December 8, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show delivers a provocative and wide-ranging discussion on free speech, legal precedent, and cultural norms in America. The hour begins with analysis of a headline-grabbing Supreme Court case that could redefine presidential authority for generations. Clay and Buck clarify that this ruling isn’t about giving Trump more power alone—it’s about restoring executive control for all future presidents, from Obama to Trump to whoever comes next. They stress the seismic implications for the separation of powers and the ability of presidents to manage entrenched bureaucracies.
The conversation then pivots to a controversial jury verdict in Portland, where a homeless man was acquitted of stabbing another after claiming self-defense because a racial slur was used. Clay and Buck dissect the case, arguing that this decision sets a dangerous precedent by equating words with violence. They warn that normalizing the idea that offensive speech justifies physical harm undermines the First Amendment and erodes legal principles. The hosts connect this mindset to broader cultural trends, including left-wing arguments that speech can be violence—a concept they say fuels political extremism and even assassination attempts against figures like Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk.
Listeners hear passionate commentary on censorship and the absurdity of banning certain words in all contexts, even in literature or historical quotes. Clay shares a personal anecdote about a publisher refusing to print Muhammad Ali’s famous quote in his book, illustrating how far word policing has gone. Buck adds that this double standard—where some can use inflammatory language freely while others face ruin—reflects a broken cultural norm. Both hosts emphasize that context matters and violence should never be an acceptable response to speech, no matter how offensive.
Hour 3 also features lively audience interaction, with callers and talkbacks weighing in on free speech, jury decisions, and the erosion of common-sense principles like “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The discussion touches on historical legal doctrines such as the “fighting words” standard and why it fails in a modern society that values free expression. Clay and Buck argue for treating adults like adults and resisting the trend toward censorship and hypersensitivity.
In the final segment, the hosts shift to breaking political news: Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett filing paperwork to run for the U.S. Senate. Clay predicts her candidacy is more about raising her national profile than winning statewide office and even speculates she could run for president in 2028. Buck agrees, noting the strategic upside for Crockett in building name recognition. The hour closes with a teaser for tomorrow’s debate on Australia’s decision to ban social media for everyone under 16—a move that could spark similar proposals in the U.S.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton show.
As I look up on my quad box screen here
headline at CNN Supreme Court says it will give Trump
more control of government, signals it will give Trump more
control of government. Supreme Court poised to expand Trump's power
(00:21):
is the kron on Fox News on MSNBC Congress split
over deadly boat strikes. So I guess it's ms NOW
now ms now, MSNBC crazy people still trying to go
after Pete hegset. The other two are actually more interesting,
But the contextualization of it from both CNN and Fox
(00:44):
News I would actually take issue with only in the
context of it's not really Trump getting more power from
the Supreme Court. It's the president and every president from
here on out, which is why the precedent should matter. Well,
if you want Obama to have more power, if you
want Trump to have more power, if you want presidents
(01:05):
that we don't know, President Gavin Newsom, President Kamala Harris,
God forbid, maybe jd Vance, maybe Marco Rubio, whoever the
president's will be for the rest of our lives, they
will all have the same power here as Trump, and
I do think as we were finishing off the last hour.
This is a seismically substantial story as it pertains to
(01:27):
how all of this will play out. But a couple
of stories that are out there that I saw you
tweet about this Buck and it seems not necessarily like
a huge story, But I actually want to have a
discussion because I bet you feel the same way as me.
I think it actually goes to the essence of what
(01:48):
is and what is not acceptable to say in America
and what justification that then befalls you can be utilized
when it comes to what you have said when it
comes to violence. And I see this story as directly
connecting to Charlie Kirk. I think it directly connects to
the Trump assassination attempts because at root, and I'm curious
(02:13):
if you would sign on for this, I think you
probably would. The reason why Charlie Kirk was assassinated and
the reason why they tried to kill Trump was because
of what they say. There was, in the case of
both assassins, a belief that the opinions of Trump the
opinions of Charlie Kirk were unacceptable and henceforth violence could
(02:35):
be justified as a result of what they said. This
is now becoming orthodox belief in many parts of America.
And I thought this case that you shared that I
was reading about over the weekend crystallized it. And you
may have more specifics, but here's my generalized case, criminally
(02:57):
of what happened. I believe this was too homeless people
in Portland, in the Portland area got into a dispute.
One guy happens to be black stabbed another guy happens
to be white, and the black guy's defense. Again, these
are both homeless individuals, to my best understanding.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Both it appears drugs unhoused. Just now the preferred nomenclature unhoused.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
I'm gonna stick with homeless. I think it's easier to say,
but yes, this would be unhoused.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
We call them bums. Everyone would just say, is a
bummer a vagrant? And now it's different.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Homeless I think is actually kind of kind and accurate.
And uh so, these two homeless guys who it appears
are as has often been the case of late and
Portland addicted to drugs, and they've made use of drugs
far easier in Portland, which almost everyone criminal drugs. Almost
everyone has acknowledged has made things worse, less safe, more,
(03:58):
more decay, more decrepitude. All of it is bad. And
even in Portland now they're saying, hey, maybe we shouldn't
be making it easier to shoot up with illegal drugs,
and maybe criminalizing drug possession and drug use was actually
a good idea. All of this discussion ongoing. Okay, Buck,
So two homeless drug addicts are in a fight. One
(04:21):
homeless drug addict stabs the other one and there is
a dispute. There's an acknowledgment. It's on video and there's audio,
and you can hear at least post stabbing one homeless guy,
the white guy, using the in word. Then you have
a defense that was offered of the homeless black guy
(04:43):
that because of the inwords use, that in some way
his violence the stabbing was justified. Jury found him not guilty.
So this is again some of you may not have
seen this story, you might not have been exposed to it,
but I do think this is a real litmus test case.
And you shared a tweet which I agree with, but
(05:04):
I think your overall take is well.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I completely disagree with the really zealously enforced standard that
there is only one word in the English language that
if you are white, or I guess if anyone who
is not black. There's only one word that you are
not allowed to say in any context whatsoever, to include
(05:32):
if you are a court stenographer reading back what someone
else has said, or if you are reading a transcript
of what someone else has said, or if you are
reading from a novel and the words of the author include,
you are not allowed to say it. That is absurd.
(05:53):
That is wrong, and that should change. Now this is
not to say that you should use that or any
slur to refer to any person. The usage of a
word is different than you can never even say a word.
If you say a word, you're a bad person. That
is bending the knee to something that we should That
(06:14):
is bending the need to a form of censorship. And
by the way, a form of censrist that based upon
skin color. Yes, which is it's wrong. And now I
people can try to argue. Anyone who tries to argue this,
they end up losing. They're wrong because it's absurd, the
whole thing. It's an absurd. This is like the people
who are arguing putting your mask on for walking to
(06:34):
the table during COVID. Somehow kept people safe when you
then sat there for two hours. No, you're just wrong.
This thing of you can't say a word ever is
so I just want to get that out there.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It's wrong.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
That doesn't mean that you should call anyone any nasty word,
but particularly any racially inflammatory word. No, that's a wrong
thing to do. But I'm talking about you just can't
say it.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
You can't.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
In fact, it's so powerful that if you were found
to have said it in any context. You know, fifteen
years people get mad at Quentin Tarantino. Now do you
know this class Yeah, because the characters in his movies
use the word too often. That's what this has come to.
