September 2, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show centered on two major themes: the ongoing national debate over surveillance technology and privacy rights, and extensive analysis of the deadlocked jury in the high-profile Lindsey Clancy murder trial. The hosts also discussed criminal responsibility, the insanity defense, constitutional questions surrounding law enforcement technology, President Donald Trump's latest headline-grabbing naming initiatives, and audience reaction to both the program's political discussions and a recent Wall Street Journal profile of the show.
A substantial portion of Hour 3 was devoted to the controversy surrounding Flock cameras, automated license plate recognition systems increasingly used by police departments across the country. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton debated the balance between public safety and privacy, focusing on concerns raised by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis regarding the potential misuse of surveillance technology. The hosts acknowledged fears that such systems could be exploited by governments during future emergencies, similar to COVID-era restrictions, while arguing that the cameras can provide critical tools for solving crimes, locating missing children, tracking suspects, and reducing violent crime. The discussion examined how technological advances intersect with the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and whether proper legal guardrails can prevent abuse while still allowing law enforcement access to valuable investigative tools.
The conversation expanded into a broader examination of digital privacy and modern surveillance. Travis argued that smartphones already generate enormous amounts of personal location data, often providing far more detailed information than license plate readers. Both hosts noted that Americans are routinely recorded by security cameras in public spaces, businesses, banks, and retail stores, raising questions about how expectations of privacy have evolved in a technology-driven society. They discussed the distinction between legitimate crime-fighting tools and government overreach while emphasizing that courts will ultimately determine how these technologies interact with constitutional protections.
The hosts also explored how political culture and trust in government differ across states. They argued that many Americans increasingly evaluate public policy through the lens of red-state versus blue-state governance, particularly following the COVID pandemic. Tennessee, Florida, and other Republican-led states were presented as examples where residents may feel more confident that surveillance technologies would be used primarily for public safety rather than broader governmental control. Conversely, the hosts suggested that concerns about government monitoring are often magnified in cities and states where citizens have less trust in political leadership.
Another lighter political segment focused on President Donald Trump's continued ability to dominate public conversation through unconventional messaging. Travis and Sexton joked about proposed geographic renamings, including references to the "Gulf of America," "Lake America," and a newly suggested "Strait of Trump" as a replacement for the Strait of Hormuz. The hosts framed these efforts as examples of Trump's ongoing talent for driving media coverage, public debate, and political attention through branding and symbolism.
The most extensive discussion in Hour 3 centered on the Lindsey Clancy case, where jury deliberations remained deadlocked. The hosts analyzed repeated instructions from the judge directing jurors to continue deliberating despite their inability to reach a unanimous verdict. Travis speculated about possible divisions within the jury and examined the broader societal reaction to the case, particularly arguments surrounding postpartum depression, mental illness, hormonal influences, and criminal accountability. Both hosts expressed concern that excusing violent crimes based on psychological or hormonal factors could undermine the principle of personal responsibility that serves as a foundation of criminal law.
The conversation evolved into a deeper examination of the insanity defense, criminal culpability, and the nature of evil. Sexton referenced historical legal standards dating back to 19th-century English common law and discussed how courts determine whether defendants understood the nature of their actions or knew right from wrong at the time crimes were committed. The hosts reviewed the legal distinction between a criminal act and criminal intent, debated the limits of psychological explanations for violent behavior, and questioned whether mental illness should absolve individuals of responsibility for especially heinous crimes. They also discussed research into psychopathy, violent offenders, and forensic psychiatry, arguing that society must be cauti
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back in. We are hanging out here on the
Clay and Buck show. Hour number three. Some might say
the Wall Street Journal profiled wildly successful Clay and Buck show.
That's thanks to all you guys. Five years up. Five
years down, we've gotten, I think, a little bit better
(00:22):
as we've gone along, hopefully. And you got us for
a bunch more years to come. And in the weekend
edition of the Wall Street Journal, there will be a
big profile laying out how successful this program has become.
That's because of you guys. We are trying to be everywhere.
We have 550 AM stations and FM stations out there,
(00:43):
including the most recent edition, 106.9 FM stations. the Las
Vegas affiliate that we have where you can hear us
every day from 9 a.m. until noon Pacific time. We
just added the opposite coast, basically, with Baltimore, WBAL. We
appreciate everybody who is now listening to us on that
(01:05):
big signature station. And we continue to roll up a
lot of affiliates. You got us on satellite radio. The podcast,
I saw they didn't include this in the Wall Street Journal,
but I think they had it on the cutting room floor.
Maybe there'll be a little additional box of info. Did
you see this? I didn't know the numbers. We've had
over 500 million podcast downloads as a part of the
(01:26):
Clay and Buck show and also the Clay and Buck
podcast network. That's an unbelievable number. I saw that and
I said, that's crazy. So the number of you that
are getting the show on podcast is also extraordinary. And
now we're on YouTube. So if you haven't already signed
up and subscribed, like I said last week, we had
our most watched video ever, nearly 500,000 views for a
(01:49):
segment on this program, which is incredible. We're hitting a
brand new audience there. And if you click like and subscribe,
that helps us. We have a lot of people watching
us live right now. This week has been the biggest
audience watching live so far. in the tens of thousands,
which is a small pinprick of the millions of people
out there that are listening every single day on traditional radio.
(02:12):
But we thank you for being with us. Okay, we
are two months out, even if the Wall Street Journal
made me look awful in the photos, according to Carol Markowitz.
And by the way, before we get into the serious
discussion about Michigan and Texas when it comes to Senate primaries,
I thought this was interesting and funny, even though I
(02:37):
am the butt of the joke here. We have a
couple of listeners who sent in emails, and they were
taking shots at me. Clay, this is from Edgar. Not
a lot of Edgars out there, I might mention. Edgar says,
maybe go by Ed. Did you piss off the photographer?
(02:59):
Horrible picture. Is your head really that long? It's huge.
You look like a deer in the headlights. Do yourself
a favor. Remove the picture from your website. Stop talking
about it. It should go away after a few years.
That doesn't sound great. I'm going to be honest. Maybe
Carol Markowitz knew exactly what she was talking about. Thank
(03:20):
you for the feedback, Edgar. It's always great to hear
from fans. And there were some more in here, but
I can't find them right now. But I appreciate all
of you, and we will get to those. 800, by
the way, 282-2882. Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Couple of things that are out there. Okay, yeah, here's Linda.
Why does that photographer hate you? That is a terrible picture.
Because of the unfortunate lighting, one side of your... This
is really very specific. This is very detailed in its takedown.
One side of your face looks gaunt from the shade,
while the other side looks puffy and swollen, like a
(03:59):
cartoonish toothache. Weirdly asymmetrical. Surely he took more than one photo.
Why choose that one? Again, just people teeing off on
me left and right. I got to stop being photographed.
I'm just going to have to retire. Pamela, what did
Pamela say? Did she also tee off on me? I
(04:22):
can't even keep up. So anyway, the article is up.
The article itself minus the pictures is very entertaining, and
I think you will enjoy it. All right, Buck. We
were talking about AOC. And the fact that TMZ interviewed
her and that clip is going viral and she looked
very impressive and was doing well. And we also have
(04:45):
been talking about everything surrounding Abdul El-Sayed and Tallarico. And Tallarico,
the clips continue to come out of the things that
he has said in public. And I understand that this
is considered to be a close race. I think largely
it's because Texans don't think Tallarico can win and they
haven't felt like they're in a real contestable race. But
(05:09):
I do want to play some of this for you
because there should be consequences. for saying this in a
state like Texas. Here is James Tallarico who says capitalism
is an oppressive system and he links it to white
supremacy and climate change. Texans, listen, cut one.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
I'm so thankful that you asked this question and also
thankful that young activists have really drawn the link between
climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in our country.
