June 3, 2023 • 36 mins
Presidential candidate Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina joins Clay and Buck to make the case for why he should be the next president of the United States and responds to the racism spewed his way on The View. Fired black female trainer sues Equinox gym, wins $11 million, despite being late for work 47 times in 10 months. FedEx ordered to pay $365 million in punitive damages ruling in racial discrimination case brought against the company by a former employee. Biden ignores Peter Doocy question on pardoning Trump.
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):
Welcome to today's edition of The Klay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Second hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now. Everybody,
thank you for hanging out with us. We are I
believe what we joined do? We have him? Okay, we do.
We're joined now by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.
He is a presidential candidate in this GP primary. Senator Scott,
(00:26):
pleasure to have you back on the program Sir.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Well, thank y'all both for having me back, and it's
always a good day to be back on here with you.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I know it's an obvious question. It's an easy question
from the perspective of the one asking, but I think
it's a more difficult one to make worthwhile for the
one responding. Senator, why are you running? What do you
want to do? That would be different from some of
the other Republican nominees.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I think it's so important for me, the guy who's
been blessed with the America that everyone should be in
love with. I believe that America can do or anyone,
but she has done for me, and that includes restoring hope,
creating opportunities, and protecting the America we love. I would
start my presidential service by resigning the XL Keystone pipeline.
(01:15):
Because our American energy future is our national security future.
Where we are in charge of our own lives, our
own energy, we are going to be on solid grounds.
Second thing I would say is that China is an
existential threat period. Everything that we do to decouple our
economy from China's economy is good for the nation. And
(01:37):
without any questions saying with the security apparatus, our southern
border is a crisis. I've always said, if you don't
control the back door to your house, it ain't your house.
If you don't control your southern border and might not
be your country. President Biden has failed US, failed US
miserably protecting Americans, including the seventy one thousand Americans who've
(02:01):
lost their lives to fitting All and one hundred folks
that our national security lives walking across our southern border.
We have to secure our southern border and use the
latest technology in order to surveil our southern border and
stop fitting All from killing another seventy thousand Americans this year.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Senator, you got called out, and I know this is
crazy to even have to ask about, because I think
it's the dumbest show filled with the dumbest people on
media on a daily basis. But Joy Behar said, essentially,
you didn't know what it was like to be black
in America. I'm curious how you would respond to that,
as well as Sunny hostin coming after you. I don't know.
(02:43):
I guess it's a sign that the view views you
as a threat to their left wing hegemony. But what
are your thoughts when you hear someone like Joy Behar
say you don't know what it's like to be black
in America and so your experience doesn't count.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
But there's no doubt a why ladies dressing up in
black faith giving a black man advice probably doesn't ring
true in anyone's mind, certainly not my own. But more importantly,
I find it offensive and disgusting and dangerous for a
very different reason. I'm used to having the left attacked
me because the truth of my life disproves their lives.
(03:22):
And I say that because of this. When I helped
write the tax cuts and jobs that, they called me
a prop. When I started talking about refunding the police,
they called me a token. When I stepped forward and
pushed back from President Biden's malign agenda. They called me
the d words. I don't I'm used to it. Here's
(03:44):
what is dangerous and offensive to me. For every young
child in America wanting to think for themselves draw their
own conclusions. What they're saying to them is stay in
your place, do not stick your head up, because we're
going to tell tell you how to think, so you
never learn anything about what you should think. It is
(04:05):
literally the dumbest, most offensive thing I've ever witnessed on
TV to hear these millionaire TV personalities telling me how
to live my life as a black man, but more
importantly suggesting to every child stay in your place, follow
(04:27):
my lead, for you too will reap the same harvest
of Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas or any other conservative
who dares dares to think for themselves.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
You know, it's, first of all, that's a very powerful response.
I think it's incredibly well said. I don't know if
you saw the comments from ice Cube. He's a popular
rapper for our audience out there that might not know him.
On the flip side, he spoke out over the weekend
and said, hey, we've been voting Democrat almost exclusively for
sixty years, and he said, how has that made Black
(05:03):
Americans experience better? I'm curious if you saw those comments
and what you think about what they could represent in
terms of Black Americans being encouraged by ice Cube to
look around and say, hey, being all in on one
side maybe isn't the best way to advance our political interest.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
What are your thoughts there.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Well, I celebrate ice Cube's comments, so I did not
hear them. I will say this that the African American
poverty rate has hovered over twenty five percent for those
sixty years. You're talking about forty of those sixty years.
The Democrats from nineteen fifty four until nineteen ninety four
had one hundred percent control of the United States House
(05:46):
of Representatives. Just take a look back and see how
bad those years were for African Americans. Here's the difference.
And this is why I think ice Cube has a
finger on the artery, not just the pulse, but the artery.
It's that when we we were in control as Republicans,
we funded historically black colleges and universities at the highest
(06:07):
level in the history of the country and made their
funding permanent. Because both myself and President Trump believed then
what we know now that education is the closest thing
to magic, and making sure that African Americans and every
other racial group in this country has the same access
(06:27):
to high quality education, we made it a part of
our objective. We lowered taxes for single moms. Seventy three
percent of their federal tax burden went down. That's important
when you think about the fact that seventy five percent
of African American kids are growing up in a single
parent household. Why not give that mother for money back.
(06:50):
So when we start talking about the policy successes that
we've had for all of America with no exceptions, it's
a reason the African American community is taking a second
look at the Republican Party and the more we go.
I did a black town hall the Black Church this
past Sunday, and the good news is at that Black church,
(07:13):
about sixty percent of the people that were there were white, Hispanic,
and about thirty to African Americans. Here's what we're learning.
We can no longer judge people by the color of
their skins, thank God Almighty. We judge them now by
the kind of the content of their character. Fat's called
American progress. We should all celebrate it.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
We're speaking of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. He's
a presidential candidate in this election. Senator Scott, to follow
on to what you were just saying, do you think
that is part of your strategy? Clay and I were
talking about this last week. The Democrat Party in presidential elections,
stretching back for as long as I can remember, gets
(07:56):
effectively call it roughly ninety percent of the black Do
you believe that if you are the GOP nominee you
could change that number, such as the Democrat coalition fails
and you win as the Republican.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I think my message enjoys popularity with conservatives who happen
to be black, who happen to be white, who happen
to be Hispanic. Here's what I know for certain, that
being able to go where you're not invited sharing the
good news of conservatism, which of course you know they're
called American values. Conservative principles work wherever they are applied.
(08:34):
The one place where I've seen the least application has
been in the minority community, so specifically the African American community,
where we've seen a lot of government assistance but are
not enough entrepreneurship. In today's America, every community that has
strong entrepreneurship has low unemployment. I believe taking our message
(08:58):
to those communities across this nation will produce better results.
It works for me in South Carolina, I think it
will work nationwide where I enjoy more than twenty percent
of the African American vote. Are very close to it
election and election out over several two decades.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Now, Senator Tim Scott with US now he is running
for president. There's some things that occur that I just
can't believe are real. You have an athletics background, I believe,
and so you were talking about just being able to
reach out to audiences everywhere.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Would you have ever.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Believe, Senator, that not one single congress person in the House,
and not one single Senator would believe would vote to
say that men don't belong in women's athletics. And let
me build on that a little bit. I don't know
if you've seen this headline. Sam Ponder, who does an
NFL show for ESPN, actually spoke out and she spoke
(09:59):
out up and said, hey, this is wrong. We shouldn't
have men identifying as women competing against women. And an
USA today editorial called her a bigot for having that perspective.