Everyone needs to grow up. There are words that you
shouldn't use to talk about people, but there are context
(07:15):
in which you need to be able to say any
word in the English language. The use of a word
is inherently not a bad thing, no matter what. Sorry,
that's just not that's not reality. So people need to
grow up on this a little bit. Okay, beyond that,
this is also really the only word that I am
familiar with where people will argue that violence against you
(07:37):
if you use the word is somehow justified. That is
also wrong. We live in a First Amendment society. We
live in a country where people are allowed to say words,
including mean and naughty words, and there is no exception
in the law for you said hate speech, you should
get stabbed. You said the naughty word, so you should
(07:57):
get stabbed. And people need that this needs to stop
and we need to stop dancing around this thing where
we don't make the argument based on print.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
This is clearly a principled argument.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
So about these two people, and one of the guys
had like a horrible con if the guy who got
stabbed it and got a horrible conviction on his record.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
For uh yes, like representatives of American life.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Yeah, this is this is not about picking a side
in this. Okay, these are two bums who got into
a fight. But the notion that a jury would excuse
the stabbing of somebody because he said a naughty word
is wrong. That is crazy, It is wrong, it is immoral,
and it is against our legal system.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
And again it was the jury in Portland refused to
convict a guy for stabbing another person because basically the
argument is, when you get insulted in that way, you
can't control yourself to the extent that theoretically you could
get away with murder. And look, there are lots of
words we can't say on this radio because we're governed
(09:01):
by the FCC. No, you could have an argument about whether,
in this day and age, FCC restrictions on what you
and I can say and can't say should still exist.
If we utter curse words, there could be fines. I disagree,
by the way. I disagree with that too. I do too.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
I complete, but we we serve you who listen, and
we wouldn't use those words because some of you are
with your kids. Some of you just prefer that people
not use words like that, so we would I wouldn't
use them anyway, Clay. But I disagree that a federal
government agency should be picking which words canon cannot be
said over the airwaves. I disagree with that. So I
(09:37):
have the same, but I'm still bound by it, right,
So like this is the like the other rule we're talking,
I'm still bound by that social rule that everyone else
is bound by.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
I disagree with it. Two books ago, I wrote a
book called Republicans by Sneakers Too. I quoted Muhammad Ali
and he said, ain't and this is a ballpark, you know,
no one's ever called me a racial slur in Viet Kong.
No Viet Cong's ever called me a racial slur, and
I quoted that in the book. The publisher called me
(10:07):
and said, you can't use that word in your book
because you're a white guy.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Yeah, this is what I mean. That's the absurdity. I
don't even I forgot you told me about this. Yeah,
that is the absurdity of this. There's only one word
where this is the case. People need to grow up, okay,
and I show up. Words exist, People say words in
certain content. You're held responsible for the context of the
words you use, not just a word. That's crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Using the actual quote is a significant part of understanding
the quote and being able to analyze the perspective. Because
I was writing about the nineteen sixty civil rights era
in sports and how it impacted the modern era, I said, no,
I'm not going to do that, and we got into
a huge dispute, went all the way up to multiple
(10:52):
levels of the publishing house over whether Muhammad Ali could
be quoted accurately in my book without dashes, because my
argument was, wait a minute, the F word is a quote, like,
we're not dashing it out you know there are other
curse words. Adults can read a book, and I think
the use of the actual quote is important here, and
(11:13):
so this is the step beyond word policing. This is
using words. A jury in Portland said, Hey, this word
was used and therefore violence was justified. This, to me
is exactly the left wing argument for Charlie Kirk or
President Trump.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
I don't see. And so far as those are, Charlie
Kirk and Trump are political. I mean they represent a
political movement word.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
But if you're willing to kill someone for what they say,
then you are presuming that words are violence and therefore
violence can be responsive to it. This jury logically heard
a bad word was used and violence was justified in
response to it. There are many people on the left
who heard the arguments that Trump and Charlie made and
(12:07):
they justified violence agnifit.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
But the president also signs executive orders that actually use
state power.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
I mean that there's a whole lot more than just
the words that Trump uses. Totally, but you don't think
that the motivation to kill the president and try to
kill him was based on his arguments and the justification
for why that was okay, Same thing for Brett Kavanaugh is.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
But I'm saying there's there's an action component to Trump
that I think we also. I mean, there's massive actions
to being president. It's not just words right now.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
It's a little bit truly, But the justification to kill
is if you are willing to buy into the idea
that a word can keep somebody out of prison and
even justify the attack, then you're willing to say words
are violence, which I think is a strong premise of
the left in this country right now. I think we
have to push back against it. I think there's a
(12:57):
closer analogous case right now. Isn't there a.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Woman who is being prosecuted for disorderly she's like a
playground mom, like a mom on the playground, and she
called the kid, Yes, I thought you said the word
you can't say. Yeah, right, she said the word you
can't say. And now they're prosecuting her for disorderly conduct.
But they're really just prosecuting her for saying the words
you can't say, right. Yeah, this is what's actually so
(13:21):
I disagree with this. I disagree with this. It's just
across the board.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
And by the way, if you happen to be a
Trump supporter and somebody says something naughty to you, you
don't get the right to stab them. You don't get
the right to shoot them. Words are not violence, And
we have allowed a world to exist where now a
jury is actually willing to vote non guilty not guilty
entirely based on this was self defense because of word choices.
(13:46):
And we're not even sure the guy said it beforehand.
They only have him on video saying it afterwards. So
he got stabbed and then he insulted the guy. There
are a lot of.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Examples you could point to where people, especially if they
get into a fight and things escalate, it gets really vineland.
And if it involves somebody who is black, there will
be a claim of oh, well he said a racial slur,
because yeah, that if you said he called me a
you know, a stupid you know, a stupid head, or
even you know, a bleeping bleep or whatever, that won't.
(14:16):
But if if you use the naughty word and you
got stabbed or shot, well that then then you were
asking for it. No, that's wrong. So you and I
see this totally the same way. On that I I don't,
and I don't know why. I think this is one
of these last areas where there's still people are there's
still like a little cringing around it, like oh, but
but no, but that word.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
No again.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
If you call someone that word, you're a jerk and
you're you're doing something that is unethical and wrong. But
we shouldn't have a situation where you have to have
it removed from your book, where you're quoting somebody else
that that's crazy.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
This makes no sense. This is just this is some
kind of bending the knee to like.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
A left wing power structure in this country, and we
shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Agreed, one hundred percent. You know what you could do?
You play along sports with us at price picks, pricepicks
dot com code clay. You get fifty dollars when you
play five dollars. I'm going to give you a pick
on Thursday. If you like the NFL, if you like
college football, if you like college basketball, NBA golf, whatever
your sport is, whatever your jam is, pricepicks dot com,
(15:21):
code clay, that is pricepicks dot Com, code clay, you
can get hooked up with fifty dollars when you play
five dollars. You can play in California and play in
Texas you can play in Florida, forty plus states, thirteen
million people playing. You'll love it. You'll have some fun,
a little bit more fun even than you already did.
At pricepicks dot com, code Clay fifty dollars when you
(15:42):
play five dollars. Sign up today and get fifty dollars
deposited into your account at pricepicks dot com Code Clay News.
You can count on and some laughs too. Clay Travis
at buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get podcasts. There we have for your
listening enjoyment.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
One of my many selections of Manheim Steamroller on the
playlist for this year's holiday season. Very excited Chris Moore,
hand selected by yours. Truly manhean all the time, but
I'm excited about it. And some other things also will
be playing for you as well. We have some talkbacks,
we have some calls, and let's get to it. Here
(16:24):
is Gene in Rhode Island. What's going on?