And I think only in the ways that all three
of those oppressive systems work together Are we going to
be able to begin the process of dismantling them?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Fuck.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Climate change, white supremacy and capitalism, all oppressive systems that
work together. This guy they are telling you is ahead
in the polls right now in Texas. It's hard to
believe and it doesn't really matter. It's worth noting that
to the polls don't matter. All that matters is who
wins an election day. And we're hearing from people now
(06:09):
that Paxton is going to be on the airwaves a
whole lot more, a lot more spending going on from
the pro-Paxton side of things in the media.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
We will have our friend Michael Berry joining us, I think, tomorrow.
The great, the czar of talk joining us out of Houston.
Because he is as dialed in on this as one
can possibly be to give us a sense as to
what is... Maybe concerning about the current state of that
Paxton v. Tallarico race and what is just wait and
(06:39):
see or give it a little time.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
Because I think there's both of those things are true
right now. Some of it is Tallarico is doing a
little better than one would anticipate. But when he says
things like that, that climate change, I want to make
sure I get the trifecta here. Climate change is tied
to white supremacy is tied to what was.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
The other thing?
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Capitalism, white supremacy and climate change are all connected as
part of the oppressive systems of America.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
You'll notice that they throw these things together and there
are some there are there. There is ideological connective tissue
between these things when it comes to these leftists and
the jargon that they rely on. But it is really
just socialism, communism. This is a religion of malcontents. This
is just telling everybody. that whatever frustrations they have, whatever
(07:31):
anxieties they have, in many cases really caused actually by
the left themselves, they manufacture anxieties, they manufacture delusions, but
whatever those things may be, it is the fault of Republicans,
and if you just give them, meaning Democrats, power, they
will address these things. It's concerning, Clay, because this is
(07:53):
effective politics, unfortunately. The politics of resentment and envy is,
have been with human beings for as long as we
have had societies, tribes, you know, huts together somewhere in
the wilderness. This has been the reality for us. People
who aren't where they want to be want an excuse.
(08:15):
They don't want accountability. They want an explanation that it
is some other group or some other people. This can
lead to wars. This can lead to communism. This can
lead to a whole bunch of things. And Tallarico is
doing that thing while also telling people, I'm here for you.
I know what you're, I feel your pain. He knows
that there are challenges right now with affordability for people.
(08:36):
And I will say the messaging on the right here
has not been great. When people say, oh, deal with it,
or my generation had it tougher or whatever it may be.
Keep in mind that the average now, now we get
into is the average or the median?
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Is it the mean or the median?
Speaker 4 (08:52):
But Let's just say the average, I mean, American home
is up 50% in price in five years. That's a
huge problem for people who believe that homeownership and having
a stake in a community that is at least feels
somewhat permanent, even though you still have to pay property taxes.
That is something that is a policy outcome. That is
(09:14):
not the result of the free market working. Just so
everyone is clear, we could talk about why that is.
These were policy decisions that have been made that have
led to that. most notably spending and inflation. But that's
why housing is so, rather, buying a home is so expensive.
And that's something that's a challenge. Healthcare and the quality
(09:35):
of care versus the cost of care, that is not
because the free market has failed. It is because we
have moved further and further from a free market system
where people are not accountable for the dollars they spend.
They're not accountable for the health decisions they make. It
is all just one big lie that somebody else is
going to pay for everything.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Clay?
Speaker 4 (09:51):
We're fighting against Santa Claus. In the case of Tallarica,
we're fighting against a very odd Santa Claus, but a
guy who promises everything will be free and everything will
be fixed is always going to have people who want
to listen.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
We've got another one that is just as bad on Tallarico,
and then we've got an El Sayed. Here is Tallarico saying,
Texas oil and gas, it's like cassette tapes. You don't
really need it anymore. Cut to.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
We all know that Texas has been a leader in
oil and gas, but in many ways, that's like being
the leader in cassette tapes in the 1980s. That industry
is not going to last. And if we want to
ensure we have an economy that's going to work for
our children and our children's children, we've got to be
ahead of the curve. And Texas has to lead instead
of follow on this on this issue.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
So he's he's not just weird. He's also ignorant. He
doesn't really understand anything. So does, does he get a
pass on the leftism because he does the whole, but I,
but I love Jesus too thing.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
Is that what this is? Because he's got that preacher
thing going on.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
The fact that he's a communist and an ignoramus about
how the world functions is not a problem for people.
I'm surprised by that. Well, actually, no, I'm not surprised
by it, but it's frustrating.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I think it's just a sign that a lot of
Texans are not yet paying attention. Um, And I hope
I'm right about that. I hope as the fall progresses
in the next 60 days and people get back to
school and they start to recognize that a midterm election
is coming up. that they become aware. I stand by this.
I think Jasmine Crockett would have been a far more
(11:21):
difficult opponent for Ken Paxton than Tallarico is. I really
do believe that. Here is Abdul El-Sayed. This is crazy.
I would think that this will soon be echoing throughout
the state of Michigan. He says, if you want to
achieve the American dream, you need to move to Canada
because the Canadian dream is far more likely to become
(11:43):
a reality. Cut 29.
Speaker 6 (11:45):
Contrary to what we're taught, that we are the land
of opportunity where anyone with a dollar in a dream
can make it.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
In fact, too few people have that first dollar.
Speaker 6 (11:52):
Economic data shows us that if you want to achieve
the American dream, well, you should move to Canada because
it's twice as likely there. Here, where you start predicts
where you end.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Okay. Now, Buck, it's not good to say so much
for the American dream, you should move to Canada anywhere.
But for all our Michiganders out there listening, the Canada-Michigan
rivalry is real. To have someone trying to represent the
state of Michigan, remember, and I didn't know this, I'm
not great at geography if I haven't been there before.
(12:25):
There are parts of Canada that are much, much further
south than Michigan, right? So you're talking, my father-in-law lives
on the Detroit River. You look across the Detroit River, boom,
there is Canada. You go across the Ambassador Bridge, sources
close to me, a.k.a. my wife, inform me that sometimes
kids who grow up in Michigan go to Canada because
(12:46):
the drinking age in Canada is 19, and you used
to be able to cross back and forth across the
border very, very easily. So this is not even the equivalent.
I don't think saying you should move to Canada to
have a better life would play very well anywhere in America.
but I know it doesn't play well in Michigan based
on proximity, rivalry, and everything else. These are radical dudes.
(13:09):
Abdul El-Sayed is a radical dude to represent Michigan. James
Tallarico is a radical dude to represent the state of Texas.
I hope that people are paying attention and the money
is being spent well enough to make people aware of
just how out of step with the average Michigander and
Texan is these two in particular battleground Senate races may
(13:33):
end up being, how far off these guys really are?
Speaker 4 (13:37):
You know, I think, Clay, with a lot of this,
there's multiple messages running at the same time from these
candidates and that they speak out of both sides of
their mouths to people who don't care what's being said
out of the other side, if that makes sense. Meaning
that with El-Sayed, he's going to say the things he
needs to say for the hard left to be excited
(13:57):
and on board because that's who he is. But then
when it comes to speaking to a room full of
union plumbers or electricians or carpenters or whatever it may be,
he's just going to talk affordability, affordability, affordability, and hope
that that message completely overrides any concerns that they would
have about that weird commie talk where he sounds like
(14:19):
some kind of a robot getting a master's in gender
studies somewhere. That part of it, they'll forget about. And
that's the game. So I don't know that running, especially
because the issues here are so central and so clear
about what's going to make a difference in the midterms.
I'm not sure that, Oh, look at how silly this
(14:39):
guy is on this issue is going to make as
much of a difference as we would like it to.
It's more on the core issues that people care about
who is saying the right thing.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
Do you know what I mean? This is where, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
I mean, I think this is the genius of AOC.
She just waved away everything that she argued for for
about 10 years by saying, oh, you know, we got
a little crazy then. Ha ha. And Democrats are like, yeah,
you know, we did. Let's move on. And I just
think this is crazy. By the way, the judge has gotten.
