November 29, 2023 • 56 mins
Previewing DeSantis/Newsom debate - looking at California v Florida. Biden relieves more student debt. Julie Kelly on Jack Smith’s warrant to get Trump’s Twitter files. Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy on his path to the nomination.
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 Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome everybody. Wednesday edition of Clay and Buck kicks off
right now. Got a lot to discuss with Peter Day.
Just quick roadmap. Our friends friends, Julie Kelly and Vivike
Ramaswami will be joining us today here on the program.
We'll have Julie joining to talk about the latest legal
(00:27):
wrangling around the DC case against Trump Judge Chuck Kidden.
The fix is in. We will discuss the latest with
her on that one. Don't forget we are now getting
closer and closer to a possible federal criminal felony trial
against the currently leading presidential contender for the Republicans. Were
(00:49):
also going to have, speaking of presidential contenders, vivike Ramaswami's on.
He's got some very interesting things he wants to bring
to your attention. He reached out to guys, we got
to talk about this. We said, Vivec, let's do it.
And so here we are. We've got that to dive
into together. Also, Biden tells eight hundred and thirteen thousand
(01:11):
more Americans he has wiped their student loan dead. This
was an interesting one today. You're just going to see
more and more of this. You're going to see the
usage of your taxpayer dollars to bribe different constituencies to
try to vote Democrat, something we can certainly discuss in
greater detail. An interesting twist. I'm gonna leave this one
(01:33):
for Clay to set up it a little bit on
the I don't even know if we can call it
a controversy because it's so stupid and so far from
a controversy. But it was a vicious attack on a
young boy who dressed as a Kansas City chief at
a football game, had black and red paint on his face,
(01:56):
and some sheer just unbelievable imbecile said that this was
a version of blackface and therefore there should be NFL
sanctions of some kind against the family. It was insane.
Turns out not only are people all backing up the
boy and his family, but also there's a twist in
that story. I'm gonna leave that one for Clay, though,
(02:16):
because there's it gets better, folks. The good guys are
winning and it gets better. But I want to start
with this one today, Clay, because tomorrow we'll be diving
into this quite a bit, and it's going to be
I think a moment in time where we maybe take
a little bit of a pause from looking at the
Republican primary and also talking about Biden's long term prospects
(02:39):
and look more at the state by state phenomena that
are going on in this country right now. Red Versus
Blue Wall Street Journal has this opinion piece up DeSantis
versus Newsome a scorecard. Here's a cheat sheet to keep
track of Thursday's debate. And you look at this and
it breaks down the numbers employment. For example, employment since
(03:03):
January twenty nineteen has increased by a million in Florida
while declining by eighty five thousand in California. Unemployment despite
a shrinking labor force. California's four point eight percent jobs
rate is the second highest in the country and nearly
twice as highest floor. As you go down the list,
I can't go through all of it right now, except
in every metric where everything where you could look at numbers, yes,
(03:27):
Florida beats the the you know, the absolute tail off
of California, I mean just absolutely crushes it. Right, And
yet people still talk about Gavin Newsom as a likely
Democrat presidential contender. Are we at the point now where
ideology is so strong in the Blue states that results
don't matter.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Yes, And that's one of the scariest things to me
about where we are is a nation. Let me hit
you with two more stats here that I think really
kind of go to the essence of this.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You live in Florida. Now, Florida has really.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Good weather, Buck, wouldn't you expect that there would be
massive amounts of homelessness on the streets Miami, Tampa, Orlando,
South Florida where the weather is really good. This one
jumped out at me. Federal government counted one hundred and
seventy one thousand, five hundred and twenty one homeless people
(04:22):
in California last year versus twenty five thousand, nine hundred
and fifty nine in Florida. And they've effectively did criminalized
drug use, which makes it harder to force attics on
the street into treatment. Now, per capita, Florida has a
smaller population than California, but even adjusted per capita, California
(04:45):
has way more homeless people. And I know for a
lot of you out there listening to me right now
who are in southern California, there are many great neighborhoods
in southern California that have been totally taken over on
the beachside community Santa Monica, for instance, Venice with a
(05:05):
huge number of homeless people, even all the way down
the coast into Orange County for instance. It's a major
quality of life issue. I would just wonder what is
Florida doing Again, I'm comparing South Florida, which has great weather,
with Southern California, which has very good weather too. What
is Florida doing that they have so many fewer homeless
(05:26):
people taking over streets? That should be something that's studied.
I mean you've probably noticed that as someone who lives
in South Florida now, Buck, there's almost no one of
a substantial numbers that are homeless in Miami.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Compare it to La. It's night and day. Well, it
all ties in together. The phenomenon of homelessness and urban
decay in California is tied directly to if you have
to think of these as all interlinked, they have effectively decriminalized.
I mean, you can start with San Francisco. I'mwhat true
(06:00):
of La as well, though you know the cities are
a little bit different in how they're approaching this and
then statewide overall. It's true they have largely decriminalized drug
use in public, right, So start with that. So what
does that do. Well, now you've got you've got weather
where you could effectively camp outside year round if you.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Were homeless, right, But if you were homeless, you would think,
I'm going to try to get to the place that
is the most comfortable, where I'm not going to freeze
to death, right, Like that would be if you.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Tried to camp outside of the streets of you know, Helena, Montana,
for example, It's going to be a really rough January. Right,
That's that's not going to work. So you can't do that.
But you can do it California, you can do in Florida. Okay,
So then what all ties in together. They've decriminalized drug
use in public. The drug users then to and keep
(06:47):
in mind that these are people overwhelmingly when we talk
of homeless the old model of homelessness from like the
eighties and nineties, and I had I had a grandfather
actually has a school for disadvantaged children named after him
in the Bronx, New York, and he did a lot
of work with the homeless population New York. The older
model was people talk about someone lost their job and
they lost their house, We got to get them back
(07:08):
on their feet, or this family's down on their luck,
and there are actually pretty substantial resources, certainly in places
like New York and Los Angeles to help someone who
is down on their luck for a period. When you're
talking about the homeless population, if you're really talking about vagrants,
many of them are vagrants by choice, meaning that they're
people that are effectively choosing to be unhoused so they
(07:32):
can do drugs and have drug addictions. That is the
overwhelming This is by the number seventy eighty percent plus,
maybe more like ninety percent plus of the people you're
talking about. So this isn't someone who lost their job
and lost their house, right, So then, Clay, they got
to feed the habit. What do they do? They sell drugs.
So now they're selling drugs to people, so they're expanding
the population of likely drug addicted homeless in these areas.
(07:54):
And then they start stealing. They don't enforce the laws
on theft in stores, and so then they steal to
buy the drugs. And then if that doesn't work, they
just start robbing people and you know having you know,
going crazy because they're doing all these drugs. This is
all very understandable how this happens. Gavin Newsom, though, is like, yeah,
it's really a conundrum.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
And then I love the evil Keanu Reeves, says Gavin Newsom.