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Gen? Hi? I was wondering could the judge have overturned
that verdict in Portland. Oh, that's a great question that
actually goes to the specifics of I think the answer
would be no, because I think the jury. Look, they basically.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Can Usually usually a judge can set aside a jury verdict,
but they're very very unlikely to do so unless there's
a really clear cause I think. But while that's accurate,
they usually judges overturn verdicts more so in civil cases
than they do criminal cases, because they want the jury
to make the decision in a criminal case. And here
(17:10):
what is basically being argued is that this individual felt
the need to engage in self defense because of the
racial slur.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
A strong jury said I got one for you.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Here you go a judge and Oregon an Oregon X
comes through right away. Can overturn a criminal jury verdict
through a judgment of acquittal if there's legally insufficient and
evidence for a conviction, or if the verdict violates constitutional right,
but that's.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Very that's a conviction. An acquittal is very rarely overturned
because the judge wants the jury to be able to
make the decision. I can't ever remember a case in
my mind where a judge said the jury didn't have
the right to it.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Cannot overturn a not guilty verdict. You're right on that one.
Not or not guilty. You got a little bit of
a legal lesson there, Gene. But that's the answer.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
We'll talk more about this because we're getting a lot
of reaction pouring in from it. In the meantime, just
after Thanksgiving, Puretalk introduced a limited time offer on the
best price ever for unlimited data calls in texts twenty
nine to ninety five a month for life. Whether you're
twenty one or eighty one, the price is the same
twenty nine ninety five. Puretalk's top tier plan normally sixty
(18:25):
five bucks a month, now just twenty nine to ninety
five a month. You're saving fifty percent a month, every month,
all into the future. Make the switch today. Dial pound
two five zero, say Clay and Buck for Puretalk's best
unlimited plan for just twenty nine ninety five a month
for life. Again pound two five zero, say Clay and
(18:45):
Buck to switch to pure Talk. Taxes and fees not included.
Some restrictions apply. That's pound two five zero, say Clay
and Buck. Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton show.
We were just talking about the jury verdict in Portland
and it's important in the Hey two homeless guys get
into a fight, the black homeless guy stabs the white
(19:08):
homeless guy. Black homeless guy is charged with a crime.
Probably I haven't seen a breakdown of the jury, but
based on the population in Portland, almost certainly a substantially
majority white jury says, hey, you know what, that's justified
because they bought the argument that the white homeless person
(19:29):
had called the black guy a the nword. Now, we
had a caller Gene who was like, hey, could the
judge toss this? The answer is no. Almost never can
a judge toss a not guilty verdict, And there are
only very limited exceptions. For instance, if a defendant bought
(19:49):
off a juror and we became aware, then the case
would not get the not guilty verdict would just lead
to a new trial. You wouldn't be able to say, actually,
this guy's guilt. Now again, this gets into the weeds.
There are cases where judges can you'll have an emotion
for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, where the judge can
(20:10):
look at it and say the evidence does not support
a conviction, but it can only be beneficial to the defendant.
Not something where the judge suddenly waives his magic wand
and says I'm deeming you guilty because you have right
to a jury trial. Now, I asked buck off Air,
I was reading about this recently, why do we have
(20:31):
twelve jurors? I don't know how many of you have
ever thought set around in thought, why is a jury standard,
especially in criminal cases, twelve jurors. The derivation legally appears
to go all the way back to a British king
in the eighth century who said, hey, because of the
(20:52):
twelve Apostles, twelve is the right number, so we are
going to have twelve. Because it used to be and
this was really kind of a tough time, they would
just let the trial be, Hey, we're gonna throw you
in the you know, we're gonna throw you in the water.
And if you don't sink, then God is saying you're innocent.
(21:13):
If you sink, then God is saying that you're guilty.
Instead of a jury of your peers, they would have
so called trial by Sometimes you had to carry around
a you know, like a hot, scalding iron in your hand,
and if you I mean this crazy stuff that used
to go on. But around the eighth century, a king
in England and then this was codified into the colonies
(21:37):
through common law, which, for those of you out there
who don't know, most of American common law is rooted
in British jurisprudence and has grown into its own legacy
of the law here in America. A bunch of people
with comments out there, Ryan in Columbus, Ohio is asking
(21:58):
what is a logical response to the precedent said in
this case, Ryan fire Away.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Hey, I'm just curious, so where do we draw the
line and who draws the line on speech that qualifies
his violence? You know, am I just fed in violence?
If someone calls me a racist or a Nazi up
until and including killing someone.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
This is the question, right, And this is why both
Buck and I find it so important to distinguish between
words and violence. And remember here this is significant. It's
the jury that bought the argument. So you can say, hey,
it's not surprising at all given a Portland jury. I mean,
this is believe this is a left wing belief. You
have to believe this like this. This is why the
(22:46):
defense attorney went with this version of his defense for
his client, because he believed that this jury would be susceptible.
So you can be upset at the result. I think
it's a ridiculous result, but understand that twelve jurors in
Portland found this to be compelling, which is why. Honestly,
(23:07):
this ties in with my argument buck about why we
have such kangaroo court systems in Washington DC. You have
the same kind of super left wing jurors in Washington,
d C. Which Democrats have used to rig the political
process by using all of their prosecution in federal courts.
In Washington DC, you do not get a jury of
(23:29):
your peers. This is not a normal group of people.
This is far left wing ediologus who will throw you
in prison. We just saw it with all the jan
six cases. I think there was what was it called
Japlinski v. New Hampshire, which was the Fighting Words Supreme
Court Fighting Words doctrine where there are words that can
(23:49):
immediately provoke violence. This ended up being not overturned specifically,
but jurisprudence changed after this. When this is one of
the earlier nineteen forty two case.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
UH.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Unprotected speech, uh, I disagree. I disagree with that. I
think people can say the meanest words they want to say,
you're not allowed to knock their teeth out in response. Sorry,
and most of us were raised in the I don't
know I have used it with my kids. I don't
know how many kids they use it with today. But
I bet Buck you were raised with sticks and stones
(24:21):
may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
I mean, every kid, at some point in time comes
to mom or dad somebody has said something super mean,
super unkind. The reality is words can hurt, words can harm.
But this is I think the essence of one of
the issues that we're getting wrong with the whole concept
of coddling the American mind is the idea that if
(24:44):
someone says something that you find to be hurtful, that
the way to handle that is by shutting down their
right to speech. And Bryan and Columbus is asking that question,
which I think is a good one, which is how
do you draw that line? Ultimately, the jury said, basicly,
it's a get out of jail free card. If a
racial slur is used, no black man can restrain himself.
(25:06):
It's actually insulting, I think, to black men, because it
presumes that they don't have the willpower to deal with
people saying mean things to them and must act irrationally
and violently as a result. That's the entire premise of
the defense. Here Bill in New Jersey gg A wo
R listener play it.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
I don't know what it was like when you guys
were going up, and you're quite a bit younger than
I am. But when I was a kid, the line
was sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me. We need a little more of
that around the world these days.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
I didn't even see that talk back. He's preaching to
the choir. That's exactly what I just said. Trucker Mike
in Arizona. We love when our truckers reach out, says
and he has a premise that is not dissimilar to
the caller we just had. Ff.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
Let me get this straight. So someone calls me, I'm
a white man, I don't care what color I.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Am, but just let you know I'm a white man.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
So someone call me white trash crackers, a humpy trailer
trash tweaker. Whatever, does that give me justification to stab
them and injure them. That's the same damn thing. It's
just pass the night.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
It's stupid. I agree.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
If you get one hundred.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Percent, yeah, totally look pretty good. Pretty good. H logic
A lot of times, Buck pretty good common sense. Sometimes
people say mean things to truckers in traffic. It happens
so and they realize that they just have to keep
on trucking. They can't stop and beat them to death
because they don't like the thing that the guy said
to them from the windshield of his Hyundai or whatever.