I want to make sure my Lindsay Clancy case. Another
(15:15):
jury note. We'll see. It could be them continuing to
say we can't reach a verdict. Just FYI, that is
the live story, Cron, on every network right now. So
we will update you.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
Can I ask you a question? You can tell me.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Do you think if this goes to a hung jury,
it is one or several, it's definitely women, on the
jury who refuse to budge?
Speaker 7 (15:39):
Several.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Several. I have I have lost. I did not have
a lot of faith in liberal white women, to be fair,
before this trial started. I have lost so much faith
in liberal white women, even more so. I didn't know
I could go lower in my personal estimation of them.
I've gone a lot lower as this case has continued
(16:01):
to play out. I'm just gonna be honest with you.
We will update you. They are in the courtroom. Breaking
news coming very shortly there. We may be able to
take it live. For everybody who is following this case,
this is day five, I believe, of deliberations. Look, do
you need more energy in your life? Are you chasing
around the kids? Are you chasing around the grandkids? Did
(16:22):
you look at the calendar as you start to make
some decisions maybe about what Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's might
be like, Halloween? And if you thought to yourself, oh, man,
I need to get more sleep. I need to be
able to have more energy. Maybe you could make a
difference if you have chalk. They're a company making all
natural supplements specially formulated to provide formulated to provide your
(16:43):
body with energy. They can increase your testosterone by up
to 20 percent in three months time, help you to
compete more. with keeping up with the kids and the grandkids.
They have a male vitality stack. All natural. Again, 20%
testosterone increase. You can get hooked up today at Chalk.com.
Use my name, Clay, for a $ 99 value bonus product,
(17:07):
the Lit Powder. That's C-H-O-Q dot com code Clay. Preset
your pals. Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. We have a quick
turn here.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
I just want to say we're watching very closely for
any updates on the verdict in the lindsey clancy trial
and also clay i'm seeing this a 56 year old
woman has been arraigned in court now for intimidating lindsey
clancy jurors.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
That's how this is like a middle-aged.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Woman i'm gonna guess a liberal a middle-aged white woman
was intimidating the jury videoing them in a restricted area
Now they're saying she was trying. I don't know more
details on that. But, Clay, she's facing serious prison time
for trying to tamper with the jury, essentially.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
We'll give you the absolute latest on that trial when
we come back.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
They're in the courtroom right now. I'm going to tell
you guys this is true because I'm out in the
countryside for a few days. I saw a bear yesterday.
I actually saw a bear yesterday. I have video of it.
And bear sightings are up in many parts of the country.
Take Colorado, for instance. More than 7,000 reports of bears
wandering into towns, backyards, you name it. Like I said,
we had a bear in my yard here. Similar increases
(18:21):
in 12 more states. We have talked about this, and boy,
have we gotten a lot of reaction. Our friends at Sabre,
the self-protection company that we like, they have all kinds
of personal safety stuff, including bear spray. Bear spray, my
friends from Sabre. If you're going to go on hikes,
you're going to go for long walks, you're going to
be out in the wilderness. I love it, but I
(18:41):
want you to be safe. Get some Sabre bear spray.
And while you're there, check out a whole range of
Sabre products, including their pepper spray for humans. and the
Pepper Launcher. Go to sabreprotect.com. That's S-A-B-R-E protect.com or call 844-824-SAFE.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck. All right. Update from
inside of the courtroom. The judge basically says, even though
you remain deadlocked, which is the note from the jury
that came today around the middle of the afternoon here,
just in the last 20 minutes or so, go back
(19:20):
and keep deliberating. So this was the same thing the
judge said yesterday. I don't know how many times the
judge can continue to send back a deadlocked jury to
continue deliberations. Some of you out there may well have
tried cases where this has happened many different times. It's
(19:41):
not that common to have a jury multiple times basically
tell the judge, we're not going to agree. And the
judge keeps saying, go back and keep talking. Buck, I just,
I don't know what the actual numbers are here. I
would be very surprised if the men, there are only
(20:02):
three men on this jury. I would be very surprised
if the three men on this jury are saying that
We think she is not guilty. I would be very
surprised simultaneously, based on what we've seen from the behavior
of women in Massachusetts, if all nine women were saying
she's guilty. Does that make sense? I think if this
(20:25):
would be miserable, if you are the men who are saying,
but she killed her three kids, and some of the
women on this jury just keep saying, but she was
really depressed, you don't understand. And we were talking about
this off air. My wife is super fired up about this.
And her argument is that women are not talking enough
(20:47):
among themselves about how there are now going to be
arguments that are made that women, because of their hormones,
can't make rational decisions. And that was actually an argument
that used to be made 100 years ago.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
The term hysteria actually is related to the Greek for,
I think it's womb or uterus or something, and that's where...
The hysterectomy, obviously, is connected to that as well. So
her argument is, we keep saying, hey, we want women
in positions of power, and then when a mom kills
(21:26):
her three kids, a ton of women show up and say, oh,
but she was really depressed, and then my kids... who
have actually been paying attention to this now. One of
them said, hey, on TikTok, Dad, there are now guys arguing.
Why can't men say, hey, our testosterone levels were really
high or I was taking steroids? Why can't men cite
(21:51):
their own hormone levels to argue that they aren't responsible
for criminal behavior? Which, I've got to be honest with you,
is not a crazy take if we're going to start
saying it.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
I come back to two things. That Irina Zaretska murder.
If you watch that guy stab her in cold blood
on the Charlotte public transit, and your immediate response was, well,
he's probably mentally ill. He shouldn't be held accountable for
that first-degree murder. I question how many of you did
(22:23):
that who are now saying Lindsay Clancy isn't responsible. And, Buck,
you were just talking about the young mom who got
stabbed in Times Square in the middle of the day.
They shot because the woman was brandishing a knife, the
woman who committed that murder, so she is dead. But
she was mentally ill. Should the young mom who got
stabbed in Times Square, should the person who did that,
(22:47):
if she were still living, not be charged and convicted
of first-degree murder? I just think we are opening a
huge can of worms if I was depressed or my
hormones were behaving in a way that isn't normal, and
so I can't be held criminally responsible for strangling to
(23:07):
death my three children. I just think we're going to
a dark place where you're going to see a lot
more of these arguments coming out, and frankly, when evil happens...
I'm not very interested in making excuses personally for evil.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
I mentioned this, Clay, on Twitter or on X, and
I would direct anyone to go check it out, not
just my little musing on the subject, although that might
be of interest to some, but the article in question
is about 20, 21 years ago. The New York Times
did this piece, and this is back when the Times
used to at least do occasional.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
Acts of real reporting. maybe by accident, but it would happen.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
And the New York Times came up with this idea,
or rather was exploring this idea that for forensic psychiatrists,
so these are people whose specialty is in the intersection
of mental health, the psychological and psychiatric realm, and the law.
(24:10):
So the criminally insane is something that forensic psychiatrists would
be dealing with on a regular basis. And they kept
running into when people would spend time studying, analyzing, interviewing
the worst of the worst murderers, they would find that
the justifications, not justifications really, but the explanations, the analyses,
(24:34):
the assessments of why they did what they did always
fell short, didn't make sense, seemed kind of... And that
they kept coming back to one word, evil.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
That these people.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Enjoyed cruelty, suffering, extreme psychological duress and terror of other
human beings, felt zero remorse, knew what they were doing,
chose to keep doing it, were well aware of what
was going on. And I thought one of the even
more interesting things was that they were able to map
(25:10):
out using CT scan of the brain that, Clay, when
people who are They refer to them in the piece,
I believe, as predatory psychopaths because there are a lot
of psychopaths. Psychopathy is far more common in society than
people realize. But predatory psychopaths, criminal, mass murderers, people like
(25:31):
Ted Bundy and Manson and this, people who have that
psychological profile, when they see extreme violence, even if it's
a natural disaster or if it's violence and warfare, their
brain reacts differently to it. So you start to say, okay, well,
(25:51):
meaning that it actually hits their pleasure center and not
their empathy or not their fear center. They look at
this and they go, ooh. Now, at some point, you
can even get into, as we get a better understanding
of the mind, well, then maybe that's just the way
their mechanics work or something. And so does that change
their culpability?
