October 12, 2025 • 35 mins
Analysis of President Donald Trump’s latest cabinet meeting and his bold claim of negotiating peace in eight major conflicts worldwide, including Armenia-Azerbaijan, Congo-Rwanda, Iran-Israel, India-Pakistan, Cambodia-Thailand, Serbia-Kosovo, and Ethiopia-Egypt. Clay and Buck spotlight Trump’s efforts to end the Israel-Hamas war, secure hostage releases, and pivot toward resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which remains stalled due to Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions and disregard for casualties. The hosts debate whether Trump’s peace initiatives could merit a Nobel Peace Prize, contrasting his tangible achievements with past awards given for far less.
Buck broadcasts from Washington, DC and argues that the shutdown highlights the bloated nature of government and suggests that essential services continue to function without the non-essential workforce.
Breaking news on James Comey’s trial, where the former FBI Director pleaded not guilty to federal charges of lying to Congress and obstructing proceedings. Buck critiques the hypocrisy of Democrats warning about “dangerous precedent,” pointing out years of lawfare against Donald Trump and his allies.
Buck revisits Comey’s controversial history, including the Martha Stewart prosecution and his role in targeting General Michael Flynn, framing the trial as a symbolic pushback against a two-tiered justice system—even if conviction remains unlikely. Buck played an old clip from Rush Limbaugh in May of 2017, where he warned us about Comey and Brennan.
New York Attorney General Letitia James charged as part of a mortgage fraud investigation.
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:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again. Team forty seven with
Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
I think this is really interesting, Clay, because I want
to do a little research on this on my own.
Last night, Trump spoke about not only is he a
taking a bow and yeah, I think if you help
negotiate the end of carnage that is taking human lives
and maiming people. And you know, war is a terrible thing.
It truly is a terrible thing. Sometimes a necessary thing,
but it is still a terrible thing. I think taking
(00:36):
a bow is fine, and I think that Trump deserves
that and then some. But it's not just on Israel
and the end of this conflict with Gaza. This has
cut thirty three. He lays out the whole. He gives
you the whole number.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Listen to this.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
He remember, we settled seven. This is number eight. We
settled seven wars or major conflicts, but wars, and this
is number eight. And the one that I thought would
be maybe the quickest of all would be Russia Ukraine,
and I think that's going to happen too. But in
the meantime they're losing about seven thousand people a week,
and that seems pretty bad. And losing mostly soldiers, young soldiers.
(01:14):
They go out to war and they getting killed, and well,
it doesn't affect us in a lot of ways. We've
got a big ocean in between. You don't want to
see that happen. It was a big mistake that war
should have never happened. It would have never happened if
I were president.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Trump doesn't want wars, which is a very good premise
to star wars. So Clay, can I give you the
list here and you can, yeah, the list of conflicts
that Trump was involved in bringing to either a ceasefire
or some kind of an agreement to end the fighting.
We have Armenia and Azerbaijan, two former Soviet republics. Trump
(01:54):
signed a peace agreement between them on the eighth of August.
That war have been going on for decades, and the
leaders of both countries were very much thankful to Trump
for helping to negotiate this. One democratic republic of the
Congo and Rwanda. That was June. Back in June of
(02:14):
this year, a ceasefire announced on June twenty third between
Iran and Israel after the bombing of the nuclear sites,
India and Pakistan on a border dispute. Cambodia and Thailand.
They had a ceasefire July twenty eighth. They fought for
five days but people were dying. And then from the
(02:38):
first administration, I think Clay he adds oh Serbia and Kosovo.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
He helped get.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
An agreement with them, and I think he did something.
Oh yeah, and Ethiopia and Egypt. Trump dealt with a
dispute between them over a hydro power dam. So it
was more of a conflict than it was a war.
But that is the list. That is quite a world
tour that he has put together.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yes, and again it goes to the point that I had,
which is the criticism of Trump that would actually it's
not a good criticism in my opinion, But the one
that you could make is he's too focused on bringing
peace to the world, and how does that actually impact
America in any kind of significant way. I'm not saying
(03:24):
I sign off on it, but that's the criticism of Trump.
He's too focused on world peace and many of these
conflicts don't directly involve the United States, so why is
the president spending his time on them? That is the
criticism you could levy. It's the exact opposite criticism. They
spend a decade on Trump, which is he's a modern
(03:44):
day Hitler World War Iree is going to ensue. Let
me ask you this, Buck. The clip you played I
think is interesting because I think Trump thought that he
would be able to solve Ukraine and Russia faster than
he has. I think he would say that if he
came on with us, and I think he thought that
(04:06):
because he felt as if he had a relationship with
Putin that he could use to bring peace there. And again,
unlike in Israel in the Middle East, where you have,
let's be fair and intractable in many ways conflict between
Jewish and Muslim religious faiths, not to mention the Christian
(04:28):
component rolled in as well. Russia and Ukraine is basically
a civil war.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Again.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
I understand the lines of the battle and everything else,
but the Russian and Ukrainian people historically have much in common,
and there doesn't seem to be any real gain to
speak of that's being fought over now. I think he's
frustrated over the fact that he can't get peace there,
and what does it say about that conflict that a
(04:56):
true religious war is getting peace before a border dispute
between two historical, historically connected people.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, the reason that there's not a ceasefire in Russia Ukraine,
I think is pretty straightforward, unfortunately, and it's that Putin
thinks that he's winning and will keep taking territory with
the status quo. I mean that he's going to get
more and more, So why stop in his mind, because
the casualties, the humanitarian cost, he is absolutely willing to
pay that price on both sides. Something that is particularly
(05:30):
jarring about Putin is he certainly is not losing any
sleep at night about Ukrainian casualties. He's not losing any
sleep about Russian casualties either. Yeah, this is unfortunately the
mindset that he operates with. So that means that that
conflict is likely to continue on unless there's a real
change in that. Trump has at least started to push
(05:51):
in that direction publicly. If Putin starts to feel like
they are losing some territory inside of Ukraine, maybe then
there'd be more of a willingness. But that's a tough
ask for a lot of reasons.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
How much do you think this as cultural in that
the way Russia defines itself in the modern era from
a positive perspective, is by the sacrifice that the country
was willing to make during World War Two. And so
if you go back in time historically Russia, obviously the
collapse of communism and the Cold War that they lost,
(06:25):
it's not something that is a point of pride in
that country. But how much of the willingness of Russians
to accept frankly, huge, huge, casualty numbers is a function
of that patriotic connection to the past, where basically the
entire country giving up the flower of youth is seen
(06:46):
as one of the true bravest moments and most sterling
moments in all of Russian history.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Well, this is how Russians fight wars, just with throwing
manpower at it. They've generally they had really weak speaking
of generally, generals in World War Two because of the
Soviet Purge, so they had a lot of a lot
of problems with that. Now some of the people will
(07:13):
talk about, like General Zukov, some of the generals in
Russian past have have been talented, but they generally throw
a lot of bodies at the problem. And that's what
they're doing in Ukraine as well. So, yeah, I don't
know how Trump that's the big one that is on
the list next to bring us back to Trump, the
peacemaker if he can. I would say this, then people
(07:36):
might already feel that way, and that's fine. They might
be saying, if he doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize
for this deal, it's effectively a meaningless award anyway, because
it's just some partisan tool of the global elites. I
think that's probably already true. But if he were to
end the Rushi of Ukraine War two and it was
clear that he had a central role in that and
after this and didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, then it's.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
A total joke.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah, maybe it's already there, but it definitely would be
a total joke at that point.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Somebody just texted me or email me that once Obama
got the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, it had become
a participation trophy in many ways, as opposed to.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
A reward for an award.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
For what you actually accomplished. I do wonder if peace
in the Middle East, if he suddenly is able to
pivot in many ways directly to Ukraine Russia. I still
don't understand how this gets resolved. In meaning Ukraine Russia,
because to your point, Putin basically knows that long term
(08:39):
he has the ability to lean on Ukraine, and we
still don't know exactly where that line is where if
he gets this amount of territory, he's satisfied. And it
just feels kind of intractable at this point to me,
because if Trump can't get it solved negotiation wise, to
your point, it seems quite clear that Vladimir Putin just
(09:01):
will not end this war. So how do you in
any way ended when Putin just refuses.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Well, see, this is what I meant by he doesn't
leave lose sleep at night over the casualties. There's no
moral or humanitarian imperative that is at work with Vladimir
Putin at all.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
This is it's pure force. You know.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
I think the Israelis, I think the IDF for a
while have just wanted Look, we're willing to stop. We
don't want to have to keep doing this, but we
have to know that they're going to stop.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
On the other side, you know, you have that with this,
and we have.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
To get the hostages, which is what the HOSS has
refused to release them fortum lately.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And I know that We're very pleased, as of course
we should be. I mean people I know people who
are teering up at the news about the hostages going
that some of the hostages are going home. But I
just can't. I can't forget that a lot of hostages
are not going home alive. Yes, and that is an
active decision that was made. They had civil millions in
(10:01):
custody and they let them die or they killed them
one or the other. I mean, which is the same thing.