Can you believe that this is where we are in
the world right now in our country?
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Unbelievable. I said it oftentimes around the country, and I'll
say it again that transgender ideology is going to ruin
female sports if we let it continue. There's no way.
As a guy who played college football twenty five pounds ago,
there's in the world, but I should be competing against
(10:41):
women in college if I were still that primetime athlete
that was thirty years ago. So the truth is that
if we want to protect women's sports, protect the integuity
of competition, you cannot take any other position the one
that I've just asserted. It is common sense, and frankly,
(11:02):
I don't understand why it's controversial.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
I think that's one hundred percent right. Senator Tim Scott.
Appreciate you being with us, sir. Good luck to you
in your campaign and to come back as things get
closer to uh, you know, the big days of voting
and talk to us again.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Okay, God bless y'all. Thank you for representing truth everywhere here.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Thank you, sir, We try, thank you.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Thanks a lot, Senator Tim Scott. We will talk to
him for sure again soon as this process of the
presidency continues to play out, You guys can react to
that eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
But I want to tell you a listener of this
program used an extra day this past weekend to scan
dozens of family photos and old family records in advance
of a family reunion. Some of these photos more than
(11:49):
one hundred years old. They're all now safely on his laptop,
ready for a little show and tell this come in
July fourth weekend with his family.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
For they really.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
Safe on that laptop. After all. If it crashes, all
bets are off. But it's easy to back up what's
on that computer. I Drive makes it so that in
a few minutes you can download the I drive software
and start backing up everything on your own computer, just
like our listener should do. iDrive dot com is where
you start your computer data upload and secured on secure
(12:22):
I drive servers in the cloud. They use military grade
encryption to keep all your data safe. You'll be able
to back up your data daily or more often than
that if you'd like. They keep your ten most recent
backup successible only to you if and only when you
use the access because your computer or smartphone is crashed,
(12:42):
it will be there for you. I Drive as a
PCMG winner eight years in a row as the best
cloud backup solution. Plans start at less than seven dollars
a month. Iedrive dot Com get ninety percent off your
first year when you use my name Clay when you
sign up. That's I drive dot com slash Clay. Use
(13:05):
that name today, I drive dot Com. My name Clay, Clay.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Travis and Buck Sexton making sense in an insane world.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Welcome back to Clay and Buck. This was a remarkable
story that started to get a lot of attention over
the weekend. Wanted to share it with you. A woman
at the Equinox chain of high end gyms named Robin Europe,
(13:35):
who is herself a former professional bodybuilder. She says that
she will that she was discriminated against at the Equinox
club and she sued them and won an eleven million
dollar judgment. This is in Manhattan Federal Court now as
(13:59):
a as a matter of record, Equinox. Uh have you, Clay,
have you ever been to an Equinox? I've belonged in time.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I know this is a super fancy gym for people
out there who have not been.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
It's not super fancy. It's just not you know, it's
it's it's sort of a.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
Planet fitness, Planet fitness, right, you could say a lot
of money. It's the target of gyms, you know, it's
sort of a really no I thinking of it as
fancier than maybe it's more like the Nemon.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Maybe it's more like the Neman Marcus. I think that's
a better I think that's a better in that that's
a better one, all right. But I've belonged to several
of them in New York. I know you wouldn't necessarily
know that, folks, but I've you know, just from from
the photos. But I've belonged to several Equinoxes in New York.
And she soon she won eleven million dollars. But as
a matter of record, uh, she was late for work
(14:46):
forty seven times in ten months. Forty seven times in
ten months. Now, Clay, you've had I've had employees, You've
had employees. You're late once, it happens, you're late a
few times over the course of a couple of months,
happens you're late forty seven times in ten months. Means
you're almost laid five times a month. That starts to
(15:08):
feel like chronic lateness, which is generally grounds for termination.
And what's interesting is the stuff that I'm trying to think.
The case revolved in large part around allegations that a
manager who reported to Miss Europe, a middle aged white
man this from The New York Times, whom she described
as insulated by his relationships, refused to accept her as
(15:31):
a supervisor. She claimed he repeatedly delivered his vulgar takes
on black female bodies, referred to non white employees as lazy,
and expressed the hope that he could get them fired.
So a subordinate, she says, a subordinate employee that she
could fire, I would assume she's his, she is his superior,
(15:55):
or could at least take action against said stuff that
she didn't like. There is absolutely no record of this.
It's just she said that a guy said some things,
and she was late forty seven times, and she got
eleven million dollars. And you sit here say, I mean
she's probably in this role.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
I know.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
I actually have a friend who's a friend of mine's
a trainer at Equinox. She's probably making eighty grand something
like that, and she gets eleven million dollars to this,
I just want to say, first of all, Wow, what
is the burden of proof here? Oh, there's a white
guy at my office who said some stuff who works
for me as a a subordinate employee that I took
no action against. He said things that I don't like
(16:39):
that I found discriminatory or whatever. So I get eleven
million dollars. Now, why not one hundred million dollars? I'm
just wondering, like, how do you come up with the
eleven million dollar verdict? Play?
Speaker 4 (16:50):
Well, hopefully this is one of those cases. And again
I've not seen the full case, but hopefully this is
one of those cases where there is a substantial ground
for appeal, because it's not uncommon that sometimes a jury
will act in a method or manner that's irrational in
terms of the verdict that they return. If you're right, Buck,
(17:12):
and this woman was making let's say she was making
one hundred thousand dollars a year, because it makes the
math easy. That would mean that she would need to
work for over one hundred years at Equinox to make
eleven million dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
I'm really really mean this, Can I get a job
somewhere where some First of all, I've had tons of
jobs where people have been, you know, said all kinds
of things I didn't like, especially when I was in
a subordinate role, treated me poorly, said stuff that, you know, whatever.
Can I get a job where someone says a few
things that I don't like to make me uncomfortable, and
in a few months time I get a pay I
got a payout for eleven million dollars. Get me this job,
(17:48):
Get me this job. That's so that's so horrible that
you get eleven million dollars.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Most of the time you don't make one hundred times
what your salary would be because somebody says something mean
to you, even if it's true, particularly when you a
very good employee in the first place. Another Tuesday, another
data for each happened to a company with millions of
customer files. This time around, it's Bright Spring Hell. Nearly
six million records stolen, includes social security numbers, names, birth dates,
(18:13):
medical info more. Cybercriminals can use this info to commit
identity theft. Now it's important to understand how cybercrime and
identity theft are affecting our lives. Your personal info gets
exposed often it's dangerously easy for cybercriminals to steal your
identity online, which is why you need LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock will detect and alert you to potential identity threats
you might not spot on your own.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Now.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Remember, no one can prevent all identity theft or monitor
all transactions at all times, but it's easy to help
protect yourself with LifeLock. Join now and save twenty five
percent off your first year with promo code Clay. Call
one eight hundred LifeLock or go to LifeLock dot com
use promo code Clay for twenty five percent off.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
So I just told you the story of a personal
trainer fired from an equal gym in New York City
claiming that a white subordinate co worker, a white male,
said things that she found bigoted or racist about I
guess other people in the gym. And she was late
(19:17):
enough that she certainly could have been terminated on that
grounds alone, but she instead got eleven million dollars. And
I sit here and I say, and Clay's telling me, well,
maybe that will be reduced, and we'll see. But also
when I looked at this store, something else came up.