(26:45):
And sometimes truckers get behind Buck Sexton driving twenty four
miles an hour in a forty five, and they may
even say mean things to Buck, but that doesn't mean
as they sit there having to constantly hit their brake
because Miss Daisy is driving in front of them.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I'm glad that some of us care about safety on
these roads. You know, not all heroes wear capes. Some
of us are a little heavy on the break.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Brandon in Milwaukee, HH, what you.
Speaker 6 (27:13):
Got As far as that word goes, I remember back
in high school evan to read huck finn and even
when that word came on the paper, you felt uncomfortable
saying it, and it should be uncomfortable because it's a
terrible word, but completely getting rid of its existence, I
think it's kind of dangerous because then it doesn't highlight
how terrible the times were when that word was popular,
(27:34):
so got to be terrible.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
I think that's a good and look, I would just
go back in time. George Carlin is dead now. I
think George Carlin, legendary comedian, would have been fairly classified
some of you can correct me if I'm wrong, as
a left leaning comic right. In other words, I think
his politics would have tended to lean left. Maybe I'm wrong,
but he did his entire was it seven words you
(27:59):
can't say based on television, which, by the way, we
still can't say on the FCC. And it became very,
very popular in the parlance, I believe, in the nineteen
seventies because it illustrated the absurdity of trying to define
words and how they're used. Context matters. You know, words
are used. I mean, some of the most popular rap
(28:19):
songs in America use the N word twenty times in
a you know, a two minute clip. And nowadays college kids,
you see this happen all the time. Some college kid
is on video doing karaoke, rapping along to a popular song.
It's not intended to be a racial slur. And then
(28:40):
the next thing you know, people are trying to cancel them,
or they go on social media and they post lyrics
to a popular rap song and the next thing, you know,
ten years later, somebody's like, oh my god, can you
believe what this person posted when they were fourteen? Defining
word used without analyzing context, I mean, think about this.
(29:00):
There's a huge difference between the way we use the
F word. It could be a compliment that was, you know,
as an adjective, you know, effing unbelievable as a positive.
It can also mean an insult. Right, we use context
to analyze. But whatever words you use, this should be
something that all adults should be behind. Violence should not
(29:22):
be the response. Now if someone says their exceptions to
this is the angry words thing. Buck. If somebody says
I'm going to kill you and they start to reach
into their waistband and you think to yourself, oh my goodness,
they may have a gun. A words that are accompanied
by action that would suggest violence might be coming can
(29:43):
be a legitimate self defense mechanism. So, but that's not
words standing alone. It's words in the context of the
possibility of a threat of physical violence. And I would
just say all of this goes to are we going
to treat adults like adults or are we going to
run wreaking in the opposite direction when words that appear
in our delicate ears are considered to be unacceptable. But
(30:06):
this is all.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
You know that there is no real ethical standard being
applied here because the word is so terrible.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
But some people can use it but in super popular
songs that make them tens of millions of.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Dollars, right, yeah, I mean a lot of comedians for
the last three two or three decades that that's like
the favorite word that they use when they're on stage
all the time. But so they can do it all
the time, but you do it, your life should be ruined. No,
I'm sorry, disagree, disagree just flatly. That is a that
is a social really a socially enforced law of sorts.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
That is wrong. It's just wrong.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
So and I the only way that it's going to
get broken, unfortunately, and this is going to really is
that people are going to start to be more liberal
with it with the use of that word. And some
people who are liberal with it, by the way, are
not going to be good people who are doing it
in a well intentioned way. But they're gonna hide me.
They're gonna say, see double standards. I'm breaking the double
standard by you. You know, this is how these things go. Well,
(31:10):
you know, the censorship and these things. It does not end.
It does not end the way that the people in
charge of the censorship usually wanted to. All Right, look,
if you believe in the life of a child, an
unborn child, then you share my anguish thinking about what's
happening to children's lives lost to abortion day in and
day out. Nearly one in four pregnancies ends this way.
(31:31):
But there's a nonprofit on the front line saving as
many lives as possible preborn. Their network of clinics have
saved three hundred and fifty thousand babies a year to date.
The Preborn clinics across the country provide unconditional support and
love for pregnant moms who are making that difficult decision.
But they start them off with care, love, support and
(31:51):
a free ultrasound because once mom meets her tiny baby
in the womb through that ultrasound, the game is changed
and life becomes so much more likely. And they have
numbers to back this up. This is how they're saving
so many lives. Twenty eight dollars is the cost of
an ultrasound. Your tax deductible donation can be the difference
between life and death for a tiny baby. Have you
(32:13):
donated to Preborn? I have, and I know my donation
is being used to save lives. Your gift of twenty
eight dollars a month, or if you have the means,
there's somebody out there who could do a leadership gift
this holiday season. Remember this is tax deductible. Preborn is
an A plus rated charity and you could donate an
entire ultrasound machine to a preborn clinic with fifteen thousand dollars.
(32:37):
I know that's a lot of money and times a
tough r and I'm not talking to all of you.
I'm not talking to one or two people in this
audience right now who could donate a full ultrasound machine
to a preborn clinic. Think of how many thousands of
babies that would contribute to saving over the life cycle
of that machine. To donate, dial pound two five zero
and say the keyword baby pound two five zero, say baby,
(33:01):
or donate securely at preborn dot com, slash buck, preborn
dot com slash bucek sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Making America great Again isn't just one man, It's many
the Team forty seven podcast Sunday's at noon Eastern in
the Clay and Buck podcast feed. Find it on the
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Closing up
shop on Clay and Bock. What are you getting for
the holiday season? How about some Crocket coffee? Everybody?
Speaker 2 (33:29):
How about even we sweeten the deal? Some people are saying,
please sweeten the deal for me. We get you assigned
copy of Clay's America. I'm sorry the other one Balls.
There was American Playbook, which was also fantastic, but you
get a side copy of Balls.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Subscribe to Crocket Coffee.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Go to Crocketcoffee dot com and we can make that
happen and you'll be very happy. But also you'll be
getting delicious coffee and you'll have it right to your
home and you can go on the Website's a beautiful website,
the most beautiful website, and you'll see the people love it.
The people love the coffee on the website and there
we have it. Go to Crocket Coffee dot com. Please
(34:07):
subscribe today, Clay, is there any other deal that I'm
We had the Black Friday deal, which was fabulous, phenomenal,
lots of you bought, well, you want you.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
To go to Crockettcoffee dot com. Go sign up, get
it done. We love all of you who have signed up.
We are not affiliated. This is quite the pivot with
Jasmine Crockett, whose CBS News is reporting, has filed her
paperwork to run for the Senate in the state of Texas,
so that news. I think she's going to have a
(34:37):
press conference a little bit later today. My bet is
that we will be talking about it some because it's March,
so it's here in four months, three months. Basically, you're
going to be able and going out and voting for
your representatives in the primary, both Democrat and Republican. And
there's been a real battle on the Republican side, but
now there's going to be a real battle on the
(34:58):
Democrat side. And I I bet everybody out there is
hoping that Jasmine Crockett is the nominee because I believe
there is a zero percent chance that she could win
statewide office in Texas. But to me, Buck this is
indicative of her trying to become a bigger force in
the Democrat Party in general, and there will be a
(35:20):
spotlight on the Senate race in Texas and she is
deciding to put her name more firmly into the camp.
Here's a prediction. I bet she runs for president in
twenty twenty eight. Even if she loses this Senate race.
