August 17, 2023 • 25 mins
Buck Sexton breaks down the latest headlines with a fresh and honest perspective! He speaks truth to power, and cuts through the liberal nonsense coming from the mainstream media. Subscribe to never miss an episode of The Buck Sexton Show.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, Welcome to the
Buck Sexton Show. On this episode, our friend Julie Kelly
joins she has a substack you should definitely subscribe to.
It's called Declassified with Julie Kelly and Julie It has
(00:33):
been a busy week. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Another busy week never ends, so but thanks as always
for having me on Buck.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
So let's start with this one. What do you think
happens in You follow the J six cases very closely,
more closely for a longer period of time than anyone else.
I know you knew Trump was going to be indicted.
You said it on our radio show a year before
he was indicted, Roughly a year before you said you
(01:03):
had one hundred and ten percent certainty. What do you
think happens with this Atlanta case? Like I know, no
one knows, But how do you see it playing out?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Well? I see it playing out that special counsel Jack Smith.
As I wrote on my latest sub stack, the pressure
is on him now because what Fanny Willis did this
week in her forty one count indictment against Donald Trump
in eighteen others. She really delivered the goods buck that
the media and the Democratic Party voter base wants to see.
(01:37):
They want to see very serious charges not just against
Donald Trump, but some of the most despised figures by
the left, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark. And that's
what Fanny Willis delivered in her indictment. And she was
very confident in her press breathing afterwards. She said that
she is going to try this case all nineteen defendants together,
(02:00):
and so she is moving forward. Now, contrast that with
Jack Smith's it kind of looks like a paltry for
count federal indictment against Donald Trump. Are attempting to overthrow
the election, the government and overturn the results and then
the events of January sixth. So the pressure is on
Jack Smith. I've always suggested too, that he would bring
(02:21):
what's called a superseding indictment on his existing indictment the
four counts. We know that there are six co conspirators
listed in his indictment, five of whom now have been
charged by Fanny Willis. Well, look, Jack Smith is a
longtime DOJ operative, He's a Democratic operative, he's got a
big ego, and I doubt that he's going to let
(02:43):
Danny Willis, you know, who's been a DA for two
and a half years, steal his thunder. So that's why
I think that this indictment looms larger in the Special
Council's case and moving forward than anything else politically.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
What there's some interesting theories out there, and there's some
positions people are already taking that I wanted to run
through and just get your sense of it. A first off,
when people say all of these trials will be delayed
until after the election, trial by trial, how do you
view that.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
I believe that that's true. I think it will be
nearly impossible for Jacksmith to put on both of his
classified documents and January sixth trial before November. And Fanny
will Is the idea that she's going to be able
to try nineteen defendants, including the former president, within the
next six months, which is what she suggested at a
press conference, just is not feasible. I think even trying
(03:41):
to bring this case to trial in a year, this
wide ranging case that involves multiple states outside of her jurisdiction.
There's going to be a lot of back and forth
between these nineteen defendants attorneys and the Fulton County District
Attorney's office.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Do you think that the Fanny Willis case in Atlanta
is going to get likely moved to federal court? There's
some apparently some ability to move even though would be
state charges, the federal court could oversee it. Do you
have an opinion on that? Is you know, there's a
lot of theories swhirling around.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Right, so, I've seen some suggestions about that. I believe
that former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has already moved
to sever his involvement in the local case, arguing that
because he was a federal employee at the time, and
of course he was working in Washington, DC, he wasn't
in Georgia, that this is something that should be handled
by the federal courts. Now, Buck, this could be how
(04:40):
Jack Smith could kind of swoop in and take over
elements of Fanny Willis's case. Especially Buck, since I did
a cursory review of the one hundred and sixty one
overt acts that she lists in her indictment, roughly only
half of them have anything to do with Georgia. I mean,
she's talking about phone conversations that relate to things happening
in Pennsylvania, in Arizona and Michigan has nothing to do
(05:03):
far outside of her prosecutorial reach. So there could be
this tension that might exist between Jack Smith and Fanny
Willis's office. Now, some of this could give I guess,
legal justification for Jack Smith for taking over parts of
Fanny Willis's indictment.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
So let's assume that the timeline issue is correct. So
you think they'll all be delayed? I mean I saw
Alan Dershwood said he thought all four would happen before
the election, and then twenty four hours later he said, well,
I don't think Atlanta is going to happen before the election,
so he might give it a couple of days. He
might say none of them are going to happen before
the election. And to that end, what then does this
(05:46):
just turn into very expensive legal bills and a lot
of motions And that's just what goes on between now
and the election. And the idea then is if Trump wins,
this all goes away effectively. Right, that's really so is
this all just for politics? If they really can't get
any of these trials done. Why are they bringing all
these indictments? It's just a muddy Trump up. Is that
(06:08):
really you know? Do you think they think that the prosecutors,
that that's what this is all about, or do they
really think they're going to be able to get one
of these trials Let's say in advance of the election.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Well, remember, Fanny Willis is very inexperienced district attorney. She