Some of you may recall this was back in November
of twenty twenty two that a black female FedEx supervisor,
(19:42):
a supervisor at the FedEx company, won a Did you
hear about this Clay three hundred and sixty six million
dollar jury award in a case where there was supposedly
racial bias. It's fascinating whenever I read through these news
reports on the racial bias. I'm looking, I'm looking for,
(20:03):
you know, oh man, where where what is this stuff?
Where are the grotesque racist, you know, really degrading things
that we could all sit there and say, well, that
is appalling and the companies shouldn't be held three hundred
and sixty six million dollars is crazy, But you know
there should be an award here, and it's always I
didn't think, you know, in this case, it's I didn't
think I got promoted when I should have been, and
(20:25):
I think there was discrimination against me. I've seen nothing
in this case in now, granted I've only done a
quick read of it in the last few minutes, but
nothing to justify a three million dollar settlement, never mind
a three hundred and sixty six million dollars I mean,
I don't know, I think three hundred and sixty six
million dollars a lot of money. And I think what
you're starting to see is people might recognize that this stuff, all,
(20:49):
this all has costs and consequences. You know, you're when
when you're gonna get people getting three hundred million dollar
verdicts or even ten million dollar verdicts, that expense is
not just coming from you know, up in the air,
the ether or whatever. These are companies Now they're gonna
have to be paying out this this money. Now sometimes
it's covered by insurance, but their insurance rates go up.
(21:10):
What happens, then you're gonna be paying more for your
gym membership, you be paying more for FedEx. If these
kinds of verdicts become the norm, which I think you're
starting to see, this is getting way out of control
of the New York Times, to be clear, is celebrating
the eleven million dollar verdict. I think this is great.
Eleven million dollars for somebody who says she heard some
things she didn't like at work. And I sit here
(21:34):
and I say, when do we get to point out
that this is that there are certainly instances of this
where it's just people looking for a massive payday, or
it's people who are using the you know, the racial
guilt in this country and the terror that companies have
of being considered racist for a second, to just absolutely
(21:57):
ring the cash register as much as possible. Most of
the time, buck these cases will get tossed on appeal
the verdicts.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Because that's why I was pointing out. Let's say this
woman's making one hundred thousand dollars a year. Okay, she
got one hundred years of salary because according to her,
some people at her employer said mean things about her.
So usually again, usually there would be the plaintiff lawyer
(22:27):
and the defense attorney would sit down and say, okay,
like this number is totally out of whack. Uh, we'll
give you two and a half million dollar settlement, or
we're gonna appeal this and your client's gonna lose most
of this verdict. Right because again, under a lot of
different law, oftentimes I don't know, the three hundred million
(22:47):
dollar verdict is probably wildly outside of what a jury
could deliver in those cases. Now, as an attorney, I
represented a lot of big companies the US version.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I can I just tell you what was not They
took it to court Clay to get it over, they
took it to appeal. Do you know what happened to
appeal maintained? Where is the case from US District Court
of the Southern District of Texas.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
So usually, again, sometimes you have to go all the
way to the Supreme Court to get some of these
cases tossed out. I'm not an expert in that particular case.
There has to be in order for a verdict to
be applied some sort of mathematical connection that typically would
allow it to occur. So most of these massive verdicts
(23:37):
that you see that are plaintif involved, I'm not talking
about a massive lawsuit, right. Sometimes you have these class
action lawsuits where you know, theoretically a million people could
each make eighty dollars if they filled out the form
and turned it back in. And really it's the lawyers
who are ending up as the biggest beneficiaries here because
(23:57):
they get thirty or thirty five percent of a continuency fee.
There's no doubt that our court system is oftentimes strangled
by unnecessary litigation. And an easy way to think about
this is if buck, we had half of the truck
drivers that we have in this country, our entire economy
(24:19):
would collapse.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Think about it.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
If we had half of the warriors, everything would be fine. Right,
So sometimes you can look around and you could probably say,
if we had a quarter of the lawyers, everything would
be fine, because there is a tax that is being
created by the legal profession in this country that does
not make the country more efficient than it otherwise would
(24:42):
be by many lawyers often filing unscrupulous lawsuits that are
unnecessary and actually make things worse for the vast majority
of the country.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
So jurors awarded Harris the a female, you know, a
plantiff in this case, one point one six million million
dollars in compensatory damages. All right, I mean, you know,
if maybe there was something that people's maybe there, she
wasn't you know, fairly she's making like again eighty to
one hundred grand a year. You're giving her ten years
(25:13):
of wages. Okay, Okay, they worded a million dollars in
compensory damages and three hundred and sixty five million dollars
in punitive damages.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
Now you'd say, and to your point, I think that
there's like a faith here that you and I would
both have in the system that say oh, come on, well,
the update that story was in November. The update as
a February third of this year was a Fifth Circuit
judge rejected FedEx's request to throw out or reduce the
three hundred and sixty six million dollars in damages, so
(25:45):
it made it to the appeal and the appeals court
guy was like, NOAHM sorry, So I don't know.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
If they The way that typically this would work is
it was a district.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Court verdict in Texas.
Speaker 4 (25:58):
First of all, I don't know what the law is
in the state of Texas on punitive damages. I bet
we have geniuses who are experts on this. Typically you
could not reward a three hundred x punitive damage on
top of a one million dollar verdict. Generally speaking, sometimes
buck what you have to do, and this gets into
the legal technicalities. Sometimes you get a bad judge right
(26:20):
on the Fifth Circuit. You might get I don't know
who that judge is, but my bet would be that
he would have been a Democrat appointee on the Fifth Circuit,
which is traditionally a conservative court in the country, And
so you get a hearing in front of one and
you have to require that the entire Fifth Circuit review, right.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
So, I mean it's look, it's making its way up
the chain. But I just think it's interesting that this
is the initial three sixty six million. They went to
a district court judge, a federal judge, and said, hey, guys,
the three hundred and sixty six million for discrimination that
was apparently never proven. There's no Yeah, the basis for
this is her perception that she was discriminated against us.