I think she will put her name in and she
will try to run to be president of the United States.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
I think, like I've said, there's nothing but upside for
her to do. So, Kamala, not to keep going back
to this, but Kamala, I'm not feeling awesome about my
prediction these days because of the polls that I'm seeing.
But I will say with her Clay, it's just a
question because I want to move on past the and
can they find can the machine find some way to
(36:03):
buy her off, so to speak, to make her stand
aside so they can have it free, because otherwise things
between her and Gavin Newsom will get very messy. There's
there's a I could see why Democrats wouldn't want her.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
This is my thing. I wouldn't want her involved Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Why not raises her brand, raises her value in the
political marketplace as a as a name, you know, the
name recognition, So yeah, I'm not surprised.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
We'll talk about that tomorrow. We also tease, let's get
into this tomorrow. We can have some fun with it, Buck,
because I do think it's a good debate and I
think it's an interesting one. I bet there's a lot
of parents, grandparents, maybe even teenagers out there that want away.
In Australia has banned everybody sixteen and under from being
able to use social media. Good move, bad move will
discuss because I do think it's a significant decision that
could have parallels in other countries. Thanks all of you,
(36:51):
we'll be back with you Tuesday.
Welcome in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton show.
As I look up on my quad box screen here
headline at CNN Supreme Court says it will give Trump
more control of government, signals it will give Trump more
control of government. Supreme Court poised to expand Trump's power
(00:21):
is the kron on Fox News on MSNBC Congress split
over deadly boat strikes. So I guess it's ms NOW
now ms now, MSNBC crazy people still trying to go
after Pete hegset. The other two are actually more interesting,
But the contextualization of it from both CNN and Fox
(00:44):
News I would actually take issue with only in the
context of it's not really Trump getting more power from
the Supreme Court. It's the president and every president from
here on out, which is why the precedent should matter. Well,
if you want Obama to have more power, if you
want Trump to have more power, if you want presidents
(01:05):
that we don't know, President Gavin Newsom, President Kamala Harris,
God forbid, maybe jd Vance, maybe Marco Rubio, whoever the
president's will be for the rest of our lives, they
will all have the same power here as Trump, and
I do think as we were finishing off the last hour.
This is a seismically substantial story as it pertains to
(01:27):
how all of this will play out. But a couple
of stories that are out there that I saw you
tweet about this Buck and it seems not necessarily like
a huge story, But I actually want to have a
discussion because I bet you feel the same way as me.
I think it actually goes to the essence of what
(01:48):
is and what is not acceptable to say in America
and what justification that then befalls you can be utilized
when it comes to what you have said when it
comes to violence. And I see this story as directly
connecting to Charlie Kirk. I think it directly connects to
the Trump assassination attempts because at root, and I'm curious
(02:13):
if you would sign on for this, I think you
probably would. The reason why Charlie Kirk was assassinated and
the reason why they tried to kill Trump was because
of what they say. There was, in the case of
both assassins, a belief that the opinions of Trump the
opinions of Charlie Kirk were unacceptable and henceforth violence could
(02:35):
be justified as a result of what they said. This
is now becoming orthodox belief in many parts of America.
And I thought this case that you shared that I
was reading about over the weekend crystallized it. And you
may have more specifics, but here's my generalized case, criminally
(02:57):
of what happened. I believe this was too homeless people
in Portland, in the Portland area got into a dispute.
One guy happens to be black stabbed another guy happens
to be white, and the black guy's defense. Again, these
are both homeless individuals, to my best understanding.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Both it appears drugs unhoused. Just now the preferred nomenclature unhoused.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
I'm gonna stick with homeless. I think it's easier to say,
but yes, this would be unhoused.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
We call them bums. Everyone would just say, is a
bummer a vagrant? And now it's different.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Homeless I think is actually kind of kind and accurate.
And uh so, these two homeless guys who it appears
are as has often been the case of late and
Portland addicted to drugs, and they've made use of drugs
far easier in Portland, which almost everyone criminal drugs. Almost
everyone has acknowledged has made things worse, less safe, more,
(03:58):
more decay, more decrepitude. All of it is bad. And
even in Portland now they're saying, hey, maybe we shouldn't
be making it easier to shoot up with illegal drugs,
and maybe criminalizing drug possession and drug use was actually
a good idea. All of this discussion ongoing. Okay, Buck,
So two homeless drug addicts are in a fight. One
(04:21):
homeless drug addict stabs the other one and there is
a dispute. There's an acknowledgment. It's on video and there's audio,
and you can hear at least post stabbing one homeless guy,
the white guy, using the in word. Then you have
a defense that was offered of the homeless black guy
(04:43):
that because of the inwords use, that in some way
his violence the stabbing was justified. Jury found him not guilty.
So this is again some of you may not have
seen this story, you might not have been exposed to it,
but I do think this is a real litmus test case.
And you shared a tweet which I agree with, but
(05:04):
I think your overall take is well.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I completely disagree with the really zealously enforced standard that
there is only one word in the English language that
if you are white, or I guess if anyone who
is not black. There's only one word that you are
not allowed to say in any context whatsoever, to include
(05:32):
if you are a court stenographer reading back what someone
else has said, or if you are reading a transcript
of what someone else has said, or if you are
reading from a novel and the words of the author include,
you are not allowed to say it. That is absurd.
(05:53):
That is wrong, and that should change. Now this is
not to say that you should use that or any
slur to refer to any person. The usage of a
word is different than you can never even say a word.
If you say a word, you're a bad person. That
is bending the knee to something that we should That
(06:14):
is bending the need to a form of censorship. And
by the way, a form of censrist that based upon
skin color. Yes, which is it's wrong. And now I
people can try to argue. Anyone who tries to argue this,
they end up losing. They're wrong because it's absurd, the
whole thing. It's an absurd. This is like the people
who are arguing putting your mask on for walking to
(06:34):
the table during COVID. Somehow kept people safe when you
then sat there for two hours. No, you're just wrong.
This thing of you can't say a word ever is
so I just want to get that out there.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It's wrong.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
That doesn't mean that you should call anyone any nasty word,
but particularly any racially inflammatory word. No, that's a wrong
thing to do. But I'm talking about you just can't
say it.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
You can't.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
In fact, it's so powerful that if you were found
to have said it in any context. You know, fifteen
years people get mad at Quentin Tarantino. Now do you
know this class Yeah, because the characters in his movies
use the word too often. That's what this has come to.
Everyone needs to grow up. There are words that you
shouldn't use to talk about people, but there are context
(07:15):
in which you need to be able to say any
word in the English language. The use of a word
is inherently not a bad thing, no matter what. Sorry,
that's just not that's not reality. So people need to
grow up on this a little bit. Okay, beyond that,
this is also really the only word that I am
familiar with where people will argue that violence against you
(07:37):
if you use the word is somehow justified. That is
also wrong. We live in a First Amendment society. We
live in a country where people are allowed to say words,
including mean and naughty words, and there is no exception
in the law for you said hate speech, you should
get stabbed. You said the naughty word, so you should
(07:57):
get stabbed. And people need that this needs to stop
and we need to stop dancing around this thing where
we don't make the argument based on print.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
This is clearly a principled argument.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
So about these two people, and one of the guys
had like a horrible con if the guy who got
stabbed it and got a horrible conviction on his record.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
For uh yes, like representatives of American life.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Yeah, this is this is not about picking a side
in this. Okay, these are two bums who got into
a fight. But the notion that a jury would excuse
the stabbing of somebody because he said a naughty word
is wrong. That is crazy, It is wrong, it is immoral,
and it is against our legal system.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
And again it was the jury in Portland refused to
convict a guy for stabbing another person because basically the
argument is, when you get insulted in that way, you
can't control yourself to the extent that theoretically you could
get away with murder. And look, there are lots of
words we can't say on this radio because we're governed
(09:01):
by the FCC. No, you could have an argument about whether,
in this day and age, FCC restrictions on what you
and I can say and can't say should still exist.