Here's the other one that I flagged. The number one
way to determine I think whether things are going well
in a state or not is population. If things are
going well, more people want to live there. If things
are going poorly, less people want to live there. Between
(08:35):
July twenty nineteen and July twenty twenty two, again, this
is the Wall Street Journal latest available census data, one
point four four million Californians left for other states. Now, buck,
this is an important data point. The population in California
went up every year since it became a state in
(08:57):
eighteen fifty, all the way up to twenty twenty. Think
about how wild that is as a stat What is
that one hundred and seventy years the population of California
only grew. Gavin Newsom becomes governor COVID restrictions, they suddenly
lose a million people simultaneously. Florida has gained seven hundred
(09:18):
and thirty seven people, and that goes to We've talked
a lot about this with New York City. California lost
fifty five point seven billion dollars in adjusted gross income
between nineteen and twenty one from that population, while Florida
gained eighty point six billion dollars. Florida is getting better,
(09:40):
California is getting worse, and that cycle seems to be
perpetuating itself. I think the comparison between these two states
is utterly fascinating, which is why that debate with Hannity
tomorrow on Fox News is going to be I think
for people who watch it so eye opening in terms
of data.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yes, and you obviously have two very ambitious and widely
recognized governors who are ideologically, you know, very much aligned.
You know, there's like Larry Hogan, people talking with the
governor Maryland. Is he even a Republican? Was he a Republican?
Speaker 4 (10:11):
No?
Speaker 5 (10:11):
No, right.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
DeSantis is clearly a conservative red governor, and Newsom is
a liberal blue governor. Though I hate the usage of
the term liberal for these authoritarian status but still he's
a leftist and I think that what you'll see here
in the debate tomorrow. But just it's playing out more
broadly all across the country and people see this and
a lot of our audience includes people who because of COVID,
(10:35):
And I think it's because COVID showed how much your
state government actually matters. I'll be honest with you. We
just kind of exit. Like as a New Yorker growing up,
you're like, well, hopefully they keep the city clean and
you know, they back the cops. Other than that, our
taxes are going to be high. This place is a mess,
but that's the price you pay for being in New
York City. And then COVID came along and you're like, okay,
so this is actually an authoritarian uh you know, insane
(10:57):
asylum like this. People running this place are morems and
there they're somewhat dangerous actually to your freedom and your property,
and so people move. That happened to a lot of
places across the country. Clay, some of the Democrat response
to this is all going to be this is the
cost you see this with like California's emissions rules and
(11:19):
environment you could just we could do a whole three
hour show on how messed up California's environmentalist regulations and
rules are effects dramatically. The price of housing makes it
way more expensive for people to get housing in California
than it would otherwise be because you know, they're you know,
they got to do another study on like the delta
smelt or the three toad sloth or they don't have
(11:40):
those there, but you get what I mean. That would
actually be pretty cool if they introduced sloths into California.
But they make these decisions out of ideology, and they
think that that's a price they pay to be better people.
That's certainly the case in California. That's the California mentality.
And this is I'm somebody who thought about moving to
la at one point. In the other part of the
(12:01):
Clay federal bailouts, that's the thing that they really would
love to be able to get to where the federal
government is kicking in more and more money for these
blue states. So then when you move to Tennessee or
you move to Texas, too bad, your taxes are still
going to prop up these failed states.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
And that's happening because most state governments have to be balanced,
whereas the federal government can just evidently keep printing cash,
and so they give the bailout to the state governments,
which is what we saw a lot of One more
data point here, buck to kind of put a bow
on this student learning. California spends forty five percent more
(12:40):
per pupil K through twelve, yet Florida is outperforming in
terms of the number of their students that are considered
proficient by a pretty substantial margin by the NAP. Again,
all of the data is going to be on Ron
to say aside tomorrow with Sean Hannity, I hope that
(13:06):
the data overwhelms what will likely be the glibness and
the smiliness and the California wine mom infatuation of Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Can I give you the preview of how this is
gonna go tomorrow? Thisantis is gonna sit up there. He's
be like, all right, so we are better on education
and employment and have lower taxes, and you know we're
instituting these policies and Florida's winning and all of that
is true. Then Gavin Newsom's gonna be like, all right,
so we're a dystopian healthscape. So we can't get crime
or homelessness under control, so our drug addiction is through
(13:40):
the roof, so our state's falling apart. We're not about
to turn this into the Handmaid's Tale.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
Ron.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
You know, we're not banning books. We're not trying to
restrict Yeah, like you know what his line is.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
He's just gonna go after him. I'm sorry, Ron, fascist
says what you know? And Rod gonna say what And
you know, this is what's gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
It's just gonna be He's gonna Here is one that
I think crystallizes this in addition to all these other facts.
Buck and maybe we mentioned this when we come back,
and I'll bring it up, disney World versus disney Land.
I think it's a compelling example. I'll give you some
of that data when we come back. But disney World
versus Disneyland epitomizes to me DeSantis versus newsom right and wrong.
(14:21):
As we came and continue to recover from the excesses
and failures of much of our government during COVID.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
We live in a world fast becoming influenced by artificial intelligence.
Some might say world improved by AI. Time will tell.
Of course, there are risks too, but according to tech
expert Colin ted Ards, this is just the beginning of
a new era that could make you wealthier than ever before.
But you have to invest in the markets the right way.
And there's one mega tech company that is all in
(14:50):
on AI and Colin has been following it. This company
has spent over two hundred billion dollars on their AI project.
The CEO of this firm says AI will impact act everything,
and AI may be bigger than the Internet itself. Through
Collins knowledge, he's found a little known supplier that's delivering
a key piece of technology making this new AI project possible.
(15:11):
He's confident anyone who gets shares in this supplier today
could see massive gains. But you need to act now
before it's too late. There's a fair amount of activity
around this company already. Get all the details at new
aiproject dot com. This could be a once in a
lifetime opportunity. Check out this website for yourself. Newaiproject dot
(15:32):
Com paid for by Brownstone Research.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
The Torch of Truth passed and still lit every day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
If you look at.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
History and you opened a newspaper venue month of any year,
and of course there's always tough.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Stuff going on, wars.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
And depressions and recessions. But if you look at this
time and was having in Ukraine a six hundred mile
front free and democratic European nation, six hundred thousandties, huge
humanitarian crisis, NATO on the border of NATO, nuclear blackmail,
and it's affecting you know, all oil and gas, migration,
(16:10):
food costs, and all international military and economic relationships. That's
pretty tough. And that was before the terrorist attack in Israel.
And so I look at those things, it's kind of
it's dangerous.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
What a rough time right now. That's that was Jamie Diamond,
who is the CEO of the biggest bank in the
world JP, JP Morgan Chase. And he's a player. I
think he agree. He's he's an astute guy. He's a
smart guy to get to that place. He certainly understands
the markets, the economy, and has to keep an eye
(16:45):
on international international affairs. And he's just saying what we
all see and know, which is that this is this
is a messy world we are dealing with. I'll probably
get into a little more of the Biden administration's latest
on the Israel Hamas war in the third hour today,
although we also have a guest I think is Viveke
third hour or is Julie kill.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
Vic's third hour. Julie Kelly's gonna be with us next hour.
We can talk to Veveca. Talking to Viveke about Ukraine
and Israel might make some headlines Ukraine, you know, Comma
and then Israel, so I think that'll be interesting. Anyway,
this is the moment, Claire, where we start to see
We're going to start to see more and more, I.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Believe, going to the end of the year and then
the new year. Some of the Democrat plans to try
to just grind out however they can some kind of
victory for Biden, and then they'll figure out who's really
going to be president, you know, going into twenty twenty four,
once the ballots are counted, however they're counted, however they're
(17:46):
cast and you see this, I think with the student
loan plan here Biden, as I said at the top
of the show, eight hundred and thirteen thousand more Americans
have been told their student loan dead is wiped. That's
not really the appropriate term, as we know, it's really
just transferred. Now. This just means that this is something
that the debt transfers from one to another in this
(18:07):
case transfers to the taxpayers overall. So he's forgiven a
total of one hundred and twenty seven billion dollars for
three point five million borrowers. Now I just note, Clay,
you know, Biden did much better than Trump did with
with particularly the young cohort of voters like twenty to thirty,
(18:30):
twenty to thirty five. That's an area of strength for him.