They're in your custody. So they killed civilians that they
were holding as hostages. So the moral calculations here should
be very clear to everybody about who the good guys are,
who the bad guys are. But I do think that
Trump now turning his there's going to be some focus
(10:23):
on this, of course, but turning his attention to Russia
Ukraine issue. It has to be what are the incentives
for Putin to stop? Yes, you have to change incentives
with him. He is a It is like dealing with
a rattlesnake. You cannot say, hey, don't bite me. That's mean.
It has to be you back off.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Or I'm going to take your head, which I think
Trump gets because Trump's new focus has been let's keep
Russia from being able to sell their oil through India.
We're going to put a penalty on India. And he's
given Ukraine the ability in theory to actually threaten Russia
in a way with armaments and weaponry that has not
(11:03):
occurred so far. The risk there, obviously, is you accelerate
the war as opposed to decelerating it. So but I
think you're right. I mean Putin has to fear something,
and ultimately I think that's what Trump has come to
realize that otherwise there is no way to actually end
this one.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Update here on the James Comy trial. I believe it
is going to be happening January fifth.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
It is set for so that's pretty quick. They're moving pretty.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Fast on this one. And here is Fox News is
Bill Hammer. This is from this morning, just with that
breaking news and laying out some of what's going on
here for Sank to Coomy play it.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Here is the breaking news.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
The former FBI director.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
James Comby in front of a judge moments ago and
a hearing that we did not think would last long.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
And apparently that is the case.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
He has entered a plea of not guilty to two
charges federal level.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Now are producers inside the courtroom say the former director
accused of lying to Congress obstructing congressional proceeding, ended the
plea moments ago.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
In front of the judge Michael Knockmanoff appointed by Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Not guilty on both federal charges. He's accused of lying
in front of Congress back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So that is the update inside the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
So now he's going to trial. One of the most
hilarious arguments against this that I keep seeing all over
the place from the Libs is, oh my gosh, the
precedent that has been set here. What would you do,
Republicans if people started to use prosecutors' offices as weapons
(12:53):
of politics? And to this, you just want to say,
have you been asleep for the last decade?
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Any idea?
Speaker 2 (13:00):
What has gone on with four different criminal cases brought
against Donald Trump, all of which were bogus civil cases
brought against Trump by the State of New York in
one case, and by a woman who claims from thirty
years ago, thirty something years ago, Trump grabbed her in
a Department Store. The stuff that they have done, the
(13:22):
lawfare they have done against Trump and his family alone
has done tremendous damage to the public's faith in all
of these different facets of our criminal justice system, or
just our justice system of the courts too, because some.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Of it was civil. This is atrocious.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
I mean the things that have gone on here, the
precedents that have already been set. Now they want to
tell us we should be worried about going too far
in the other direction. No, they already did this. In fact,
what they have done, what the Democrats have done specifically
with the targeted lawfair against Donald's among many others, it's
(14:02):
really Trump and Trump world, everybody who is Trump adjacent
all the way to January sixth, defendants, right, it's the
whole Trump movement that they have used the prosecutor's office.
They have used lawfare as a as a tool, as
a weapon to ruin lives, to put tremendous pressure on people,
(14:25):
to financially drain them, to undermine them, to malign them,
to defame them.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
All of that they.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Have already done. They sent an FBI team tomorrow Lago
and they went through Malania's sock drawer, and libs want
to lecture us about James Comy, who allegedly lied under
oath facing the music. I'm sorry, is there some special
carve out for being a six foot ten jerk who
(14:56):
uses the law in order to puff himself up and
as part of of his own just malignant narcissism.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Is there some carve out where he doesn't.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Have to actually face the music the way that he
has made so many others and I think entrapped people
and abuse the law, most notably General Flynn. I like
to fill in these gaps too, so no one can say, well,
you just said he's abusing, and no I like to
give you the specifics to remind everybody, to remind everybody
that James Comy thought it was funny to use the
(15:25):
Logan Act, which no serious human being thinks anybody can
or would be prosecuted under, as a total pretext.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
It's like the equivalent of a swatting call.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
It is a bad faith use of law enforcement to
go after the General Michael Flynn, the incoming National Security Advisor.
I know it feels like that was a long time ago,
but there hasn't been.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Well, maybe you don't feel that way. But they'll say that,
but there's.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Been no justice for that. That ambush hasn't been punished.
And James Comy thinks that he's a clever guy for
the whole thing, and he thinks that what.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
Was that book?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
I think was Higher Power?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Higher power or something like that. I'm now the real
question you might ask is is James Comy's book a
more brutal read than Kamala is one hundred and seven days.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
I cannot answer that question because I haven't read.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Comy's book, but I will tell you that is some
stiff competition. That is, you know, Superman versus Iron Man
with the like the super suit.
Speaker 4 (16:28):
You know.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
I mean, that is tough stuff, really really preposterous.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
That James Comy would think anybody would want to read
his memoir and on his book tour. But such as
things are, he is now facing the music, and there's
the possibility. I think it's slim. I don't want to
over promise and under deliver, ever on this show. I
think it is slim. But here's what I will tell
that he will actually be convicted because it's a it's
a Northern Virginia jury. I was just saying how much fun,
(16:56):
how much fun DC is with no government bureacrats running around.