might be very politically ambitious, and she was successful in
bringing together what I call this movie script type indictment
blow by blow of what happened between election day and
January sixth, But that doesn't mean that she's skilled and
experienced enough, no matter how tough her team is, to
(06:39):
put something on precedent like this together before a Fulton
County jury. Secondly, look at what's happening in Southern Florida
the Classified Documents case. That trial has already been set
for May of twenty twenty four, but in the interim book,
Jack Smith added a superseding indictment, which, in multiple examples
(07:01):
then further delays the trial. Because you added a defendant,
you added charges against Donald Trump. You kind of set
the Speedy Trial Act clock back to z Z, So
this could be a reason why Judge Cannon could delay
that trial even further. She may even dismiss that case
entirely amid abuses of the grand jury process, which she's
hinted at, because, of course, the entire investigation was conducted
(07:24):
in Washington, d C. Not in Southern Florida, the alleged
scene of the crime. So there's lots of problems for
Jack Smith in the Southern District of Florida, and he
knows it DC is a little bit different. Of course,
you have an Obama judge, a brazen partisan who's already
made really inappropriate in court comments that I've already reported
on and will continue to do so about Donald Trump
(07:46):
and January sixth and the twenty twenty election. She's extremely
opinionated and biased, so we already see how she's going
to help DOJ move this along. But if Jack Smith
brings additional charges and co defendants, if he brings a
charge like seditious conspiracy, this will undoubtedly delay this trial
deep into twenty twenty four because of all of the
(08:10):
evidence that will be involved discovery, the hearings. They want
to also Classified Information Act Protective order in the January
sixth case, as well as classified documents, which also delays
the process. So the bottom line is, I don't see
any of these trials. Fannie Willis might try to pull
it off, but I certainly don't see either federal trial
(08:31):
happening before the election.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
So what do you think their calculation is from their perspective,
because they could have brought either of those indictments far
earlier than they did, right, So did they miscalculate? You know,
do you think Jack Smith miscalculated the speed with which
these indictments could actually result in a trial and possible
conviction or was it this was just all political anyway?
(08:57):
And so the whole point effectively for them, the guilt
or innocence doesn't matter. It's just bringing the charge is
the whole point, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
That's right, Buck, You're exactly right. This is death by
a thousand cuts. We see already how these indictments have
tried to erase the emerging scandal related to Joe Biden
and his family and the investigations and prosecutions that are
happening there. So as soon as House Republicans or say
that sweetheart plea deal fell apart, DOJ, jack Smith swoops
(09:25):
in with a new case with the superseding indictment with
some controversial motion. That is jack Smith's marching orders. He
knows this. Jack Smith worked in the Obama DOJ for
four and a half years. He understands he also was
involved in the monitoring of the Tea Party. He is
a Democratic operative disguised as a federal prosecutor, so he
(09:47):
wields tremendous power to either add charges ad defendants. A
new indictment against the six co conspirators he named in
the January sixth He could indict three of them, then
he could indict three others. You know this. He could
drag this out as long as he wants. And he
knows that because in the January sixth case we have
tany Chutkin is going to allow him to do whatever
(10:08):
he wants. That's the that is the primary agenda behind
the January sixth indictment by jack Smith is death by
one thousand cuts. Use this for political advantage against Trump
and also to cover up Biden family or Democratic Party scandals.
At the same time, I also.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Want to ask you about the pardon possibilities that people
are talking about. We'll get to that in just a second, Julie.
The artificial intelligence gold rush could soon create substantial wealth
for ambitious individuals who understand this new paradigm of technology.
But while everyone is focusing on chat gbt and AI
stocks like Nvidia, something incredible is happening less than two
miles from chat gbt's headquarters. The past few months, engineers
(10:49):
from Google and Microsoft have been working on a little
known crypto project that could revolutionize the AI industry. You
have a chance to get in on the ground floor
of this project for pennies, giving you a rare chance
to turn one thousand dollars into a six figure at
nest egg. All this information is coming from Tika Towari,
the man who picked the top crypto coin six years
in a row. Tika this taus hosting online a free
(11:11):
strategy session to give you all the details on his
number one coin for this AI boom. Go to ai
coin twenty twenty three dot com. That's ai coin twenty
twenty three dot com paid for by Palm Beach Research Group.
So do you think that the way this so? If
Trump wins, he pardons himself from everything and even now
(11:33):
possibly some are arguing the Atlanta the Atlanta charges as well,
So it doesn't even matter if he's found guilty, right,
because so pardon doesn't. You don't have to wait for
a guilty verdict to pardon yourself. So do you think
is that the plan here is that how it goes
assuming Trump wins.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
I mean, I think that that is the only hope
that he will not end up in prison is if
he does win and he pardons himself and everyone else
involved in this, including Buck the more than eleven hundred
American citizens who have been charged, mostly for misdemeanors related
to January sixth. So this isn't as you and I
have talked about, you know, just about Trump and his
(12:12):
high level associates. This is for regular Americans with no
criminal record, whose lives have been destroyed at the hands
of this DOJ to punish them for protesting Joe Biden's
election on January sixth. So yes, his only hope is
to win and part in himself. Otherwise his trials will commence,
especially in Washington, d C. He will be convicted by
DC jury and he will be sentenced by Judge Tanya Chutkin.