Speaker 5 (26:08):
To which I would just say, to me.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
If you're criminally insane to the point where you have
harmed people, Isn't that a better isn't the notion that
you could be criminally insane and let out of prison ever?
Utterly backwards, because if you're a person who has had
their faculties and did a bad thing, could be reformed
and more trusted in their reform than a person who
(26:31):
is completely bonkers and did something horrible. And then you're
told later now they're stable.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Says who? I'll give you an even darker example of
the Lindsay Clancy defense. People who are into child porn
are into kids. Their brain is wired differently, as you
were just saying, Buck. That's why we have to protect
them from kids. Are you just going to say, well,
(26:59):
that's the way, that's, yeah, protect them from being in
proximity to kids, protect the kids from them? Are you
now just going to say, well, it's the way their
brains are wired? What can we do? Because there are,
by the way, some sick people on primarily the left
now that will say that. Yes, they will understand. And
(27:22):
so I just look, there are some things that are
so evil. that we have to make it clear that
we are not going to excuse it in any way.
You and I agree on this. Child murder is the
worst thing that a human can do. To make any
excuses for it at all is, to me, a failure
(27:45):
when it comes to the most basic responsibility of adults everywhere,
which is protecting children. I just I this really it's
your point is a good one where you might sit
around and say, hey, what should the tariff rate be
with Canada? And you can argue and we can have
a debate about how to bring back manufacturing and all
these things. When I hear people say Lindsay Clancy should
(28:08):
not be found guilty because her hormones are an issue
and she was really sad, it makes me angry to
even have to respond to that argument because I think
even by taking it as an argument, that's a difficult
spot to take. To celebrate her is even a step
beyond that. And frankly, I think we've seen into the
(28:30):
dark soul of much of the nation in their response
in this case.
Speaker 5 (28:34):
I really mean this.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
You know, the doing this show which is always because
we are live and unscripted and it's a work in
it's a work in progress because we are progressing as
we do the work uh every day and it gives
us an excuse both to learn a lot so that
we can come to the show not just equipped with
current events but but facts and and background for the
analysis uh and so i just am able to pull
(28:55):
this up because i was curious as we're having this
discussion when was the first time somebody used the insanity
defense Because this would be a relative because psychology as
a field of study has not been around for that long.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Did you have something on the insanity?
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Well, I think one of the first was Daniel Sickles,
who we talked about, the individual who killed his wife's lover,
who later became a Civil War general, lost his leg
at the Battle of Gettysburg and was one of the
successful men of his era. He argued that he was
overcome with rage when his wife was cheating on him.
(29:30):
He saw her paramour, and he killed her, and he
was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
So so you're you mentioned the Civil War.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
It's interesting.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
That's right around the time when it first appeared anywhere.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (29:44):
But the first appearance was in England.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
Obviously, we English common law is a huge precedent for
our own system and everything else.
Speaker 5 (29:52):
Something called the.
Speaker 4 (29:54):
McNatten Rule. I don't know how to pronounce this. It's
M apostrophe N. This is from Psychology Today. The Insanity
Defense was born in England in 1843. So, Clay, just
some years before the case you cited in this country
about Sickles. The Manhattan Rule was established when Daniel Manhattan,
(30:16):
who was psychotic, was acquitted of attempting to assassinate the
British Prime Minister. Following public debate over this verdict, the
House of Lords established the Manhattan Rule, which became the
foundational legal test for insanity in both Britain and the
United States. Under this rule, a defendant must prove they
had a disease of the mind that stopped them from
(30:40):
understanding the nature of their actions or understanding right from wrong. Now,
this goes to Lindsay Clancy, by the way, fits that description.
That's I think that she she knew what she was doing.
She planned out what she was doing. She was aware
of everything and she knew that it wasn't a good thing.
(31:01):
She didn't think that this was somehow going to bring
about the Messiah or something by by murdering her own children.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
So.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
What was what? Anyway, sorry, you were saying.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
So, no, I was just going to say this goes to, again,
the foundation of most crimes is the actus rea and
the mens rea. The act itself is being acknowledged in
this defense, i.e. you did kill someone. They're saying you
lack the mental capacity, the mens rea, to be responsible
for it. Now, in the case of someone like Daniel Sicklesbuck,
what it provided was an avenue for a jury to say, yeah,
(31:36):
he may have done it, but the other guy deserved it.
Speaker 7 (31:39):
Right.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
I mean, that was basically the argument he made, which
is different than what she is saying.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
That branched off, actually, as I said, crime of passion.
became an affirmative defense that now is an off-branch of
what you're talking about, which was the temporary insanity of
finding your wife with a lover, crime of passion. I
think I said that they got rid of those rules.
You guys in Texas, you don't mess around. They got
rid of those rules in like the 70s as an
affirmative defense.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
I think, again, you're going to see way more psychology-related defenses,
hormone-related defenses. And I think it just is an ultimate
direct attack on the most important part of humanity in
my mind, which is individual responsibility. But we will continue
to update you. Doesn't sound like there's going to be
(32:28):
a verdict. Certainly not while we're on the air today.
There's a police officer outside Louisville, Kentucky. Prosecutors say he
ran his ex-girlfriend through flock license plate cameras. We were
talking about flock over 2000 times, 2000. He wanted to
know where she was, where she was going, where she slept.
He's been charged with official misconduct, unlawful access to a computer.
(32:52):
But that guy had a badge and a camera network
to do it. Here's the part that gets to you.
A stranger doesn't necessarily need a badge to be able
to track you on the Internet. Your home address, your
phone number, your family's address. They're all on people search
sites right now for a couple of bucks. Your info
is available to anybody with a credit card. And nobody
(33:13):
gets arrested for buying that info from a data broker.
So we signed up for Incogni, online service we trust.
Incogni might be a new name to you, but the
company goes after data brokers, forcing them to delete your
personal info. By law, the data brokers have to comply.
Incogni keeps checking so they can't quietly put you back
(33:35):
on these lists. You should have Incogni working for you too.
Take back your online privacy. Go to incogni.com slash clay
for 60% off. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I incogni.com slash clay for a 60%
discount on regular prices because they can't harm you if
(33:56):
they can't find you. Incogni.com code clay. It's like having
your house at the perfect temperature all the time. Preset
Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Welcome in to really to the end of Clay and
Buck for the day. We will be back tomorrow, though,
which is exciting, and every day thereafter. And I want
to again tell you, please go check out the piece
on us, The Wall Street Journal. I think it'll be
on the print version this weekend. Very, very nice. The
Wall Street Journal, very nice thing. Lovely things about Clay
and Buck. They're beautiful over at The Wall Street Journal. Beautiful,
(34:27):
a great paper doing huge numbers.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
We love them over there.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
And they did a great piece, a profile on the show,
and I think it also just reflects, truly, it reflects
really well on the audience, all of you, for this program,
because they're like, yeah, you guys are doing it the
right way, and you're doing it day by day and
piece by piece, and not relying on nonsense and chicanery
and skullduggery and conspiracy and craziness to get people to
(34:55):
tune in. So here we go. John, this is M
on the Talkbacks.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
Hit it.
Speaker 8 (35:01):
Guys, this banning of flock cameras is democracy at work.
The voters are saying, get those things the hell out
of here off the streets.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I don't want to be surveilled.
Speaker 8 (35:12):
I mean, in spite of the fact that you don't
have a right to an expectation of privacy driving on
the road, because driving's a privilege. God bless you guys.