She was a black woman who says that they treated
(27:00):
her differently because she's a black woman. And the judge said, no,
we're going to keep it. So now they're going to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to elevate it beyond
the initial federal district judge. But Clay, who is this
initial district judge? Like, this is crazy town? Yeah, it is.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
And I would bet again that it's almost entirely unjustifiable
under Texas law because a lot of states have tried
to put caps on punitive damages and damages in general,
because what ends up happening in many of these tort
lawsuits is this is a default tax on all of
the citizens of Texas because the corporation has to in
(27:42):
some way count on all these dollars that otherwise would
go to running their business going out to people with
unjustified payments. And that's exactly what I'm what I'm trying
to get at here is this isn't the juris think,
oh great, we're striking a blow against racism, even if
no racism was proved.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
You know, it makes a point or something, and this
woman then gets very rich.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yay.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
People might get fired over this, you know, I mean,
you know, you look at what happened now it's very
different not a racial discrimination suit, but even the dominion
lawsuit at Fox, they had layoffs recently. Now they can
say that it has nothing to do with the eight
hundred million dollars settlement, but people lost their jobs. When
you have a huge judgment against the company, they have
to cut costs, people are going to get fired. So
(28:26):
if you're bringing a frivolous or false racial discrimination suit
and getting a massive judgment, there are good people that
get hurt by that, and the consumer certainly gets hurt.
To your point about effectively socializing these costs, which we're.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Seeing in a whole range of ways, well, and not
only that, Buck, I mean, if you think in a
bigger picture as opposed to one individual, which is again
that dollar figure would be entirely unjustified. Also, many of
the people who lose their jobs or minorities. You know,
if a company has to retrench and end up laying
off lots of workers, then you're trying to rectify injustice
(29:05):
by in some way actually taking out more of an
issue on minorities to reward one right. And this, of
course is the great fallacy of BLM in general. The biggest,
the biggest losers of all of BLM are impoverished people
in inner city neighborhoods who can't walk outside safely because
they fired all the cops in the name of trying
(29:26):
to make the world less racist.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
It's also just It requires a total suspension of the
reality that we all live in in this country where
in ninety nine percent of corporate settings and circumstances, what's
the fastest way to get fired, right, The fastest way
to get fired say something racist. No matter what company,
no matter what business, no matter where you are, what
(29:47):
you're doing, the fastest way to lose your job is
to say something racist. And yet we're to believe that
in these cases there was all of this grotesque racism
underway that no no one can prove, and no one
knew about, no one heard about. But look, it's because
there's going to be more of this. I mean, Clay,
it's from the attorney side of it too, right, eleven
(30:09):
million dollars here, three hundred million dollars there starts to
add up those legal fees, you know, And this is
this is.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Where can you think it's a good question for everybody
else out there? How many professions could you eliminate half
of the people doing it and actually make the world better.
You could eliminate half of attorneys and America would work
just as efficiently and effectively as it does now. How
many professions can you say that about? Just think about it,
(30:36):
and a lot of them that don't pay very well.
The country would basically cease to exist, right, I mean,
if you took away half of the people who work
at gas stations, we'd have a real issue, right, take
away half the lawyers.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Country might be better off.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
You know.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
The other week I got to do an extraordinary thing.
I sat down with a market analyst who made a
special video of presentation. But the market analyst is somebody
I know very well, it's my dad, Mason Sexton, so
you probably recognized the last name. We talked about a
premise that's very important to him, the Great Disruption of
twenty twenty three. Look in the past, he predicted the
stock market crash of eighty seven, the top of the
(31:12):
market before the crash. He's made several major calls publicly,
but what he sees now was unlike anything he's seen
in fifty years of Wall Street experience. You can read
up on it now so you'll know how to prepare.
In this interview, he reveals the date this July, when
he thinks things are going to turn really ugly in
the markets. We're already starting to see the signs of disruption.
(31:33):
Banks floundering, real estate losing its value at a rapid rate,
inflation causing sticker shock at the grocery store. My dad
Mason will tell you why most analysts are wrong about
a coming decade in lost stocks or lost decade rather
than stocks, and why what's coming could be much much worse.
This is his first major public prediction in thirty years.
(31:53):
So if you missed it, the video is still up.
You can watch now watch the replay at Disruption twenty
twenty three dot com. That's Disruption twenty twenty three dot Com.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
Sunday Hang with Clay and Boxing a new podcast. Find
it on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. Last week, Ron DeSantis
hopped on the show. I believe it was on Thursday,
after he announced for president on Wednesday and said on
his first day in office he would consider the appeals
of January sixth defendants, including potentially the President of the
(32:33):
United States as well, in the event that Trump was
charged with crimes, as both Buck and myself believe that
he is likely to be. That is, we believe that
Jack Smith, independent counsel, is going to recommend charges and
the mayor Garland's going to bring him against Trump. I
think in the next sixty days, if I were laying
out June July is when I would anticipate that potentially happening.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Well.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
Peter Doucy, Fox News White House correspondent asked Joe Biden
about those comments. Let me make sure that I get
this right. This was yesterday, as what Biden left for Delaware.
Here is this exchange. Listen, did you see the ron.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
The Fantis bed that if he became president, he would
pardon Trump.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Where are you on the idea of president pardoning Trump.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
I'll see you guys, if you couldn't hear that now,
Desanta said he would consider pardoning Trump. He didn't say
he would definitely do it. I said that if I
were running for president, I would definitely do it.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Buck.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
I haven't seen a lot of other Republican candidates step
up and say the same thing.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
To me, this is a no brainer.
Speaker 4 (33:41):
But Biden obviously dodging that question as his Department of
Justice attempts to try to put this is important, try
to put his chief political rival in jail.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Yeah, and there's also real historical precedent here where look,
I think that the I think that the prosecutions of
Donald Trump are our bogus political hit jobs. But just
put that aside for a moment. The pardon of Richard
Nixon by by Gerald Ford. We understood that that was done,
(34:15):
or at least I should say, you know, historically that's
looked back on as this allows the country to move
forward and to you know, to not let things go
too far off the rails politically, or you have a
former president going to prison. Once you're former president's going
to prison, the descent into authoritarian third world hell hole
happens real fast because the people in charge start to think,
(34:36):
Hold on a second, when I'm not in charge, does
that mean that maybe I go into a cell? That
changes the mentality very fast? So, uh, this is this
is I think it's clear as day. I think that
he should be look Trump, maybe the nominated Trump, maybe
the president. So to be fair, this may be a
non issue in that sense, but I can't see a
(34:58):
future in which if they bring charges and get some
conviction or convictions against Donald Trump, that a Republican president,
whether it's Tim Scott, Ronde Santis, whomever, wouldn't pardon Donald Trump.
I mean, like I said, it's good politics and good ethics.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
And by the way, this is also worth contemplating. And
we need to get Andy McCarthy on or Bill Barr,
somebody who is very familiar with the DC circuit, because
my impression would be buck and we talked about this
last week. If there are charges brought against Trump, and
I think you agree with me that there are likely
to be federal charges brought. We've said that for some time.
(35:34):
But if it's going to happen in June and July,
which is when I think the timeframe is going to be,
is it possible that they're going to try to rush
this so that this trial in DC could happen before
the March twenty fifth start date of the New York
City trial. This is really important because if they are,
(35:54):
they could try to put Trump in jail before he
were even able to get out on the trail and run.
And this is crazy stuff to be talking about. But
the thing we still don't know is what does that
DC circuit schedule look like? How quickly could those cases
get put together? Because my argument has been well, New
York City's going to come first, we also think charges
(36:14):
may come in August. It seems to be the timeframe
in Georgia. Is it possible they jump in front of
that New York City case and try to put him
in prison before the caucuses even go to cast their
votes in January? In Iowa, this is something to really
pay attention to. It's scary, it's unprecedented. We've never seen
(36:37):
it happen before.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Donald Trump weighed in over the weekend on his feelings
about the Disney Corporation center of a fight going on
right now. We'll talk about that more coming up.