(12:36):
And that's the really scary reality for Donald Trump if
he does not win the presidency.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
I mean, as you'd think that the stakes for a
presidential election are high enough, and you add this to it,
and it also not even you mentioned there's j six
defendants people in Trump's orbit now too. I wouldn't want
to be in the shoes of say Mark Meadows, Orujiuliani
(13:03):
or Sidney Power or any of them in middle of
November or in early November if Biden somehow or people
are going to yell at me it's newsome whatever. If
a Democrat wins, I think that that's bad for a
lot of people. I mean, legally speaking, I mean I
think there are a lot of people who would be
in real criminal jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Oh absolutely. I mean if Joe Biden or whoever the
Democrat is wins, they will continue this DOJ selective prosecution.
Then they really will go to trial, and they really
will get convictions, not just for Trump but high level
people who you just spoke of, and they will be
going to prison because that's an almost certainty.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
What.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Look, there's a reason why DOJ has a near perfect
conviction rate for January six cases in Washington, DC. You know,
you get convictions guilty verdicts and record time on absurd
charges like obstruction of an official preceding or even seditious conspiracy,
and then the judges come back and ask for excessive
prison sentences. I mean they've asked for fourteen, fifteen, eighteen,
(14:11):
twenty years in prison for a ridiculous seditious conspiracy conviction, which,
by the way, no American before January sixth was convicted
of seditious conspiracy. This is entirely new way to weaponize
a long dormant Civil War era statute against the political protesters.
(14:31):
So the way that they're weaponizing quickly weaponizing regular or
arcane statutes like seditious conspiracy or a post enron tampering
with evidence and witness felony like obstruction of an official proceeding,
This is the sort of precedence that DOJ has already
set and judges have given their impromoter So god forbid
(14:53):
a Democrat wins again, they will only continue this and
who knows, add more cases and more trials and more
defendants after twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Julie, I mean you've been you've been very close to this,
and you've been following this very very much for the
duration of the really the height of the get Trump era, right,
so we could call that from twenty twenty to present,
you know, sort of the pinnacle of the multi pronged
destroy Trump operation that has been run. Are do you
(15:25):
ever just feel like what the hell is going on?
Does it ever just feel like things have just gotten
so crazy that it's hard to believe that this is
what's going on? Like, how do you process that?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Well? Thanks for that question. I actually get it occasionally
and I don't. Yes, sometimes I step back and think,
I can't believe that we are here covering what's happening
to our country in real time. I mean, these are
things we just never thought that we would see in
our lifetime, and not only are they unfolding before our eyes,
but happening very quickly. And the interests who used to
(16:00):
defend the rights, you know of defendants who used to
call out bad behavior by judges and corruption ideal by prosecutors,
you know, they're now cheering and applauding it. It's really
scary to see this happening in real time. And what's
even scarier is how we get out of it. You know,
(16:21):
how how do we win? How do we prevail over
these corrupt, vicious, vengeful, powerful interests. You know, I called
these line prosecutors and judges. I've called them sadists because
not only are they abusing their power, they're very gratified
by inflicting pain on vulnerable individuals. This is the sort
of thing we see in Marxist banana republics, and we're
(16:43):
seeing it happen in our own nation's capital. So yeah,
it's it's pretty haunting, but I think you probably feel
the same way. Bucket just motivates you more. You know,
you just have to digging in.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
We just got to dig in and win. Right, This
is dig in and win is really I think the
mantra now, and I mean that when legally, when politically,
when you know, just there's no the back against the
wall is I think what everybody feels here. I want
to ask you about the Supreme Court and that theory
as well. Here in just a second, Julie. But first off,
for everybody at home, if you don't know about My
(17:16):
Pillow yet, I mean you probably know about them, but
you got to have a my Pillow. They're amazing. My
Pillow has been in business for twenty years. On our
mission provide the best possible value. My Pillow employees want
to thank every one of you by giving the lowest
price in history on their famous my Pillow. They sold
eighty million pillows in twenty years time. When you use
my promo code buck on the website, that's my pillow
dot Com promo code buck, you can get the King
(17:38):
and Queen size my pillows for fifty percent off. So
that's my pillow dot Com. Click on the radio listener
special Square use promo code buck. Get these pillows amazing price.
The Queen starts at nineteen ninety eight, less than twenty dollars.
Get yourself some new pillows and you're gonna love them. Julie,
what do you make of the You know, these are
(17:59):
the it's almost like I choose your own adventure, but
it's kind of choose your own pathway to avoid the
destruction of the United States? What do you make of
Don't worry. The Supreme Court is going to weigh in
in each one of these cases and Trump will be
like that will bail Trump out in each one of
these cases at all four.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I mean, I just don't see that happening. I mean,
we saw the Supreme Court really very recklessly refused to
hear any of the election lawsuits that were filed not
just by Donald Trump but in Pennsylvania, and then the
lawsuit filed by attorney Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. They
wouldn't even give this a hearing, those concerns of hearing,
(18:42):
So I don't really see them as stepping up for
Donald Trump. But the flip side of that book is
that this obstruction of an official proceeding, that this fifteen
twelve c to the post en Roun tampering with evidence
and witness felony. It has already made its way through
the DC Appellate Court. They got what was called a
splintered ruling. Now you have two defense attorneys who have
filed certification at cert at the Supreme Court to have
(19:07):
them here the appeal and to vet the use of
this novel charge against political protesters. Now more than three
hundred individuals who have been charged with that, including the President.