And it seems to me this time around the plan
is going to be there's a lot of things they
will do, but one of them is just use the
taxpayers money gun, take the taxpayers credit card, if you will,
and just start start going on a spending spree to
buy off who they need to buy off to get
the votes they need.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Yeah, and you could see this was what was going
to happen when the Supreme Court struck down his initial
student loan relief. And again, and it isn't actually relief,
It isn't actually forgiveness. Anybody who uses that term is
not being honest with the audience that is reading. What
happens is somebody else's debt obligations that they took out
(19:15):
to receive an individual benefit and education is then put
on too, you and me and everybody else out there
who either never took out loans on our own educational
behalf or paid them off like I did. Buck, I
didn't pay off all my law school loans until I
think I was thirty seven or thirty eight years old.
(19:36):
Not uncommon. By the way, There are so many of
you out there listening to me right now, I'm sure
who have been paying off debts that you accrued an
education or graduate school or wherever you may have gone
for decades.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And that's not uncommon. So you paid your debts.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Many of you will have paid for kids and grandkids
based on the fact that you saved up to be
able to take care of your family's own educational needs.
You may have paid off kids or grandkids loans to
try to make their lives better with your personal savings.
And now the federal government comes in and says, hey,
we're just gonna wipe all this clean. And you now,
(20:15):
meaning you, me and everybody else out there who never
took out these debts have even more debt to have
to pay off. And it's all a game designed to
allow Democrats to stay to all of these younger borrowers
in their twenties and thirties. Joe Biden cares about your
financial situation. He's going to take away your debt. And
(20:38):
then the Supreme Court strikes it down. And what do
they say, Oh, it's the big bad Republicans and the
Supreme Court, many of whom were appointed by Donald Trump.
That won't allow you to get out of the debt
that you yourself created. And ultimately, this is just an abdication
of individual responsibility, which is the foundation now of much
of the left's ideology, that you are not responsible for
(21:01):
your own choices, but instead that there's a collectivist group
that should take on your responsibility.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
And why should people? I mean, let's look at it
this way. People are struggling right now if they've bought
bought houses recently, or bought a home to live in
because of the mortgage rate. The mortgage rate is a
function entirely of government policy. This is fed decision making,
and it's fed decision making in response to overspending that
the government did. So you can make a case that
(21:31):
people that are getting crushed by mortgage payments right now,
who can afford truly half the house value now that
they could of two or three years ago based on
the rate change on a month to month basis, where's
their relief? Right, And you start to say, why are
we privileging? I mean, I understand the argument. They say, well,
you know, we encourage people to go to college, and
(21:53):
then the debt isn't dischargeable, and credit card debt isn't
really dischargeable these days either. It's very hard and people
are putting on credit cards now, food, clothing, gasoline. So
you know, we don't want people running around naked and
starving to death in America, So why don't we just
wipe away credit card debt.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Not only that, the housing situation is I think a
ticking time bomb, and not only commercial real estate, which
you've heard us talking about, which is also a major issue.
But let me just give you a rough approximation. We
are selling now fewer homes than we have in decades,
and part of that is the mortgage rates being up
(22:31):
seven to eight percent, as many of you out there know.
But also it is not leading to a decline in prices.
We're selling fewer and fewer homes, but prices are continuing
to tick up. I think they were up three point
nine percent on average in the past year. Why is
that because the supply of available housing is not where
(22:52):
it should be because so many people are fortunate enough
to have low interest rates locked in that they're not
putting their houses on on the market. And the people
who are putting their houses on the market are still
getting more money, which means many of you out there
that are renting right now are completely and utterly priced
out of being able to buy a home because the
(23:14):
amount that's required, in combination with continuing to rise housing
prices and interest rates, is leading to a devastating economic
hit on many people. And buck think about this for
a minute. What should happen when mortgage rates go up?
In a rational and free environment, housing prices would come
down because the amount that people have to afford to
(23:37):
pay for housing is not growing at the rate that
is required with those mortgage rates and also with the
increase in housing prices. But because mortgage rates accelerated so rapidly,
many people out there, and a lot of you are
listening to me right now, are not going to be
putting your house on the market because you can't bear
to give up your two and a half or three
percent mortgage to take on a seven percent or eight
(23:59):
percent mortgage, even if you would like to move because
you got new kids, uh and they're starting school and
you want to be in a better school district, or
maybe your elderly and your kids have moved out of
your home and you don't need the big house anymore
that you've got, and you'd like to be able to move,
but you're not going to give up that two and
a half percent mortgage. I've got a two and a
half percent mortgage. I haven't paid it off. I'm afraid
(24:21):
I want a two and a half percent mortgage. I
got a two and a half percent mortgage in my
rate in my house right now. I would be a
madman to pay off that two and a half percent
mortgage that I've got when mortgage rates are seven and
a half or eight percent, and a lot of you
are in a similar position to me, and that is
curtailing the overall availability of housing in the in the
(24:43):
entire nation.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Isn't the treasury at like four percent four point five
percent right now? Ten year Treasury notes something like.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
That, Yeah, four point five I think, and the and
the current rate is I think five point twenty five
to five point five percent. In terms of what the
Fed Fund rate is so again, they're probably going to
come down because I think one of the ways that
Biden's going to try to juice the economy is They're
going to try to bring interest rates down, probably starting
in the spring. I would bet on a couple of
(25:09):
rate cuts before the election, so Biden can argue, we
beat inflation and now we're bringing interest rates back down.
But that is where we are, and many of you
are now handcuffed by the financial rapidity of the rise.
And this doesn't even get into buck I'm seeing this.
I've got some commercial real estate investments. There are lots
(25:30):
of banks out there that do not want to refinance
loans because they have got so much debt on their
books that is from an earlier era. They are avoiding
and trying to get out of commercial real estate exposure,
which is leading to many different properties out there that
(25:51):
rely on people to show up. And again, commercial real
estate was only fifty percent of people basically or even
going into the office. Now we got a ticking time
bomb going on they that is slowly going to reveal
itself as many of these low rates get wiped off
the books and a lot of deals from a real
estate perspective, don't paper at at at the at the
(26:12):
rates of mortgage properties that we're talking about right now, just.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Every decision that the federal government makes in the next
year is going to be the I mean, the entire
machinery of the federal government, including the FED, which I
know is independent, sure it is, it's all going to
be made to paper over and delay any reckoning of
(26:36):
what has been done to the economy and playing the
games with rates and the debt and everything else. So
just look at it that way, and I think you'll
be able to anticipate they will pull every lever they
have to confuse people or to mislead people about the
true strength of the economy so that Democrats can stay
in power. That will be the whole plan.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
It's right, you're one hundred percent right about that, and
a lot of you out there are going to see
that that is totally broken. But in the meantime, look
out look. Saving money's good. We all commit to doing
so one way or another. A lot of you trying
to save money right now based on where the economy is,
based on what you're having to pay for housing costs.
