August 3, 2025 • 42 mins
A President Trump “See I told you so” on trade and tariffs. The president’s promise focusing on EBC (Economy, border, crime) is being fulfilled in spades. Democrats low approval rating. Sean Davis,CEO and Founder of The Federalist, tells us who should be charged for perpetrating the Russia hoax and explains the new information that has been released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard and what could and should happen next.
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
Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck
TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck
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 (00:00):
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Now.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
I was watching the real time press conference, the live
press conference going on with Kerr Starmer, the UK Prime
Minister and Donald Trump, where they were announcing a UK
US deal on trade, big trade deal, legitimately huge. And
(00:34):
then also the EU has announced a huge trade I remember,
the EU is actually the largest economy in the world. Now,
it's not a country, so we are still the number
one country. But if you add all the EU together,
it's the largest economy in the world. And so it's
meaningful to say the least that these deals went through
in Clay, before we get into the we have to
(00:57):
get into the Trump was right, and we said, guys,
give it time, give it time.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
That you go back.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
You listen. The great thing about this radio show is
if you ever were curious, when did the market tank, Clay,
when we're.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
April, it was in the absolute tank. Everybody was saying, hey,
the economy's in trouble, recessions coming. Your four to oh
one k's are worthless. Trump has no idea what he's doing.
And we said hold your stocks. If you happen to
have additional money, now is the time probably to put
(01:29):
more money in buy and hold long term. And as
we are speaking to all of you this Monday, another
all time high in the S and P five hundred
in the Dow. If you just never checked your four
to oh one k year starts and you're like, hey,
I'm only going to check it halfway.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Through, you're up big on the year.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
If you bought in April, you're up nearly thirty percent
from where those lows were when all the so called
experts were telling you that the world was falling apart.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
So it is a huge victory lap moment for Trump
because we said at the time, and this was a
moment where the so called consensus was very much going
against Trump, right the economists, the CNBC watchers, and the
CNBC hosts, that that whole crew was, well, we all
know the trade deal, that this is going to lead
(02:19):
to trade wars and higher prices, and the stock market's
going to tank and it can lead to a recession.
And to be fair, and this is why I said,
you can go back and listen. We said, we do
not know that actually that Donald Trump has earned the
right to have the trust of the American people on
the economy and on negotiating trade, I think more than
really anything else. Maybe immigration too, but on the economy
(02:42):
and trade, he knows more than the people criticizing him.
He truly does. He understands these dynamics better than the
people out there, you know, the peanut gallery, the cheap seats,
you know, saying oh, he's gonna ruin everything. We have
huge trade deals announced. Here's just a little overview of
some of this. Okay, this was you had Trump yesterday
(03:03):
in Scotland, a Turnberry apparently a lovely golf course. Here
was Trump in Scotland talking about how look at where
the American economy is. Look at all this enthusiasm and
play this is cut seven. Play it every leader.
Speaker 5 (03:18):
When I went to NATO the other day, every leader said,
you have the hottest country in the world. We have
the hottest country in the world. We're taking in hundreds
of billions of dollars. We have the highest stock market
we've ever had, we have the best numbers we've ever had.
But we have hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into
our country. And I think it's the hottest. And by
the way, one year ago our country was dead. We
(03:41):
had a dead country because of an incompetent president and
incompetent democrats. All they know how to do is talk
and think about conspiracy theories and nonsense. If they'd waste
their time talking about America being great again, it would
be so much nicer, so much easier.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Clay, A big part of this, too is people looking
at these negotiations, these trade not now these deals, right,
negotiations have come to a conclusion it's a great deal
for America. They can't get around this that this has
improved the economic landscape for the American people. And this
is in so many ways the manifestation of an America
(04:19):
first trade policy, as in advantaging this country.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Finally, what Trump is a master of is leverage. It's
the number one thing that he recognizes. If he gets
an inch on you, he will turn it into a mile.
And his thought and this is one of the things
that you can go back and watch Trump talking about
this for generations if you so desire, even on Oprah.
(04:44):
What he understands is this market is the most valuable
market to have access to in the world. And his
perspective on that is, there should be a cost that
we extract from other countries to be able to access
the richest market of consumers in the world. And everybody said,
(05:04):
this is unbelievable. There's no way this is going to work.
We had a balanced budget last month that nobody's talking about.
Speaker 6 (05:11):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
I understand that it can be somewhat of a calendar quirk,
and look, we've got to get better and better.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
But there's almost zero doubt that.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
We are going to have hundreds of billions of dollars
in tariffs. And what Trump has said so far has
been true. The American consumer is not fronting those costs.
It is being eaten largely by manufacturers and other countries
that have cut back prices to try to remain competitive.
Now we still have a deal to do with China.
(05:41):
But as we near August, First Liberation Day was in
early April. If I recall correctly, and if you just
didn't look at your stocks and now you suddenly decide, hey,
it's getting close to August. Maybe I'll go look at
my four to OHO one K. Maybe I'll go look
at the end X funds that I hold. You've got
(06:02):
record money, and I think people are feeling that you
are not seeing skyrocketing inflation. Inflation remains low and in
general wage growth, which is really the I would argue
the most important single stat is is wage growth outgrowing
cost of goods. If you had to synthesize what makes
(06:24):
you feel like you're doing better in general, it is
when your income as a worker is growing faster than
the cost of the goods that you purchase with your income.
And we have a situation where Trump has reversed the
downturn of Biden, and your incomes are growing faster than
the things that you have to buy now, I think
this is important. The prices are never going to come
(06:47):
back down, and this is the toxicity of inflation. By
and large, we never hit negative inflation. There are all
sorts of negative connotations economically that would occur. So the pernicious, awful,
dastardly part of inflation is it does not ever go back.
You're wanting to buy a hamburger for three dollars instead
(07:09):
of five, it's never gonna get returned to the three dollars.
All you can do is slow the rate of growth,
which is why I always compare it to putting on weight.
If you're continuing to put on weight sooner or later.
The fact that you're putting on weight at a lower
rate does not mean you're not going to be fat.
And so all of those are major issues that unfortunately
(07:32):
are going to stay with us from the Biden regime.
But Trump, Look, he ran on a economy, border crime,
and six months in buck I can't remember a president
who has more delivered on the things he said he
would deliver on than Trump in the first six months
has everything that he ran on. Economy, border crime is
infinitely better than it was under Biden.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
And we're not even doing the comparison you could do,
which is imagine if Kamala.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Harris was president right now, well, yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
None of this and you know that would be the
thing that most people would go to. If Trump had
underperformed a little bit the first six months, ran into
some stumbles or whatever, you could always do the well,
at least it's not Kamala. And in this case, it's
like comparing the top student in the class to the
worst student in the class. Right, I mean, the difference
is night and day between the administration that you are
(08:24):
getting right now and what could have been and what
forty eight percent, forty nine percent or no, it was
more than that forty nine percent of the American people
voted for in this last election, which is insane, which
is to have Kamala Harris in charge of this economy,
none of these trade deals would have gotten done Trump.
This is just one of these moments where remember we
(08:45):
said we learned a lesson from the first term, which
was everyone quote unquote everyone said Trump is wrong on China.
He's wrong to take the approach you to China, And
not only was it correct in the implementation, it was
so correct that Biden didn't change it because they knew
that it would cause problems, it would be bad, right,
(09:07):
So he was right on China when everyone said he
was going to be wrong. Clay, I think what we're
seeing again is Trump will be right on trade negotiations
when quote unquote everyone said that he would be wrong.
Here he is on the trade deal with the EU.
We didn't even talk about this in specifics. Yeah, this
is cut eight play it.
Speaker 5 (09:25):
This started months ago, this negotiation, so we knew pretty
much what we were getting into, and we were able
to make a deal that's very satisfactory to both So
it's tremendously. It's a very powerful deal. It's a very
big deal. It's the biggest of all the deals. It
will be the biggest of all the deals. So we're
very honored to have done so.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
And it's a huge deal with the EU, as I said,
the largest actual economic zone on the planet because it's
all those countries put together. And now clay American producers
will be operating on a more level playing field with
trade partners like the EU. There's hundreds of billions of
dollars of investment that's agreed to from the EU. Here,
(10:09):
there's a lot of US energy that's going to be bought.
Additional energy is going to be bought by the EU. Now,
I mean, this is it's so good that they can't
even come up the Trump haters can't even come up
with a way to tell you it's bad. I think
that tells you everything.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Yeah, look, I think they're running scared. I mean I
talked about this a little bit over the weekend. I
think Trump has been proven right on the Epstein stuff,
which I know people are still somewhat fired up about.
But Democrats, and I think there's audio of Trump talking
about this, but Democrats had these Epstein files for four years.