They all live in Arlington mostly, you know, they live
a lot of them inside or just outside of the Beltway.
It's going to be a very favorable pool for James Comy.
But here's why I view this is so important. The
message is received, whether Comy is found guilty or not,
(17:19):
the message is received that there will at least be
an effort to hold the other side to the law
and not create a system. This is really important, a
system where we are held to an extra legal standard
and they are held to a sub legal standard, or
rather they get to break the law and get away
(17:40):
with it. Meanwhile they get to prosecute us Trump for
not breaking the law and we do nothing in response.
We have to at least establish that we will bring
charges against people who have been involved in this law
fair involved in using the government the deep state, however
(18:00):
you want to describe it, to take out people for
purely political reasons. Well, if they break the law on
that process, there will be some form of accountability. And
now there is going to be I think a pretty
high probability just based on the jury pool that Comby
will be found. In my mind, he'll be found not guilty.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
He'll be acquitted on this.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
But let's see, let's see, it's a pretty straightforward thing.
Did he lie or did he not lie? Let's see
what kind of case the process. I know, I don't
want to I don't want to prejudge anything here. Let's
see what is produced in that court. You don't need
to call me and say, buck, you're already getting ahead
of the cart before the horse here. I know, But
(18:40):
I just I like to manage our expectations for where
this is going. It's still a steep climb. This is
a little bit of ice skating uphill here to think
that James Comby is going to actually be convicted. But
the fact that the charge has been brought alone sends
a message we are not going to just lie down
and accept a two tiered system of justice in this town, Washington, DC,
(19:05):
or anywhere else for that matter. And that is important.
That is something that we all have to recognize as
a necessary step because otherwise it's, you know, heads they win,
tails we lose.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Did I do that one right?
Speaker 2 (19:20):
That's always I always feel like I'm gonna get that
one wrong. It's like Bush when he's like, fooling me once,
can't get fooled again.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
It's tougher to say it, especially on a live radio show,
than you think it's going to be, you know.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
But that's where this is right now, my friends. That
is the situation.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
I've been warning people for years about this Komy guy.
And I wish if the president at the time had
pulled me aside and asked me early on in his
first term, I would have shared all you have to
know about James Comy. You would know from the way
he acted with respect to the Martha Stewart prosecution, a
(19:56):
prosecution that nobody in his office but him wanted to
bring execution for which there was no crime, not even
any money made or lost.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
It was just the whole.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Thing was absurd. And Martha Stewart is a huge Democrat
who does not like Trump and does not like Republicans.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
And this is just about.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
What's what's fair and decent. It's not about politics. But
Komy really has always thought of himself as like the
high priest of the DOJ. So much of Komy, I
will tell you this, so much of Komi reminds me
of Fauci Fauci is like the the you know, the
(20:34):
the Liliputian version of Komi they have. It's the same
personality type. They pretend it's all about the cause in
the institution, it's really all about them. And they get this, uh,
this solypsism word of the day, solepsism from all of this,
and you like that one.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
That producer rally likes that one.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
And I'm not the only one warning you about this guy,
or have been warning about this guy for a long time.
The great Rush Limbaugh back in twenty nineteen, he saw
exactly who James Comy was and also knew about his past,
which we should all be reminded of.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Played two.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
How many of you have heard or thought that James
call me was a lifelong Republican.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
I have.
Speaker 5 (21:20):
I've always thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican.
I've been told that James Comey is a lifelong Republican.
Turns out not to be true. Are you wearing of
James Comey used to be a Communist. In a two
thousand and three interview with New York Magazine, James Comy said,
before voting for Jamie Carter, Jimmy Carter nineteen eighty he'd
been a communist. He admitted, I'd moved from communists to
(21:44):
whatever I am. Now now we know that John Brennan,
Obama CIA director, was a Communist or at least had
voted for the Communist Party. But I had never heard
this about Komy. Now we find out that under Obama,
the CIA director and the FBI director both had histories
(22:09):
of not just flirtation, but serious immersion into communism. And
like the KGB always said, no one ever leaves the KGB,
nobody ever leaves this way of thinking.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2 (22:26):
You start to see how for some of these individuals
there was an ideological foundation of communism. And these are
people who are at the top of the national security
apparatus in this country in recent years communism and then
they become some malleable chameleon in politics just so they
(22:49):
can weave their way through the bureaucracy. But do you
think they've ever really changed their collectivist foundation. Rush didn't
think that Komi had Brennan for that matter, and he
was right. He warned us about this. And now perhaps
there will be some accountability for the misdeeds that we're done.
But we're not going to hold our breath on Comy.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
We're going to see The Team forty seven podcast is
sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Making the American Farm strong Again.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
New York State's Attorney General, Leticia James has been indicted
for mortgage fraud.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Here is what she has to say about this clip
thirteen hit it.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
This is nothing more than a continuation of the President's
desperate weaponization of our justice system. He's forcing federal law
enforcement agencies to do his bidding all because I did
my job as a New York State attorney General. He's
charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make
clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Claire, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I'm
sure you will too. I want to start with this one.
The charges aren't baseless.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
I mean, you know, you could say a lot about it.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
And I actually believe that some of these laws, and
specifically mortgage fraud, unless it's systematic and intentional and overall large.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
I mean, the mortgage fraud laws are need to be reformed.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
I will say that, but that doesn't change the fact
that she's an attorney general put other people in prison
for mortgage fraud, had no problem with it. Used statutes
in ways they never had been used before to try
to bankrupt Donald Trump. But let's just look at it
this way, Clay. She broke the law based on the allegations.
Unless the facts are in dispute here, which they don't
seem to be, she broke the law.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Well, I would go back to the same thing I
said when James Comey was indicted. This was a grand jury.
This was a grand jury in a northern Virginia I
believe Alexandria as well courtroom. So what I would ask
Letitia James if she were on the radio with us
right now we played that clip, is why did the
(25:08):
grand jury get it wrong? Because you can say, oh,
Trump is going after his political adversaries, but it requires
that a grand jury agreed that there is a legitimate
basis for these charges to be brought. And that is
not a grand jury of your or mine. Peers Buck,
this is not where I live in Nashville, Tennessee area.
(25:33):
This is not where you live in the Miami, Florida area.
This is among the best possible grand jury pools that
Leticia James could have. They probably voted as a group
seventy thirty Biden, seventy thirty Kamala, And they are looking
at all this evidence and they are saying, we think
(25:53):
Letitia James broke the law. I will say this, it's
another one we got right. This is not a very
complicated case because everybody has to fill out these forms.