There's a great app that's saving people money on gas, groceries, restaurants.
(27:18):
Called Upside, you get actual cash back from your everyday purchases,
saving you money on the items you're purchasing more often.
Upside is an incredible app for anyone who buys gas,
groceries or dines out. To get started, download the free
Upside app, create an account, and when you do, use
our promo code Clay in Bucks, so you get an
extra twenty five cents back on each gallon of gas
(27:39):
you buy with the first use of your Upside app.
If you like saving money, app's going to help you
wherever you are. It tells you the gas stations or
the grocery stores closest to you. They give you money back,
and there's dozens and dozens of them to choose from.
Restaurant choices, whether it's Subway, Jersey, Mike, Starbucks list is
along very recognizable. In comparison to credit card rewards or
loyalty program you can earn three times more cash back
(28:02):
with Upside, probably why they have a four point eight
star rating on the App Store. Download the free Upside
app today and use our promo code Clay and Buck
for that extra twenty five cents back for every gallon
on your first tanket that of gas. The Upside app
great money saver all year long.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
The Clay and Buck Podcast deep dives with cool content,
surprise guests. Get it all on the iHeart app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Joined now
by one of the most diligent and hardworking people in
all of media, Julie Kelly, who has been covering the
January sixth cases in a way that frankly, almost no
one else has. And we appreciate all the work she's
done and coming on the show for almost three years.
Now off and on to continue to update all of you.
(28:51):
So first, thanks Julie. Second, Buck and I have been talking.
By the time we come back from New Year's going
to be about eight weeks out theoretically from the start
of Jacksmith's trial against Donald Trump. Is that actually going
to start? You think on March fourth? Where are we
and when would we find out? If March fourth is
(29:14):
not going to be go time? Because for as much
attention as everybody's given to Iowa and New Hampshire, which
are obviously on the horizon too, even more unprecedented is
we're not very far away from what would be the
start of the first criminal trial of a leading presidential
candidate in any of our lives.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
Right, You're exactly right. And there is the pre trial
schedule of sorts already that's been under way now for
the past few months. And I'll tell you what is
going to start on January ninth is the beginning of
the jury selection process, which should be very interesting. We're
still wating Donald Trump's lawyers to file a change of
(29:55):
venue motion, which we are expecting really any time, but
she will deny that, as as every judge who's handle
of January sixteenge a venue motion denied, every single one.
But by January nights, a judge Chuck Kin has asked
both sides for a draft of a jury questionnaire which
will be sent to hundreds of DC residents to begin
(30:17):
reading out unqualified jurors as they try to pick an
impartial jury in a city that voted ninety two percent
for Joe Biden. So that will begin right after the
first of the year.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
What kind of other decisions have we seen, Julie, thanks
for being here with us from this judge that indicate
what Trump can expect here, and my understanding is that
there have been a number of motions put before her,
and that effectively at this point anybody who thought the
fix was in beforehand is looking like that was oppression
(30:49):
to analysis.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Well, it certainly is, because as we expected with Judge
chuck Kin, and I've talked about with you guys repeatedly,
she already has a record of making inflammatory statements about
Donald Trump himself about January sixth, and of course people
his supporters who went to the Capitol that day. So
(31:12):
she's already portrayed proven herself quite frankly, to be a
brazen partisan. And the fact that she's handling this case.
Of course, they filed a motion for asking her to recuse.
She denied that. No surprise there, But she is acting
as another member of Special Council Jacksmith's prosecution team, a
(31:33):
rubber stamp, so we know that of course, she imposed
this broad gag order against the President, his lawyers, and
unspecified parties that now is on appeal. A three judge
panel at the DC Circuit heard that appeal last Monday,
a three judge panel made up of all Democratic judges.
I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that it's on
(31:55):
a temporary stay or hold until they decide what to
do with that. Donald Trump has filed three motions to
dismiss Jacksmith's January six indictment against him for selective prosecution.
Of course, a very strong argument there, unconstitutional and just
not meeting the statutory obligations for those four accounts in
(32:15):
the indictment. Those are still sitting on her desk. But
what she did this week is she denied defense councils
seeking subpoenas government for witnesses for the defense, including missing
materials that the January sixth Select Committee did not turn
over to the incoming Republican majority, as they were required
(32:38):
to do by its enabling legislation. I'll have a piece
upon that soon. There are records, especially Secret Service records
and others who their transcripts are not available. Furthermore, you guys,
remember we were told that all the materials would be
turned over and made public. All of the video interviews,
(33:00):
you know, the clips that we saw during the televised
prime time hearings. All of those video full video recordings
have not been turned over to the House to Congress,
and that is in violation again of the enabling legislation.
But what she denied this week is she said, oh,
there's no such thing as missing materials. This is a
(33:20):
fishing expedition. It's not relevant to the indictment, which of
course it is, and denied Trump's motion to compel the
production of those missing records by Nehra and other bodies
who are supposed to have them.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
Julie, I just want to go back to the timeline again.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
You said jury selection process could begin January ninth, right
out of New Year beginning. I keep asking because I
think it's so significant. March fourth is the day before,
if I'm not mistaken, Super Tuesday, when there might well
be a Republican nominee officially selected. Do you think that
Trump is going to go on trial March fifth, or
(33:59):
do you do you think we're going to end up?
I mean, that's basically three months from now, if I'm
doing the math right here. Or do you think this
thing is going to get delayed more substantially and the
trial will not begin on March March fourth?
Speaker 5 (34:13):
I still am surprised, and I'm not completely satisfied that
Jacksmith is not going to add through superseding indictment. I
know This is something I've talked about with you guys repeatedly,
and a superseding indictment would add defendants to this case.
And we know that there are six unindicted co conspirators
listed in this indictment and Jacksmith's indictment. That includes individuals
(34:36):
like Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, people
who have been charged in Fanny Willis's indictment. So there's
still a chance that he will want to add defendants
and add charges, and I'll tell you why. And we've
also talked about this. One of the four counts against
him is sort of a legal jeopardy, and that's the
(34:57):
obstruction of an official preceding count that could very well
be headed to the Supreme Court because there are now
petitions filed before the Supreme Court to take up the
legality of the DOJ using that obstruction counts against three
hundred plus Jenuary six defendants, including Donald Trump. If the
Supreme Court agrees to hear that case to reverse the
(35:20):
appellate order that has upheld this count, that's going to
put his whole indictment at risk. So there's still moving
parts to this that I don't think are settled enough
to say definitively that that March forth trial date will stick. Now,
it could because we know that they want to expedite
this process and get Trump behind bars before election day.
(35:44):
So Jacksonith still is going to have some obstacles ahead
of him. So there's a likelihood that the trial would
be delayed if he does hand down a superseding indictment
for this case. But for now, I guess we have
to look ahead. Stick in jury selection process will start,
and then you're going to start to see so many
(36:04):
more motions file in, emotions filed seeking the appalate courts involvement,
and then of course the Supreme Court as well.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Speaking of Julie Kelly, you can check out her substack
Declassify with Julie Kelly and Julie Before we h we
close up here, I just wanted to know the new
Hunter Biden strategy of going on offense despite the fact
that he's already been indicted once and maybe indicted again.
Can you shed any light on what you think the
future of the Biden incorporated legal reality will be?