They're losing on the economy, they're losing on border, they're
(10:46):
losing on crime. So now they're trying to say, oh,
Trump's to blame for Epstein, and my thing on that
would be, well, you had the files for four years
under Joe Biden, why did you not release everything? Why
did you not bring all the charges. We'll see what's
gonna end up happening there, But I do think it's
worth you all thinking about this. They've pivoted from economy,
(11:08):
border crime attacks to hey, all we can really hit
Trump on is Epstein, And that is I think a sign,
honestly of how well he's doing on all the major
big issues the EBC, economy, border crime that he ran
on in the first six months that they're not even
really coming after him. I think they've recognized buck that
(11:29):
going after Trump on hey, he's deporting too many people
is actually harming them. You know, the Wall Street Journal
had an incredible that graphic over the weekend. Maybe we
can talk about this a little bit. Democrats have hit
a thirty five year low in popularity. That's pretty extraordinary
and the lowest level of popularity that has ever existed
(11:52):
because they are picking a lot of things to attack
Trump on that the vast majority of the American public
agrees with him on.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
It is a good day everybody. Trump is taking a
much deserved victory lap. And just look at what's going
on with the economy all around you. I know that
sometimes good is less interesting or grabs the attention less
than catastrophe, especially in the news business. But there will
be challenges ahead. Trust me. Take take it in that
(12:20):
things are going well right now. One of the challenges
Trump talked about was really no progress with Russia at all,
so we can talk more about that. Trump is ticked
off at Putin. I could tell you from watching that
interview this morning and previous dates he's made, So that's
something that's going to get more attention now. And I
think Trump has the wind at his back. I think
Putin is underestimating the kind of pain that Trump is
(12:44):
willing to inflict economically on Russia to bring this thing
to a conclusion. So we can talk about that as well.
But on trade, Trump is not tired of winning.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
We're joined by our friend Sean Davis, CEO and co
founder of the Federalists. Go to the Federalist dot com.
It is one of our favorite sites on the world
wide Web, which I don't think anybody calls it anymore
really that, but it is the worldwide Web Federalist dot Com.
Great work there, including what we're about to talk about. Sean,
(13:21):
Thanks for taking a break from what you're doing to
chat with us. What's going on.
Speaker 7 (13:25):
Well, thanks for having me back. It's a pleasure.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Let's dive into this, man Shelby, because so d and
I Gabbard I sat down with her and we had
a discussion in DC about a month month ago about
a lot of things, and certainly one of her mandates
is to clean up the deep state mess that was
well really the rot that spread from the top down
(13:49):
in places like the CIA. She has released information about
the soft coup attempt, or said the non violent coup
attempt maybe a better way to put against Donald Trump.
You are following very closely now, you and Molly Hemingway,
your colleague at the Federalists, have been on this for
a decade.
Speaker 8 (14:08):
Now.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
What is new and important that has come out. We're
going to walk everyone through this because the rest of
the media. Obviously they were in on the collusion, right,
I mean, they were in on the whole hoax, the fraud.
What is new that people need to know about now?
Speaker 7 (14:23):
So I think to understand the importance of the new developments,
I think it's important to take a step back and
look at what they were trying to do with the
Russia collusion hoax back in sixteen and seventeen and eighteen.
And there were two main pillars of that entire hoax.
One of them was that Donald Trump personally colluded with
(14:45):
Russia and Putin to steal the election from Hillary, that
he was an agent of Russian, that he was working
with them. That was the whole Steele dossier. That was
the bulk of the Mueller thing. We know that was bunk.
We've known that with Bunk for a long time. But
before they could even and get to that phase of
the operation, they had the first point, which was the
(15:05):
claim that Russia meddled in our election in twenty sixteen
for the purpose of helping Donald Trump because Putin wanted
Trump to win. That was injected into the bloodstream, and
that was necessary to be there for people to believe
that Trump colluded. But what we learned last week from
the document releases from TULCA Gabbard is that that claim
(15:25):
was a lie. The CIA knew it was a lie.
Obama and Brennan and Comy were all told it was
a lie from their own experts, and they went ahead
with it anyway. They cooked the books, they fabricated evidence,
they ignored the experts, and they put out this bogus
Intel Community assessment claiming that Russia had interfered for the
(15:46):
purpose of Donald of helping Donald Trump win. And that
was a lie.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
All right, Sean, thanks for coming on with us. Thanks
for also sharing a great hometown or our family town
right now. Sure you saw that the state of Tennessee,
according to CNBC, was the worst place in America to live.
And I think I speak for everyone out there when
I say, yeah, you're right, it's awful. Please don't come here.
But you're running the Federalist, and I bet you get
(16:14):
asked this question a lot, and it's the number one
question I get asked as in regards to this story,
Let's pretend you had a magic wand and you were
able to dictate policy from this point going forward, as
it pertains to what happened with Russia.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
What should happen?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
In your mind if you had that magic wand and
you were able to direct policy, what do you think
will happen? What is the significance, in other words, going forward,
not looking back, looking forward prospectively as to what should
happen and what will happen here?
Speaker 7 (16:49):
So I think two things. If I can may wave
a magic wand, I'd make two things happen. Number One, Comy, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe,
and Struck would all go to prison because somebody has
to pay a price for the crimes they perpetrated against
the country.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
At minimum, they would be charged with a crime if
you were able. Okay, that is a concrete action. That's good. Okay,
what else?
Speaker 7 (17:10):
And then the second, so that we're going to put
that in like kind of the law enforcement accountability for
the fraud bucket. The other bucket is we have to
make sure that something like this never happens again. And
there was actually a recommendation which was a really good
one in the document that came out last week, which
was a declassified Hipsy Report and investigation of the ICA
(17:31):
and then recommendations on what to do with it. And
I think this business where you had these these political
appointees going in and cooking the books and saying, you know,
we don't care if you don't think it's true.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
We call it.
Speaker 7 (17:44):
John Brennan said of the Steel dossier accusations when told
they were not true and not corroborated, but don't they
ring true? There has to be a way to remove
that type of political corruption from the process. And it's interesting.
For a long time, we kind of were led to
believe that all the experts agreed on the ICA, that
(18:05):
they all agreed that Russia was doing this to help Trump,
And the reality that we learned was that the experts
were saying, no, that's not true, and it was the
Democrat political appointees who demanded that it go in and
be released.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
So what would you like to see now from the
DNI in terms of either further transparency and or actions
from within the IC the intelligence community sean to deal
with this at those levels, right, there's the accountability and
there's preventing this from happening in the future. What do
you think we should see from d and I Gabbard
(18:40):
and Dcia Ratcliffe, the Director of Central Intelligence to get
to those two goals?
Speaker 7 (18:48):
Well, I think they've done a great job so far.
You know, Ratcliffe, to my understanding, was trying to get
these documents out back in twenty twenty, even before the election,
and was stymied by then a director Gina Haspell, who
It's interesting she was running London's office. Is the station
chief back when some of the original you know, hoax
(19:10):
intel that became the basis of Crossfire Hurricane came through
the London embassy. I would like to know more about
her role. I would like to know all the intel
that was used. I would like to know all of
the people who touched the lies, who signed the affidavits
for the fights of warrants. I think we need complete
and total transparency and openness about every single aspect of
(19:32):
how that hoax was run from the beginning. And luckily,
so far it seems like Ratcliffe and Gabbard are on
the same page there. I'm thankful that they have been
as forth right as.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
They have been.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Also, the Obama factor in all this. You know the
names that you're talking about here, Sean Brennan, Clapper right.
Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence. Brenner was the
Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan had been Obama's counter terrorisms
are in the White House Previously. Obama, though, is very
clearly implicated in this too. Now Clay and I have
(20:05):
talked about how he was the president. The Supreme Court's
weighed in he's not going to face charges. But I
do think it's important for people to understand that this
wasn't the IC independent of the White House under the
Obama administration. The collusion included the collusion of Obama and
his top people in the IC to try to essentially
(20:27):
hobble the Trump administration.
Speaker 7 (20:30):
Yeah, and I think that's a tricky one. You know.
Number one, we had the kind of presidential immunity thing. Obviously,
a president can't go out and like pop someone in
the head and be like I can kill whoever I
want on president, there's limits to it, clearly, but the
Supreme Court has ruled that the president has a wide
latitude to execute the authorities of his office. I actually wonder,
(20:54):
in looking what happened, if there is a better case
to be given that Obama's probably not going to get
hauled into a court and hecuff slam on him, might
it be better to look at what Brennan and Kmy
and Clapper did, and in the things they did in
response to Obama saying get all the intel, might it
be a better option to look at what they did
and say, you know what, they actually defrauded Obama. He
(21:17):
told them to get this info with the expectation of
what he was going to be given was accurate, and
instead they all got together and colluded and conspired to
give him bogus intel and to defraud not just the
American people, but the commander in chief and President of
the United States as well. I wonder if that might
be a better tack to take going forward.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
I think that's a super interesting idea. We're talking to
Sean Davis. You can check him out at the Federalist.