Welcome to today's edition of The Klay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Second hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now. Everybody,
thank you for hanging out with us. We are I
believe what we joined do? We have him? Okay, we do.
We're joined now by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.
He is a presidential candidate in this GP primary. Senator Scott,
(00:26):
pleasure to have you back on the program Sir.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Well, thank y'all both for having me back, and it's
always a good day to be back on here with you.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I know it's an obvious question. It's an easy question
from the perspective of the one asking, but I think
it's a more difficult one to make worthwhile for the
one responding. Senator, why are you running? What do you
want to do? That would be different from some of
the other Republican nominees.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I think it's so important for me, the guy who's
been blessed with the America that everyone should be in
love with. I believe that America can do or anyone,
but she has done for me, and that includes restoring hope,
creating opportunities, and protecting the America we love. I would
start my presidential service by resigning the XL Keystone pipeline.
(01:15):
Because our American energy future is our national security future.
Where we are in charge of our own lives, our
own energy, we are going to be on solid grounds.
Second thing I would say is that China is an
existential threat period. Everything that we do to decouple our
economy from China's economy is good for the nation. And
(01:37):
without any questions saying with the security apparatus, our southern
border is a crisis. I've always said, if you don't
control the back door to your house, it ain't your house.
If you don't control your southern border and might not
be your country. President Biden has failed US, failed US
miserably protecting Americans, including the seventy one thousand Americans who've
(02:01):
lost their lives to fitting All and one hundred folks
that our national security lives walking across our southern border.
We have to secure our southern border and use the
latest technology in order to surveil our southern border and
stop fitting All from killing another seventy thousand Americans this year.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Senator, you got called out, and I know this is
crazy to even have to ask about, because I think
it's the dumbest show filled with the dumbest people on
media on a daily basis. But Joy Behar said, essentially,
you didn't know what it was like to be black
in America. I'm curious how you would respond to that,
as well as Sunny hostin coming after you. I don't know.
(02:43):
I guess it's a sign that the view views you
as a threat to their left wing hegemony. But what
are your thoughts when you hear someone like Joy Behar
say you don't know what it's like to be black
in America and so your experience doesn't count.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
But there's no doubt a why ladies dressing up in
black faith giving a black man advice probably doesn't ring
true in anyone's mind, certainly not my own. But more importantly,
I find it offensive and disgusting and dangerous for a
very different reason. I'm used to having the left attacked
me because the truth of my life disproves their lives.
(03:22):
And I say that because of this. When I helped
write the tax cuts and jobs that, they called me
a prop. When I started talking about refunding the police,
they called me a token. When I stepped forward and
pushed back from President Biden's malign agenda. They called me
the d words. I don't I'm used to it. Here's
(03:44):
what is dangerous and offensive to me. For every young
child in America wanting to think for themselves draw their
own conclusions. What they're saying to them is stay in
your place, do not stick your head up, because we're
going to tell tell you how to think, so you
never learn anything about what you should think. It is
(04:05):
literally the dumbest, most offensive thing I've ever witnessed on
TV to hear these millionaire TV personalities telling me how
to live my life as a black man, but more
importantly suggesting to every child stay in your place, follow
(04:27):
my lead, for you too will reap the same harvest
of Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas or any other conservative
who dares dares to think for themselves.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
You know, it's, first of all, that's a very powerful response.
I think it's incredibly well said. I don't know if
you saw the comments from ice Cube. He's a popular
rapper for our audience out there that might not know him.
On the flip side, he spoke out over the weekend
and said, hey, we've been voting Democrat almost exclusively for
sixty years, and he said, how has that made Black
(05:03):
Americans experience better? I'm curious if you saw those comments
and what you think about what they could represent in
terms of Black Americans being encouraged by ice Cube to
look around and say, hey, being all in on one
side maybe isn't the best way to advance our political interest.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
What are your thoughts there.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Well, I celebrate ice Cube's comments, so I did not
hear them. I will say this that the African American
poverty rate has hovered over twenty five percent for those
sixty years. You're talking about forty of those sixty years.
The Democrats from nineteen fifty four until nineteen ninety four
had one hundred percent control of the United States House
(05:46):
of Representatives. Just take a look back and see how
bad those years were for African Americans. Here's the difference.
And this is why I think ice Cube has a
finger on the artery, not just the pulse, but the artery.
It's that when we we were in control as Republicans,
we funded historically black colleges and universities at the highest
(06:07):
level in the history of the country and made their
funding permanent. Because both myself and President Trump believed then
what we know now that education is the closest thing
to magic, and making sure that African Americans and every
other racial group in this country has the same access
(06:27):
to high quality education, we made it a part of
our objective. We lowered taxes for single moms. Seventy three
percent of their federal tax burden went down. That's important
when you think about the fact that seventy five percent
of African American kids are growing up in a single
parent household. Why not give that mother for money back.
(06:50):
So when we start talking about the policy successes that
we've had for all of America with no exceptions, it's
a reason the African American community is taking a second
look at the Republican Party and the more we go.
I did a black town hall the Black Church this
past Sunday, and the good news is at that Black church,
(07:13):
about sixty percent of the people that were there were white, Hispanic,
and about thirty to African Americans. Here's what we're learning.
We can no longer judge people by the color of
their skins, thank God Almighty. We judge them now by
the kind of the content of their character. Fat's called
American progress. We should all celebrate it.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
We're speaking of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. He's
a presidential candidate in this election. Senator Scott, to follow
on to what you were just saying, do you think
that is part of your strategy? Clay and I were
talking about this last week. The Democrat Party in presidential elections,
stretching back for as long as I can remember, gets
(07:56):
effectively call it roughly ninety percent of the black Do
you believe that if you are the GOP nominee you
could change that number, such as the Democrat coalition fails
and you win as the Republican.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I think my message enjoys popularity with conservatives who happen
to be black, who happen to be white, who happen
to be Hispanic. Here's what I know for certain, that
being able to go where you're not invited sharing the
good news of conservatism, which of course you know they're
called American values. Conservative principles work wherever they are applied.
(08:34):
The one place where I've seen the least application has
been in the minority community, so specifically the African American community,
where we've seen a lot of government assistance but are
not enough entrepreneurship. In today's America, every community that has
strong entrepreneurship has low unemployment. I believe taking our message
(08:58):
to those communities across this nation will produce better results.
It works for me in South Carolina, I think it
will work nationwide where I enjoy more than twenty percent
of the African American vote. Are very close to it
election and election out over several two decades.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Now, Senator Tim Scott with US now he is running
for president. There's some things that occur that I just
can't believe are real. You have an athletics background, I believe,
and so you were talking about just being able to
reach out to audiences everywhere.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Would you have ever.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Believe, Senator, that not one single congress person in the House,
and not one single Senator would believe would vote to
say that men don't belong in women's athletics. And let
me build on that a little bit. I don't know
if you've seen this headline. Sam Ponder, who does an
NFL show for ESPN, actually spoke out and she spoke
(09:59):
out up and said, hey, this is wrong. We shouldn't
have men identifying as women competing against women. And an
USA today editorial called her a bigot for having that perspective.