Speaker 5 (36:36):
You know, it's so interesting, you know, he look, we've
seen Hunter Biden interviewed. He's a very good performer. We
know that he's an artist, so I think that he
will portray himself, you know, as a victim here. He
will turn on the water works. He will try to
get sympathy. You know that he was a legitimate businessman.
His father wasn't involved, and so this is just all optics.
(36:59):
It doesn't look ClickHouse Republicans are going to fall for it.
But quite frankly, I'd like to keep the pressure up
in the focus on what's happening with Donald Trump and
the January sixth defendants who are still being rounded up, arrested, prosecuted,
sentenced to excessive prison time, because I think that that
poses a far greater danger to the country and certainly
(37:22):
to the twenty twenty four election. Sort of this theater
related to Hunter Biden and who and when and how
he's going to testify.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
All right, outstanding stuff.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
As always, Julie, you got to keep us updated, shoot
us text anytime you got an update, and you need
to come on because this is going to get if
they actually start this trial in March. I don't even
know how crazy it's going to be. But I guess
last question really quickly. Do you think there's going to
be television cameras in this courtroom? I know Jack Smith
has opposed it. The media outlets have all been in
favor of it. Trump has been in favor of it.
(37:55):
Chuck Kin obviously does not seem to dislike media attention.
Do you think that she would make an exception on
a federal trial here or do you think this is
going to be something that people have to cover from
inside of the courtroom.
Speaker 5 (38:07):
This is going to be a huge battle because, to
your point, we have Trump's attorneys and major news organizations
who are seeking at least one camera in the courtroom,
which is generally not allowed in federal trials. But it's
not a camera at least real time audio access, which
the DC Appellate Court has. So I'm not sure how
Chuck can get get away with completely cutting off any
(38:28):
sort of live coverage of the proceedings, even if it's
just an audio, you know, YouTube, which the appellate court has.
But Jack Smith, this guy is so dirty, He is
so shady. He wants to keep discovery evidence hidden from
the president himself. He does not want any real time coverage.
Of course, he wants the gag order, so you know
(38:50):
this is a prosecution that is he wants held basically
in secret and for major news organizations, and you have
to be in the courtroom them or one of the
media rooms to cover it because he wants friendly news
organizations to put their spin on what's happening instead of
hearing Judge Chuck and Jack Smith and all of the
(39:12):
evidence in real time for the American people can have
access to this unprecedented criminal proceeding.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
Julie Kelly, everybody, Julie, thanks for being with us.
Speaker 5 (39:22):
Thanks, guys, always appreciate you having me on.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
Some organizations are on a mission. Preborn is one of those.
For seventeen years, they've opened their clinics to pregnant women
making a difficult choice between life and abortion. Preborn's goal
is to empower each woman to choose life for their
unborn child. They do that by offering free ultrasounds to
those women and plenty of support for the first two
years of motherhood. The gift of an ultrasound is often
(39:47):
the difference maker when a mother to be meets her
unborn child and realizes the miracle of life in a
new way. It often leads to the birth of that child.
That's what the staff that the Preborn Networks of clinics
have been doing every day and the results are hard heartwarming.
Each day they're helping to save the lives of two
hundred babies. That's an accomplishment, particularly in a day and
age when abortion is so prevalent. Preborn relies on donations
(40:09):
to exist and be effective. And now through a match
your tax deductible gift is doubled. And because Preborn supports
both mothers and babies with diapers, car seats, counseling, and
more for up to two years, you could offer double blessings.
Now is the time to put your year end right
offs to work. Please donate today and allow your money
to have twice the impact by with the matching gift.
(40:31):
Use your cell phone dial pound two fifty and say
the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty say baby, or
go to Preborn dot com slash buck. That's preborn dot com.
Slash buck. Preborn has a one hundred percent charity rating
sponsored by Preborn. Once more Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
That you didn't here on the show, get podcast extras
in the Clay and Buck podcast feed, find it on
the iheartapp or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
Third Hour Clay end Buck kicks off right now. Now
we've got our friend Vivek Ramas Swami with us now
he is running for president of the United States. He's
in the Republican primary right now. The Vike always appreciate
you making the time for us.
Speaker 4 (41:12):
Good to be on man, how are you? You know?
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Pretty good? Pretty good? I wanted to get your take
first off. I mean we're you know, we're on the
cusp pier of a debate that you won't be a
part of. One of your competitors, Ron de Santis, governor Florida,
will be tomorrow this Gavin Newsom, Ron DeSantis throwdown the
blue state red state thunderdome if you will, or you know,
(41:37):
the big the big battle underway. What do you make
of what we're seeing here? How do you think it's
going to go?
Speaker 4 (41:45):
I don't really care one or another. I think it's
a random charade between you know. I think it's interesting
how Ron DeSantis wasn't running for president for a year
and a half while being a governor, in much the
same way that Gavin Newsom is also now not running
for president. That times what Gavin Newsom is doing so.
I think it's a nice little win for Gavin Newsom
to be able to pre bolster what will almost surely
(42:07):
be the seat that he takes as the Democratic nominee
after they get their puppet Joe Biden out of the way.
I do think that we're missing the point if we
think that Joe Biden is really the nominated. Republicans who
have trained their fire on Joe Biden are missing the
point that he's not really in any meaningful sense, the
president or the nominee. He is a puppet for the
(42:29):
managerial class. And so in some ways I think that
this does a great favor to providing a platform for
Gavin Newsom to be able to advance and get a
head start on that presidential campaign, but without actually having
declared it. And you know Republican establishment that once again
continues scoring a series of own goals, it doesn't surprise
me that they have failed to see that for what
(42:51):
it is.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
I agree with you that Joe Biden is not going
to be the nominee. Buck and I have a stake
bet over this.
Speaker 2 (42:59):
I agree. So I think this is going off the
rails real fast, but going.
Speaker 3 (43:03):
So you may be able to come join us on
that on that dinner if we end up being correct.
But if you are right, and if I am right
that Joe Biden is not going to be the nominee,
you think it will be Gavin Newsome. How do they
get past Kamala Harris without being racist and sexist? And
how does the fix happen? I was debating this with
my wife the other the other day. How do they
(43:24):
go about removing Joe Biden? What do you think that
process would look like? Because I agree with you that
he's not going to be the guy. How do you
see it playing out?
Speaker 4 (43:32):
Well, They've already got the cards lined up a little bit. So,
first of all, the Kamala Harris problem is easy. You
make a hollowed out husk of a joke of the
vice presidential role and have her, dude be in the
place where she can do the least damage possible, be
the vice president, give her no responsibility. And that's the
one thing that I would say that Joe Biden has
done well is make sure that Kamala Harris doesn't have
any responsibilities. So I think the less she does for
(43:55):
the country, some people make fun of her for not
showing up. I think that's been one of the great
national service system possibly could have done, was actually to
stay far away from anything that affected this country. So
I think that can just continue for another fort to
eight years in the Democrats view, I think that solves
the identity politic problem. Now, what about the Biden problem
to the extent that there is still a man who
(44:16):
has some semblance of free will left in that body.
You know what if he doesn't want to step aside
and out of the way. Well, here's the answer to that.