Does great work there.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
I mentioned if you had the magic wand a lot
of this audience, and I would put myself in this
category is very skeptical that anybody in a position of
power in the Democrat Party is ever going to be
held accountable for anything that they have ever done on
and I think this is where a lot of the
frustration Epstein everything else comes. You are Grandma who walked
(22:06):
in the Capital Jan sixth, Merrick Garland, the Biden DOJ.
I mean they will manighacally focus on it to the
extent that they're going to do a pre morning raid
to arrest you for trespass on that day. Meanwhile, you
got all these different alleged crimes being committed by people
in positions of power on the left in the Democrat Party.
(22:28):
What do you think the chances are if you were
handicapping right now, Sean, that there will actually be charges brought.
I'm not even talking about convictions. I'm just talking about
charges brought against any of these individuals related to what
they did surrounding the Russia collusion. Lie.
Speaker 7 (22:45):
Yeah, that's a hard question, because you know, I'm not
involved obviously in like the internal discussions about those types
of charges. I think they're far better now than they
ever have been, just kind of reading between the lines
the things we've seen and heard from Ratcliff, from Gabbard,
from Bondi. Bondi forming these DJ task forces to go
(23:06):
after the Russia hoaxers is opposed to doing a special counsel,
I think is a really good idea. These task forces
have traditionally been used by the federal government to get
cooperations from all the various agencies and were a major
tool used against the mob, against racketeering, against organized crime
early on, which is something you have to kind of
(23:26):
look at. You have to look at an organized conspiracy
in order to get around a lot of these statute
of limitations that you have. But I think it's important
to look at what happened like j six ers. These
were people who are put through the ringer. They were bankrupted,
their families were terrorized, they were eventually pardoned. Why is
the right not putting the left and the people who've
(23:48):
done far, far worse things to this country and can
get far greater crimes. Why are they not subjecting them
to the same punishment by process that the left is doing.
Because if anyone has ever been involved in any sort
of lawsuit criminal sibyl, they'll tell you it's awful, it's miserable.
It SAPs you of all types of energy and focus.
And what I don't understand is why is Congress in
(24:09):
their Oversight Committee not doing the exact same things to
the left. Why is DOJ not doing the exact same
thing to the left that they did to our side
for eight years? Because I do think the process is
the punishment and our side was terrorized by the process
for eight years, and it's about time the other side
gets a turn in the barrel if we're ever going
to get to a point where people decide we can't
do this anymore.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Last question for you, a little bit quick here maybe
on the answer, and I know it's not a topic
that necessarily lends itself to a rapid answer. If the
Trump team we're listening right now, and I think there's
probably a decent chance that some of them are, what
advice would you give them on what they should do
for the Epstein controversy at this point?
Speaker 7 (24:48):
Oh man, that's intriguing.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Thirty seconds.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
Yeah, I wish they would just release everything. I get
why that is difficult. They've got an appeal with Gleame
Max going on now, there's a lot of victim right stuff.
I wish they would release everything, and if the conclusions
are different than what people are expecting, walk us through
why that is what they looked at. I just think
openness and transparency is the most important antidote here, and
(25:15):
I think it got over sold very early on by
some people in the administration and that caused them a
lot of problems, and they're now having to take themselves
out from that.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I know I said last question, but I'm actually curious.
You run a digital media site. I sold one several
years ago. Can you tell a difference in the ad
market in Trump two point zero compared to Trump one
point zero? Does it feel fairer to you based on
the business that you run?
Speaker 7 (25:42):
It doesn't to me. We were targeted for extinction by
the Biden admin and the entire left wing censorship industrial complex.
They try to get us blacklisted from Google, from Facebook,
they went after all the major ad players, got us
blacklisted there. So I say, no, we have not seen
any difference, but it's because of the damage that was
(26:02):
done to us by our own government and our own
tax dollars illegally was pretty significant, and so I haven't
seen the big change in the ad market yet, at
least for us.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
That's something we should have a longer form discussion about sometime,
Sean Davis the Federalist, because I do think that's a
story that a lot of people don't understand how aggressively
the Biden team went after digital truth tellers, in my opinion,
to try to bankrupt them, and most of that story
really hasn't been told to a large degree. Appreciate the time, Sean.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Thank you both.
Speaker 6 (26:34):
Take care.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
The Team forty.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers Making the American
Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
Sean's perspective there, I think is really interesting because and
I'm sure you have felt this too, Buck, and maybe
we'll take some calls on this. Eight hundred and two
two two eight A two. I think what I kind
of sense is that there is a deep seated distrust
that anything consequential is going to happen for any of this.
(27:10):
And I understand why because you know, look, I think
the chances of Obama being charged. I think Trump did
a good job of tamping that down. And you just
heard Sean Davis talk about presidential privilege and the ruling
that came down from the Supreme Court. But I thought
his angle there, Buck, of Obama actually being defrauded in
(27:31):
some way by his intelligence agents. The challenge, though, and
I want to get your perspective on it, is I
think again people think that there's one opinion that comes
out of the intelligence agencies, there's like a hundred as those.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
I appreciated Sean's outside the box thinking on that one.
But I mean, remember a week ago was the discussion
was will Obama face charges based on what D and
I Gabbard was saying. So I don't think that exculpating
Obama is the way this is going to go forward.
I also don't think Obama's going to face charges, as
we said at the time, and I think you're going
(28:07):
to find out we were right. I don't think any
of them are going to face charges, and that's just
the way it's going to be. But that doesn't mean
we shouldn't know the information and shouldn't have access to
the truth, because at least then it can be a
political question. There can be political consequences to keep these
maniacs out of power going forward, But that may be
the best we can hope for in the situation.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
We talked a lot about this on the program Thursday Friday,
as the fallout of all the revelations of Telsea Gabberd
really were unspooling. And I'm curious from your perspective two things. One,
I do think this idea that there is one opinion.
I do think that you can hammer home that there
are hundreds of people working and they're fighting over what
(28:51):
the interpretation is. And I think there is the idea
out there that the intelligence agency has one opinion on
an issue, and I'd like for you to talk about
how that actually looks inside of an agency. Second part
of this, and I don't know the answer. I'm curious
how you would analyze this. Let's acknowledge that we think
that this whole thing was screwed up with Russia collusion.
(29:13):
Has it improved inside of the agencies? Is there something
that is going to be a positive of the mess
that unspooled? So from your perspective on those two how
would you analyze that multiple different perspectives and has anything
changed going forward?
Speaker 4 (29:29):
There's so many perspectives that you generally can't even get
agreement within an office on an issue, never mind across agencies.
So that's always going to be just the reality. And
remember these are assessments, it's analysis. The intel community is
wrong a lot, even when there is some unanimity on things.
They you know, people they missed nine to eleven. Obviously,
(29:52):
they missed fall the Berlin Wall, they missed the uh
reality of the Afghanic. Well, there's a whole bunch of things.
Point to plenty of intelligence failures because really it's analysis
about what's going to happen, right, you're really talking about
predicting the future. The intelligence community doesn't put it forward
that way, but we think that this is what's going on,
(30:13):
and this is what's next. Is a lot of they
sometimes we call it opportunity analysis, or they're just trying
to trying to tell you what's going to happen, and
no one's good. No one can predict the future really,
as I always say, occasionally someone can, but no one
can with any consistency. So that's on that and then
so that was the first part of it, the multi
(30:33):
and then you're asking about is it going to get better?
Is it going to change? There's the accountability piece for
people that were inside who I think now at least
have gotten a public there's this sort of public retribution
against their reputations, Brendan Clapper and others. But you have
to change the culture of these places, and that's a
(30:54):
long term. That's a long term thing. The intelligence agencies
post nine to eleven got a lot of people who
were who were meat eaters so to speak, who wanted
to go get bin laden and a lot of them left.
You know, there's a lot of guys and guys who
went in there to do the mission. And I'm not
(31:15):
speaking about myself here, but I certainly know plenty of
people that are in this in this boat, and the
bureaucracy took over and in the Obama years, they just
couldn't handle it anymore. So that's what I see with that.
And now let us uh, let us dive into some
of these calls. And we've got Charles in Northampton, Pennsylvania.
(31:37):
What's going on, Charles?
Speaker 8 (31:38):
Yes, well, I was just thinking maybe we should look
at rather than putting people in jail, that we should
look for recovery of expenses for you know, court costs, uh,
maybe slander and libel, uh, lots of wages, emotional distress,
(31:58):
you know, the punitive damages, that kind of stuff towards
and hit Obama and the Clintons and Comy clap or
Brennan where it hurts, which would be the money that
they have in the bank that they've accumulated over the
last however many years.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
Charles, I'm not really I'm not really seeing it. I mean,
in the case of the Obama's they're worth over one
hundred million dollars. I mean, they could hire lawyers for
the next century and it wouldn't really affect them very much,
so I don't think. And also they would have Obama
would have immunity in office as he was president. You
look at the others you're talking about bringing civil suits.