And if you are a lawyer and you are in
charge of enforcing the law in one of the biggest
states in the country, I think a lot of people
(26:13):
out there do not give you the benefit of the
doubt if there are parts of the mortgage application that
are wrong that are favorable to you. This is not
your average guy or gal out there who's running through
a mortgage form as fast as they can. When you
pass a bar exam, and when you are charged with
(26:33):
enforcing the law for again, one of the biggest states
in the country, I think that you have a higher
standard of expecting to understand what you are filling out
when it comes to mortgages. And so I think that
she's in a tough spot. And of course this is
a delicious irony as it were, because she went after
(26:54):
Trump for alleged fraud when it came to the loan
proceedings that he was able to get relating to his
assets and the loans that he had repaid. And so
this is based on a property that she owns in
Virginia that evidently she has lied about what it's being
used for.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
Well, yeah, she said that she had two primary residences,
and the word primary is a problem for her there
everybody knows what that means. You can't have two primary residences.
And Clay beyond that. So there's the facts of this
which are very straightforward. And I'm sorry, but if you're
the Attorney General of New York, to Clay's point, you
should understand the law really better than anybody and should
(27:34):
be held to a standard that you've held everyday Americans too.
It's a very straightforward question. Have people gone to prison
for mortgage fraud like this in New York State? With
Tiss James overseeing the prosecutorial offices that do this because
it's all federal.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
The answers yes, So if somebody can go to prison
for this, she can go to prison for this. And
people might say, oh, that's harsh.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Well to that, I say, it is hard, but either
the elites and that includes prosecutors, live under the laws
they use against us, or we are in a tyranny,
my friends. The law either applies to everyone or should
apply to no one. And by the way, here she is,
this is cut fourteen, making that very point, Clay play it.
Speaker 6 (28:16):
The president of these United States is not above the law.
No matter how rich, powerful, or politically connected you are.
Everyone must play by the same rules.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Please see him for.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Us, she said, everyone has to played by the same rules.
Looks like she broke the rules according to this grand jury.
She certainly did.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
I mean Clay.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Also, if she didn't do this, this wouldn't be where
it is. This is a very straightforward crime. This is
in fact the crime that they try to get the
corrupt congressman in the show The Wire On and they
and they call it at that time the quote headshot
because you can go away.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
For years based on mortgage fraud. Yeah, she's facing up
to thirty years in prison now again, which is insane,
Which is insane. And we can all, by the way,
we can all agree that's insane. But change the laws.
Everybody does these some of these federal laws are absurd.
It should only be you know, multiple counts, accounts systemic,
essentially a Rico situation, like if you did this fifty times, okay, yeah,
(29:18):
you should face maybe thirty years. I know she'll only
probably get if she's found guilty six months or something.
But again, James Comy, we're seeing a pattern here. Comy
sent Martha Stewart to prison for a little fib that
didn't matter. Comy told a little fib too. Guess what
more significantly too. I don't know how she remains the
(29:39):
New York Attorney General. If you are the chief law
enforcement officer of a state and you are facing felony charges,
I don't understand how you remain in that position. And
she's benefited because she's in a blue state. But there
have been disbarment proceedings brought against Trump Relay officials who
(30:01):
have law degrees for far less than felony mortgage charges.
So my question would be for everybody out there listening
on war and all over the state of New York,
and this would be a question that I think Kathy
Hokele should have to answer. How can you have a
chief law enforcement officer of the State of New York
who is under federal indictment for mortgage fraud, executing the
(30:27):
executing the office of New York Attorney General. Because look, Buck,
she's prosecuting people right now for the crime that she
has been indicted for in Virginia. That feels to me
to be untenable. I think she's going to have to
step down. And I'm surprised that more people aren't already
raising this as an issue, because again, when you are
(30:48):
the chief law enforcement official of a state and you
are facing felony charges, how in the world can you
be expected to be a fair and impartial ruler of
the law when you're prosecuting people for felony charges that
you yourself face. That seems like a tough putt to say.
It's a huge problem, a huge problem, and there's more
irony here. There's a lot of irony in this whole situation.
(31:12):
Remember she brought effectively mortgage fraud charges against now civilly,
but to bankrupt hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
this to bankrupt the Trump organization, even though the banks
involved them said it was great, we would do it again.
There was no problem here, what do you taught? And
her valuations for properties were absurd. I mean to say
that mar A Lago is worth sixteen million dollars or something.
(31:34):
This is this is truly bonkers. Nobody would ever say that.
But beyond that, Clay She's gonna I mentioned Clay Davis,
who's actually the guy, a different Clay, the guy from
the wire who is prosecuted for mortgage fraud. That's how
they get the politician and what he's he do. He
appeals to the jury on sort of purely emotional political grounds.
(31:55):
He really goes for jury nullification. Here is Latsia James.
This is just a quick on in this cut fifteen,
she told everybody she was going after Trump for political reasons.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Play it.
Speaker 6 (32:05):
It's important that everyone understand that the days of Donald
Trump are coming to an end.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Prosecutors should not be saying things like that, okay, correct,
especially when they're bringing active charges against somebody. She played
with fire and now she's seeing that can go both ways.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
No doubt, And again I would love team see if
there's been any questioning. Of course there probably hasn't because
the New York media is mostly left wing, but I'm
surprised there hasn't been more discussion about how Letitia James
can stay in office given that she has felony charges
against her. I mean, judges would typically have to recuse
(32:42):
themselves from any sort of judicial proceeding if they were
facing felony charges. How can Leticia James stay in the
office of New York AG? Now, the answer is politically,
this might actually be good for right because it elevates
her profile and in the left, if you're fighting Trump.
I was laughing when Trump said, hey, we should arrest JB.
Pritzker that Gavin Newsom has to be so mad. You know,
(33:06):
Gavin Newsom's.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Like, why won't he say he has to arrest me?
Speaker 1 (33:09):
You know, like Gavin Newsom is probably throwing his wine
glass against the wall when he saw the JB. Pritzker
and Brandon Johnson are getting threatened with arrest over Euston,
not him. But in all honesty, I'm gonna you know,
I'll tweet this out, but I haven't seen anybody asking
that question. It feels like a no brainer that she
would have to immediately step down as New York Attorney General.
You can't prosecute cases that are similar to the ones
(33:32):
that you are facing from a fellow. Here's here's where
my guest, Clay, I have to look at the New
York State laws about this, but my guess is that,
like a judge recusing himself for herself, there's some degree
of it's like up to the person unless they get
maybe pressured from the legislature in New York State that hey, look,
(33:55):
you either can step aside or will remove you.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
And I just think that she'll be able to again,
and I'm totally spitballing here, but my sense is she
will be able to rely on the anti Trump lunacy
of any Democrats. Of course, the New York State Assembly
is Democrat and the governor is a Democrat, so there
won't be pressure on her, I think from her own
party in New York State two step aside. So unless
(34:21):
there's clear, you know, written out law that you must,
which I don't think there is, or we would have
already heard about it, she'll be able to ride this
out in office until the actual trial happens. That's my
Do you agree with that or you see that going
a different way?
Speaker 1 (34:35):
I don't. I mean, I'm working through in my head
the legal ethics morass, for lack of a better way
to describe it, on who lawyers can represent. Is enough
to make your eyeballs roll back into your head, the
conflicts and the withdrawals and the mandatory aspects of things.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
But do you think she stays in office or not?