Can you believe that this is where we are in
the world right now in our country?
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Unbelievable. I said it oftentimes around the country, and I'll
say it again that transgender ideology is going to ruin
female sports if we let it continue. There's no way.
As a guy who played college football twenty five pounds ago,
there's in the world, but I should be competing against
(10:41):
women in college if I were still that primetime athlete
that was thirty years ago. So the truth is that
if we want to protect women's sports, protect the integuity
of competition, you cannot take any other position the one
that I've just asserted. It is common sense, and frankly,
(11:02):
I don't understand why it's controversial.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
I think that's one hundred percent right. Senator Tim Scott.
Appreciate you being with us, sir. Good luck to you
in your campaign and to come back as things get
closer to uh, you know, the big days of voting
and talk to us again.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Okay, God bless y'all. Thank you for representing truth everywhere here.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Thank you, sir, We try, thank you.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Thanks a lot, Senator Tim Scott. We will talk to
him for sure again soon as this process of the
presidency continues to play out, You guys can react to
that eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
But I want to tell you a listener of this
program used an extra day this past weekend to scan
dozens of family photos and old family records in advance
of a family reunion. Some of these photos more than
(11:49):
one hundred years old. They're all now safely on his laptop,
ready for a little show and tell this come in
July fourth weekend with his family.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
For they really.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
Safe on that laptop. After all. If it crashes, all
bets are off. But it's easy to back up what's
on that computer. I Drive makes it so that in
a few minutes you can download the I drive software
and start backing up everything on your own computer, just
like our listener should do. iDrive dot com is where
you start your computer data upload and secured on secure
(12:22):
I drive servers in the cloud. They use military grade
encryption to keep all your data safe. You'll be able
to back up your data daily or more often than
that if you'd like. They keep your ten most recent
backup successible only to you if and only when you
use the access because your computer or smartphone is crashed,
(12:42):
it will be there for you. I Drive as a
PCMG winner eight years in a row as the best
cloud backup solution. Plans start at less than seven dollars
a month. Iedrive dot Com get ninety percent off your
first year when you use my name Clay when you
sign up. That's I drive dot com slash Clay. Use
(13:05):
that name today, I drive dot Com. My name Clay, Clay.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Travis and Buck Sexton making sense in an insane world.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Welcome back to Clay and Buck. This was a remarkable
story that started to get a lot of attention over
the weekend. Wanted to share it with you. A woman
at the Equinox chain of high end gyms named Robin Europe,
(13:35):
who is herself a former professional bodybuilder. She says that
she will that she was discriminated against at the Equinox
club and she sued them and won an eleven million
dollar judgment. This is in Manhattan Federal Court now as
(13:59):
a as a matter of record, Equinox. Uh have you, Clay,
have you ever been to an Equinox? I've belonged in time.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I know this is a super fancy gym for people
out there who have not been.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
It's not super fancy. It's just not you know, it's
it's it's sort of a.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
Planet fitness, Planet fitness, right, you could say a lot
of money. It's the target of gyms, you know, it's
sort of a really no I thinking of it as
fancier than maybe it's more like the Nemon.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Maybe it's more like the Neman Marcus. I think that's
a better I think that's a better in that that's
a better one, all right. But I've belonged to several
of them in New York. I know you wouldn't necessarily
know that, folks, but I've you know, just from from
the photos. But I've belonged to several Equinoxes in New York.
And she soon she won eleven million dollars. But as
a matter of record, uh, she was late for work
(14:46):
forty seven times in ten months. Forty seven times in
ten months. Now, Clay, you've had I've had employees, You've
had employees. You're late once, it happens, you're late a
few times over the course of a couple of months,
happens you're late forty seven times in ten months. Means
you're almost laid five times a month. That starts to
(15:08):
feel like chronic lateness, which is generally grounds for termination.
And what's interesting is the stuff that I'm trying to think.
The case revolved in large part around allegations that a
manager who reported to Miss Europe, a middle aged white
man this from The New York Times, whom she described
as insulated by his relationships, refused to accept her as
(15:31):
a supervisor. She claimed he repeatedly delivered his vulgar takes
on black female bodies, referred to non white employees as lazy,
and expressed the hope that he could get them fired.
So a subordinate, she says, a subordinate employee that she
could fire, I would assume she's his, she is his superior,
(15:55):
or could at least take action against said stuff that
she didn't like. There is absolutely no record of this.
It's just she said that a guy said some things,
and she was late forty seven times, and she got
eleven million dollars. And you sit here say, I mean
she's probably in this role.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
I know.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
I actually have a friend who's a friend of mine's
a trainer at Equinox. She's probably making eighty grand something
like that, and she gets eleven million dollars to this,
I just want to say, first of all, Wow, what
is the burden of proof here? Oh, there's a white
guy at my office who said some stuff who works
for me as a a subordinate employee that I took
no action against. He said things that I don't like
(16:39):
that I found discriminatory or whatever. So I get eleven
million dollars. Now, why not one hundred million dollars? I'm
just wondering, like, how do you come up with the
eleven million dollar verdict? Play?
Speaker 4 (16:50):
Well, hopefully this is one of those cases. And again
I've not seen the full case, but hopefully this is
one of those cases where there is a substantial ground
for appeal, because it's not uncommon that sometimes a jury
will act in a method or manner that's irrational in
terms of the verdict that they return. If you're right, Buck,
(17:12):
and this woman was making let's say she was making
one hundred thousand dollars a year, because it makes the
math easy. That would mean that she would need to
work for over one hundred years at Equinox to make
eleven million dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
I'm really really mean this, Can I get a job
somewhere where some First of all, I've had tons of
jobs where people have been, you know, said all kinds
of things I didn't like, especially when I was in
a subordinate role, treated me poorly, said stuff that, you know, whatever.
Can I get a job where someone says a few
things that I don't like to make me uncomfortable, and
in a few months time I get a pay I
got a payout for eleven million dollars. Get me this job,
(17:48):
Get me this job. That's so that's so horrible that
you get eleven million dollars.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Most of the time you don't make one hundred times
what your salary would be because somebody says something mean
to you, even if it's true, particularly when you a
very good employee in the first place. Another Tuesday, another
data for each happened to a company with millions of
customer files. This time around, it's Bright Spring Hell. Nearly
six million records stolen, includes social security numbers, names, birth dates,
(18:13):
medical info more. Cybercriminals can use this info to commit
identity theft. Now it's important to understand how cybercrime and
identity theft are affecting our lives. Your personal info gets
exposed often it's dangerously easy for cybercriminals to steal your
identity online, which is why you need LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock will detect and alert you to potential identity threats
you might not spot on your own.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Now.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Remember, no one can prevent all identity theft or monitor
all transactions at all times, but it's easy to help
protect yourself with LifeLock. Join now and save twenty five
percent off your first year with promo code Clay. Call
one eight hundred LifeLock or go to LifeLock dot com
use promo code Clay for twenty five percent off.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
So I just told you the story of a personal
trainer fired from an equal gym in New York City
claiming that a white subordinate co worker, a white male,
said things that she found bigoted or racist about I
guess other people in the gym. And she was late
(19:17):
enough that she certainly could have been terminated on that
grounds alone, but she instead got eleven million dollars. And
I sit here and I say, and Clay's telling me, well,
maybe that will be reduced, and we'll see. But also
when I looked at this store, something else came up.