Bringing a civil suit is very expensive for the person
(32:37):
bringing it, right So, unless you're saying you want the
federal government to sue them on what, I'm not really
clear on how this would go. Clay, do you have
a better picture of this?
Speaker 1 (32:48):
The only thing thanks for the call. The only thing
I can think is that he's saying he wants Trump
to sue and try to hold these individuals responsible. Here's
the challenge. First of all, most civil suit basis for
lawsuits the statute of limitations has expired, so I don't
know in front of me right now. Usually WI bol defamation, slander.
(33:11):
There's usually around to two year and individual states can differ,
but usually around to two year based.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
I also don't think you could hit that hurdle. When
you're talking about a president, a public figure. You have
to prove actual malice, you have to prove all I
mean this is so the answer is no, I don't
think you're going to be able to get some kind
of civil judgment that destroys these people that work.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
The people ask all the time, can you sue? The
answer is yes, you can sue for anything. The better
question is can you sue and have any likelihood of
success that is significant in nature?
Speaker 6 (33:44):
For this?
Speaker 1 (33:45):
The answer I think is no. And for people out
there who are confused, he was asking a question. I
think about civil lawsuits as opposed to criminal culpability. The
civil standard is lower. And look, I mean to your point, Buck,
We've talked about this before. Sometimes the process can be
the punishment. So yes, there are legal fees associated with
(34:05):
this everything else. I just I don't find that to
be a very likely or significantly likelihood of success on
that angle.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
Tim in North Indiana? What's going on? Tim?
Speaker 3 (34:18):
Hey, Fellaw's a great job.
Speaker 7 (34:20):
By the way, I had.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
Two things I wanted to bring up, and now I'll
hang up and you guys can discuss the work.
Speaker 6 (34:27):
Is.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
One is the Rico Statute. Is that something that could
be applied to these fifty one treasonous intelligence agents who
signed the fraudulent Crossfire Hurricane affidavits. That's one. Two If
there is evidence, hard evidence that Obama was involved in
(34:47):
that Pole debacle after January twentieth, twenty seventeen, when he's
no longer in the White House, he doesn't no longer
have presidential immunity, could he be Uh, you know, he
held to account on actions he performed after his termobopas Tim.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
Thank you for the question on the fifty one intelligence officials.
They they have a very straightforward defense which is going
to be very unsatisfying everybody to hear, which is I
was so dumb I believed it. And this is the problem, right,
you can't prove that there was a unless they were
unless they were writing down I'm lying about the You know,
(35:28):
you have people approve that they knew what they were
saying was not true. Uh, And it's very easy for
people to say, no, I'm dumb, I believed it.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
So I think it's very hard and Rico, as we
saw with Diddy Rico, you want to use against mobsters
and cartels and very limited cases because once you start
talking about racketeering and your corrupt corrupt influence, it's very
you know you do you don't I know they were
going to try this against Trump in Atlanta, and that
was a that was a preposterous case. Okay, yeah, it
(35:58):
couldn't even get that to first. They couldn't even get
that thing, so using Rico. I think a lot of
people like the Rico thing because they saw it in
the in the Batman Batman beginning, Well.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
It sounds cool when you say Rico. You sound like
you're a super Look. I actually think he was asking
an interesting question on the back end, which is something
that the Supreme Court may have to apply the fact
pattern of their prior ruling, the six' to three decision
on presidential. POWER i think you just mentioned That, Atlanta georgia.
CASE i, think for, instance The Supreme court really hasn't addressed.
(36:32):
THIS i don't think you can bring state charges against a.
PRESIDENT i think that that would be the president has federal.
POWERS i don't think you can bring state charges like
they tried to Do Fanny willis In. Georgia that has
not gotten all the way to The Supreme. Court is my.
Understanding someone out there can correct me If i'm. WRONG
(36:53):
i think The Supreme court only analyzed federal. Charges those
that were brought Against trump In, florida those that were
brought Against trump IN. Dc they didn't go into The
New york state, charges and again that was a very
specific business related. Charge the question he's asking is how
far does presidential privilege extend into the. Future, Right so
(37:14):
let's say That obama is protected Until january, twenty twenty,
seventeen or whatever the date was When trump came into,
office and then he undergoes and continues. ACTIONS i think
it Gets.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
It's legally an interesting, theoretical but there's no you're not
going to find some Post obama presidency's smoking gun of
him In russia collusion that would still be admissible that.
WAY i, mean this is we're getting way down to things.
Speaker 1 (37:38):
Here they're asking, questions which are intelligent, questions AND i
think it actually becomes really. Interesting. Buck when you were
OUT i talked about. This one of the challenges of
all these, cases and this is me being a legal,
nerd is if the president has, protection which The Supreme
court has, said to do his, JOB i don't understand
(37:59):
how you pros acute people underneath the. President if the
president has protection to do it and he authorizes someone
underneath him to do, it it seems really unfair to
me to charge an underling who is responding to a president's.
Act in other, WORDS i think the presidential immunity ruling
(38:20):
is actually not only going to protect the. PRESIDENT i
think it is going to go to secondary and maybe
even tertiary. Figures there you go using it very appropriately
if you remember yesterday's, CALL i think it is going
to be a blanket in many ways of protection that
extends from the president and basically descends. DOWNWARDS i think
(38:42):
all this is a challenge What buck AND i are
trying to.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
Do none of them are going to. Prison, okay this
Is i'm just none of them are going to. Prison
AND i don't even think they're going to get. Charged
And i'm just telling you this BECAUSE i don't want.
Speaker 5 (38:50):
Anyone to.
Speaker 4 (38:52):
Get your hopes. Up but there's going to be more,
accountability you. Know and If i'm, wrong of Course i'll
come out and, say, wow they Actually i'm. SORRY i
DON'T i don't see it. Happening AND i Remember i've
been through. This i've been through this all The benghazi,
hearings you, Know Trey, goudy you, know, shouting pounding the
table and everything. Else the whole TIME i was, saying
no one's gonna get in trouble for. This no one's
going to Get trump telling you, SO i don't think
(39:14):
this is going to be something that ends the way
that a lot of people are. Hoping gary And, Burlington Burlington, Junction.
Missouri what's going?
Speaker 1 (39:22):
On?
Speaker 6 (39:22):
Gary, YEAH i was just wanting to talk a little
bit about. That clay kind of answered my question there
about this, blanket blanket pardoner or whatever not pardon but
you know WHAT i.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Mean, Community, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (39:38):
Yeah AND i don't. Know we'll find the world after
The democrats did what they did To, trump how come
to shoot don't fit the other?
Speaker 4 (39:45):
Side, well, again the problem that you run, against thank
you for calling, In. Gary the problem you run against
here over and over again is they even though we
know that for a whole bunch of, reasons they didn't
really believe the things that they were pretending to, believe
and they abuse the. System their fallback is always going.
Through this is the same thing With, come same thing With,
brennan same thing with the fifty one intelligence, officials all this.
(40:09):
Stuff they'll just, Say, OKAY i was. WRONG i THOUGHT
i was defending the country AND i was. Wrong that's
not a. Crime now we can all say bull. Crap
we know you know you were, lying but proving that
and fitting it into a statutory crime is the challenge.
Here those are different, things.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
AND i appreciate the. CALL i DON'T i think people every,
crime by and, large there are some strict liability. Crimes
every crime requires an act and then they call it
an actisraya and then A men'sraa mensrea requires, Intent and
What buck is getting at, is in order to prove
(40:50):
beyond a reasonable, doubt you have to be able to
prove that they knew it was a lie and that
they intended to propagate a. LIE i think What buck
is hitting on is the defense is going to be
very strongly rooted, in, hey we thought this was. True
and that's WHY i was asking him to, explain BECAUSE
(41:10):
i do think this. Matters there might be a thousand
different opinions about What Vladimir putin's health is right. Now
inside of THE, cia there's all these analysts working all the,
time and they are trying to look at whatever evidence
we have out, there and they're trying to, say, hey
we think he's one hundred percent. Healthy he's healthy as a,
(41:30):
horse he's going to live another twenty years and his
reign is going to. Continue somebody else might, say, HEY
i think there's evidence that he's been treated for some
sort of serious health related, condition and his power is
more tenuous than we. Think somebody's going to be, right
somebody's going to be, wrong but every spectrum of analysis
is going to be covered inside of. There AND i,
(41:52):
think AND i was of this opinion prior to understanding
doing this, show frankly and spending a little bit of,
TIME i kind of had the sense buck that the
law larger, world like there was one Interpretation i'm seeing
now like every interpretation under the sun basically is being
written at THE cia every day
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Now.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
I was watching the real time press conference, the live
press conference going on with Kerr Starmer, the UK Prime
Minister and Donald Trump, where they were announcing a UK
US deal on trade, big trade deal, legitimately huge. And
(00:34):
then also the EU has announced a huge trade I remember,
the EU is actually the largest economy in the world. Now,
it's not a country, so we are still the number
one country. But if you add all the EU together,
it's the largest economy in the world. And so it's
meaningful to say the least that these deals went through
in Clay, before we get into the we have to
(00:57):
get into the Trump was right, and we said, guys,
give it time, give it time.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
That you go back.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
You listen. The great thing about this radio show is
if you ever were curious, when did the market tank, Clay,
when we're.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
April, it was in the absolute tank. Everybody was saying, hey,
the economy's in trouble, recessions coming. Your four to oh
one k's are worthless. Trump has no idea what he's doing.