If we utter curse words, there could be fines. I disagree,
by the way. I disagree with that too. I do too.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
I complete, but we we serve you who listen, and
we wouldn't use those words because some of you are
with your kids. Some of you just prefer that people
not use words like that, so we would I wouldn't
use them anyway, Clay. But I disagree that a federal
government agency should be picking which words canon cannot be
said over the airwaves. I disagree with that. So I
(09:37):
have the same, but I'm still bound by it, right,
So like this is the like the other rule we're talking,
I'm still bound by that social rule that everyone else
is bound by.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
I disagree with it. Two books ago, I wrote a
book called Republicans by Sneakers Too. I quoted Muhammad Ali
and he said, ain't and this is a ballpark, you know,
no one's ever called me a racial slur in Viet Kong.
No Viet Cong's ever called me a racial slur, and
I quoted that in the book. The publisher called me
(10:07):
and said, you can't use that word in your book
because you're a white guy.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Yeah, this is what I mean. That's the absurdity. I
don't even I forgot you told me about this. Yeah,
that is the absurdity of this. There's only one word
where this is the case. People need to grow up, okay,
and I show up. Words exist, People say words in
certain content. You're held responsible for the context of the
words you use, not just a word. That's crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Using the actual quote is a significant part of understanding
the quote and being able to analyze the perspective. Because
I was writing about the nineteen sixty civil rights era
in sports and how it impacted the modern era, I said, no,
I'm not going to do that, and we got into
a huge dispute, went all the way up to multiple
(10:52):
levels of the publishing house over whether Muhammad Ali could
be quoted accurately in my book without dashes, because my
argument was, wait a minute, the F word is a quote, like,
we're not dashing it out you know there are other
curse words. Adults can read a book, and I think
the use of the actual quote is important here, and
(11:13):
so this is the step beyond word policing. This is
using words. A jury in Portland said, Hey, this word
was used and therefore violence was justified. This, to me
is exactly the left wing argument for Charlie Kirk or
President Trump.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
I don't see. And so far as those are, Charlie
Kirk and Trump are political. I mean they represent a
political movement word.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
But if you're willing to kill someone for what they say,
then you are presuming that words are violence and therefore
violence can be responsive to it. This jury logically heard
a bad word was used and violence was justified in
response to it. There are many people on the left
who heard the arguments that Trump and Charlie made and
(12:07):
they justified violence agnifit.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
But the president also signs executive orders that actually use
state power.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
I mean that there's a whole lot more than just
the words that Trump uses. Totally, but you don't think
that the motivation to kill the president and try to
kill him was based on his arguments and the justification
for why that was okay, Same thing for Brett Kavanaugh is.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
But I'm saying there's there's an action component to Trump
that I think we also. I mean, there's massive actions
to being president. It's not just words right now.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
It's a little bit truly, But the justification to kill
is if you are willing to buy into the idea
that a word can keep somebody out of prison and
even justify the attack, then you're willing to say words
are violence, which I think is a strong premise of
the left in this country right now. I think we
have to push back against it. I think there's a
(12:57):
closer analogous case right now. Isn't there a.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Woman who is being prosecuted for disorderly she's like a
playground mom, like a mom on the playground, and she
called the kid, Yes, I thought you said the word
you can't say. Yeah, right, she said the word you
can't say. And now they're prosecuting her for disorderly conduct.
But they're really just prosecuting her for saying the words
you can't say, right. Yeah, this is what's actually so
(13:21):
I disagree with this. I disagree with this. It's just
across the board.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
And by the way, if you happen to be a
Trump supporter and somebody says something naughty to you, you
don't get the right to stab them. You don't get
the right to shoot them. Words are not violence, And
we have allowed a world to exist where now a
jury is actually willing to vote non guilty not guilty
entirely based on this was self defense because of word choices.
(13:46):
And we're not even sure the guy said it beforehand.
They only have him on video saying it afterwards. So
he got stabbed and then he insulted the guy. There
are a lot of.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Examples you could point to where people, especially if they
get into a fight and things escalate, it gets really vineland.
And if it involves somebody who is black, there will
be a claim of oh, well he said a racial slur,
because yeah, that if you said he called me a
you know, a stupid you know, a stupid head, or
even you know, a bleeping bleep or whatever, that won't.
(14:16):
But if if you use the naughty word and you
got stabbed or shot, well that then then you were
asking for it. No, that's wrong. So you and I
see this totally the same way. On that I I don't,
and I don't know why. I think this is one
of these last areas where there's still people are there's
still like a little cringing around it, like oh, but
but no, but that word.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
No again.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
If you call someone that word, you're a jerk and
you're you're doing something that is unethical and wrong. But
we shouldn't have a situation where you have to have
it removed from your book, where you're quoting somebody else
that that's crazy.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
This makes no sense. This is just this is some
kind of bending the knee to like.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
A left wing power structure in this country, and we
shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Agreed, one hundred percent. You know what you could do?
You play along sports with us at price picks, pricepicks
dot com code clay. You get fifty dollars when you
play five dollars. I'm going to give you a pick
on Thursday. If you like the NFL, if you like
college football, if you like college basketball, NBA golf, whatever
your sport is, whatever your jam is, pricepicks dot com,
(15:21):
code clay, that is pricepicks dot Com, code clay, you
can get hooked up with fifty dollars when you play
five dollars. You can play in California and play in
Texas you can play in Florida, forty plus states, thirteen
million people playing. You'll love it. You'll have some fun,
a little bit more fun even than you already did.
At pricepicks dot com, code Clay fifty dollars when you
(15:42):
play five dollars. Sign up today and get fifty dollars
deposited into your account at pricepicks dot com Code Clay News.
You can count on and some laughs too. Clay Travis
at buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get podcasts. There we have for your
listening enjoyment.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
One of my many selections of Manheim Steamroller on the
playlist for this year's holiday season. Very excited Chris Moore,
hand selected by yours. Truly manhean all the time, but
I'm excited about it. And some other things also will
be playing for you as well. We have some talkbacks,
we have some calls, and let's get to it. Here
(16:24):
is Gene in Rhode Island. What's going on?
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Gen? Hi? I was wondering could the judge have overturned
that verdict in Portland. Oh, that's a great question that
actually goes to the specifics of I think the answer
would be no, because I think the jury. Look, they basically.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Can Usually usually a judge can set aside a jury verdict,
but they're very very unlikely to do so unless there's
a really clear cause I think. But while that's accurate,
they usually judges overturn verdicts more so in civil cases
than they do criminal cases, because they want the jury
to make the decision in a criminal case. And here
(17:10):
what is basically being argued is that this individual felt
the need to engage in self defense because of the
racial slur.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
A strong jury said I got one for you.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Here you go a judge and Oregon an Oregon X
comes through right away. Can overturn a criminal jury verdict
through a judgment of acquittal if there's legally insufficient and
evidence for a conviction, or if the verdict violates constitutional right,
but that's.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Very that's a conviction. An acquittal is very rarely overturned
because the judge wants the jury to be able to
make the decision. I can't ever remember a case in
my mind where a judge said the jury didn't have
the right to it.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Cannot overturn a not guilty verdict. You're right on that one.