Some of you may recall this was back in November
of twenty twenty two that a black female FedEx supervisor,
(19:42):
a supervisor at the FedEx company, won a Did you
hear about this Clay three hundred and sixty six million
dollar jury award in a case where there was supposedly
racial bias. It's fascinating whenever I read through these news
reports on the racial bias. I'm looking, I'm looking for,
(20:03):
you know, oh man, where where what is this stuff?
Where are the grotesque racist, you know, really degrading things
that we could all sit there and say, well, that
is appalling and the companies shouldn't be held three hundred
and sixty six million dollars is crazy, But you know
there should be an award here, and it's always I
didn't think, you know, in this case, it's I didn't
think I got promoted when I should have been, and
(20:25):
I think there was discrimination against me. I've seen nothing
in this case in now, granted I've only done a
quick read of it in the last few minutes, but
nothing to justify a three million dollar settlement, never mind
a three hundred and sixty six million dollars I mean,
I don't know, I think three hundred and sixty six
million dollars a lot of money. And I think what
you're starting to see is people might recognize that this stuff, all,
(20:49):
this all has costs and consequences. You know, you're when
when you're gonna get people getting three hundred million dollar
verdicts or even ten million dollar verdicts, that expense is
not just coming from you know, up in the air,
the ether or whatever. These are companies Now they're gonna
have to be paying out this this money. Now sometimes
it's covered by insurance, but their insurance rates go up.
(21:10):
What happens, then you're gonna be paying more for your
gym membership, you be paying more for FedEx. If these
kinds of verdicts become the norm, which I think you're
starting to see, this is getting way out of control
of the New York Times, to be clear, is celebrating
the eleven million dollar verdict. I think this is great.
Eleven million dollars for somebody who says she heard some
things she didn't like at work. And I sit here
(21:34):
and I say, when do we get to point out
that this is that there are certainly instances of this
where it's just people looking for a massive payday, or
it's people who are using the you know, the racial
guilt in this country and the terror that companies have
of being considered racist for a second, to just absolutely
(21:57):
ring the cash register as much as possible. Most of
the time, buck these cases will get tossed on appeal
the verdicts.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Because that's why I was pointing out. Let's say this
woman's making one hundred thousand dollars a year. Okay, she
got one hundred years of salary because according to her,
some people at her employer said mean things about her.
So usually again, usually there would be the plaintiff lawyer
(22:27):
and the defense attorney would sit down and say, okay,
like this number is totally out of whack. Uh, we'll
give you two and a half million dollar settlement, or
we're gonna appeal this and your client's gonna lose most
of this verdict. Right because again, under a lot of
different law, oftentimes I don't know, the three hundred million
(22:47):
dollar verdict is probably wildly outside of what a jury
could deliver in those cases. Now, as an attorney, I
represented a lot of big companies the US version.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I can I just tell you what was not They
took it to court Clay to get it over, they
took it to appeal. Do you know what happened to
appeal maintained? Where is the case from US District Court
of the Southern District of Texas.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
So usually, again, sometimes you have to go all the
way to the Supreme Court to get some of these
cases tossed out. I'm not an expert in that particular case.
There has to be in order for a verdict to
be applied some sort of mathematical connection that typically would
allow it to occur. So most of these massive verdicts
(23:37):
that you see that are plaintif involved, I'm not talking
about a massive lawsuit, right. Sometimes you have these class
action lawsuits where you know, theoretically a million people could
each make eighty dollars if they filled out the form
and turned it back in. And really it's the lawyers
who are ending up as the biggest beneficiaries here because
(23:57):
they get thirty or thirty five percent of a continuency fee.
There's no doubt that our court system is oftentimes strangled
by unnecessary litigation. And an easy way to think about
this is if buck, we had half of the truck
drivers that we have in this country, our entire economy
(24:19):
would collapse.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Think about it.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
If we had half of the warriors, everything would be fine. Right,
So sometimes you can look around and you could probably say,
if we had a quarter of the lawyers, everything would
be fine, because there is a tax that is being
created by the legal profession in this country that does
not make the country more efficient than it otherwise would
(24:42):
be by many lawyers often filing unscrupulous lawsuits that are
unnecessary and actually make things worse for the vast majority
of the country.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
So jurors awarded Harris the a female, you know, a
plantiff in this case, one point one six million million
dollars in compensatory damages. All right, I mean, you know,
if maybe there was something that people's maybe there, she
wasn't you know, fairly she's making like again eighty to
one hundred grand a year. You're giving her ten years
(25:13):
of wages. Okay, Okay, they worded a million dollars in
compensory damages and three hundred and sixty five million dollars
in punitive damages.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
Now you'd say, and to your point, I think that
there's like a faith here that you and I would
both have in the system that say oh, come on, well,
the update that story was in November. The update as
a February third of this year was a Fifth Circuit
judge rejected FedEx's request to throw out or reduce the
three hundred and sixty six million dollars in damages, so
(25:45):
it made it to the appeal and the appeals court
guy was like, NOAHM sorry, So I don't know.
Speaker 4 (25:50):
If they The way that typically this would work is
it was a district.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Court verdict in Texas.
Speaker 4 (25:58):
First of all, I don't know what the law is
in the state of Texas on punitive damages. I bet
we have geniuses who are experts on this. Typically you
could not reward a three hundred x punitive damage on
top of a one million dollar verdict. Generally speaking, sometimes
buck what you have to do, and this gets into
the legal technicalities. Sometimes you get a bad judge right
(26:20):
on the Fifth Circuit. You might get I don't know
who that judge is, but my bet would be that
he would have been a Democrat appointee on the Fifth Circuit,
which is traditionally a conservative court in the country, And
so you get a hearing in front of one and
you have to require that the entire Fifth Circuit review, right.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
So, I mean it's look, it's making its way up
the chain. But I just think it's interesting that this
is the initial three sixty six million. They went to
a district court judge, a federal judge, and said, hey, guys,
the three hundred and sixty six million for discrimination that
was apparently never proven. There's no Yeah, the basis for
this is her perception that she was discriminated against us.
She was a black woman who says that they treated
(27:00):
her differently because she's a black woman. And the judge said, no,
we're going to keep it. So now they're going to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to elevate it beyond
the initial federal district judge. But Clay, who is this
initial district judge? Like, this is crazy town? Yeah, it is.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
And I would bet again that it's almost entirely unjustifiable
under Texas law because a lot of states have tried
to put caps on punitive damages and damages in general,
because what ends up happening in many of these tort
lawsuits is this is a default tax on all of
the citizens of Texas because the corporation has to in
(27:42):
some way count on all these dollars that otherwise would
go to running their business going out to people with
unjustified payments. And that's exactly what I'm what I'm trying
to get at here is this isn't the juris think,
oh great, we're striking a blow against racism, even if
no racism was proved.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
You know, it makes a point or something, and this
woman then gets very rich.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yay.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
People might get fired over this, you know, I mean,
you know, you look at what happened now it's very
different not a racial discrimination suit, but even the dominion
lawsuit at Fox, they had layoffs recently. Now they can
say that it has nothing to do with the eight
hundred million dollars settlement, but people lost their jobs. When
you have a huge judgment against the company, they have
to cut costs, people are going to get fired. So
(28:26):
if you're bringing a frivolous or false racial discrimination suit
and getting a massive judgment, there are good people that
get hurt by that, and the consumer certainly gets hurt.