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I think that she has to. I'm going to send
this sweet out, but I think she has to st
up down. I don't you will, well, I understand and
again pull. This is political versus legal, which is too
different from told.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
So that's what I mean.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
There's probably a good faith Oh, you should recuse yourself
in the in the ethics, uh, you know they're written
ethics about the attorney genteral from New York. But my
guess is it's not an automatic. And if it's not
an automatic, then it relies on pressure from other Democrats
who can I'm sure you know she could be fired
by the UH, by the governor, she could be removed
(35:32):
from office. I'm sure by the state legislature. There's processes
in place usually for things like that. Clay, I don't
think they're going to do that. I think they're gonna
let her fight this thing out and see how it
goes with a jury.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
That's my guess. We'll see
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again. Team forty seven with
Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
I think this is really interesting, Clay, because I want
to do a little research on this on my own.
Last night, Trump spoke about not only is he a
taking a bow and yeah, I think if you help
negotiate the end of carnage that is taking human lives
and maiming people. And you know, war is a terrible thing.
It truly is a terrible thing. Sometimes a necessary thing,
but it is still a terrible thing. I think taking
(00:36):
a bow is fine, and I think that Trump deserves
that and then some. But it's not just on Israel
and the end of this conflict with Gaza. This has
cut thirty three. He lays out the whole. He gives
you the whole number.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Listen to this.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
He remember, we settled seven. This is number eight. We
settled seven wars or major conflicts, but wars, and this
is number eight. And the one that I thought would
be maybe the quickest of all would be Russia Ukraine,
and I think that's going to happen too. But in
the meantime they're losing about seven thousand people a week,
and that seems pretty bad. And losing mostly soldiers, young soldiers.
(01:14):
They go out to war and they getting killed, and well,
it doesn't affect us in a lot of ways. We've
got a big ocean in between. You don't want to
see that happen. It was a big mistake that war
should have never happened. It would have never happened if
I were president.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Trump doesn't want wars, which is a very good premise
to star wars. So Clay, can I give you the
list here and you can, yeah, the list of conflicts
that Trump was involved in bringing to either a ceasefire
or some kind of an agreement to end the fighting.
We have Armenia and Azerbaijan, two former Soviet republics. Trump
(01:54):
signed a peace agreement between them on the eighth of August.
That war have been going on for decades, and the
leaders of both countries were very much thankful to Trump
for helping to negotiate this. One democratic republic of the
Congo and Rwanda. That was June. Back in June of
(02:14):
this year, a ceasefire announced on June twenty third between
Iran and Israel after the bombing of the nuclear sites,
India and Pakistan on a border dispute. Cambodia and Thailand.
They had a ceasefire July twenty eighth. They fought for
five days but people were dying. And then from the
(02:38):
first administration, I think Clay he adds oh Serbia and Kosovo.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
He helped get.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
An agreement with them, and I think he did something.
Oh yeah, and Ethiopia and Egypt. Trump dealt with a
dispute between them over a hydro power dam. So it
was more of a conflict than it was a war.
But that is the list. That is quite a world
tour that he has put together.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yes, and again it goes to the point that I had,
which is the criticism of Trump that would actually it's
not a good criticism in my opinion, But the one
that you could make is he's too focused on bringing
peace to the world, and how does that actually impact
America in any kind of significant way. I'm not saying
(03:24):
I sign off on it, but that's the criticism of Trump.
He's too focused on world peace and many of these
conflicts don't directly involve the United States, so why is
the president spending his time on them? That is the
criticism you could levy. It's the exact opposite criticism. They
spend a decade on Trump, which is he's a modern
(03:44):
day Hitler World War Iree is going to ensue. Let
me ask you this, Buck. The clip you played I
think is interesting because I think Trump thought that he
would be able to solve Ukraine and Russia faster than
he has. I think he would say that if he
came on with us, and I think he thought that
(04:06):
because he felt as if he had a relationship with
Putin that he could use to bring peace there. And again,
unlike in Israel in the Middle East, where you have,
let's be fair and intractable in many ways conflict between
Jewish and Muslim religious faiths, not to mention the Christian
(04:28):
component rolled in as well. Russia and Ukraine is basically
a civil war.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Again.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
I understand the lines of the battle and everything else,
but the Russian and Ukrainian people historically have much in common,
and there doesn't seem to be any real gain to
speak of that's being fought over now. I think he's
frustrated over the fact that he can't get peace there,
and what does it say about that conflict that a
(04:56):
true religious war is getting peace before a border dispute
between two historical, historically connected people.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, the reason that there's not a ceasefire in Russia Ukraine,
I think is pretty straightforward, unfortunately, and it's that Putin
thinks that he's winning and will keep taking territory with
the status quo. I mean that he's going to get
more and more, So why stop in his mind, because
the casualties, the humanitarian cost, he is absolutely willing to
pay that price on both sides. Something that is particularly
(05:30):
jarring about Putin is he certainly is not losing any
sleep at night about Ukrainian casualties. He's not losing any
sleep about Russian casualties either. Yeah, this is unfortunately the
mindset that he operates with. So that means that that
conflict is likely to continue on unless there's a real
change in that. Trump has at least started to push
(05:51):
in that direction publicly. If Putin starts to feel like
they are losing some territory inside of Ukraine, maybe then
there'd be more of a willingness. But that's a tough
ask for a lot of reasons.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
How much do you think this as cultural in that
the way Russia defines itself in the modern era from
a positive perspective, is by the sacrifice that the country
was willing to make during World War Two. And so
if you go back in time historically Russia, obviously the
collapse of communism and the Cold War that they lost,
(06:25):
it's not something that is a point of pride in
that country. But how much of the willingness of Russians
to accept frankly, huge, huge, casualty numbers is a function
of that patriotic connection to the past, where basically the
entire country giving up the flower of youth is seen
(06:46):
as one of the true bravest moments and most sterling
moments in all of Russian history.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Well, this is how Russians fight wars, just with throwing
manpower at it. They've generally they had really weak speaking
of generally, generals in World War Two because of the
Soviet Purge, so they had a lot of a lot
of problems with that. Now some of the people will
(07:13):
talk about, like General Zukov, some of the generals in
Russian past have have been talented, but they generally throw
a lot of bodies at the problem. And that's what
they're doing in Ukraine as well. So, yeah, I don't
know how Trump that's the big one that is on
the list next to bring us back to Trump, the
peacemaker if he can. I would say this, then people
(07:36):
might already feel that way, and that's fine. They might
be saying, if he doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize
for this deal, it's effectively a meaningless award anyway, because
it's just some partisan tool of the global elites. I
think that's probably already true. But if he were to
end the Rushi of Ukraine War two and it was
clear that he had a central role in that and
after this and didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, then it's.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
A total joke.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah, maybe it's already there, but it definitely would be
a total joke at that point.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Somebody just texted me or email me that once Obama
got the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, it had become
a participation trophy in many ways, as opposed to.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
A reward for an award.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
For what you actually accomplished. I do wonder if peace
in the Middle East, if he suddenly is able to
pivot in many ways directly to Ukraine Russia. I still
don't understand how this gets resolved. In meaning Ukraine Russia,
because to your point, Putin basically knows that long term
(08:39):
he has the ability to lean on Ukraine, and we
still don't know exactly where that line is where if
he gets this amount of territory, he's satisfied. And it
just feels kind of intractable at this point to me,
because if Trump can't get it solved negotiation wise, to
your point, it seems quite clear that Vladimir Putin just
(09:01):
will not end this war. So how do you in
any way ended when Putin just refuses.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Well, see, this is what I meant by he doesn't
leave lose sleep at night over the casualties. There's no
moral or humanitarian imperative that is at work with Vladimir
Putin at all.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
This is it's pure force. You know.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
I think the Israelis, I think the IDF for a
while have just wanted Look, we're willing to stop. We
don't want to have to keep doing this, but we
have to know that they're going to stop.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
On the other side, you know, you have that with this,
and we have.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
To get the hostages, which is what the HOSS has
refused to release them fortum lately.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And I know that We're very pleased, as of course
we should be. I mean people I know people who
are teering up at the news about the hostages going
that some of the hostages are going home. But I
just can't. I can't forget that a lot of hostages
are not going home alive. Yes, and that is an
active decision that was made. They had civil millions in
(10:01):
custody and they let them die or they killed them
one or the other. I mean, which is the same thing.