And we said hold your stocks. If you happen to
have additional money, now is the time probably to put
(01:29):
more money in buy and hold long term. And as
we are speaking to all of you this Monday, another
all time high in the S and P five hundred
in the Dow. If you just never checked your four
to oh one k year starts and you're like, hey,
I'm only going to check it halfway.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Through, you're up big on the year.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
If you bought in April, you're up nearly thirty percent
from where those lows were when all the so called
experts were telling you that the world was falling apart.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
So it is a huge victory lap moment for Trump
because we said at the time, and this was a
moment where the so called consensus was very much going
against Trump, right the economists, the CNBC watchers, and the
CNBC hosts, that that whole crew was, well, we all
know the trade deal, that this is going to lead
(02:19):
to trade wars and higher prices, and the stock market's
going to tank and it can lead to a recession.
And to be fair, and this is why I said,
you can go back and listen. We said, we do
not know that actually that Donald Trump has earned the
right to have the trust of the American people on
the economy and on negotiating trade, I think more than
really anything else. Maybe immigration too, but on the economy
(02:42):
and trade, he knows more than the people criticizing him.
He truly does. He understands these dynamics better than the
people out there, you know, the peanut gallery, the cheap seats,
you know, saying oh, he's gonna ruin everything. We have
huge trade deals announced. Here's just a little overview of
some of this. Okay, this was you had Trump yesterday
(03:03):
in Scotland, a Turnberry apparently a lovely golf course. Here
was Trump in Scotland talking about how look at where
the American economy is. Look at all this enthusiasm and
play this is cut seven. Play it every leader.
Speaker 5 (03:18):
When I went to NATO the other day, every leader said,
you have the hottest country in the world. We have
the hottest country in the world. We're taking in hundreds
of billions of dollars. We have the highest stock market
we've ever had, we have the best numbers we've ever had.
But we have hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into
our country. And I think it's the hottest. And by
the way, one year ago our country was dead. We
(03:41):
had a dead country because of an incompetent president and
incompetent democrats. All they know how to do is talk
and think about conspiracy theories and nonsense. If they'd waste
their time talking about America being great again, it would
be so much nicer, so much easier.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
Clay, A big part of this, too is people looking
at these negotiations, these trade not now these deals, right,
negotiations have come to a conclusion it's a great deal
for America. They can't get around this that this has
improved the economic landscape for the American people. And this
is in so many ways the manifestation of an America
(04:19):
first trade policy, as in advantaging this country.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Finally, what Trump is a master of is leverage. It's
the number one thing that he recognizes. If he gets
an inch on you, he will turn it into a mile.
And his thought and this is one of the things
that you can go back and watch Trump talking about
this for generations if you so desire, even on Oprah.
(04:44):
What he understands is this market is the most valuable
market to have access to in the world. And his
perspective on that is, there should be a cost that
we extract from other countries to be able to access
the richest market of consumers in the world. And everybody said,
(05:04):
this is unbelievable. There's no way this is going to work.
We had a balanced budget last month that nobody's talking about.
Speaker 6 (05:11):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
I understand that it can be somewhat of a calendar quirk,
and look, we've got to get better and better.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
But there's almost zero doubt that.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
We are going to have hundreds of billions of dollars
in tariffs. And what Trump has said so far has
been true. The American consumer is not fronting those costs.
It is being eaten largely by manufacturers and other countries
that have cut back prices to try to remain competitive.
Now we still have a deal to do with China.
(05:41):
But as we near August, First Liberation Day was in
early April. If I recall correctly, and if you just
didn't look at your stocks and now you suddenly decide, hey,
it's getting close to August. Maybe I'll go look at
my four to OHO one K. Maybe I'll go look
at the end X funds that I hold. You've got
(06:02):
record money, and I think people are feeling that you
are not seeing skyrocketing inflation. Inflation remains low and in
general wage growth, which is really the I would argue
the most important single stat is is wage growth outgrowing
cost of goods. If you had to synthesize what makes
(06:24):
you feel like you're doing better in general, it is
when your income as a worker is growing faster than
the cost of the goods that you purchase with your income.
And we have a situation where Trump has reversed the
downturn of Biden, and your incomes are growing faster than
the things that you have to buy now, I think
this is important. The prices are never going to come
(06:47):
back down, and this is the toxicity of inflation. By
and large, we never hit negative inflation. There are all
sorts of negative connotations economically that would occur. So the pernicious, awful,
dastardly part of inflation is it does not ever go back.
You're wanting to buy a hamburger for three dollars instead
(07:09):
of five, it's never gonna get returned to the three dollars.
All you can do is slow the rate of growth,
which is why I always compare it to putting on weight.
If you're continuing to put on weight sooner or later.
The fact that you're putting on weight at a lower
rate does not mean you're not going to be fat.
And so all of those are major issues that unfortunately
(07:32):
are going to stay with us from the Biden regime.
But Trump, Look, he ran on a economy, border crime,
and six months in buck I can't remember a president
who has more delivered on the things he said he
would deliver on than Trump in the first six months
has everything that he ran on. Economy, border crime is
infinitely better than it was under Biden.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
And we're not even doing the comparison you could do,
which is imagine if Kamala.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Harris was president right now, well, yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
None of this and you know that would be the
thing that most people would go to. If Trump had
underperformed a little bit the first six months, ran into
some stumbles or whatever, you could always do the well,
at least it's not Kamala. And in this case, it's
like comparing the top student in the class to the
worst student in the class. Right, I mean, the difference
is night and day between the administration that you are
(08:24):
getting right now and what could have been and what
forty eight percent, forty nine percent or no, it was
more than that forty nine percent of the American people
voted for in this last election, which is insane, which
is to have Kamala Harris in charge of this economy,
none of these trade deals would have gotten done Trump.
This is just one of these moments where remember we
(08:45):
said we learned a lesson from the first term, which
was everyone quote unquote everyone said Trump is wrong on China.
He's wrong to take the approach you to China, And
not only was it correct in the implementation, it was
so correct that Biden didn't change it because they knew
that it would cause problems, it would be bad, right,
(09:07):
So he was right on China when everyone said he
was going to be wrong. Clay, I think what we're
seeing again is Trump will be right on trade negotiations
when quote unquote everyone said that he would be wrong.
Here he is on the trade deal with the EU.
We didn't even talk about this in specifics. Yeah, this
is cut eight play it.
Speaker 5 (09:25):
This started months ago, this negotiation, so we knew pretty
much what we were getting into, and we were able
to make a deal that's very satisfactory to both So
it's tremendously. It's a very powerful deal. It's a very
big deal. It's the biggest of all the deals. It
will be the biggest of all the deals. So we're
very honored to have done so.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
And it's a huge deal with the EU, as I said,
the largest actual economic zone on the planet because it's
all those countries put together. And now clay American producers
will be operating on a more level playing field with
trade partners like the EU. There's hundreds of billions of
dollars of investment that's agreed to from the EU. Here,
(10:09):
there's a lot of US energy that's going to be bought.
Additional energy is going to be bought by the EU. Now,
I mean, this is it's so good that they can't
even come up the Trump haters can't even come up
with a way to tell you it's bad. I think
that tells you everything.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Yeah, look, I think they're running scared. I mean I
talked about this a little bit over the weekend. I
think Trump has been proven right on the Epstein stuff,
which I know people are still somewhat fired up about.
But Democrats, and I think there's audio of Trump talking
about this, but Democrats had these Epstein files for four years.