So this has a legal mind of its own, per
se that especially this key charge against Donald Trump, one
(19:29):
of the four is already potentially pending at the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court rules regardless of Donald Trump, the
legitimacy of using that tampering with evidence and witness statute
against political protesters. If they do say that the government
misapplied that statute and toss it against these three hundred
or so individuals, that's a big risk for jack Smith
(19:52):
as well. So what happens if that happens while they're
waiting for this case to go to trial, the obstruction
count to go to trial. What happens if somehow he
gets a conviction or the very rare chance he gets
a plea deal on that. That's again why Buck, I
don't think this is the end, this is the last
word for Jackson, because that's such a risky charge right now,
(20:13):
it could go in a lot of different directions in
the appellate court, other cases pending at the appellate court,
and then of course now possibly pending at the Supreme Court.
But I do not see a situation where the Supreme Court,
which has three trumpet pointees on it, two of whom
have sort of gone out of their way to distance
themselves from Donald Trump, where they would come in and
(20:33):
rescue any convictions that he gets in these federal cases.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
It's stunning. Just one more thing on your point about
the superseding indictment if the timelines just aren't going to
work in terms of getting their cases to trial before
the American people get to vote in twenty twenty four.
Do you then, do you agree? Because my thinking on
this would be, well, of course there should be a
(20:59):
Jack Smith should he might as well go for insurrection
at that point, right, right, because then that becomes the narrative.
It doesn't right, it doesn't matter if he's going to
get a conviction on it or not. That's the much
more powerful political hit.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
That's exactly right, And he really could aside from seditious conspiracy,
he really could take that huge gamble. What gamble would
it be? That's silly? I mean, no one's going to
call him out on it. The judge certainly won't. He
really could go for an insurrection charge or conviction, then
giving the States justification to say, well, anyone who is
involved in an insurrection or rebellion cannot run for public office.
(21:39):
So he very well could do that depending on the
political climate, say you know, mid twenty twenty four. The
scary part for all of this is that there are
no boundaries for this Department of Justice, especially in Washington DC.
All of these judges.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, I me, juliue not to just this gets me
so fired up. I understand that under normal process, under
a legal system functioning the way that we're told it is,
the trials would be delayed a long time, a lot
of this would be thrown out on a heel, the
cases would be moved. But I just feel like, I mean,
they brought all four of these roughly to coincide with
each other and to be in the election year. Like
(22:18):
it's rigged, you know what I mean. I feel like
I'm looking at a rigged game. So that means it
changes the outcome.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Especially when you have Judge Tanya Chutkin, the Obama appointee,
telling Donald Trump's lawyers, I'm going to treat him like
any other defendant. He's not going to get any special protections.
Oh and by the way, if he violates the terms
of his release, including any allegations of tampering with witnesses,
which could include a truth social post about Mike Pence,
(22:47):
one of his Republican opponents in the primary, that she
could sweep him up, charge him with contempt, and put
him in jail on a contempt charge. So this is
what they're really waiting to do, at least in that case.
But the idea that Tany Chutkin, who suggested, as I
posted last week in a court hearing, that Donald Trump
(23:08):
should be behind bars and charged with January sixth, she
said that in twenty twenty two, the idea that now
she's going to be a fair, impartial, unbiased judge defending
which she's protecting the rights of a defendant, which is
part of her oath. It's just all the way absurd,
and the American people are waking up to see. I
(23:30):
hate to say it what I've been watching this DC
courthouse for two and a half years. It is really
just jaw dropping, stunning, and in many ways heartbreaking to
see this happening in our nation's captaint.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
You think a president Trump, are you confident that he
would pardon all non violent J six prisoners inmates?
Speaker 2 (23:52):
I hope so. I think he definitely should. I think
that there are even those convicted of assaulting and interfering
with police officers whose cases should be reconsidered too, because,
keep in mind, Buck, a lot of the evidence was
kept away from the jury in those cases. In those matters, people.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
And if they've already served time and we all saw
all the BLM riots and all the assaults against officers
that occurred there. Nobody was getting three, four or five
years in federal prison for that, right, So yeah, no, their.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Charges were all dropped. They were dropped. And the same
DCUs attorney Matthew Graves who's rounding up trespassers and demanding
these exorbitant prison sentences, negotiating a settlement between BLM protesters
in DC and part police and Secret Service who they
had accused of using excessive force against protesters who were
(24:40):
burning things down and trying to scale defenses at the
White House to invade the White House, and that's why
Donald Trump and his family had to go in a bunker,
which of course everyone made fun of. So the disparity
there is something that Trump should definitely address, even for
those who were convicted of more violent offenses.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
On January sixth, Julie Kelly as always appreciate your time.