Speaker 5 (35:21):
See you later. Thank you. Fair point. And that's why
we're talking about it.
Speaker 4 (35:26):
Yeah, people, I mean, there's not like a constitutional right
to have flock cameras. I'm not saying that the government
should necessarily be able to just override the will of
the people. But I just think, Clay, on balance, it's
about guiding the usage of, it should be about guiding
the usage of the technology, not just getting rid of it.
Speaker 5 (35:43):
So I'm advocating.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
Let's have some fun to close here, by the way.
Allison in California, the Patriot Radio, Jay.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Oh my God, I just looked at that photo. It's
like the photographer gave Buck some sort of instant facelift
and just a massive glow up and just thought Clay
wasn't worth the effort and just gave him a little blur.
Speaker 5 (36:08):
Hey, that's just a photo of me in a t-shirt.
There's no AI or anything.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Pam in Alaska continuing to pile on. H.
Speaker 7 (36:17):
Can we rule out that Clay's head may have actually
just gotten larger? I mean, we know he went on
his book tour and we had the grandmas in line
getting touchy-feely and built a home in Florida, I think,
with a pool, with a view of a pool. And
he's poised to buy his WNBA team.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
I don't know.
Speaker 7 (36:35):
He's got some swagger. Is it possible his head did
get bigger? I mean, it could just be science.
Speaker 4 (36:42):
Shots fired, buddy. Pam, lighting you up from a distance.
Lighting you up like the Iranian Navy. All the women
just teeing off on me. In all seriousness, go read
the piece.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
It's a good one. We thank you for the privilege
of talking to you every single day, and we will
be back with you tomorrow.
Welcome back in. We are hanging out here on the
Clay and Buck show. Hour number three. Some might say
the Wall Street Journal profiled wildly successful Clay and Buck show.
That's thanks to all you guys. Five years up. Five
years down, we've gotten, I think, a little bit better
(00:22):
as we've gone along, hopefully. And you got us for
a bunch more years to come. And in the weekend
edition of the Wall Street Journal, there will be a
big profile laying out how successful this program has become.
That's because of you guys. We are trying to be everywhere.
We have 550 AM stations and FM stations out there,
(00:43):
including the most recent edition, 106.9 FM stations. the Las
Vegas affiliate that we have where you can hear us
every day from 9 a.m. until noon Pacific time. We
just added the opposite coast, basically, with Baltimore, WBAL. We
appreciate everybody who is now listening to us on that
(01:05):
big signature station. And we continue to roll up a
lot of affiliates. You got us on satellite radio. The podcast,
I saw they didn't include this in the Wall Street Journal,
but I think they had it on the cutting room floor.
Maybe there'll be a little additional box of info. Did
you see this? I didn't know the numbers. We've had
over 500 million podcast downloads as a part of the
(01:26):
Clay and Buck show and also the Clay and Buck
podcast network. That's an unbelievable number. I saw that and
I said, that's crazy. So the number of you that
are getting the show on podcast is also extraordinary. And
now we're on YouTube. So if you haven't already signed
up and subscribed, like I said last week, we had
our most watched video ever, nearly 500,000 views for a
(01:49):
segment on this program, which is incredible. We're hitting a
brand new audience there. And if you click like and subscribe,
that helps us. We have a lot of people watching
us live right now. This week has been the biggest
audience watching live so far. in the tens of thousands,
which is a small pinprick of the millions of people
out there that are listening every single day on traditional radio.
(02:12):
But we thank you for being with us. Okay, we
are two months out, even if the Wall Street Journal
made me look awful in the photos, according to Carol Markowitz.
And by the way, before we get into the serious
discussion about Michigan and Texas when it comes to Senate primaries,
I thought this was interesting and funny, even though I
(02:37):
am the butt of the joke here. We have a
couple of listeners who sent in emails, and they were
taking shots at me. Clay, this is from Edgar. Not
a lot of Edgars out there, I might mention. Edgar says,
maybe go by Ed. Did you piss off the photographer?
(02:59):
Horrible picture. Is your head really that long? It's huge.
You look like a deer in the headlights. Do yourself
a favor. Remove the picture from your website. Stop talking
about it. It should go away after a few years.
That doesn't sound great. I'm going to be honest. Maybe
Carol Markowitz knew exactly what she was talking about. Thank
(03:20):
you for the feedback, Edgar. It's always great to hear
from fans. And there were some more in here, but
I can't find them right now. But I appreciate all
of you, and we will get to those. 800, by
the way, 282-2882. Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Couple of things that are out there. Okay, yeah, here's Linda.
Why does that photographer hate you? That is a terrible picture.
Because of the unfortunate lighting, one side of your... This
is really very specific. This is very detailed in its takedown.
One side of your face looks gaunt from the shade,
while the other side looks puffy and swollen, like a
(03:59):
cartoonish toothache. Weirdly asymmetrical. Surely he took more than one photo.
Why choose that one? Again, just people teeing off on
me left and right. I got to stop being photographed.
I'm just going to have to retire. Pamela, what did
Pamela say? Did she also tee off on me? I
(04:22):
can't even keep up. So anyway, the article is up.
The article itself minus the pictures is very entertaining, and
I think you will enjoy it. All right, Buck. We
were talking about AOC. And the fact that TMZ interviewed
her and that clip is going viral and she looked
very impressive and was doing well. And we also have
(04:45):
been talking about everything surrounding Abdul El-Sayed and Tallarico. And Tallarico,
the clips continue to come out of the things that
he has said in public. And I understand that this
is considered to be a close race. I think largely
it's because Texans don't think Tallarico can win and they
haven't felt like they're in a real contestable race. But
(05:09):
I do want to play some of this for you
because there should be consequences. for saying this in a
state like Texas. Here is James Tallarico who says capitalism
is an oppressive system and he links it to white
supremacy and climate change. Texans, listen, cut one.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
I'm so thankful that you asked this question and also
thankful that young activists have really drawn the link between
climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in our country.
And I think only in the ways that all three
of those oppressive systems work together Are we going to
be able to begin the process of dismantling them?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Fuck.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Climate change, white supremacy and capitalism, all oppressive systems that
work together. This guy they are telling you is ahead
in the polls right now in Texas. It's hard to
believe and it doesn't really matter. It's worth noting that
to the polls don't matter. All that matters is who
wins an election day. And we're hearing from people now
(06:09):
that Paxton is going to be on the airwaves a
whole lot more, a lot more spending going on from
the pro-Paxton side of things in the media.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
We will have our friend Michael Berry joining us, I think, tomorrow.
The great, the czar of talk joining us out of Houston.
Because he is as dialed in on this as one
can possibly be to give us a sense as to
what is... Maybe concerning about the current state of that
Paxton v. Tallarico race and what is just wait and
(06:39):
see or give it a little time.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:40):
Because I think there's both of those things are true
right now. Some of it is Tallarico is doing a
little better than one would anticipate. But when he says
things like that, that climate change, I want to make
sure I get the trifecta here. Climate change is tied
to white supremacy is tied to what was.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
The other thing?
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Capitalism, white supremacy and climate change are all connected as
part of the oppressive systems of America.
Speaker 4 (07:09):
You'll notice that they throw these things together and there
are some there are there. There is ideological connective tissue
between these things when it comes to these leftists and
the jargon that they rely on. But it is really
just socialism, communism. This is a religion of malcontents. This
is just telling everybody. that whatever frustrations they have, whatever
(07:31):
anxieties they have, in many cases really caused actually by
the left themselves, they manufacture anxieties, they manufacture delusions, but
whatever those things may be, it is the fault of Republicans,
and if you just give them, meaning Democrats, power, they
will address these things. It's concerning, Clay, because this is
(07:53):
effective politics, unfortunately. The politics of resentment and envy is,
have been with human beings for as long as we
have had societies, tribes, you know, huts together somewhere in
the wilderness. This has been the reality for us. People
who aren't where they want to be want an excuse.