They're losing on the economy, they're losing on border, they're
(10:46):
losing on crime. So now they're trying to say, oh,
Trump's to blame for Epstein, and my thing on that
would be, well, you had the files for four years
under Joe Biden, why did you not release everything? Why
did you not bring all the charges. We'll see what's
gonna end up happening there, But I do think it's
worth you all thinking about this. They've pivoted from economy,
(11:08):
border crime attacks to hey, all we can really hit
Trump on is Epstein, And that is I think a sign,
honestly of how well he's doing on all the major
big issues the EBC, economy, border crime that he ran
on in the first six months that they're not even
really coming after him. I think they've recognized buck that
(11:29):
going after Trump on hey, he's deporting too many people
is actually harming them. You know, the Wall Street Journal
had an incredible that graphic over the weekend. Maybe we
can talk about this a little bit. Democrats have hit
a thirty five year low in popularity. That's pretty extraordinary
and the lowest level of popularity that has ever existed
(11:52):
because they are picking a lot of things to attack
Trump on that the vast majority of the American public
agrees with him on.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
It is a good day everybody. Trump is taking a
much deserved victory lap. And just look at what's going
on with the economy all around you. I know that
sometimes good is less interesting or grabs the attention less
than catastrophe, especially in the news business. But there will
be challenges ahead. Trust me. Take take it in that
(12:20):
things are going well right now. One of the challenges
Trump talked about was really no progress with Russia at all,
so we can talk more about that. Trump is ticked
off at Putin. I could tell you from watching that
interview this morning and previous dates he's made, So that's
something that's going to get more attention now. And I
think Trump has the wind at his back. I think
Putin is underestimating the kind of pain that Trump is
(12:44):
willing to inflict economically on Russia to bring this thing
to a conclusion. So we can talk about that as well.
But on trade, Trump is not tired of winning.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
We're joined by our friend Sean Davis, CEO and co
founder of the Federalists. Go to the Federalist dot com.
It is one of our favorite sites on the world
wide Web, which I don't think anybody calls it anymore
really that, but it is the worldwide Web Federalist dot Com.
Great work there, including what we're about to talk about. Sean,
(13:21):
Thanks for taking a break from what you're doing to
chat with us. What's going on.
Speaker 7 (13:25):
Well, thanks for having me back. It's a pleasure.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Let's dive into this, man Shelby, because so d and
I Gabbard I sat down with her and we had
a discussion in DC about a month month ago about
a lot of things, and certainly one of her mandates
is to clean up the deep state mess that was
well really the rot that spread from the top down
(13:49):
in places like the CIA. She has released information about
the soft coup attempt, or said the non violent coup
attempt maybe a better way to put against Donald Trump.
You are following very closely now, you and Molly Hemingway,
your colleague at the Federalists, have been on this for
a decade.
Speaker 8 (14:08):
Now.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
What is new and important that has come out. We're
going to walk everyone through this because the rest of
the media. Obviously they were in on the collusion, right,
I mean, they were in on the whole hoax, the fraud.
What is new that people need to know about now?
Speaker 7 (14:23):
So I think to understand the importance of the new developments,
I think it's important to take a step back and
look at what they were trying to do with the
Russia collusion hoax back in sixteen and seventeen and eighteen.
And there were two main pillars of that entire hoax.
One of them was that Donald Trump personally colluded with
(14:45):
Russia and Putin to steal the election from Hillary, that
he was an agent of Russian, that he was working
with them. That was the whole Steele dossier. That was
the bulk of the Mueller thing. We know that was bunk.
We've known that with Bunk for a long time. But
before they could even and get to that phase of
the operation, they had the first point, which was the
(15:05):
claim that Russia meddled in our election in twenty sixteen
for the purpose of helping Donald Trump because Putin wanted
Trump to win. That was injected into the bloodstream, and
that was necessary to be there for people to believe
that Trump colluded. But what we learned last week from
the document releases from TULCA Gabbard is that that claim
(15:25):
was a lie. The CIA knew it was a lie.
Obama and Brennan and Comy were all told it was
a lie from their own experts, and they went ahead
with it anyway. They cooked the books, they fabricated evidence,
they ignored the experts, and they put out this bogus
Intel Community assessment claiming that Russia had interfered for the
(15:46):
purpose of Donald of helping Donald Trump win. And that
was a lie.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
All right, Sean, thanks for coming on with us. Thanks
for also sharing a great hometown or our family town
right now. Sure you saw that the state of Tennessee,
according to CNBC, was the worst place in America to live.
And I think I speak for everyone out there when
I say, yeah, you're right, it's awful. Please don't come here.
But you're running the Federalist, and I bet you get
(16:14):
asked this question a lot, and it's the number one
question I get asked as in regards to this story,
Let's pretend you had a magic wand and you were
able to dictate policy from this point going forward, as
it pertains to what happened with Russia.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
What should happen?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
In your mind if you had that magic wand and
you were able to direct policy, what do you think
will happen? What is the significance, in other words, going forward,
not looking back, looking forward prospectively as to what should
happen and what will happen here?
Speaker 7 (16:49):
So I think two things. If I can may wave
a magic wand, I'd make two things happen. Number One, Comy, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe,
and Struck would all go to prison because somebody has
to pay a price for the crimes they perpetrated against
the country.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
At minimum, they would be charged with a crime if
you were able. Okay, that is a concrete action. That's good. Okay,
what else?
Speaker 7 (17:10):
And then the second, so that we're going to put
that in like kind of the law enforcement accountability for
the fraud bucket. The other bucket is we have to
make sure that something like this never happens again. And
there was actually a recommendation which was a really good
one in the document that came out last week, which
was a declassified Hipsy Report and investigation of the ICA
(17:31):
and then recommendations on what to do with it. And
I think this business where you had these these political
appointees going in and cooking the books and saying, you know,
we don't care if you don't think it's true.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
We call it.
Speaker 7 (17:44):
John Brennan said of the Steel dossier accusations when told
they were not true and not corroborated, but don't they
ring true? There has to be a way to remove
that type of political corruption from the process. And it's interesting.
For a long time, we kind of were led to
believe that all the experts agreed on the ICA, that
(18:05):
they all agreed that Russia was doing this to help Trump,
And the reality that we learned was that the experts
were saying, no, that's not true, and it was the
Democrat political appointees who demanded that it go in and
be released.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
So what would you like to see now from the
DNI in terms of either further transparency and or actions
from within the IC the intelligence community sean to deal
with this at those levels, right, there's the accountability and
there's preventing this from happening in the future. What do
you think we should see from d and I Gabbard
(18:40):
and Dcia Ratcliffe, the Director of Central Intelligence to get
to those two goals?
Speaker 7 (18:48):
Well, I think they've done a great job so far.
You know, Ratcliffe, to my understanding, was trying to get
these documents out back in twenty twenty, even before the election,
and was stymied by then a director Gina Haspell, who
It's interesting she was running London's office. Is the station
chief back when some of the original you know, hoax
(19:10):
intel that became the basis of Crossfire Hurricane came through
the London embassy. I would like to know more about
her role. I would like to know all the intel
that was used. I would like to know all of
the people who touched the lies, who signed the affidavits
for the fights of warrants. I think we need complete
and total transparency and openness about every single aspect of
(19:32):
how that hoax was run from the beginning. And luckily,
so far it seems like Ratcliffe and Gabbard are on
the same page there. I'm thankful that they have been
as forth right as.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
They have been.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Also, the Obama factor in all this. You know the
names that you're talking about here, Sean Brennan, Clapper right.
Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence. Brenner was the
Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan had been Obama's counter terrorisms
are in the White House Previously. Obama, though, is very
clearly implicated in this too. Now Clay and I have
(20:05):
talked about how he was the president. The Supreme Court's
weighed in he's not going to face charges. But I
do think it's important for people to understand that this
wasn't the IC independent of the White House under the
Obama administration. The collusion included the collusion of Obama and
his top people in the IC to try to essentially
(20:27):
hobble the Trump administration.
Speaker 7 (20:30):
Yeah, and I think that's a tricky one. You know.
Number one, we had the kind of presidential immunity thing. Obviously,
a president can't go out and like pop someone in
the head and be like I can kill whoever I
want on president, there's limits to it, clearly, but the
Supreme Court has ruled that the president has a wide
latitude to execute the authorities of his office. I actually wonder,
(20:54):
in looking what happened, if there is a better case
to be given that Obama's probably not going to get
hauled into a court and hecuff slam on him, might
it be better to look at what Brennan and Kmy
and Clapper did, and in the things they did in
response to Obama saying get all the intel, might it
be a better option to look at what they did
and say, you know what, they actually defrauded Obama. He
(21:17):
told them to get this info with the expectation of
what he was going to be given was accurate, and
instead they all got together and colluded and conspired to
give him bogus intel and to defraud not just the
American people, but the commander in chief and President of
the United States as well. I wonder if that might
be a better tack to take going forward.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
I think that's a super interesting idea. We're talking to
Sean Davis. You can check him out at the Federalist.