Everyone should go subscribe to Julie's sub stack. It is
declassified with Julie Kelly talking again soon and Julie, thanks
so much
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Thanks for having me on, butock really appreciate it.
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, Welcome to the
Buck Sexton Show. On this episode, our friend Julie Kelly
joins she has a substack you should definitely subscribe to.
It's called Declassified with Julie Kelly and Julie It has
(00:33):
been a busy week. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Another busy week never ends, so but thanks as always
for having me on Buck.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
So let's start with this one. What do you think
happens in You follow the J six cases very closely,
more closely for a longer period of time than anyone else.
I know you knew Trump was going to be indicted.
You said it on our radio show a year before
he was indicted, Roughly a year before you said you
(01:03):
had one hundred and ten percent certainty. What do you
think happens with this Atlanta case? Like I know, no
one knows, But how do you see it playing out?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Well? I see it playing out that special counsel Jack Smith.
As I wrote on my latest sub stack, the pressure
is on him now because what Fanny Willis did this
week in her forty one count indictment against Donald Trump
in eighteen others. She really delivered the goods buck that
the media and the Democratic Party voter base wants to see.
(01:37):
They want to see very serious charges not just against
Donald Trump, but some of the most despised figures by
the left, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark. And that's
what Fanny Willis delivered in her indictment. And she was
very confident in her press breathing afterwards. She said that
she is going to try this case all nineteen defendants together,
(02:00):
and so she is moving forward. Now, contrast that with
Jack Smith's it kind of looks like a paltry for
count federal indictment against Donald Trump. Are attempting to overthrow
the election, the government and overturn the results and then
the events of January sixth. So the pressure is on
Jack Smith. I've always suggested too, that he would bring
(02:21):
what's called a superseding indictment on his existing indictment the
four counts. We know that there are six co conspirators
listed in his indictment, five of whom now have been
charged by Fanny Willis. Well, look, Jack Smith is a
longtime DOJ operative, He's a Democratic operative, he's got a
big ego, and I doubt that he's going to let
(02:43):
Danny Willis, you know, who's been a DA for two
and a half years, steal his thunder. So that's why
I think that this indictment looms larger in the Special
Council's case and moving forward than anything else politically.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
What there's some interesting theories out there, and there's some
positions people are already taking that I wanted to run
through and just get your sense of it. A first off,
when people say all of these trials will be delayed
until after the election, trial by trial, how do you
view that.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
I believe that that's true. I think it will be
nearly impossible for Jacksmith to put on both of his
classified documents and January sixth trial before November. And Fanny
will Is the idea that she's going to be able
to try nineteen defendants, including the former president, within the
next six months, which is what she suggested at a
press conference, just is not feasible. I think even trying
(03:41):
to bring this case to trial in a year, this
wide ranging case that involves multiple states outside of her jurisdiction.
There's going to be a lot of back and forth
between these nineteen defendants attorneys and the Fulton County District
Attorney's office.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Do you think that the Fanny Willis case in Atlanta
is going to get likely moved to federal court? There's
some apparently some ability to move even though would be
state charges, the federal court could oversee it. Do you
have an opinion on that? Is you know, there's a
lot of theories swhirling around.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Right, so, I've seen some suggestions about that. I believe
that former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has already moved
to sever his involvement in the local case, arguing that
because he was a federal employee at the time, and
of course he was working in Washington, DC, he wasn't
in Georgia, that this is something that should be handled
by the federal courts. Now, Buck, this could be how
(04:40):
Jack Smith could kind of swoop in and take over
elements of Fanny Willis's case. Especially Buck, since I did
a cursory review of the one hundred and sixty one
overt acts that she lists in her indictment, roughly only
half of them have anything to do with Georgia. I mean,
she's talking about phone conversations that relate to things happening
in Pennsylvania, in Arizona and Michigan has nothing to do
(05:03):
far outside of her prosecutorial reach. So there could be
this tension that might exist between Jack Smith and Fanny
Willis's office. Now, some of this could give I guess,
legal justification for Jack Smith for taking over parts of
Fanny Willis's indictment.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
So let's assume that the timeline issue is correct. So
you think they'll all be delayed? I mean I saw
Alan Dershwood said he thought all four would happen before
the election, and then twenty four hours later he said, well,
I don't think Atlanta is going to happen before the election,
so he might give it a couple of days. He
might say none of them are going to happen before
the election. And to that end, what then does this
(05:46):
just turn into very expensive legal bills and a lot
of motions And that's just what goes on between now
and the election. And the idea then is if Trump wins,
this all goes away effectively. Right, that's really so is
this all just for politics? If they really can't get
any of these trials done. Why are they bringing all
these indictments? It's just a muddy Trump up. Is that
(06:08):
really you know? Do you think they think that the prosecutors,
that that's what this is all about, or do they
really think they're going to be able to get one
of these trials Let's say in advance of the election.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Well, remember, Fanny Willis is very inexperienced district attorney. She