Not or not guilty. You got a little bit of
a legal lesson there, Gene. But that's the answer.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
We'll talk more about this because we're getting a lot
of reaction pouring in from it. In the meantime, just
after Thanksgiving, Puretalk introduced a limited time offer on the
best price ever for unlimited data calls in texts twenty
nine to ninety five a month for life. Whether you're
twenty one or eighty one, the price is the same
twenty nine ninety five. Puretalk's top tier plan normally sixty
(18:25):
five bucks a month, now just twenty nine to ninety
five a month. You're saving fifty percent a month, every month,
all into the future. Make the switch today. Dial pound
two five zero, say Clay and Buck for Puretalk's best
unlimited plan for just twenty nine ninety five a month
for life. Again pound two five zero, say Clay and
(18:45):
Buck to switch to pure Talk. Taxes and fees not included.
Some restrictions apply. That's pound two five zero, say Clay
and Buck. Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton show.
We were just talking about the jury verdict in Portland
and it's important in the Hey two homeless guys get
into a fight, the black homeless guy stabs the white
(19:08):
homeless guy. Black homeless guy is charged with a crime.
Probably I haven't seen a breakdown of the jury, but
based on the population in Portland, almost certainly a substantially
majority white jury says, hey, you know what, that's justified
because they bought the argument that the white homeless person
(19:29):
had called the black guy a the nword. Now, we
had a caller Gene who was like, hey, could the
judge toss this? The answer is no. Almost never can
a judge toss a not guilty verdict, And there are
only very limited exceptions. For instance, if a defendant bought
(19:49):
off a juror and we became aware, then the case
would not get the not guilty verdict would just lead
to a new trial. You wouldn't be able to say, actually,
this guy's guilt. Now again, this gets into the weeds.
There are cases where judges can you'll have an emotion
for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, where the judge can
(20:10):
look at it and say the evidence does not support
a conviction, but it can only be beneficial to the defendant.
Not something where the judge suddenly waives his magic wand
and says I'm deeming you guilty because you have right
to a jury trial. Now, I asked buck off Air,
I was reading about this recently, why do we have
(20:31):
twelve jurors? I don't know how many of you have
ever thought set around in thought, why is a jury standard,
especially in criminal cases, twelve jurors. The derivation legally appears
to go all the way back to a British king
in the eighth century who said, hey, because of the
(20:52):
twelve Apostles, twelve is the right number, so we are
going to have twelve. Because it used to be and
this was really kind of a tough time, they would
just let the trial be, Hey, we're gonna throw you
in the you know, we're gonna throw you in the water.
And if you don't sink, then God is saying you're innocent.
(21:13):
If you sink, then God is saying that you're guilty.
Instead of a jury of your peers, they would have
so called trial by Sometimes you had to carry around
a you know, like a hot, scalding iron in your hand,
and if you I mean this crazy stuff that used
to go on. But around the eighth century, a king
in England and then this was codified into the colonies
(21:37):
through common law, which, for those of you out there
who don't know, most of American common law is rooted
in British jurisprudence and has grown into its own legacy
of the law here in America. A bunch of people
with comments out there, Ryan in Columbus, Ohio is asking
(21:58):
what is a logical response to the precedent said in
this case, Ryan fire Away.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Hey, I'm just curious, so where do we draw the
line and who draws the line on speech that qualifies
his violence? You know, am I just fed in violence?
If someone calls me a racist or a Nazi up
until and including killing someone.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
This is the question, right, And this is why both
Buck and I find it so important to distinguish between
words and violence. And remember here this is significant. It's
the jury that bought the argument. So you can say, hey,
it's not surprising at all given a Portland jury. I mean,
this is believe this is a left wing belief. You
have to believe this like this. This is why the
(22:46):
defense attorney went with this version of his defense for
his client, because he believed that this jury would be susceptible.
So you can be upset at the result. I think
it's a ridiculous result, but understand that twelve jurors in
Portland found this to be compelling, which is why. Honestly,
(23:07):
this ties in with my argument buck about why we
have such kangaroo court systems in Washington DC. You have
the same kind of super left wing jurors in Washington,
d C. Which Democrats have used to rig the political
process by using all of their prosecution in federal courts.
In Washington DC, you do not get a jury of
(23:29):
your peers. This is not a normal group of people.
This is far left wing ediologus who will throw you
in prison. We just saw it with all the jan
six cases. I think there was what was it called
Japlinski v. New Hampshire, which was the Fighting Words Supreme
Court Fighting Words doctrine where there are words that can
(23:49):
immediately provoke violence. This ended up being not overturned specifically,
but jurisprudence changed after this. When this is one of
the earlier nineteen forty two case.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
UH.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Unprotected speech, uh, I disagree. I disagree with that. I
think people can say the meanest words they want to say,
you're not allowed to knock their teeth out in response. Sorry,
and most of us were raised in the I don't
know I have used it with my kids. I don't
know how many kids they use it with today. But
I bet Buck you were raised with sticks and stones
(24:21):
may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
I mean, every kid, at some point in time comes
to mom or dad somebody has said something super mean,
super unkind. The reality is words can hurt, words can harm.
But this is I think the essence of one of
the issues that we're getting wrong with the whole concept
of coddling the American mind is the idea that if
(24:44):
someone says something that you find to be hurtful, that
the way to handle that is by shutting down their
right to speech. And Bryan and Columbus is asking that question,
which I think is a good one, which is how
do you draw that line? Ultimately, the jury said, basicly,
it's a get out of jail free card. If a
racial slur is used, no black man can restrain himself.
(25:06):
It's actually insulting, I think, to black men, because it
presumes that they don't have the willpower to deal with
people saying mean things to them and must act irrationally
and violently as a result. That's the entire premise of
the defense. Here Bill in New Jersey gg A wo
R listener play it.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
I don't know what it was like when you guys
were going up, and you're quite a bit younger than
I am. But when I was a kid, the line
was sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me. We need a little more of
that around the world these days.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
I didn't even see that talk back. He's preaching to
the choir. That's exactly what I just said. Trucker Mike
in Arizona. We love when our truckers reach out, says
and he has a premise that is not dissimilar to
the caller we just had. Ff.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
Let me get this straight. So someone calls me, I'm
a white man, I don't care what color I.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Am, but just let you know I'm a white man.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
So someone call me white trash crackers, a humpy trailer
trash tweaker. Whatever, does that give me justification to stab
them and injure them. That's the same damn thing. It's
just pass the night.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
It's stupid. I agree.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
If you get one hundred.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Percent, yeah, totally look pretty good. Pretty good. H logic
A lot of times, Buck pretty good common sense. Sometimes
people say mean things to truckers in traffic. It happens
so and they realize that they just have to keep
on trucking. They can't stop and beat them to death
because they don't like the thing that the guy said
to them from the windshield of his Hyundai or whatever.
(26:45):
And sometimes truckers get behind Buck Sexton driving twenty four
miles an hour in a forty five, and they may
even say mean things to Buck, but that doesn't mean
as they sit there having to constantly hit their brake
because Miss Daisy is driving in front of them.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I'm glad that some of us care about safety on
these roads. You know, not all heroes wear capes. Some
of us are a little heavy on the break.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Brandon in Milwaukee, HH, what you.
Speaker 6 (27:13):
Got As far as that word goes, I remember back
in high school evan to read huck finn and even
when that word came on the paper, you felt uncomfortable
saying it, and it should be uncomfortable because it's a
terrible word, but completely getting rid of its existence, I
think it's kind of dangerous because then it doesn't highlight
how terrible the times were when that word was popular,
(27:34):
so got to be terrible.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
I think that's a good and look, I would just
go back in time. George Carlin is dead now. I
think George Carlin, legendary comedian, would have been fairly classified
some of you can correct me if I'm wrong, as
a left leaning comic right. In other words, I think
his politics would have tended to lean left. Maybe I'm wrong,
but he did his entire was it seven words you
(27:59):
can't say based on television, which, by the way, we
still can't say on the FCC. And it became very,
very popular in the parlance, I believe, in the nineteen
seventies because it illustrated the absurdity of trying to define
words and how they're used. Context matters. You know, words
are used. I mean, some of the most popular rap
(28:19):
songs in America use the N word twenty times in
a you know, a two minute clip. And nowadays college kids,
you see this happen all the time. Some college kid
is on video doing karaoke, rapping along to a popular song.