They're in your custody. So they killed civilians that they
were holding as hostages. So the moral calculations here should
be very clear to everybody about who the good guys are,
who the bad guys are. But I do think that
Trump now turning his there's going to be some focus
(10:23):
on this, of course, but turning his attention to Russia
Ukraine issue. It has to be what are the incentives
for Putin to stop? Yes, you have to change incentives
with him. He is a It is like dealing with
a rattlesnake. You cannot say, hey, don't bite me. That's mean.
It has to be you back off.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Or I'm going to take your head, which I think
Trump gets because Trump's new focus has been let's keep
Russia from being able to sell their oil through India.
We're going to put a penalty on India. And he's
given Ukraine the ability in theory to actually threaten Russia
in a way with armaments and weaponry that has not
(11:03):
occurred so far. The risk there, obviously, is you accelerate
the war as opposed to decelerating it. So but I
think you're right. I mean Putin has to fear something,
and ultimately I think that's what Trump has come to
realize that otherwise there is no way to actually end
this one.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Update here on the James Comy trial. I believe it
is going to be happening January fifth.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
It is set for so that's pretty quick. They're moving pretty.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Fast on this one. And here is Fox News is
Bill Hammer. This is from this morning, just with that
breaking news and laying out some of what's going on
here for Sank to Coomy play it.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Here is the breaking news.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
The former FBI director.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
James Comby in front of a judge moments ago and
a hearing that we did not think would last long.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
And apparently that is the case.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
He has entered a plea of not guilty to two
charges federal level.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Now are producers inside the courtroom say the former director
accused of lying to Congress obstructing congressional proceeding, ended the
plea moments ago.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
In front of the judge Michael Knockmanoff appointed by Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Not guilty on both federal charges. He's accused of lying
in front of Congress back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So that is the update inside the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
So now he's going to trial. One of the most
hilarious arguments against this that I keep seeing all over
the place from the Libs is, oh my gosh, the
precedent that has been set here. What would you do,
Republicans if people started to use prosecutors' offices as weapons
(12:53):
of politics? And to this, you just want to say,
have you been asleep for the last decade?
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Any idea?
Speaker 2 (13:00):
What has gone on with four different criminal cases brought
against Donald Trump, all of which were bogus civil cases
brought against Trump by the State of New York in
one case, and by a woman who claims from thirty
years ago, thirty something years ago, Trump grabbed her in
a Department Store. The stuff that they have done, the
(13:22):
lawfare they have done against Trump and his family alone
has done tremendous damage to the public's faith in all
of these different facets of our criminal justice system, or
just our justice system of the courts too, because some.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Of it was civil. This is atrocious.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
I mean the things that have gone on here, the
precedents that have already been set. Now they want to
tell us we should be worried about going too far
in the other direction. No, they already did this. In fact,
what they have done, what the Democrats have done specifically
with the targeted lawfair against Donald's among many others, it's
(14:02):
really Trump and Trump world, everybody who is Trump adjacent
all the way to January sixth, defendants, right, it's the
whole Trump movement that they have used the prosecutor's office.
They have used lawfare as a as a tool, as
a weapon to ruin lives, to put tremendous pressure on people,
(14:25):
to financially drain them, to undermine them, to malign them,
to defame them.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
All of that they.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Have already done. They sent an FBI team tomorrow Lago
and they went through Malania's sock drawer, and libs want
to lecture us about James Comy, who allegedly lied under
oath facing the music. I'm sorry, is there some special
carve out for being a six foot ten jerk who
(14:56):
uses the law in order to puff himself up and
as part of of his own just malignant narcissism.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Is there some carve out where he doesn't.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Have to actually face the music the way that he
has made so many others and I think entrapped people
and abuse the law, most notably General Flynn. I like
to fill in these gaps too, so no one can say, well,
you just said he's abusing, and no I like to
give you the specifics to remind everybody, to remind everybody
that James Comy thought it was funny to use the
(15:25):
Logan Act, which no serious human being thinks anybody can
or would be prosecuted under, as a total pretext.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
It's like the equivalent of a swatting call.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
It is a bad faith use of law enforcement to
go after the General Michael Flynn, the incoming National Security Advisor.
I know it feels like that was a long time ago,
but there hasn't been.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Well, maybe you don't feel that way. But they'll say that,
but there's.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Been no justice for that. That ambush hasn't been punished.
And James Comy thinks that he's a clever guy for
the whole thing, and he thinks that what.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
Was that book?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
I think was Higher Power?
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Higher power or something like that. I'm now the real
question you might ask is is James Comy's book a
more brutal read than Kamala is one hundred and seven days.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
I cannot answer that question because I haven't read.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Comy's book, but I will tell you that is some
stiff competition. That is, you know, Superman versus Iron Man
with the like the super suit.
Speaker 4 (16:28):
You know.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
I mean, that is tough stuff, really really preposterous.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
That James Comy would think anybody would want to read
his memoir and on his book tour. But such as
things are, he is now facing the music, and there's
the possibility. I think it's slim. I don't want to
over promise and under deliver, ever on this show. I
think it is slim. But here's what I will tell
that he will actually be convicted because it's a it's
a Northern Virginia jury. I was just saying how much fun,
(16:56):
how much fun DC is with no government bureacrats running around.
They all live in Arlington mostly, you know, they live
a lot of them inside or just outside of the Beltway.
It's going to be a very favorable pool for James Comy.
But here's why I view this is so important. The
message is received, whether Comy is found guilty or not,
(17:19):
the message is received that there will at least be
an effort to hold the other side to the law
and not create a system. This is really important, a
system where we are held to an extra legal standard
and they are held to a sub legal standard, or
rather they get to break the law and get away
(17:40):
with it. Meanwhile they get to prosecute us Trump for
not breaking the law and we do nothing in response.