might be very politically ambitious, and she was successful in
bringing together what I call this movie script type indictment
blow by blow of what happened between election day and
January sixth, But that doesn't mean that she's skilled and
experienced enough, no matter how tough her team is, to
(06:39):
put something on precedent like this together before a Fulton
County jury. Secondly, look at what's happening in Southern Florida
the Classified Documents case. That trial has already been set
for May of twenty twenty four, but in the interim book,
Jack Smith added a superseding indictment, which, in multiple examples
(07:01):
then further delays the trial. Because you added a defendant,
you added charges against Donald Trump. You kind of set
the Speedy Trial Act clock back to z Z, So
this could be a reason why Judge Cannon could delay
that trial even further. She may even dismiss that case
entirely amid abuses of the grand jury process, which she's
hinted at, because, of course, the entire investigation was conducted
(07:24):
in Washington, d C. Not in Southern Florida, the alleged
scene of the crime. So there's lots of problems for
Jack Smith in the Southern District of Florida, and he
knows it DC is a little bit different. Of course,
you have an Obama judge, a brazen partisan who's already
made really inappropriate in court comments that I've already reported
on and will continue to do so about Donald Trump
(07:46):
and January sixth and the twenty twenty election. She's extremely
opinionated and biased, so we already see how she's going
to help DOJ move this along. But if Jack Smith
brings additional charges and co defendants, if he brings a
charge like seditious conspiracy, this will undoubtedly delay this trial
deep into twenty twenty four because of all of the
(08:10):
evidence that will be involved discovery, the hearings. They want
to also Classified Information Act Protective order in the January
sixth case, as well as classified documents, which also delays
the process. So the bottom line is, I don't see
any of these trials. Fannie Willis might try to pull
it off, but I certainly don't see either federal trial
(08:31):
happening before the election.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
So what do you think their calculation is from their perspective,
because they could have brought either of those indictments far
earlier than they did, right, So did they miscalculate? You know,
do you think Jack Smith miscalculated the speed with which
these indictments could actually result in a trial and possible
conviction or was it this was just all political anyway?
(08:57):
And so the whole point effectively for them, the guilt
or innocence doesn't matter. It's just bringing the charge is
the whole point, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
That's right, Buck, You're exactly right. This is death by
a thousand cuts. We see already how these indictments have
tried to erase the emerging scandal related to Joe Biden
and his family and the investigations and prosecutions that are
happening there. So as soon as House Republicans or say
that sweetheart plea deal fell apart, DOJ, jack Smith swoops
(09:25):
in with a new case with the superseding indictment with
some controversial motion. That is jack Smith's marching orders. He
knows this. Jack Smith worked in the Obama DOJ for
four and a half years. He understands he also was
involved in the monitoring of the Tea Party. He is
a Democratic operative disguised as a federal prosecutor, so he
(09:47):
wields tremendous power to either add charges ad defendants. A
new indictment against the six co conspirators he named in
the January sixth He could indict three of them, then
he could indict three others. You know this. He could
drag this out as long as he wants. And he
knows that because in the January sixth case we have
tany Chutkin is going to allow him to do whatever
(10:08):
he wants. That's the that is the primary agenda behind
the January sixth indictment by jack Smith is death by
one thousand cuts. Use this for political advantage against Trump
and also to cover up Biden family or Democratic Party scandals.
At the same time, I also.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Want to ask you about the pardon possibilities that people
are talking about. We'll get to that in just a second, Julie.
The artificial intelligence gold rush could soon create substantial wealth
for ambitious individuals who understand this new paradigm of technology.
But while everyone is focusing on chat gbt and AI
stocks like Nvidia, something incredible is happening less than two
miles from chat gbt's headquarters. The past few months, engineers
(10:49):
from Google and Microsoft have been working on a little
known crypto project that could revolutionize the AI industry. You
have a chance to get in on the ground floor
of this project for pennies, giving you a rare chance
to turn one thousand dollars into a six figure at
nest egg. All this information is coming from Tika Towari,
the man who picked the top crypto coin six years
in a row. Tika this taus hosting online a free
(11:11):
strategy session to give you all the details on his
number one coin for this AI boom. Go to ai
coin twenty twenty three dot com. That's ai coin twenty
twenty three dot com paid for by Palm Beach Research Group.
So do you think that the way this so? If
Trump wins, he pardons himself from everything and even now
(11:33):
possibly some are arguing the Atlanta the Atlanta charges as well,
So it doesn't even matter if he's found guilty, right,
because so pardon doesn't. You don't have to wait for
a guilty verdict to pardon yourself. So do you think
is that the plan here is that how it goes
assuming Trump wins.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
I mean, I think that that is the only hope
that he will not end up in prison is if
he does win and he pardons himself and everyone else
involved in this, including Buck the more than eleven hundred
American citizens who have been charged, mostly for misdemeanors related
to January sixth. So this isn't as you and I
have talked about, you know, just about Trump and his
(12:12):
high level associates. This is for regular Americans with no
criminal record, whose lives have been destroyed at the hands
of this DOJ to punish them for protesting Joe Biden's
election on January sixth. So yes, his only hope is
to win and part in himself. Otherwise his trials will commence,
especially in Washington, d C. He will be convicted by
DC jury and he will be sentenced by Judge Tanya Chutkin.