This is what the so called documents investigation on Biden
is all about. And a little bit of the Hunter
Biden investigations play this role too. These are cards that
I think they don't want to pull unless they have to,
(44:39):
but they are what you call in the business world
a call option, right. I think that that's a option
that they can exercise if they need to in order
to get the old man out of the way. And
so that's what that documents cases all about. And there's
a little bit of a twofer built into that because
when they do that, even if Biden cries foul or whatever,
they already have the narrative set up to say that, well,
they said that we had a politicized investigation of Donald
(45:01):
Trump in the document's case. But see now we're just
applying it even handedly. That there is actually one rule
of law that's sort of the Merrick Garland deep state
line that they have ready to go. It legitimizes everything
they're doing against Trump while also getting Biden out of
the way in one fell swoop. And so I think
that's kind of how the managerial class deep state operates.
(45:22):
It operates and transcends above the lines of traditional partisanship.
And so they'll just close the loop in both addressing
the allegations of politicization of the justice system while using
that very justice system or in justice system, as the
case may be, to sideline Biden and achieve the actual
goals of the manual class that has lost or will
(45:43):
have lost their use for Biden. So mark my words,
or maybe I should say our words on that we're
on the at least one of us is on the
side of this. And I think it'll be in the
next three to four months if this happens, and I'll
even give you a very specific prediction on timing. What
they're waiting for is for the Trump trials to begin
and that's really when I'll be able to slip that
in while minimizing the fallout from it, because their bet
(46:04):
is that he'll be almost the runaway nominee by then
wait for his trials to begin and then and then
roll that out. I think that's what the establishment in
the managerial class of the Democratic Party is currently thinking.
Speaker 2 (46:17):
Speaking of a Viake Ramaswami, he is running for president
and Vivek, you've you've got some interesting numbers looking forward
here into Iowa and New Hampshire. What is your pathway
here and and why at this point, I mean, you're
still still very much in the mix. Why at this
(46:38):
point should it be you and not just Donald Trump,
who's out thirty points forty points depending on the poll,
ahead of the pack.
Speaker 4 (46:45):
Yeah. So, look, I think it's going to take a
leader from the next generation to do this. I think
you get to be an outsider one, and unlike the
other candidates who are trying to Monday Morning quarterback Trump
after kissing his feet and begging for money and endorsement
for years, on the other way around, I have not
been getting Donald Trump's feed, but I respect his legacy
and I think that he's been an excellent president, but
(47:06):
I think it's going to take somebody from the next
generation now to take that America First movement to the
next level. And if you look at there are certain
things I've issues I've espoused in this race. I mean,
from being open about the fact that Ukraine is not
some democracy and our own taxpayer money is funding the
persecution of Christians in Ukraine or the persecution of Christians
in Armenia, or for that matter, the fact that we
(47:28):
need to shut down agencies like the FBI, or that
Ronald McDaniel needs to be fired, or the fact that
the climate change agenda is a hoax, and one of
the Iowa's specific issues a carbon capture pipeline that they're
using and building across the state, using eminent domain to
seize the land of farmers to bury carbon dioxide into
the ground. Across any of these issues, there's a reason
(47:50):
why I'm the only Republican candidate who's actually been able
to stand for these issues with a spine. I'm an
outsider in this race. And you know what every politician
is dancing. There's the tune of their biggest donor on
the debate stage. In my case, that biggest donor is me,
and I think that's a big difference between me and
the rest of this field. I think Trump had a
big element of that, which is why I respect him.
But now it's going to take a leader from the
(48:10):
next generation with fresh legs to actually reach the next generation.
Forty percent of our donors right now are first time
ever donors to the Republican Party, which is unheard of
in our party, it's normally two percent. We're bringing young
people along in droves, so I think I can win
that general election and landslide by bringing those young people along.
I also think my past that you're asking about, I
(48:32):
think we're going to shock the world with what we
do in those first two primary states, including in Iowa.
So I'm undoubtedly among the major candidates right now the underdog,
but I think that's exactly where we want to be sitting.
We're going to shatter expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire,
and that's going to propel us forward to the rest
of this race. And you know, I think that having
the expectations set where they are exactly where we want them.
(48:55):
You know, guys running my Iowa operation used to do
this for both Santorum in twenty twelve and then Ted
clus in sixteen, and you know, I'm pulling ahead of
where Santorum was at this time in that race, and
he ended up winning Iowa. Santorum didn't have the money
to continue though. In my case, we've lived the American dream.
We are stopping at nothing to succeed in reviving this country.
(49:16):
And so yes, I'm confident we're going to be able
to go the distance.
Speaker 3 (49:19):
You've done more events I saw you share this than anybody.
I think Ron DeSantis in second place. If you are
not correct right, let's say you don't as shatter expectations
and you're not the clear number two in Iowa or
New Hampshire. Would you consider endorsing anyone other than Donald Trump?
(49:40):
Or if at some point you have to put your
support behind someone else, is it fair to say Trump
has got your support, that he would be your guy?
Or would you consider Nicky Haley or Ron DeSantis or
Chris Christy or somebody else?
Speaker 4 (49:55):
I mean, I mean, I think someone like a Nicky
Haley should come nowhere within spitting distance of the White House,
not just in the presidency, but even as it relates
to touching our foreign policy and marching US into World
War three so they can make more money off of it.
So put that to one side. I've said it's been
very clear since the beginning. There's two America First candidates
in this race, and I think it needs to be
one of us that leads this country. That's Donald Trump.
(50:16):
For myself, I think I'm uniquely positioned to take our
agenda further because I can reach the next generation to
do it. And you know what, so I expect Donald
Trump's full support if I'm the nominee, and he'll have
my full support if he is a nominee. But I
think that's got to be an America First candidate, and
there's really only two of them in this race, and
I think both of us can win a general. But
(50:36):
I think I could do this in a landslide, and
I can do this in a way that frankly goes
further with our own agenda because we're going to bring
that next generation along. We're already seeing that in this campaign,
and I think that's the way I'm going to lead
this country as well. So I've been crystal clear about that.
I think it's the answer to your question is not
even close it's either Trump for myself.
Speaker 2 (50:56):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
So we had Chris Christy on Wednesday and I asked
him the same question, and he said, obviously he's very
anti Trump. He specifically said that he wouldn't support you.
He said he would support Nicki Haley or Ron DeSantis.
Mitt Romney basically said the same thing. Why do you
think Chris Christy and Mitt Romney have that perspective? And
(51:19):
I'm curious, given that Mitt Romney was the nominee in
twenty twelve, can you think of a bigger Republican turncoat
than Mitt Romney.
Speaker 4 (51:28):
It'd be hard I'd be hard pressed to do it.
I think that his niece, who's running the RNC, has
been an abysmal failure. Ronna Romney McDaniel, who is running
the Republican National Committee, has led us through failure after
failure after failure after failure twenty eighteen, twenty twenty, twenty
twenty two, and twenty twenty three. Her salary is nearly
tripled in the meantime, and so I called for her resignation.
So I think that that family, you know, doesn't I
(51:49):
think have a lot of warm feelings towards me. But
the reason is deeper than that. It's an ideological divide
in the GOP. Do you want to go back in
the direction of Dick Cheney in believing that it's the
job of the US to serve as the global arbiter,
as the policeman of the world, while a bunch of
people in the military industrial complex get to make money
doing it, from Dick Cheney to Nikki Haley to a
(52:11):
lot of people on the Democratic side who are benefiting
from this financial grift of our military industrial complex as well.