(08:15):
They don't want accountability. They want an explanation that it
is some other group or some other people. This can
lead to wars. This can lead to communism. This can
lead to a whole bunch of things. And Tallarico is
doing that thing while also telling people, I'm here for you.
I know what you're, I feel your pain. He knows
that there are challenges right now with affordability for people.
(08:36):
And I will say the messaging on the right here
has not been great. When people say, oh, deal with it,
or my generation had it tougher or whatever it may be.
Keep in mind that the average now, now we get
into is the average or the median?
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Is it the mean or the median?
Speaker 4 (08:52):
But Let's just say the average, I mean, American home
is up 50% in price in five years. That's a
huge problem for people who believe that homeownership and having
a stake in a community that is at least feels
somewhat permanent, even though you still have to pay property taxes.
That is something that is a policy outcome. That is
(09:14):
not the result of the free market working. Just so
everyone is clear, we could talk about why that is.
These were policy decisions that have been made that have
led to that. most notably spending and inflation. But that's
why housing is so, rather, buying a home is so expensive.
And that's something that's a challenge. Healthcare and the quality
(09:35):
of care versus the cost of care, that is not
because the free market has failed. It is because we
have moved further and further from a free market system
where people are not accountable for the dollars they spend.
They're not accountable for the health decisions they make. It
is all just one big lie that somebody else is
going to pay for everything.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Clay?
Speaker 4 (09:51):
We're fighting against Santa Claus. In the case of Tallarica,
we're fighting against a very odd Santa Claus, but a
guy who promises everything will be free and everything will
be fixed is always going to have people who want
to listen.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
We've got another one that is just as bad on Tallarico,
and then we've got an El Sayed. Here is Tallarico saying,
Texas oil and gas, it's like cassette tapes. You don't
really need it anymore. Cut to.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
We all know that Texas has been a leader in
oil and gas, but in many ways, that's like being
the leader in cassette tapes in the 1980s. That industry
is not going to last. And if we want to
ensure we have an economy that's going to work for
our children and our children's children, we've got to be
ahead of the curve. And Texas has to lead instead
of follow on this on this issue.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
So he's he's not just weird. He's also ignorant. He
doesn't really understand anything. So does, does he get a
pass on the leftism because he does the whole, but I,
but I love Jesus too thing.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
Is that what this is? Because he's got that preacher
thing going on.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
The fact that he's a communist and an ignoramus about
how the world functions is not a problem for people.
I'm surprised by that. Well, actually, no, I'm not surprised
by it, but it's frustrating.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I think it's just a sign that a lot of
Texans are not yet paying attention. Um, And I hope
I'm right about that. I hope as the fall progresses
in the next 60 days and people get back to
school and they start to recognize that a midterm election
is coming up. that they become aware. I stand by this.
I think Jasmine Crockett would have been a far more
(11:21):
difficult opponent for Ken Paxton than Tallarico is. I really
do believe that. Here is Abdul El-Sayed. This is crazy.
I would think that this will soon be echoing throughout
the state of Michigan. He says, if you want to
achieve the American dream, you need to move to Canada
because the Canadian dream is far more likely to become
(11:43):
a reality. Cut 29.
Speaker 6 (11:45):
Contrary to what we're taught, that we are the land
of opportunity where anyone with a dollar in a dream
can make it.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
In fact, too few people have that first dollar.
Speaker 6 (11:52):
Economic data shows us that if you want to achieve
the American dream, well, you should move to Canada because
it's twice as likely there. Here, where you start predicts
where you end.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Okay. Now, Buck, it's not good to say so much
for the American dream, you should move to Canada anywhere.
But for all our Michiganders out there listening, the Canada-Michigan
rivalry is real. To have someone trying to represent the
state of Michigan, remember, and I didn't know this, I'm
not great at geography if I haven't been there before.
(12:25):
There are parts of Canada that are much, much further
south than Michigan, right? So you're talking, my father-in-law lives
on the Detroit River. You look across the Detroit River, boom,
there is Canada. You go across the Ambassador Bridge, sources
close to me, a.k.a. my wife, inform me that sometimes
kids who grow up in Michigan go to Canada because
(12:46):
the drinking age in Canada is 19, and you used
to be able to cross back and forth across the
border very, very easily. So this is not even the equivalent.
I don't think saying you should move to Canada to
have a better life would play very well anywhere in America.
but I know it doesn't play well in Michigan based
on proximity, rivalry, and everything else. These are radical dudes.
(13:09):
Abdul El-Sayed is a radical dude to represent Michigan. James
Tallarico is a radical dude to represent the state of Texas.
I hope that people are paying attention and the money
is being spent well enough to make people aware of
just how out of step with the average Michigander and
Texan is these two in particular battleground Senate races may
(13:33):
end up being, how far off these guys really are?
Speaker 4 (13:37):
You know, I think, Clay, with a lot of this,
there's multiple messages running at the same time from these
candidates and that they speak out of both sides of
their mouths to people who don't care what's being said
out of the other side, if that makes sense. Meaning
that with El-Sayed, he's going to say the things he
needs to say for the hard left to be excited
(13:57):
and on board because that's who he is. But then
when it comes to speaking to a room full of
union plumbers or electricians or carpenters or whatever it may be,
he's just going to talk affordability, affordability, affordability, and hope
that that message completely overrides any concerns that they would
have about that weird commie talk where he sounds like
(14:19):
some kind of a robot getting a master's in gender
studies somewhere. That part of it, they'll forget about. And
that's the game. So I don't know that running, especially
because the issues here are so central and so clear
about what's going to make a difference in the midterms.
I'm not sure that, Oh, look at how silly this
(14:39):
guy is on this issue is going to make as
much of a difference as we would like it to.
It's more on the core issues that people care about
who is saying the right thing.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
Do you know what I mean? This is where, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
I mean, I think this is the genius of AOC.
She just waved away everything that she argued for for
about 10 years by saying, oh, you know, we got
a little crazy then. Ha ha. And Democrats are like, yeah,
you know, we did. Let's move on. And I just
think this is crazy. By the way, the judge has gotten.
I want to make sure my Lindsay Clancy case. Another
(15:15):
jury note. We'll see. It could be them continuing to
say we can't reach a verdict. Just FYI, that is
the live story, Cron, on every network right now. So
we will update you.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
Can I ask you a question? You can tell me.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Do you think if this goes to a hung jury,
it is one or several, it's definitely women, on the
jury who refuse to budge?
Speaker 7 (15:39):
Several.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Several. I have I have lost. I did not have
a lot of faith in liberal white women, to be fair,
before this trial started. I have lost so much faith
in liberal white women, even more so. I didn't know
I could go lower in my personal estimation of them.
I've gone a lot lower as this case has continued
(16:01):
to play out. I'm just gonna be honest with you.
We will update you. They are in the courtroom. Breaking
news coming very shortly there. We may be able to
take it live. For everybody who is following this case,
this is day five, I believe, of deliberations. Look, do
you need more energy in your life? Are you chasing
around the kids? Are you chasing around the grandkids? Did
(16:22):
you look at the calendar as you start to make
some decisions maybe about what Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's might
be like, Halloween? And if you thought to yourself, oh, man,
I need to get more sleep. I need to be
able to have more energy. Maybe you could make a
difference if you have chalk. They're a company making all
natural supplements specially formulated to provide formulated to provide your
(16:43):
body with energy. They can increase your testosterone by up
to 20 percent in three months time, help you to
compete more. with keeping up with the kids and the grandkids.
They have a male vitality stack. All natural. Again, 20%
testosterone increase. You can get hooked up today at Chalk.com.