Does great work there.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
I mentioned if you had the magic wand a lot
of this audience, and I would put myself in this
category is very skeptical that anybody in a position of
power in the Democrat Party is ever going to be
held accountable for anything that they have ever done on
and I think this is where a lot of the
frustration Epstein everything else comes. You are Grandma who walked
(22:06):
in the Capital Jan sixth, Merrick Garland, the Biden DOJ.
I mean they will manighacally focus on it to the
extent that they're going to do a pre morning raid
to arrest you for trespass on that day. Meanwhile, you
got all these different alleged crimes being committed by people
in positions of power on the left in the Democrat Party.
(22:28):
What do you think the chances are if you were
handicapping right now, Sean, that there will actually be charges brought.
I'm not even talking about convictions. I'm just talking about
charges brought against any of these individuals related to what
they did surrounding the Russia collusion. Lie.
Speaker 7 (22:45):
Yeah, that's a hard question, because you know, I'm not
involved obviously in like the internal discussions about those types
of charges. I think they're far better now than they
ever have been, just kind of reading between the lines
the things we've seen and heard from Ratcliff, from Gabbard,
from Bondi. Bondi forming these DJ task forces to go
(23:06):
after the Russia hoaxers is opposed to doing a special counsel,
I think is a really good idea. These task forces
have traditionally been used by the federal government to get
cooperations from all the various agencies and were a major
tool used against the mob, against racketeering, against organized crime
early on, which is something you have to kind of
(23:26):
look at. You have to look at an organized conspiracy
in order to get around a lot of these statute
of limitations that you have. But I think it's important
to look at what happened like j six ers. These
were people who are put through the ringer. They were bankrupted,
their families were terrorized, they were eventually pardoned. Why is
the right not putting the left and the people who've
(23:48):
done far, far worse things to this country and can
get far greater crimes. Why are they not subjecting them
to the same punishment by process that the left is doing.
Because if anyone has ever been involved in any sort
of lawsuit criminal sibyl, they'll tell you it's awful, it's miserable.
It SAPs you of all types of energy and focus.
And what I don't understand is why is Congress in
(24:09):
their Oversight Committee not doing the exact same things to
the left. Why is DOJ not doing the exact same
thing to the left that they did to our side
for eight years? Because I do think the process is
the punishment and our side was terrorized by the process
for eight years, and it's about time the other side
gets a turn in the barrel if we're ever going
to get to a point where people decide we can't
do this anymore.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Last question for you, a little bit quick here maybe
on the answer, and I know it's not a topic
that necessarily lends itself to a rapid answer. If the
Trump team we're listening right now, and I think there's
probably a decent chance that some of them are, what
advice would you give them on what they should do
for the Epstein controversy at this point?
Speaker 7 (24:48):
Oh man, that's intriguing.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Thirty seconds.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
Yeah, I wish they would just release everything. I get
why that is difficult. They've got an appeal with Gleame
Max going on now, there's a lot of victim right stuff.
I wish they would release everything, and if the conclusions
are different than what people are expecting, walk us through
why that is what they looked at. I just think
openness and transparency is the most important antidote here, and
(25:15):
I think it got over sold very early on by
some people in the administration and that caused them a
lot of problems, and they're now having to take themselves
out from that.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I know I said last question, but I'm actually curious.
You run a digital media site. I sold one several
years ago. Can you tell a difference in the ad
market in Trump two point zero compared to Trump one
point zero? Does it feel fairer to you based on
the business that you run?
Speaker 7 (25:42):
It doesn't to me. We were targeted for extinction by
the Biden admin and the entire left wing censorship industrial complex.
They try to get us blacklisted from Google, from Facebook,
they went after all the major ad players, got us
blacklisted there. So I say, no, we have not seen
any difference, but it's because of the damage that was
(26:02):
done to us by our own government and our own
tax dollars illegally was pretty significant, and so I haven't
seen the big change in the ad market yet, at
least for us.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
That's something we should have a longer form discussion about sometime,
Sean Davis the Federalist, because I do think that's a
story that a lot of people don't understand how aggressively
the Biden team went after digital truth tellers, in my opinion,
to try to bankrupt them, and most of that story
really hasn't been told to a large degree. Appreciate the time, Sean.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Thank you both.
Speaker 6 (26:34):
Take care.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
The Team forty.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers Making the American
Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
Sean's perspective there, I think is really interesting because and
I'm sure you have felt this too, Buck, and maybe
we'll take some calls on this. Eight hundred and two
two two eight A two. I think what I kind
of sense is that there is a deep seated distrust
that anything consequential is going to happen for any of this.
(27:10):
And I understand why because you know, look, I think
the chances of Obama being charged. I think Trump did
a good job of tamping that down. And you just
heard Sean Davis talk about presidential privilege and the ruling
that came down from the Supreme Court. But I thought
his angle there, Buck, of Obama actually being defrauded in
(27:31):
some way by his intelligence agents. The challenge, though, and
I want to get your perspective on it, is I
think again people think that there's one opinion that comes
out of the intelligence agencies, there's like a hundred as those.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
I appreciated Sean's outside the box thinking on that one.
But I mean, remember a week ago was the discussion
was will Obama face charges based on what D and
I Gabbard was saying. So I don't think that exculpating
Obama is the way this is going to go forward.
I also don't think Obama's going to face charges, as
we said at the time, and I think you're going
(28:07):
to find out we were right. I don't think any
of them are going to face charges, and that's just
the way it's going to be. But that doesn't mean
we shouldn't know the information and shouldn't have access to
the truth, because at least then it can be a
political question. There can be political consequences to keep these
maniacs out of power going forward, But that may be
the best we can hope for in the situation.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
We talked a lot about this on the program Thursday Friday,
as the fallout of all the revelations of Telsea Gabberd
really were unspooling. And I'm curious from your perspective two things. One,
I do think this idea that there is one opinion.
I do think that you can hammer home that there
are hundreds of people working and they're fighting over what
(28:51):
the interpretation is. And I think there is the idea
out there that the intelligence agency has one opinion on
an issue, and I'd like for you to talk about
how that actually looks inside of an agency. Second part
of this, and I don't know the answer. I'm curious
how you would analyze this. Let's acknowledge that we think
that this whole thing was screwed up with Russia collusion.
(29:13):
Has it improved inside of the agencies? Is there something
that is going to be a positive of the mess
that unspooled? So from your perspective on those two how
would you analyze that multiple different perspectives and has anything
changed going forward?
Speaker 4 (29:29):
There's so many perspectives that you generally can't even get
agreement within an office on an issue, never mind across agencies.
So that's always going to be just the reality. And
remember these are assessments, it's analysis. The intel community is
wrong a lot, even when there is some unanimity on things.
They you know, people they missed nine to eleven. Obviously,
(29:52):
they missed fall the Berlin Wall, they missed the uh
reality of the Afghanic. Well, there's a whole bunch of things.
Point to plenty of intelligence failures because really it's analysis
about what's going to happen, right, you're really talking about
predicting the future. The intelligence community doesn't put it forward
that way, but we think that this is what's going on,
(30:13):
and this is what's next. Is a lot of they
sometimes we call it opportunity analysis, or they're just trying
to trying to tell you what's going to happen, and
no one's good. No one can predict the future really,
as I always say, occasionally someone can, but no one
can with any consistency. So that's on that and then
so that was the first part of it, the multi
(30:33):
and then you're asking about is it going to get better?
Is it going to change? There's the accountability piece for
people that were inside who I think now at least
have gotten a public there's this sort of public retribution
against their reputations, Brendan Clapper and others. But you have
to change the culture of these places, and that's a
(30:54):
long term. That's a long term thing. The intelligence agencies
post nine to eleven got a lot of people who
were who were meat eaters so to speak, who wanted
to go get bin laden and a lot of them left.
You know, there's a lot of guys and guys who
went in there to do the mission. And I'm not
(31:15):
speaking about myself here, but I certainly know plenty of
people that are in this in this boat, and the
bureaucracy took over and in the Obama years, they just
couldn't handle it anymore. So that's what I see with that.
And now let us uh, let us dive into some
of these calls. And we've got Charles in Northampton, Pennsylvania.
(31:37):
What's going on, Charles?
Speaker 8 (31:38):
Yes, well, I was just thinking maybe we should look
at rather than putting people in jail, that we should
look for recovery of expenses for you know, court costs, uh,
maybe slander and libel, uh, lots of wages, emotional distress,
(31:58):
you know, the punitive damages, that kind of stuff towards
and hit Obama and the Clintons and Comy clap or
Brennan where it hurts, which would be the money that
they have in the bank that they've accumulated over the
last however many years.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
Charles, I'm not really I'm not really seeing it. I mean,
in the case of the Obama's they're worth over one
hundred million dollars. I mean, they could hire lawyers for
the next century and it wouldn't really affect them very much,
so I don't think. And also they would have Obama
would have immunity in office as he was president. You
look at the others you're talking about bringing civil suits.