Is that the direction you want to go? Or do
you want to go to a future where the US
president has a sole moral duty to the US citizens
right here at home. That's a fundamental ideological split. And
I think the Chris Christy and Mitt Romney and Carl
(52:33):
Rove and Nick Cheney and Nicki Haley and Zi Graham
and you know, you just got straight down the list
of that Republican establishment, Chris Sununu whatever, They're all on
one side of that ideological divide. And there are certain
day Ron the Santus is too, though sometimes he's you know,
Schrodinger is Ron, as I like to call him. You
never know whether he's inside which side of the wall.
He's actually on to play on a physics analogy here.
(52:55):
But yeah, I think that everybody else, you know where
they are. They're on one side of that divide, and
I think Donald Trump and I are on the other
side of that divide. And so it's clear why that
Mitt Romney, he was clear he said he would rather
vote for a Democrat in twenty twenty four than Donald Trump.
For myself, I take that as a kind of positive endorsement,
but I don't think he meant it that way regardless.
I think America First is the way of the future.
(53:16):
I think we're bringing along a seit. I was just
in an event. I'm here in rural Iowa looking at
farmland on a bus. As we're talking here, we actually
just said that. Last event, I had a number of
people who were independence, one of whom was the Libertarians
that he switched over his registration so that he's able
to vote in the caucus for us. These people are
not polled. These people, I think are going to be
what allow us to shock the world. The set of
(53:39):
people who are not polled who are actually supporting us.
The numbers are wild in Iowa and in New Hampshire,
Iowa in particular, that's going to be a shock. And
so I think we're going to be successful, not only
winning the nomination, but precisely because I'm getting that back in.
I think I can win the general in a landslide
like what Reagan delivered in nineteen eighty. And I know
that sounds about as ridiculous for me to say as
(54:00):
it did for Reagan to say in November of seventy nine,
but that's what I think we're on track to do.
And you know, it's not just even winning the election
that's the destination for me, that's just the start line.
The destination is January twenty thirty three, when I leave
this office after two terms, what do I want to
say we did. I think we're going to shut down
the deep state, declare independence from China, keep us out
(54:21):
of World War three, revive national pride in this country.
And I think I'm the single candidate who can do
those things better than anybody else. And so we're going
to see this through to the end, and I think
we're going to be successful in doing it.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
The veg Ramaswami, everybody but Vague appreciate you being here.
Speaker 4 (54:37):
Thank you, guys. Take care.
Speaker 2 (54:40):
That is going to be interesting, right.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
If he's right and he's going to bring out a
lot of new voters, then that would be intriguing to see.
If he's not and he doesn't exceed expectations, I don't
know that I've seen him say anywhere else that he
would endorse Donald Trump. It's not shocking, but I think
he's the only person remaining in the race who would
endorse Trump. We'll talk about that a bit more when
(55:04):
we come back. In the meantime. My Pillow company focused
on making comfortable products for your home. No matter what
you get to experience in the way of their products, pillows, sheets, slippers,
their towels, they're all manufactured with comfort and mind. New
line of towels perfect example, soft thick towels absorbent from
the first time you use them. You won't find these
my towels from My Pillow in stores, but you'll find
(55:26):
them online. If you're looking to replace and upgrade your towels,
you'll be amazed. You can get towels of this quality
and for fifty percent off the introductory price on a
six piece set just twenty nine to ninety eight. Designer
Premium line just twenty bucks more. Every set comes with
a sixty day money back guarantee. Go online to my
pillow dot Com. Click on the radio Listeners special square.
(55:49):
You'll find the my Towels right there in a multitude
of colors. Use our names Clay and Buck. For the
fifty percent off that's my pillow dot Com. Use the
code Clay and
Speaker 1 (55:59):
Buck speaking truth and having fun Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome everybody. Wednesday edition of Clay and Buck kicks off
right now. Got a lot to discuss with Peter Day.
Just quick roadmap. Our friends friends, Julie Kelly and Vivike
Ramaswami will be joining us today here on the program.
We'll have Julie joining to talk about the latest legal
(00:27):
wrangling around the DC case against Trump Judge Chuck Kidden.
The fix is in. We will discuss the latest with
her on that one. Don't forget we are now getting
closer and closer to a possible federal criminal felony trial
against the currently leading presidential contender for the Republicans. Were
(00:49):
also going to have, speaking of presidential contenders, vivike Ramaswami's on.
He's got some very interesting things he wants to bring
to your attention. He reached out to guys, we got
to talk about this. We said, Vivec, let's do it.
And so here we are. We've got that to dive
into together. Also, Biden tells eight hundred and thirteen thousand
(01:11):
more Americans he has wiped their student loan dead. This
was an interesting one today. You're just going to see
more and more of this. You're going to see the
usage of your taxpayer dollars to bribe different constituencies to
try to vote Democrat, something we can certainly discuss in
greater detail. An interesting twist. I'm gonna leave this one
(01:33):
for Clay to set up it a little bit on
the I don't even know if we can call it
a controversy because it's so stupid and so far from
a controversy. But it was a vicious attack on a
young boy who dressed as a Kansas City chief at
a football game, had black and red paint on his face,
(01:56):
and some sheer just unbelievable imbecile said that this was
a version of blackface and therefore there should be NFL
sanctions of some kind against the family. It was insane.
Turns out not only are people all backing up the
boy and his family, but also there's a twist in
that story. I'm gonna leave that one for Clay, though,
(02:16):
because there's it gets better, folks. The good guys are
winning and it gets better. But I want to start
with this one today, Clay, because tomorrow we'll be diving
into this quite a bit, and it's going to be
I think a moment in time where we maybe take
a little bit of a pause from looking at the
Republican primary and also talking about Biden's long term prospects
(02:39):
and look more at the state by state phenomena that
are going on in this country right now. Red Versus
Blue Wall Street Journal has this opinion piece up DeSantis
versus Newsome a scorecard. Here's a cheat sheet to keep
track of Thursday's debate. And you look at this and
it breaks down the numbers employment. For example, employment since
(03:03):
January twenty nineteen has increased by a million in Florida
while declining by eighty five thousand in California. Unemployment despite
a shrinking labor force. California's four point eight percent jobs
rate is the second highest in the country and nearly
twice as highest floor. As you go down the list,
I can't go through all of it right now, except
in every metric where everything where you could look at numbers, yes,
(03:27):
Florida beats the the you know, the absolute tail off
of California, I mean just absolutely crushes it. Right, And
yet people still talk about Gavin Newsom as a likely
Democrat presidential contender. Are we at the point now where
ideology is so strong in the Blue states that results
don't matter.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Yes, And that's one of the scariest things to me
about where we are is a nation. Let me hit
you with two more stats here that I think really
kind of go to the essence of this.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You live in Florida. Now, Florida has really.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Good weather, Buck, wouldn't you expect that there would be
massive amounts of homelessness on the streets Miami, Tampa, Orlando,
South Florida where the weather is really good. This one
jumped out at me. Federal government counted one hundred and
seventy one thousand, five hundred and twenty one homeless people
(04:22):
in California last year versus twenty five thousand, nine hundred
and fifty nine in Florida. And they've effectively did criminalized
drug use, which makes it harder to force attics on
the street into treatment. Now, per capita, Florida has a
smaller population than California, but even adjusted per capita, California
(04:45):
has way more homeless people. And I know for a
lot of you out there listening to me right now
who are in southern California, there are many great neighborhoods
in southern California that have been totally taken over on
the beachside community Santa Monica, for instance, Venice with a
(05:05):
huge number of homeless people, even all the way down
the coast into Orange County for instance. It's a major
quality of life issue. I would just wonder what is
Florida doing Again, I'm comparing South Florida, which has great weather,
with Southern California, which has very good weather too. What
is Florida doing that they have so many fewer homeless
(05:26):
people taking over streets? That should be something that's studied.