Use my name, Clay, for a $ 99 value bonus product,
(17:07):
the Lit Powder. That's C-H-O-Q dot com code Clay. Preset
your pals. Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. We have a quick
turn here.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
I just want to say we're watching very closely for
any updates on the verdict in the lindsey clancy trial
and also clay i'm seeing this a 56 year old
woman has been arraigned in court now for intimidating lindsey
clancy jurors.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
That's how this is like a middle-aged.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Woman i'm gonna guess a liberal a middle-aged white woman
was intimidating the jury videoing them in a restricted area
Now they're saying she was trying. I don't know more
details on that. But, Clay, she's facing serious prison time
for trying to tamper with the jury, essentially.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
We'll give you the absolute latest on that trial when
we come back.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
They're in the courtroom right now. I'm going to tell
you guys this is true because I'm out in the
countryside for a few days. I saw a bear yesterday.
I actually saw a bear yesterday. I have video of it.
And bear sightings are up in many parts of the country.
Take Colorado, for instance. More than 7,000 reports of bears
wandering into towns, backyards, you name it. Like I said,
we had a bear in my yard here. Similar increases
(18:21):
in 12 more states. We have talked about this, and boy,
have we gotten a lot of reaction. Our friends at Sabre,
the self-protection company that we like, they have all kinds
of personal safety stuff, including bear spray. Bear spray, my
friends from Sabre. If you're going to go on hikes,
you're going to go for long walks, you're going to
be out in the wilderness. I love it, but I
(18:41):
want you to be safe. Get some Sabre bear spray.
And while you're there, check out a whole range of
Sabre products, including their pepper spray for humans. and the
Pepper Launcher. Go to sabreprotect.com. That's S-A-B-R-E protect.com or call 844-824-SAFE.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck. All right. Update from
inside of the courtroom. The judge basically says, even though
you remain deadlocked, which is the note from the jury
that came today around the middle of the afternoon here,
just in the last 20 minutes or so, go back
(19:20):
and keep deliberating. So this was the same thing the
judge said yesterday. I don't know how many times the
judge can continue to send back a deadlocked jury to
continue deliberations. Some of you out there may well have
tried cases where this has happened many different times. It's
(19:41):
not that common to have a jury multiple times basically
tell the judge, we're not going to agree. And the
judge keeps saying, go back and keep talking. Buck, I just,
I don't know what the actual numbers are here. I
would be very surprised if the men, there are only
(20:02):
three men on this jury. I would be very surprised
if the three men on this jury are saying that
We think she is not guilty. I would be very
surprised simultaneously, based on what we've seen from the behavior
of women in Massachusetts, if all nine women were saying
she's guilty. Does that make sense? I think if this
(20:25):
would be miserable, if you are the men who are saying,
but she killed her three kids, and some of the
women on this jury just keep saying, but she was
really depressed, you don't understand. And we were talking about
this off air. My wife is super fired up about this.
And her argument is that women are not talking enough
(20:47):
among themselves about how there are now going to be
arguments that are made that women, because of their hormones,
can't make rational decisions. And that was actually an argument
that used to be made 100 years ago.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
The term hysteria actually is related to the Greek for,
I think it's womb or uterus or something, and that's where...
The hysterectomy, obviously, is connected to that as well. So
her argument is, we keep saying, hey, we want women
in positions of power, and then when a mom kills
(21:26):
her three kids, a ton of women show up and say, oh,
but she was really depressed, and then my kids... who
have actually been paying attention to this now. One of
them said, hey, on TikTok, Dad, there are now guys arguing.
Why can't men say, hey, our testosterone levels were really
high or I was taking steroids? Why can't men cite
(21:51):
their own hormone levels to argue that they aren't responsible
for criminal behavior? Which, I've got to be honest with you,
is not a crazy take if we're going to start
saying it.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
I come back to two things. That Irina Zaretska murder.
If you watch that guy stab her in cold blood
on the Charlotte public transit, and your immediate response was, well,
he's probably mentally ill. He shouldn't be held accountable for
that first-degree murder. I question how many of you did
(22:23):
that who are now saying Lindsay Clancy isn't responsible. And, Buck,
you were just talking about the young mom who got
stabbed in Times Square in the middle of the day.
They shot because the woman was brandishing a knife, the
woman who committed that murder, so she is dead. But
she was mentally ill. Should the young mom who got
stabbed in Times Square, should the person who did that,
(22:47):
if she were still living, not be charged and convicted
of first-degree murder? I just think we are opening a
huge can of worms if I was depressed or my
hormones were behaving in a way that isn't normal, and
so I can't be held criminally responsible for strangling to
(23:07):
death my three children. I just think we're going to
a dark place where you're going to see a lot
more of these arguments coming out, and frankly, when evil happens...
I'm not very interested in making excuses personally for evil.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
I mentioned this, Clay, on Twitter or on X, and
I would direct anyone to go check it out, not
just my little musing on the subject, although that might
be of interest to some, but the article in question
is about 20, 21 years ago. The New York Times
did this piece, and this is back when the Times
used to at least do occasional.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
Acts of real reporting. maybe by accident, but it would happen.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
And the New York Times came up with this idea,
or rather was exploring this idea that for forensic psychiatrists,
so these are people whose specialty is in the intersection
of mental health, the psychological and psychiatric realm, and the law.
(24:10):
So the criminally insane is something that forensic psychiatrists would
be dealing with on a regular basis. And they kept
running into when people would spend time studying, analyzing, interviewing
the worst of the worst murderers, they would find that
the justifications, not justifications really, but the explanations, the analyses,
(24:34):
the assessments of why they did what they did always
fell short, didn't make sense, seemed kind of... And that
they kept coming back to one word, evil.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
That these people.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Enjoyed cruelty, suffering, extreme psychological duress and terror of other
human beings, felt zero remorse, knew what they were doing,
chose to keep doing it, were well aware of what
was going on. And I thought one of the even
more interesting things was that they were able to map
(25:10):
out using CT scan of the brain that, Clay, when
people who are They refer to them in the piece,
I believe, as predatory psychopaths because there are a lot
of psychopaths. Psychopathy is far more common in society than
people realize. But predatory psychopaths, criminal, mass murderers, people like
(25:31):
Ted Bundy and Manson and this, people who have that
psychological profile, when they see extreme violence, even if it's
a natural disaster or if it's violence and warfare, their
brain reacts differently to it. So you start to say, okay, well,
(25:51):
meaning that it actually hits their pleasure center and not
their empathy or not their fear center. They look at
this and they go, ooh. Now, at some point, you
can even get into, as we get a better understanding
of the mind, well, then maybe that's just the way
their mechanics work or something. And so does that change
their culpability?
Speaker 5 (26:08):
To which I would just say, to me.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
If you're criminally insane to the point where you have
harmed people, Isn't that a better isn't the notion that
you could be criminally insane and let out of prison ever?
Utterly backwards, because if you're a person who has had
their faculties and did a bad thing, could be reformed
and more trusted in their reform than a person who
(26:31):
is completely bonkers and did something horrible. And then you're
told later now they're stable.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Says who? I'll give you an even darker example of
the Lindsay Clancy defense. People who are into child porn
are into kids. Their brain is wired differently, as you
were just saying, Buck. That's why we have to protect
them from kids. Are you just going to say, well,
(26:59):
that's the way, that's, yeah, protect them from being in
proximity to kids, protect the kids from them? Are you
now just going to say, well, it's the way their
brains are wired? What can we do? Because there are,
by the way, some sick people on primarily the left
now that will say that. Yes, they will understand. And
(27:22):
so I just look, there are some things that are
so evil. that we have to make it clear that
we are not going to excuse it in any way.