To your point about effectively socializing these costs, which we're.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Seeing in a whole range of ways, well, and not
only that, Buck, I mean, if you think in a
bigger picture as opposed to one individual, which is again
that dollar figure would be entirely unjustified. Also, many of
the people who lose their jobs or minorities. You know,
if a company has to retrench and end up laying
off lots of workers, then you're trying to rectify injustice
(29:05):
by in some way actually taking out more of an
issue on minorities to reward one right. And this, of
course is the great fallacy of BLM in general. The biggest,
the biggest losers of all of BLM are impoverished people
in inner city neighborhoods who can't walk outside safely because
they fired all the cops in the name of trying
(29:26):
to make the world less racist.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
It's also just It requires a total suspension of the
reality that we all live in in this country where
in ninety nine percent of corporate settings and circumstances, what's
the fastest way to get fired, right, The fastest way
to get fired say something racist. No matter what company,
no matter what business, no matter where you are, what
(29:47):
you're doing, the fastest way to lose your job is
to say something racist. And yet we're to believe that
in these cases there was all of this grotesque racism
underway that no no one can prove, and no one
knew about, no one heard about. But look, it's because
there's going to be more of this. I mean, Clay,
it's from the attorney side of it too, right, eleven
(30:09):
million dollars here, three hundred million dollars there starts to
add up those legal fees, you know, And this is
this is.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Where can you think it's a good question for everybody
else out there? How many professions could you eliminate half
of the people doing it and actually make the world better.
You could eliminate half of attorneys and America would work
just as efficiently and effectively as it does now. How
many professions can you say that about? Just think about it,
(30:36):
and a lot of them that don't pay very well.
The country would basically cease to exist, right, I mean,
if you took away half of the people who work
at gas stations, we'd have a real issue, right, take
away half the lawyers.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Country might be better off.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
You know.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
The other week I got to do an extraordinary thing.
I sat down with a market analyst who made a
special video of presentation. But the market analyst is somebody
I know very well, it's my dad, Mason Sexton, so
you probably recognized the last name. We talked about a
premise that's very important to him, the Great Disruption of
twenty twenty three. Look in the past, he predicted the
stock market crash of eighty seven, the top of the
(31:12):
market before the crash. He's made several major calls publicly,
but what he sees now was unlike anything he's seen
in fifty years of Wall Street experience. You can read
up on it now so you'll know how to prepare.
In this interview, he reveals the date this July, when
he thinks things are going to turn really ugly in
the markets. We're already starting to see the signs of disruption.
(31:33):
Banks floundering, real estate losing its value at a rapid rate,
inflation causing sticker shock at the grocery store. My dad
Mason will tell you why most analysts are wrong about
a coming decade in lost stocks or lost decade rather
than stocks, and why what's coming could be much much worse.
This is his first major public prediction in thirty years.
(31:53):
So if you missed it, the video is still up.
You can watch now watch the replay at Disruption twenty
twenty three dot com. That's Disruption twenty twenty three dot Com.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
Sunday Hang with Clay and Boxing a new podcast. Find
it on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. Last week, Ron DeSantis
hopped on the show. I believe it was on Thursday,
after he announced for president on Wednesday and said on
his first day in office he would consider the appeals
of January sixth defendants, including potentially the President of the
(32:33):
United States as well, in the event that Trump was
charged with crimes, as both Buck and myself believe that
he is likely to be. That is, we believe that
Jack Smith, independent counsel, is going to recommend charges and
the mayor Garland's going to bring him against Trump. I
think in the next sixty days, if I were laying
out June July is when I would anticipate that potentially happening.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Well.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
Peter Doucy, Fox News White House correspondent asked Joe Biden
about those comments. Let me make sure that I get
this right. This was yesterday, as what Biden left for Delaware.
Here is this exchange. Listen, did you see the ron.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
The Fantis bed that if he became president, he would
pardon Trump.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Where are you on the idea of president pardoning Trump.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
I'll see you guys, if you couldn't hear that now,
Desanta said he would consider pardoning Trump. He didn't say
he would definitely do it. I said that if I
were running for president, I would definitely do it.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Buck.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
I haven't seen a lot of other Republican candidates step
up and say the same thing.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
To me, this is a no brainer.
Speaker 4 (33:41):
But Biden obviously dodging that question as his Department of
Justice attempts to try to put this is important, try
to put his chief political rival in jail.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Yeah, and there's also real historical precedent here where look,
I think that the I think that the prosecutions of
Donald Trump are our bogus political hit jobs. But just
put that aside for a moment. The pardon of Richard
Nixon by by Gerald Ford. We understood that that was done,
(34:15):
or at least I should say, you know, historically that's
looked back on as this allows the country to move
forward and to you know, to not let things go
too far off the rails politically, or you have a
former president going to prison. Once you're former president's going
to prison, the descent into authoritarian third world hell hole
happens real fast because the people in charge start to think,
(34:36):
Hold on a second, when I'm not in charge, does
that mean that maybe I go into a cell? That
changes the mentality very fast? So, uh, this is this
is I think it's clear as day. I think that
he should be look Trump, maybe the nominated Trump, maybe
the president. So to be fair, this may be a
non issue in that sense, but I can't see a
(34:58):
future in which if they bring charges and get some
conviction or convictions against Donald Trump, that a Republican president,
whether it's Tim Scott, Ronde Santis, whomever, wouldn't pardon Donald Trump.
I mean, like I said, it's good politics and good ethics.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
And by the way, this is also worth contemplating. And
we need to get Andy McCarthy on or Bill Barr,
somebody who is very familiar with the DC circuit, because
my impression would be buck and we talked about this
last week. If there are charges brought against Trump, and
I think you agree with me that there are likely
to be federal charges brought. We've said that for some time.
(35:34):
But if it's going to happen in June and July,
which is when I think the timeframe is going to be,
is it possible that they're going to try to rush
this so that this trial in DC could happen before
the March twenty fifth start date of the New York
City trial. This is really important because if they are,
(35:54):
they could try to put Trump in jail before he
were even able to get out on the trail and run.
And this is crazy stuff to be talking about. But
the thing we still don't know is what does that
DC circuit schedule look like? How quickly could those cases
get put together? Because my argument has been well, New
York City's going to come first, we also think charges
(36:14):
may come in August. It seems to be the timeframe
in Georgia. Is it possible they jump in front of
that New York City case and try to put him
in prison before the caucuses even go to cast their
votes in January? In Iowa, this is something to really
pay attention to. It's scary, it's unprecedented. We've never seen
(36:37):
it happen before.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Donald Trump weighed in over the weekend on his feelings
about the Disney Corporation center of a fight going on
right now. We'll talk about that more coming up.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.