(12:36):
And that's the really scary reality for Donald Trump if
he does not win the presidency.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
I mean, as you'd think that the stakes for a
presidential election are high enough, and you add this to it,
and it also not even you mentioned there's j six
defendants people in Trump's orbit now too. I wouldn't want
to be in the shoes of say Mark Meadows, Orujiuliani
(13:03):
or Sidney Power or any of them in middle of
November or in early November if Biden somehow or people
are going to yell at me it's newsome whatever. If
a Democrat wins, I think that that's bad for a
lot of people. I mean, legally speaking, I mean I
think there are a lot of people who would be
in real criminal jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Oh absolutely. I mean if Joe Biden or whoever the
Democrat is wins, they will continue this DOJ selective prosecution.
Then they really will go to trial, and they really
will get convictions, not just for Trump but high level
people who you just spoke of, and they will be
going to prison because that's an almost certainty.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
What.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Look, there's a reason why DOJ has a near perfect
conviction rate for January six cases in Washington, DC. You know,
you get convictions guilty verdicts and record time on absurd
charges like obstruction of an official preceding or even seditious conspiracy,
and then the judges come back and ask for excessive
prison sentences. I mean they've asked for fourteen, fifteen, eighteen,
(14:11):
twenty years in prison for a ridiculous seditious conspiracy conviction, which,
by the way, no American before January sixth was convicted
of seditious conspiracy. This is entirely new way to weaponize
a long dormant Civil War era statute against the political protesters.
(14:31):
So the way that they're weaponizing quickly weaponizing regular or
arcane statutes like seditious conspiracy or a post enron tampering
with evidence and witness felony like obstruction of an official proceeding,
This is the sort of precedence that DOJ has already
set and judges have given their impromoter So god forbid
(14:53):
a Democrat wins again, they will only continue this and
who knows, add more cases and more trials and more
defendants after twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Julie, I mean you've been you've been very close to this,
and you've been following this very very much for the
duration of the really the height of the get Trump era, right,
so we could call that from twenty twenty to present,
you know, sort of the pinnacle of the multi pronged
destroy Trump operation that has been run. Are do you
(15:25):
ever just feel like what the hell is going on?
Does it ever just feel like things have just gotten
so crazy that it's hard to believe that this is
what's going on? Like, how do you process that?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Well? Thanks for that question. I actually get it occasionally
and I don't. Yes, sometimes I step back and think,
I can't believe that we are here covering what's happening
to our country in real time. I mean, these are
things we just never thought that we would see in
our lifetime, and not only are they unfolding before our eyes,
but happening very quickly. And the interests who used to
(16:00):
defend the rights, you know of defendants who used to
call out bad behavior by judges and corruption ideal by prosecutors,
you know, they're now cheering and applauding it. It's really
scary to see this happening in real time. And what's
even scarier is how we get out of it. You know,
(16:21):
how how do we win? How do we prevail over
these corrupt, vicious, vengeful, powerful interests. You know, I called
these line prosecutors and judges. I've called them sadists because
not only are they abusing their power, they're very gratified
by inflicting pain on vulnerable individuals. This is the sort
of thing we see in Marxist banana republics, and we're
(16:43):
seeing it happen in our own nation's capital. So yeah,
it's it's pretty haunting, but I think you probably feel
the same way. Bucket just motivates you more. You know,
you just have to digging in.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
We just got to dig in and win. Right, This
is dig in and win is really I think the
mantra now, and I mean that when legally, when politically,
when you know, just there's no the back against the
wall is I think what everybody feels here. I want
to ask you about the Supreme Court and that theory
as well. Here in just a second, Julie. But first off,
for everybody at home, if you don't know about My
(17:16):
Pillow yet, I mean you probably know about them, but
you got to have a my Pillow. They're amazing. My
Pillow has been in business for twenty years. On our
mission provide the best possible value. My Pillow employees want
to thank every one of you by giving the lowest
price in history on their famous my Pillow. They sold
eighty million pillows in twenty years time. When you use
my promo code buck on the website, that's my pillow
dot Com promo code buck, you can get the King
(17:38):
and Queen size my pillows for fifty percent off. So
that's my pillow dot Com. Click on the radio listener
special Square use promo code buck. Get these pillows amazing price.
The Queen starts at nineteen ninety eight, less than twenty dollars.
Get yourself some new pillows and you're gonna love them. Julie,
what do you make of the You know, these are
(17:59):
the it's almost like I choose your own adventure, but
it's kind of choose your own pathway to avoid the
destruction of the United States? What do you make of
Don't worry. The Supreme Court is going to weigh in
in each one of these cases and Trump will be
like that will bail Trump out in each one of
these cases at all four.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I mean, I just don't see that happening. I mean,
we saw the Supreme Court really very recklessly refused to
hear any of the election lawsuits that were filed not
just by Donald Trump but in Pennsylvania, and then the
lawsuit filed by attorney Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. They
wouldn't even give this a hearing, those concerns of hearing,
(18:42):
So I don't really see them as stepping up for
Donald Trump. But the flip side of that book is
that this obstruction of an official proceeding, that this fifteen
twelve c to the post en Roun tampering with evidence
and witness felony. It has already made its way through
the DC Appellate Court. They got what was called a
splintered ruling. Now you have two defense attorneys who have
filed certification at cert at the Supreme Court to have
(19:07):
them here the appeal and to vet the use of
this novel charge against political protesters. Now more than three
hundred individuals who have been charged with that, including the President.