We have to at least establish that we will bring
charges against people who have been involved in this law
fair involved in using the government the deep state, however
(18:00):
you want to describe it, to take out people for
purely political reasons. Well, if they break the law on
that process, there will be some form of accountability. And
now there is going to be I think a pretty
high probability just based on the jury pool that Comby
will be found. In my mind, he'll be found not guilty.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
He'll be acquitted on this.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
But let's see, let's see, it's a pretty straightforward thing.
Did he lie or did he not lie? Let's see
what kind of case the process. I know, I don't
want to I don't want to prejudge anything here. Let's
see what is produced in that court. You don't need
to call me and say, buck, you're already getting ahead
of the cart before the horse here. I know, But
(18:40):
I just I like to manage our expectations for where
this is going. It's still a steep climb. This is
a little bit of ice skating uphill here to think
that James Comby is going to actually be convicted. But
the fact that the charge has been brought alone sends
a message we are not going to just lie down
and accept a two tiered system of justice in this town, Washington, DC,
(19:05):
or anywhere else for that matter. And that is important.
That is something that we all have to recognize as
a necessary step because otherwise it's, you know, heads they win,
tails we lose.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Did I do that one right?
Speaker 2 (19:20):
That's always I always feel like I'm gonna get that
one wrong. It's like Bush when he's like, fooling me once,
can't get fooled again.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
It's tougher to say it, especially on a live radio show,
than you think it's going to be, you know.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
But that's where this is right now, my friends. That
is the situation.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
I've been warning people for years about this Komy guy.
And I wish if the president at the time had
pulled me aside and asked me early on in his
first term, I would have shared all you have to
know about James Comy. You would know from the way
he acted with respect to the Martha Stewart prosecution, a
(19:56):
prosecution that nobody in his office but him wanted to
bring execution for which there was no crime, not even
any money made or lost.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
It was just the whole.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Thing was absurd. And Martha Stewart is a huge Democrat
who does not like Trump and does not like Republicans.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
And this is just about.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
What's what's fair and decent. It's not about politics. But
Komy really has always thought of himself as like the
high priest of the DOJ. So much of Komy, I
will tell you this, so much of Komi reminds me
of Fauci Fauci is like the the you know, the
(20:34):
the Liliputian version of Komi they have. It's the same
personality type. They pretend it's all about the cause in
the institution, it's really all about them. And they get this, uh,
this solypsism word of the day, solepsism from all of this,
and you like that one.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
That producer rally likes that one.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
And I'm not the only one warning you about this guy,
or have been warning about this guy for a long time.
The great Rush Limbaugh back in twenty nineteen, he saw
exactly who James Comy was and also knew about his past,
which we should all be reminded of.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
Played two.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
How many of you have heard or thought that James
call me was a lifelong Republican.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
I have.
Speaker 5 (21:20):
I've always thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican.
I've been told that James Comey is a lifelong Republican.
Turns out not to be true. Are you wearing of
James Comey used to be a Communist. In a two
thousand and three interview with New York Magazine, James Comy said,
before voting for Jamie Carter, Jimmy Carter nineteen eighty he'd
been a communist. He admitted, I'd moved from communists to
(21:44):
whatever I am. Now now we know that John Brennan,
Obama CIA director, was a Communist or at least had
voted for the Communist Party. But I had never heard
this about Komy. Now we find out that under Obama,
the CIA director and the FBI director both had histories
(22:09):
of not just flirtation, but serious immersion into communism. And
like the KGB always said, no one ever leaves the KGB,
nobody ever leaves this way of thinking.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2 (22:26):
You start to see how for some of these individuals
there was an ideological foundation of communism. And these are
people who are at the top of the national security
apparatus in this country in recent years communism and then
they become some malleable chameleon in politics just so they
(22:49):
can weave their way through the bureaucracy. But do you
think they've ever really changed their collectivist foundation. Rush didn't
think that Komi had Brennan for that matter, and he
was right. He warned us about this. And now perhaps
there will be some accountability for the misdeeds that we're done.
But we're not going to hold our breath on Comy.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
We're going to see The Team forty seven podcast is
sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
Making the American Farm strong Again.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
New York State's Attorney General, Leticia James has been indicted
for mortgage fraud.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Here is what she has to say about this clip
thirteen hit it.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
This is nothing more than a continuation of the President's
desperate weaponization of our justice system. He's forcing federal law
enforcement agencies to do his bidding all because I did
my job as a New York State attorney General. He's
charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make
clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Claire, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I'm
sure you will too. I want to start with this one.
The charges aren't baseless.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
I mean, you know, you could say a lot about it.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
And I actually believe that some of these laws, and
specifically mortgage fraud, unless it's systematic and intentional and overall large.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
I mean, the mortgage fraud laws are need to be reformed.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
I will say that, but that doesn't change the fact
that she's an attorney general put other people in prison
for mortgage fraud, had no problem with it. Used statutes
in ways they never had been used before to try
to bankrupt Donald Trump. But let's just look at it
this way, Clay. She broke the law based on the allegations.
Unless the facts are in dispute here, which they don't
seem to be, she broke the law.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Well, I would go back to the same thing I
said when James Comey was indicted. This was a grand jury.
This was a grand jury in a northern Virginia I
believe Alexandria as well courtroom. So what I would ask
Letitia James if she were on the radio with us
right now we played that clip, is why did the
(25:08):
grand jury get it wrong? Because you can say, oh,
Trump is going after his political adversaries, but it requires
that a grand jury agreed that there is a legitimate
basis for these charges to be brought. And that is
not a grand jury of your or mine. Peers Buck,
this is not where I live in Nashville, Tennessee area.
(25:33):
This is not where you live in the Miami, Florida area.
This is among the best possible grand jury pools that
Leticia James could have. They probably voted as a group
seventy thirty Biden, seventy thirty Kamala, And they are looking
at all this evidence and they are saying, we think
(25:53):
Letitia James broke the law. I will say this, it's
another one we got right. This is not a very
complicated case because everybody has to fill out these forms.
And if you are a lawyer and you are in
charge of enforcing the law in one of the biggest
states in the country, I think a lot of people
(26:13):
out there do not give you the benefit of the
doubt if there are parts of the mortgage application that
are wrong that are favorable to you. This is not
your average guy or gal out there who's running through
a mortgage form as fast as they can. When you
pass a bar exam, and when you are charged with
(26:33):
enforcing the law for again, one of the biggest states
in the country, I think that you have a higher
standard of expecting to understand what you are filling out
when it comes to mortgages. And so I think that
she's in a tough spot. And of course this is
a delicious irony as it were, because she went after
(26:54):
Trump for alleged fraud when it came to the loan
proceedings that he was able to get relating to his
assets and the loans that he had repaid. And so
this is based on a property that she owns in
Virginia that evidently she has lied about what it's being
used for.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
Well, yeah, she said that she had two primary residences,
and the word primary is a problem for her there
everybody knows what that means. You can't have two primary residences.