It's not intended to be a racial slur. And then
(28:40):
the next thing you know, people are trying to cancel them,
or they go on social media and they post lyrics
to a popular rap song and the next thing, you know,
ten years later, somebody's like, oh my god, can you
believe what this person posted when they were fourteen? Defining
word used without analyzing context, I mean, think about this.
(29:00):
There's a huge difference between the way we use the
F word. It could be a compliment that was, you know,
as an adjective, you know, effing unbelievable as a positive.
It can also mean an insult. Right, we use context
to analyze. But whatever words you use, this should be
something that all adults should be behind. Violence should not
(29:22):
be the response. Now if someone says their exceptions to
this is the angry words thing. Buck. If somebody says
I'm going to kill you and they start to reach
into their waistband and you think to yourself, oh my goodness,
they may have a gun. A words that are accompanied
by action that would suggest violence might be coming can
(29:43):
be a legitimate self defense mechanism. So, but that's not
words standing alone. It's words in the context of the
possibility of a threat of physical violence. And I would
just say all of this goes to are we going
to treat adults like adults or are we going to
run wreaking in the opposite direction when words that appear
in our delicate ears are considered to be unacceptable. But
(30:06):
this is all.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
You know that there is no real ethical standard being
applied here because the word is so terrible.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
But some people can use it but in super popular
songs that make them tens of millions of.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Dollars, right, yeah, I mean a lot of comedians for
the last three two or three decades that that's like
the favorite word that they use when they're on stage
all the time. But so they can do it all
the time, but you do it, your life should be ruined. No,
I'm sorry, disagree, disagree just flatly. That is a that
is a social really a socially enforced law of sorts.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
That is wrong. It's just wrong.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
So and I the only way that it's going to
get broken, unfortunately, and this is going to really is
that people are going to start to be more liberal
with it with the use of that word. And some
people who are liberal with it, by the way, are
not going to be good people who are doing it
in a well intentioned way. But they're gonna hide me.
They're gonna say, see double standards. I'm breaking the double
standard by you. You know, this is how these things go. Well,
(31:10):
you know, the censorship and these things. It does not end.
It does not end the way that the people in
charge of the censorship usually wanted to. All Right, look,
if you believe in the life of a child, an
unborn child, then you share my anguish thinking about what's
happening to children's lives lost to abortion day in and
day out. Nearly one in four pregnancies ends this way.
(31:31):
But there's a nonprofit on the front line saving as
many lives as possible preborn. Their network of clinics have
saved three hundred and fifty thousand babies a year to date.
The Preborn clinics across the country provide unconditional support and
love for pregnant moms who are making that difficult decision.
But they start them off with care, love, support and
(31:51):
a free ultrasound because once mom meets her tiny baby
in the womb through that ultrasound, the game is changed
and life becomes so much more likely. And they have
numbers to back this up. This is how they're saving
so many lives. Twenty eight dollars is the cost of
an ultrasound. Your tax deductible donation can be the difference
between life and death for a tiny baby. Have you
(32:13):
donated to Preborn? I have, and I know my donation
is being used to save lives. Your gift of twenty
eight dollars a month, or if you have the means,
there's somebody out there who could do a leadership gift
this holiday season. Remember this is tax deductible. Preborn is
an A plus rated charity and you could donate an
entire ultrasound machine to a preborn clinic with fifteen thousand dollars.
(32:37):
I know that's a lot of money and times a
tough r and I'm not talking to all of you.
I'm not talking to one or two people in this
audience right now who could donate a full ultrasound machine
to a preborn clinic. Think of how many thousands of
babies that would contribute to saving over the life cycle
of that machine. To donate, dial pound two five zero
and say the keyword baby pound two five zero, say baby,
(33:01):
or donate securely at preborn dot com, slash buck, preborn
dot com slash bucek sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Making America great Again isn't just one man, It's many
the Team forty seven podcast Sunday's at noon Eastern in
the Clay and Buck podcast feed. Find it on the
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Closing up
shop on Clay and Bock. What are you getting for
the holiday season? How about some Crocket coffee? Everybody?
Speaker 2 (33:29):
How about even we sweeten the deal? Some people are saying,
please sweeten the deal for me. We get you assigned
copy of Clay's America. I'm sorry the other one Balls.
There was American Playbook, which was also fantastic, but you
get a side copy of Balls.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Subscribe to Crocket Coffee.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Go to Crocketcoffee dot com and we can make that
happen and you'll be very happy. But also you'll be
getting delicious coffee and you'll have it right to your
home and you can go on the Website's a beautiful website,
the most beautiful website, and you'll see the people love it.
The people love the coffee on the website and there
we have it. Go to Crocket Coffee dot com. Please
(34:07):
subscribe today, Clay, is there any other deal that I'm
We had the Black Friday deal, which was fabulous, phenomenal,
lots of you bought, well, you want you.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
To go to Crockettcoffee dot com. Go sign up, get
it done. We love all of you who have signed up.
We are not affiliated. This is quite the pivot with
Jasmine Crockett, whose CBS News is reporting, has filed her
paperwork to run for the Senate in the state of Texas,
so that news. I think she's going to have a
(34:37):
press conference a little bit later today. My bet is
that we will be talking about it some because it's March,
so it's here in four months, three months. Basically, you're
going to be able and going out and voting for
your representatives in the primary, both Democrat and Republican. And
there's been a real battle on the Republican side, but
now there's going to be a real battle on the
(34:58):
Democrat side. And I I bet everybody out there is
hoping that Jasmine Crockett is the nominee because I believe
there is a zero percent chance that she could win
statewide office in Texas. But to me, Buck this is
indicative of her trying to become a bigger force in
the Democrat Party in general, and there will be a
(35:20):
spotlight on the Senate race in Texas and she is
deciding to put her name more firmly into the camp.
Here's a prediction. I bet she runs for president in
twenty twenty eight. Even if she loses this Senate race.
I think she will put her name in and she
will try to run to be president of the United States.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
I think, like I've said, there's nothing but upside for
her to do. So, Kamala, not to keep going back
to this, but Kamala, I'm not feeling awesome about my
prediction these days because of the polls that I'm seeing.
But I will say with her Clay, it's just a
question because I want to move on past the and
can they find can the machine find some way to
(36:03):
buy her off, so to speak, to make her stand
aside so they can have it free, because otherwise things
between her and Gavin Newsom will get very messy. There's
there's a I could see why Democrats wouldn't want her.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
This is my thing. I wouldn't want her involved Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Why not raises her brand, raises her value in the
political marketplace as a as a name, you know, the
name recognition, So yeah, I'm not surprised.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
We'll talk about that tomorrow. We also tease, let's get
into this tomorrow. We can have some fun with it, Buck,
because I do think it's a good debate and I
think it's an interesting one. I bet there's a lot
of parents, grandparents, maybe even teenagers out there that want away.
In Australia has banned everybody sixteen and under from being
able to use social media. Good move, bad move will
discuss because I do think it's a significant decision that
could have parallels in other countries. Thanks all of you,
(36:51):
we'll be back with you Tuesday.
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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