So this has a legal mind of its own, per
se that especially this key charge against Donald Trump, one
(19:29):
of the four is already potentially pending at the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court rules regardless of Donald Trump, the
legitimacy of using that tampering with evidence and witness statute
against political protesters. If they do say that the government
misapplied that statute and toss it against these three hundred
or so individuals, that's a big risk for jack Smith
(19:52):
as well. So what happens if that happens while they're
waiting for this case to go to trial, the obstruction
count to go to trial. What happens if somehow he
gets a conviction or the very rare chance he gets
a plea deal on that. That's again why Buck, I
don't think this is the end, this is the last
word for Jackson, because that's such a risky charge right now,
(20:13):
it could go in a lot of different directions in
the appellate court, other cases pending at the appellate court,
and then of course now possibly pending at the Supreme Court.
But I do not see a situation where the Supreme Court,
which has three trumpet pointees on it, two of whom
have sort of gone out of their way to distance
themselves from Donald Trump, where they would come in and
(20:33):
rescue any convictions that he gets in these federal cases.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
It's stunning. Just one more thing on your point about
the superseding indictment if the timelines just aren't going to
work in terms of getting their cases to trial before
the American people get to vote in twenty twenty four.
Do you then, do you agree? Because my thinking on
this would be, well, of course there should be a
(20:59):
Jack Smith should he might as well go for insurrection
at that point, right, right, because then that becomes the narrative.
It doesn't right, it doesn't matter if he's going to
get a conviction on it or not. That's the much
more powerful political hit.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
That's exactly right, And he really could aside from seditious conspiracy,
he really could take that huge gamble. What gamble would
it be? That's silly? I mean, no one's going to
call him out on it. The judge certainly won't. He
really could go for an insurrection charge or conviction, then
giving the States justification to say, well, anyone who is
involved in an insurrection or rebellion cannot run for public office.
(21:39):
So he very well could do that depending on the
political climate, say you know, mid twenty twenty four. The
scary part for all of this is that there are
no boundaries for this Department of Justice, especially in Washington DC.
All of these judges.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, I me, juliue not to just this gets me
so fired up. I understand that under normal process, under
a legal system functioning the way that we're told it is,
the trials would be delayed a long time, a lot
of this would be thrown out on a heel, the
cases would be moved. But I just feel like, I mean,
they brought all four of these roughly to coincide with
each other and to be in the election year. Like
(22:18):
it's rigged, you know what I mean. I feel like
I'm looking at a rigged game. So that means it
changes the outcome.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Especially when you have Judge Tanya Chutkin, the Obama appointee,
telling Donald Trump's lawyers, I'm going to treat him like
any other defendant. He's not going to get any special protections.
Oh and by the way, if he violates the terms
of his release, including any allegations of tampering with witnesses,
which could include a truth social post about Mike Pence,
(22:47):
one of his Republican opponents in the primary, that she
could sweep him up, charge him with contempt, and put
him in jail on a contempt charge. So this is
what they're really waiting to do, at least in that case.
But the idea that Tany Chutkin, who suggested, as I
posted last week in a court hearing, that Donald Trump
(23:08):
should be behind bars and charged with January sixth, she
said that in twenty twenty two, the idea that now
she's going to be a fair, impartial, unbiased judge defending
which she's protecting the rights of a defendant, which is
part of her oath. It's just all the way absurd,
and the American people are waking up to see. I
(23:30):
hate to say it what I've been watching this DC
courthouse for two and a half years. It is really
just jaw dropping, stunning, and in many ways heartbreaking to
see this happening in our nation's captaint.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
You think a president Trump, are you confident that he
would pardon all non violent J six prisoners inmates?
Speaker 2 (23:52):
I hope so. I think he definitely should. I think
that there are even those convicted of assaulting and interfering
with police officers whose cases should be reconsidered too, because,
keep in mind, Buck, a lot of the evidence was
kept away from the jury in those cases. In those matters, people.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
And if they've already served time and we all saw
all the BLM riots and all the assaults against officers
that occurred there. Nobody was getting three, four or five
years in federal prison for that, right, So yeah, no, their.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Charges were all dropped. They were dropped. And the same
DCUs attorney Matthew Graves who's rounding up trespassers and demanding
these exorbitant prison sentences, negotiating a settlement between BLM protesters
in DC and part police and Secret Service who they
had accused of using excessive force against protesters who were
(24:40):
burning things down and trying to scale defenses at the
White House to invade the White House, and that's why
Donald Trump and his family had to go in a bunker,
which of course everyone made fun of. So the disparity
there is something that Trump should definitely address, even for
those who were convicted of more violent offenses.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
On January sixth, Julie Kelly as always appreciate your time.
Everyone should go subscribe to Julie's sub stack. It is
declassified with Julie Kelly talking again soon and Julie, thanks
so much
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Thanks for having me on, butock really appreciate it.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com