Bringing a civil suit is very expensive for the person
(32:37):
bringing it, right So, unless you're saying you want the
federal government to sue them on what, I'm not really
clear on how this would go. Clay, do you have
a better picture of this?
Speaker 1 (32:48):
The only thing thanks for the call. The only thing
I can think is that he's saying he wants Trump
to sue and try to hold these individuals responsible. Here's
the challenge. First of all, most civil suit basis for
lawsuits the statute of limitations has expired, so I don't
know in front of me right now. Usually WI bol defamation, slander.
(33:11):
There's usually around to two year and individual states can differ,
but usually around to two year based.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
I also don't think you could hit that hurdle. When
you're talking about a president, a public figure. You have
to prove actual malice, you have to prove all I
mean this is so the answer is no, I don't
think you're going to be able to get some kind
of civil judgment that destroys these people that work.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
The people ask all the time, can you sue? The
answer is yes, you can sue for anything. The better
question is can you sue and have any likelihood of
success that is significant in nature?
Speaker 6 (33:44):
For this?
Speaker 1 (33:45):
The answer I think is no. And for people out
there who are confused, he was asking a question. I
think about civil lawsuits as opposed to criminal culpability. The
civil standard is lower. And look, I mean to your point, Buck,
We've talked about this before. Sometimes the process can be
the punishment. So yes, there are legal fees associated with
(34:05):
this everything else. I just I don't find that to
be a very likely or significantly likelihood of success on
that angle.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
Tim in North Indiana? What's going on? Tim?
Speaker 3 (34:18):
Hey, Fellaw's a great job.
Speaker 7 (34:20):
By the way, I had.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
Two things I wanted to bring up, and now I'll
hang up and you guys can discuss the work.
Speaker 6 (34:27):
Is.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
One is the Rico Statute. Is that something that could
be applied to these fifty one treasonous intelligence agents who
signed the fraudulent Crossfire Hurricane affidavits. That's one. Two If
there is evidence, hard evidence that Obama was involved in
(34:47):
that Pole debacle after January twentieth, twenty seventeen, when he's
no longer in the White House, he doesn't no longer
have presidential immunity, could he be Uh, you know, he
held to account on actions he performed after his termobopas Tim.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
Thank you for the question on the fifty one intelligence officials.
They they have a very straightforward defense which is going
to be very unsatisfying everybody to hear, which is I
was so dumb I believed it. And this is the problem, right,
you can't prove that there was a unless they were
unless they were writing down I'm lying about the You know,
(35:28):
you have people approve that they knew what they were
saying was not true. Uh, And it's very easy for
people to say, no, I'm dumb, I believed it.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
So I think it's very hard and Rico, as we
saw with Diddy Rico, you want to use against mobsters
and cartels and very limited cases because once you start
talking about racketeering and your corrupt corrupt influence, it's very
you know you do you don't I know they were
going to try this against Trump in Atlanta, and that
was a that was a preposterous case. Okay, yeah, it
(35:58):
couldn't even get that to first. They couldn't even get
that thing, so using Rico. I think a lot of
people like the Rico thing because they saw it in
the in the Batman Batman beginning, Well.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
It sounds cool when you say Rico. You sound like
you're a super Look. I actually think he was asking
an interesting question on the back end, which is something
that the Supreme Court may have to apply the fact
pattern of their prior ruling, the six' to three decision
on presidential. POWER i think you just mentioned That, Atlanta georgia.
CASE i, think for, instance The Supreme court really hasn't addressed.
(36:32):
THIS i don't think you can bring state charges against a.
PRESIDENT i think that that would be the president has federal.
POWERS i don't think you can bring state charges like
they tried to Do Fanny willis In. Georgia that has
not gotten all the way to The Supreme. Court is my.
Understanding someone out there can correct me If i'm. WRONG
(36:53):
i think The Supreme court only analyzed federal. Charges those
that were brought Against trump In, florida those that were
brought Against trump IN. Dc they didn't go into The
New york state, charges and again that was a very
specific business related. Charge the question he's asking is how
far does presidential privilege extend into the. Future, Right so
(37:14):
let's say That obama is protected Until january, twenty twenty,
seventeen or whatever the date was When trump came into,
office and then he undergoes and continues. ACTIONS i think
it Gets.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
It's legally an interesting, theoretical but there's no you're not
going to find some Post obama presidency's smoking gun of
him In russia collusion that would still be admissible that.
WAY i, mean this is we're getting way down to things.
Speaker 1 (37:38):
Here they're asking, questions which are intelligent, questions AND i
think it actually becomes really. Interesting. Buck when you were
OUT i talked about. This one of the challenges of
all these, cases and this is me being a legal,
nerd is if the president has, protection which The Supreme
court has, said to do his, JOB i don't understand
(37:59):
how you pros acute people underneath the. President if the
president has protection to do it and he authorizes someone
underneath him to do, it it seems really unfair to
me to charge an underling who is responding to a president's.
Act in other, WORDS i think the presidential immunity ruling
(38:20):
is actually not only going to protect the. PRESIDENT i
think it is going to go to secondary and maybe
even tertiary. Figures there you go using it very appropriately
if you remember yesterday's, CALL i think it is going
to be a blanket in many ways of protection that
extends from the president and basically descends. DOWNWARDS i think
(38:42):
all this is a challenge What buck AND i are
trying to.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
Do none of them are going to. Prison, okay this
Is i'm just none of them are going to. Prison
AND i don't even think they're going to get. Charged
And i'm just telling you this BECAUSE i don't want.
Speaker 5 (38:50):
Anyone to.
Speaker 4 (38:52):
Get your hopes. Up but there's going to be more,
accountability you. Know and If i'm, wrong of Course i'll
come out and, say, wow they Actually i'm. SORRY i
DON'T i don't see it. Happening AND i Remember i've
been through. This i've been through this all The benghazi,
hearings you, Know Trey, goudy you, know, shouting pounding the
table and everything. Else the whole TIME i was, saying
no one's gonna get in trouble for. This no one's
going to Get trump telling you, SO i don't think
(39:14):
this is going to be something that ends the way
that a lot of people are. Hoping gary And, Burlington Burlington, Junction.
Missouri what's going?
Speaker 1 (39:22):
On?
Speaker 6 (39:22):
Gary, YEAH i was just wanting to talk a little
bit about. That clay kind of answered my question there
about this, blanket blanket pardoner or whatever not pardon but
you know WHAT i.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Mean, Community, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (39:38):
Yeah AND i don't. Know we'll find the world after
The democrats did what they did To, trump how come
to shoot don't fit the other?
Speaker 4 (39:45):
Side, well, again the problem that you run, against thank
you for calling, In. Gary the problem you run against
here over and over again is they even though we
know that for a whole bunch of, reasons they didn't
really believe the things that they were pretending to, believe
and they abuse the. System their fallback is always going.
Through this is the same thing With, come same thing With,
brennan same thing with the fifty one intelligence, officials all this.
(40:09):
Stuff they'll just, Say, OKAY i was. WRONG i THOUGHT
i was defending the country AND i was. Wrong that's
not a. Crime now we can all say bull. Crap
we know you know you were, lying but proving that
and fitting it into a statutory crime is the challenge.
Here those are different, things.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
AND i appreciate the. CALL i DON'T i think people every,
crime by and, large there are some strict liability. Crimes
every crime requires an act and then they call it
an actisraya and then A men'sraa mensrea requires, Intent and
What buck is getting at, is in order to prove
(40:50):
beyond a reasonable, doubt you have to be able to
prove that they knew it was a lie and that
they intended to propagate a. LIE i think What buck
is hitting on is the defense is going to be
very strongly rooted, in, hey we thought this was. True
and that's WHY i was asking him to, explain BECAUSE
(41:10):
i do think this. Matters there might be a thousand
different opinions about What Vladimir putin's health is right. Now
inside of THE, cia there's all these analysts working all the,
time and they are trying to look at whatever evidence
we have out, there and they're trying to, say, hey
we think he's one hundred percent. Healthy he's healthy as a,
(41:30):
horse he's going to live another twenty years and his
reign is going to. Continue somebody else might, say, HEY
i think there's evidence that he's been treated for some
sort of serious health related, condition and his power is
more tenuous than we. Think somebody's going to be, right
somebody's going to be, wrong but every spectrum of analysis
is going to be covered inside of. There AND i,
(41:52):
think AND i was of this opinion prior to understanding
doing this, show frankly and spending a little bit of,
TIME i kind of had the sense buck that the
law larger, world like there was one Interpretation i'm seeing
now like every interpretation under the sun basically is being
written at THE cia every day
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.