policies that have been implemented so far,
that it is public that he argued against going into
Iran and didn't like a lot of these decisions. But
as the VP, his job is to defend the choices
(30:26):
that the President of the United States makes. He has
to be an advocate for policies that he individually may
not have embraced himself, which is a tough spot. I mean,
this is I think that's one reason to your point, Buck,
that he's kind of on each side of the issue
and isn't able to just say exactly. I think the
(30:48):
truth of the matter is the President made a choice
that JD. Mance disagrees with, and he can't just come
out and say I disagree with the president because his
job is to execute the president's well. And I think
he's been chosen for this role of spokesperson on this
because a lot of the pro Trump Trump voting right
(31:08):
that didn't really support this Iran situation.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
You know, JD is more uh say.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Palatable to them than they some of the more interventionist
members of the administration.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
So he's a buffer.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
He's a buffer for this Trump administration because at least
the people that feel like the Iran move wasn't the
wise move or saying, well, JD's there, we know he
didn't like this. He's trying to get this done. He's
trying to get us out of this. So there's an
optics component of this that that I think is pretty clear.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Would you agree with this? I think Pete hag Seth,
Marco Rubio would be on the more aggressive anti Iran response.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Would that be a fair I think Secretary of Hegseth
was like, we will destroy them down to the lizards,
if you remember from Bora. Yes, yeah, So I think
those guys are on one side.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
JD.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Vance is on the other, and President Trump is in between.
To both sides of the argument, and on any given day,
I think President Trump is just frustrated at the degree
to which Iran is lying to him in negotiation, and
that's coloring much of his response at this point is Hey,
(32:17):
we had a deal. You guys are just total liars.
And he's just almost defended as a deal maker more
than anything else.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
So I think what people have to understand about the
Trump approach to this, especially for those of you who
are MMA fans, Trump has them a in a like
an armlock and is saying okay, tap out, and they're
like no, and then he snaps the arm and then
he goes, Okay, I'm gonna do this to your other arm.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
You're gonna tap out right.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
No, because they're crazy, and it's really not their arm
that's being broken. It's the arm of the Iranian people
in their economy. So that's the problem here, is that
a normal leader would say, all right, Trump's gois box
day and there's nothing else to do. The Iranians who
were calling the shots are like, yeah, whatever, it's horrible
for people. Our guys are getting blown up. Well, that's
(33:08):
what we signed up for.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
And again, buck, the other part of this is it's
part of this just thinking in one hundred year windows, right,
I mean being in an awful position for years for
them is just it's part of the part of the game,
all right.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
To honor the twenty fifth anniversary of nine to eleven
the Tunnel, the Towers Foundation has planned the most comprehensive
commemoration in its history. Through September, the Foundation Steal Across
America Tour is transporting a powerful symbol of resilience to
communities across the country, an authentic steal being from the
World Trade Center. Tomorrow, it'll be in Seattle at the
ballpark where the Mariners play, available to the public. In
(33:44):
honor of the three hundred and forty three members of
the New York City Fire Department who made the ultimate
sacrifice on nine to eleven, the Foundation is delivering three
hundred and forty three mortgage free homes to heroes and
their families, while continuing their efforts to eradicate veteran homelessness.
The nine to eleven Institute's educational curriculum is reaching classrooms nationwide,
while first hand accounts are being shared through the nine
to eleven Speakers Bureau. Throughout this year, the Foundation is
(34:07):
holding hundreds of runs, walks, climbs, golf ountings, including their
iconic Tower Climb and five K events in New York City.
My wife Kerrie, for example, has done the Tower climb
a few times and it's a great event. Donate eleven
dollars a month the tunnel, the towers, or amplify your
impact with a car or land donation.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Go to T two t dot org. That's t the
number two T dot org.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Miss the show while you're on the go, wind down
your day with the Daily Review podcast. Find it on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcast. Welcome
back in. If you are out there and you want
a great lawyer, guess what, Claytravislaw dot com buck, We're
signing up people like crazy. They had an article in
the Alabama newspaper about it. I even said, I'll even
(34:51):
help out Alabama football fans. That's how much I'm trying
to help out everybody. You're going up against thousand dollars
an hour, lawyers, big business. To be hooked up. We
can take care of your nationwide. Claytravislaw dot com. Put
it in, Go fill out the forms Claytravislaw dot com.
Carly is one hundred percent wrong, but because we believe
(35:13):
in free speech, she can tell me that I'm one
hundred percent wrong.
Speaker 8 (35:16):
Fire away, Carly, and I will you and Buck both
one hundred percent wrong, and I'm not alone. I hate
daylight savings time. I love it when it starts getting
dark in the afternoon. You build a fire, You've got
something in the oven. Things are nice and cozy. That's
what it's all about. If we're going to check you
(35:36):
leave it to standard time.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
I need to know something.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Do you get weird feelings when you're near garlic by
any chance?
Speaker 7 (35:47):
Are you no garlic?
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Are you to say? Are you scared of a fix?
Does holywater burn your hands?
Speaker 5 (35:55):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (35:56):
I think you're right. I think Carly's a vampire. Big
vampire is coming out in favor of it getting dark earlier.
I think I think you've hit on something important. Thank
you for I just heard a fang there hitting the
side of the phone. I don't know my sense a vampire.
Are there people disappearing in Colorado? Carly might be to
blame because she's flying around sucking their blood. Big vampire
(36:17):
wants time to get dark earlier. We as people who
embrace daylight, want there to be light upon the land.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
I believe the phrase let there be lights applies here.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Let they're kind of a popular phrase, Let there be light,
kind of an important moment in the world, kind of
matter for the universe, and and you know, the everlasting.
I'm not gonna lie blaming people who want to keep
it dark earlier and saying that they're vampires. You might
have hit on a real strategy. We're not gonna let
big vampire win. Embrace the light, fight the darkness. We'll
(36:50):
be back tomorrow.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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