You and I agree on this. Child murder is the
worst thing that a human can do. To make any
excuses for it at all is, to me, a failure
(27:45):
when it comes to the most basic responsibility of adults everywhere,
which is protecting children. I just I this really it's
your point is a good one where you might sit
around and say, hey, what should the tariff rate be
with Canada? And you can argue and we can have
a debate about how to bring back manufacturing and all
these things. When I hear people say Lindsay Clancy should
(28:08):
not be found guilty because her hormones are an issue
and she was really sad, it makes me angry to
even have to respond to that argument because I think
even by taking it as an argument, that's a difficult
spot to take. To celebrate her is even a step
beyond that. And frankly, I think we've seen into the
(28:30):
dark soul of much of the nation in their response
in this case.
Speaker 5 (28:34):
I really mean this.
Speaker 4 (28:35):
You know, the doing this show which is always because
we are live and unscripted and it's a work in
it's a work in progress because we are progressing as
we do the work uh every day and it gives
us an excuse both to learn a lot so that
we can come to the show not just equipped with
current events but but facts and and background for the
analysis uh and so i just am able to pull
(28:55):
this up because i was curious as we're having this
discussion when was the first time somebody used the insanity
defense Because this would be a relative because psychology as
a field of study has not been around for that long.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Did you have something on the insanity?
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Well, I think one of the first was Daniel Sickles,
who we talked about, the individual who killed his wife's lover,
who later became a Civil War general, lost his leg
at the Battle of Gettysburg and was one of the
successful men of his era. He argued that he was
overcome with rage when his wife was cheating on him.
(29:30):
He saw her paramour, and he killed her, and he
was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
So so you're you mentioned the Civil War.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
It's interesting.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
That's right around the time when it first appeared anywhere.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (29:44):
But the first appearance was in England.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
Obviously, we English common law is a huge precedent for
our own system and everything else.
Speaker 5 (29:52):
Something called the.
Speaker 4 (29:54):
McNatten Rule. I don't know how to pronounce this. It's
M apostrophe N. This is from Psychology Today. The Insanity
Defense was born in England in 1843. So, Clay, just
some years before the case you cited in this country
about Sickles. The Manhattan Rule was established when Daniel Manhattan,
(30:16):
who was psychotic, was acquitted of attempting to assassinate the
British Prime Minister. Following public debate over this verdict, the
House of Lords established the Manhattan Rule, which became the
foundational legal test for insanity in both Britain and the
United States. Under this rule, a defendant must prove they
had a disease of the mind that stopped them from
(30:40):
understanding the nature of their actions or understanding right from wrong. Now,
this goes to Lindsay Clancy, by the way, fits that description.
That's I think that she she knew what she was doing.
She planned out what she was doing. She was aware
of everything and she knew that it wasn't a good thing.
(31:01):
She didn't think that this was somehow going to bring
about the Messiah or something by by murdering her own children.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
So.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
What was what? Anyway, sorry, you were saying.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
So, no, I was just going to say this goes to, again,
the foundation of most crimes is the actus rea and
the mens rea. The act itself is being acknowledged in
this defense, i.e. you did kill someone. They're saying you
lack the mental capacity, the mens rea, to be responsible
for it. Now, in the case of someone like Daniel Sicklesbuck,
what it provided was an avenue for a jury to say, yeah,
(31:36):
he may have done it, but the other guy deserved it.
Speaker 7 (31:39):
Right.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
I mean, that was basically the argument he made, which
is different than what she is saying.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
That branched off, actually, as I said, crime of passion.
became an affirmative defense that now is an off-branch of
what you're talking about, which was the temporary insanity of
finding your wife with a lover, crime of passion. I
think I said that they got rid of those rules.
You guys in Texas, you don't mess around. They got
rid of those rules in like the 70s as an
affirmative defense.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
I think, again, you're going to see way more psychology-related defenses,
hormone-related defenses. And I think it just is an ultimate
direct attack on the most important part of humanity in
my mind, which is individual responsibility. But we will continue
to update you. Doesn't sound like there's going to be
(32:28):
a verdict. Certainly not while we're on the air today.
There's a police officer outside Louisville, Kentucky. Prosecutors say he
ran his ex-girlfriend through flock license plate cameras. We were
talking about flock over 2000 times, 2000. He wanted to
know where she was, where she was going, where she slept.
He's been charged with official misconduct, unlawful access to a computer.
(32:52):
But that guy had a badge and a camera network
to do it. Here's the part that gets to you.
A stranger doesn't necessarily need a badge to be able
to track you on the Internet. Your home address, your
phone number, your family's address. They're all on people search
sites right now for a couple of bucks. Your info
is available to anybody with a credit card. And nobody
(33:13):
gets arrested for buying that info from a data broker.
So we signed up for Incogni, online service we trust.
Incogni might be a new name to you, but the
company goes after data brokers, forcing them to delete your
personal info. By law, the data brokers have to comply.
Incogni keeps checking so they can't quietly put you back
(33:35):
on these lists. You should have Incogni working for you too.
Take back your online privacy. Go to incogni.com slash clay
for 60% off. That's I-N-C-O-G-N-I incogni.com slash clay for a 60%
discount on regular prices because they can't harm you if
(33:56):
they can't find you. Incogni.com code clay. It's like having
your house at the perfect temperature all the time. Preset
Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Welcome in to really to the end of Clay and
Buck for the day. We will be back tomorrow, though,
which is exciting, and every day thereafter. And I want
to again tell you, please go check out the piece
on us, The Wall Street Journal. I think it'll be
on the print version this weekend. Very, very nice. The
Wall Street Journal, very nice thing. Lovely things about Clay
and Buck. They're beautiful over at The Wall Street Journal. Beautiful,
(34:27):
a great paper doing huge numbers.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
We love them over there.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
And they did a great piece, a profile on the show,
and I think it also just reflects, truly, it reflects
really well on the audience, all of you, for this program,
because they're like, yeah, you guys are doing it the
right way, and you're doing it day by day and
piece by piece, and not relying on nonsense and chicanery
and skullduggery and conspiracy and craziness to get people to
(34:55):
tune in. So here we go. John, this is M
on the Talkbacks.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
Hit it.
Speaker 8 (35:01):
Guys, this banning of flock cameras is democracy at work.
The voters are saying, get those things the hell out
of here off the streets.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
I don't want to be surveilled.
Speaker 8 (35:12):
I mean, in spite of the fact that you don't
have a right to an expectation of privacy driving on
the road, because driving's a privilege. God bless you guys.
Speaker 5 (35:21):
See you later. Thank you. Fair point. And that's why
we're talking about it.
Speaker 4 (35:26):
Yeah, people, I mean, there's not like a constitutional right
to have flock cameras. I'm not saying that the government
should necessarily be able to just override the will of
the people. But I just think, Clay, on balance, it's
about guiding the usage of, it should be about guiding
the usage of the technology, not just getting rid of it.
Speaker 5 (35:43):
So I'm advocating.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
Let's have some fun to close here, by the way.
Allison in California, the Patriot Radio, Jay.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Oh my God, I just looked at that photo. It's
like the photographer gave Buck some sort of instant facelift
and just a massive glow up and just thought Clay
wasn't worth the effort and just gave him a little blur.
Speaker 5 (36:08):
Hey, that's just a photo of me in a t-shirt.
There's no AI or anything.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Pam in Alaska continuing to pile on. H.
Speaker 7 (36:17):
Can we rule out that Clay's head may have actually
just gotten larger? I mean, we know he went on
his book tour and we had the grandmas in line
getting touchy-feely and built a home in Florida, I think,
with a pool, with a view of a pool. And
he's poised to buy his WNBA team.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
I don't know.
Speaker 7 (36:35):
He's got some swagger. Is it possible his head did
get bigger? I mean, it could just be science.
Speaker 4 (36:42):
Shots fired, buddy. Pam, lighting you up from a distance.
Lighting you up like the Iranian Navy. All the women
just teeing off on me. In all seriousness, go read
the piece.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
It's a good one. We thank you for the privilege
of talking to you every single day, and we will
be back with you tomorrow.
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
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