And Clay beyond that. So there's the facts of this
which are very straightforward. And I'm sorry, but if you're
the Attorney General of New York, to Clay's point, you
should understand the law really better than anybody and should
(27:34):
be held to a standard that you've held everyday Americans too.
It's a very straightforward question. Have people gone to prison
for mortgage fraud like this in New York State? With
Tiss James overseeing the prosecutorial offices that do this because
it's all federal.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
The answers yes, So if somebody can go to prison
for this, she can go to prison for this. And
people might say, oh, that's harsh.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Well to that, I say, it is hard, but either
the elites and that includes prosecutors, live under the laws
they use against us, or we are in a tyranny,
my friends. The law either applies to everyone or should
apply to no one. And by the way, here she is,
this is cut fourteen, making that very point, Clay play it.
Speaker 6 (28:16):
The president of these United States is not above the law.
No matter how rich, powerful, or politically connected you are.
Everyone must play by the same rules.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Please see him for.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
Us, she said, everyone has to played by the same rules.
Looks like she broke the rules according to this grand jury.
She certainly did.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
I mean Clay.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Also, if she didn't do this, this wouldn't be where
it is. This is a very straightforward crime. This is
in fact the crime that they try to get the
corrupt congressman in the show The Wire On and they
and they call it at that time the quote headshot
because you can go away.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
For years based on mortgage fraud. Yeah, she's facing up
to thirty years in prison now again, which is insane,
Which is insane. And we can all, by the way,
we can all agree that's insane. But change the laws.
Everybody does these some of these federal laws are absurd.
It should only be you know, multiple counts, accounts systemic,
essentially a Rico situation, like if you did this fifty times, okay, yeah,
(29:18):
you should face maybe thirty years. I know she'll only
probably get if she's found guilty six months or something.
But again, James Comy, we're seeing a pattern here. Comy
sent Martha Stewart to prison for a little fib that
didn't matter. Comy told a little fib too. Guess what
more significantly too. I don't know how she remains the
(29:39):
New York Attorney General. If you are the chief law
enforcement officer of a state and you are facing felony charges,
I don't understand how you remain in that position. And
she's benefited because she's in a blue state. But there
have been disbarment proceedings brought against Trump Relay officials who
(30:01):
have law degrees for far less than felony mortgage charges.
So my question would be for everybody out there listening
on war and all over the state of New York,
and this would be a question that I think Kathy
Hokele should have to answer. How can you have a
chief law enforcement officer of the State of New York
who is under federal indictment for mortgage fraud, executing the
(30:27):
executing the office of New York Attorney General. Because look, Buck,
she's prosecuting people right now for the crime that she
has been indicted for in Virginia. That feels to me
to be untenable. I think she's going to have to
step down. And I'm surprised that more people aren't already
raising this as an issue, because again, when you are
(30:48):
the chief law enforcement official of a state and you
are facing felony charges, how in the world can you
be expected to be a fair and impartial ruler of
the law when you're prosecuting people for felony charges that
you yourself face. That seems like a tough putt to say.
It's a huge problem, a huge problem, and there's more
irony here. There's a lot of irony in this whole situation.
(31:12):
Remember she brought effectively mortgage fraud charges against now civilly,
but to bankrupt hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
this to bankrupt the Trump organization, even though the banks
involved them said it was great, we would do it again.
There was no problem here, what do you taught? And
her valuations for properties were absurd. I mean to say
that mar A Lago is worth sixteen million dollars or something.
(31:34):
This is this is truly bonkers. Nobody would ever say that.
But beyond that, Clay She's gonna I mentioned Clay Davis,
who's actually the guy, a different Clay, the guy from
the wire who is prosecuted for mortgage fraud. That's how
they get the politician and what he's he do. He
appeals to the jury on sort of purely emotional political grounds.
(31:55):
He really goes for jury nullification. Here is Latsia James.
This is just a quick on in this cut fifteen,
she told everybody she was going after Trump for political reasons.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Play it.
Speaker 6 (32:05):
It's important that everyone understand that the days of Donald
Trump are coming to an end.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Prosecutors should not be saying things like that, okay, correct,
especially when they're bringing active charges against somebody. She played
with fire and now she's seeing that can go both ways.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
No doubt, And again I would love team see if
there's been any questioning. Of course there probably hasn't because
the New York media is mostly left wing, but I'm
surprised there hasn't been more discussion about how Letitia James
can stay in office given that she has felony charges
against her. I mean, judges would typically have to recuse
(32:42):
themselves from any sort of judicial proceeding if they were
facing felony charges. How can Leticia James stay in the
office of New York AG? Now, the answer is politically,
this might actually be good for right because it elevates
her profile and in the left, if you're fighting Trump.
I was laughing when Trump said, hey, we should arrest JB.
Pritzker that Gavin Newsom has to be so mad. You know,
(33:06):
Gavin Newsom's.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Like, why won't he say he has to arrest me?
Speaker 1 (33:09):
You know, like Gavin Newsom is probably throwing his wine
glass against the wall when he saw the JB. Pritzker
and Brandon Johnson are getting threatened with arrest over Euston,
not him. But in all honesty, I'm gonna you know,
I'll tweet this out, but I haven't seen anybody asking
that question. It feels like a no brainer that she
would have to immediately step down as New York Attorney General.
You can't prosecute cases that are similar to the ones
(33:32):
that you are facing from a fellow. Here's here's where
my guest, Clay, I have to look at the New
York State laws about this, but my guess is that,
like a judge recusing himself for herself, there's some degree
of it's like up to the person unless they get
maybe pressured from the legislature in New York State that hey, look,
(33:55):
you either can step aside or will remove you.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
And I just think that she'll be able to again,
and I'm totally spitballing here, but my sense is she
will be able to rely on the anti Trump lunacy
of any Democrats. Of course, the New York State Assembly
is Democrat and the governor is a Democrat, so there
won't be pressure on her, I think from her own
party in New York State two step aside. So unless
(34:21):
there's clear, you know, written out law that you must,
which I don't think there is, or we would have
already heard about it, she'll be able to ride this
out in office until the actual trial happens. That's my
Do you agree with that or you see that going
a different way?
Speaker 1 (34:35):
I don't. I mean, I'm working through in my head
the legal ethics morass, for lack of a better way
to describe it, on who lawyers can represent. Is enough
to make your eyeballs roll back into your head, the
conflicts and the withdrawals and the mandatory aspects of things.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
But do you think she stays in office or not?
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I think that she has to. I'm going to send
this sweet out, but I think she has to st
up down. I don't you will, well, I understand and
again pull. This is political versus legal, which is too
different from told.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
So that's what I mean.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
There's probably a good faith Oh, you should recuse yourself
in the in the ethics, uh, you know they're written
ethics about the attorney genteral from New York. But my
guess is it's not an automatic. And if it's not
an automatic, then it relies on pressure from other Democrats
who can I'm sure you know she could be fired
by the UH, by the governor, she could be removed
(35:32):
from office. I'm sure by the state legislature. There's processes
in place usually for things like that. Clay, I don't
think they're going to do that. I think they're gonna
let her fight this thing out and see how it
goes with a jury.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
That's my guess. We'll see
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!