I mean you've probably noticed that as someone who lives
in South Florida now, Buck, there's almost no one of
a substantial numbers that are homeless in Miami.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Compare it to La. It's night and day. Well, it
all ties in together. The phenomenon of homelessness and urban
decay in California is tied directly to if you have
to think of these as all interlinked, they have effectively decriminalized.
I mean, you can start with San Francisco. I'mwhat true
(06:00):
of La as well, though you know the cities are
a little bit different in how they're approaching this and
then statewide overall. It's true they have largely decriminalized drug
use in public, right, So start with that. So what
does that do. Well, now you've got you've got weather
where you could effectively camp outside year round if you.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Were homeless, right, But if you were homeless, you would think,
I'm going to try to get to the place that
is the most comfortable, where I'm not going to freeze
to death, right, Like that would be if you.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Tried to camp outside of the streets of you know, Helena, Montana,
for example, It's going to be a really rough January. Right,
That's that's not going to work. So you can't do that.
But you can do it California, you can do in Florida. Okay,
So then what all ties in together. They've decriminalized drug
use in public. The drug users then to and keep
(06:47):
in mind that these are people overwhelmingly when we talk
of homeless the old model of homelessness from like the
eighties and nineties, and I had I had a grandfather
actually has a school for disadvantaged children named after him
in the Bronx, New York, and he did a lot
of work with the homeless population New York. The older
model was people talk about someone lost their job and
they lost their house, We got to get them back
(07:08):
on their feet, or this family's down on their luck,
and there are actually pretty substantial resources, certainly in places
like New York and Los Angeles to help someone who
is down on their luck for a period. When you're
talking about the homeless population, if you're really talking about vagrants,
many of them are vagrants by choice, meaning that they're
people that are effectively choosing to be unhoused so they
(07:32):
can do drugs and have drug addictions. That is the
overwhelming This is by the number seventy eighty percent plus,
maybe more like ninety percent plus of the people you're
talking about. So this isn't someone who lost their job
and lost their house, right, So then, Clay, they got
to feed the habit. What do they do? They sell drugs.
So now they're selling drugs to people, so they're expanding
the population of likely drug addicted homeless in these areas.
(07:54):
And then they start stealing. They don't enforce the laws
on theft in stores, and so then they steal to
buy the drugs. And then if that doesn't work, they
just start robbing people and you know having you know,
going crazy because they're doing all these drugs. This is
all very understandable how this happens. Gavin Newsom, though, is like, yeah,
it's really a conundrum.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
And then I love the evil Keanu Reeves, says Gavin Newsom.
Here's the other one that I flagged. The number one
way to determine I think whether things are going well
in a state or not is population. If things are
going well, more people want to live there. If things
are going poorly, less people want to live there. Between
(08:35):
July twenty nineteen and July twenty twenty two, again, this
is the Wall Street Journal latest available census data, one
point four four million Californians left for other states. Now, buck,
this is an important data point. The population in California
went up every year since it became a state in
(08:57):
eighteen fifty, all the way up to twenty twenty. Think
about how wild that is as a stat What is
that one hundred and seventy years the population of California
only grew. Gavin Newsom becomes governor COVID restrictions, they suddenly
lose a million people simultaneously. Florida has gained seven hundred
(09:18):
and thirty seven people, and that goes to We've talked
a lot about this with New York City. California lost
fifty five point seven billion dollars in adjusted gross income
between nineteen and twenty one from that population, while Florida
gained eighty point six billion dollars. Florida is getting better,
(09:40):
California is getting worse, and that cycle seems to be
perpetuating itself. I think the comparison between these two states
is utterly fascinating, which is why that debate with Hannity
tomorrow on Fox News is going to be I think
for people who watch it so eye opening in terms
of data.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yes, and you obviously have two very ambitious and widely
recognized governors who are ideologically, you know, very much aligned.
You know, there's like Larry Hogan, people talking with the
governor Maryland. Is he even a Republican? Was he a Republican?
Speaker 4 (10:11):
No?
Speaker 5 (10:11):
No, right.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
DeSantis is clearly a conservative red governor, and Newsom is
a liberal blue governor. Though I hate the usage of
the term liberal for these authoritarian status but still he's
a leftist and I think that what you'll see here
in the debate tomorrow. But just it's playing out more
broadly all across the country and people see this and
a lot of our audience includes people who because of COVID,
(10:35):
And I think it's because COVID showed how much your
state government actually matters. I'll be honest with you. We
just kind of exit. Like as a New Yorker growing up,
you're like, well, hopefully they keep the city clean and
you know, they back the cops. Other than that, our
taxes are going to be high. This place is a mess,
but that's the price you pay for being in New
York City. And then COVID came along and you're like, okay,
so this is actually an authoritarian uh you know, insane
(10:57):
asylum like this. People running this place are morems and
there they're somewhat dangerous actually to your freedom and your property,
and so people move. That happened to a lot of
places across the country. Clay, some of the Democrat response
to this is all going to be this is the
cost you see this with like California's emissions rules and
(11:19):
environment you could just we could do a whole three
hour show on how messed up California's environmentalist regulations and
rules are effects dramatically. The price of housing makes it
way more expensive for people to get housing in California
than it would otherwise be because you know, they're you know,
they got to do another study on like the delta
smelt or the three toad sloth or they don't have
(11:40):
those there, but you get what I mean. That would
actually be pretty cool if they introduced sloths into California.
But they make these decisions out of ideology, and they
think that that's a price they pay to be better people.
That's certainly the case in California. That's the California mentality.
And this is I'm somebody who thought about moving to
la at one point. In the other part of the
(12:01):
Clay federal bailouts, that's the thing that they really would
love to be able to get to where the federal
government is kicking in more and more money for these
blue states. So then when you move to Tennessee or
you move to Texas, too bad, your taxes are still
going to prop up these failed states.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
And that's happening because most state governments have to be balanced,
whereas the federal government can just evidently keep printing cash,
and so they give the bailout to the state governments,
which is what we saw a lot of One more
data point here, buck to kind of put a bow
on this student learning. California spends forty five percent more
(12:40):
per pupil K through twelve, yet Florida is outperforming in
terms of the number of their students that are considered
proficient by a pretty substantial margin by the NAP. Again,
all of the data is going to be on Ron
to say aside tomorrow with Sean Hannity, I hope that
(13:06):
the data overwhelms what will likely be the glibness and
the smiliness and the California wine mom infatuation of Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Can I give you the preview of how this is
gonna go tomorrow? Thisantis is gonna sit up there. He's
be like, all right, so we are better on education
and employment and have lower taxes, and you know we're
instituting these policies and Florida's winning and all of that
is true. Then Gavin Newsom's gonna be like, all right,
so we're a dystopian healthscape. So we can't get crime
or homelessness under control, so our drug addiction is through
(13:40):
the roof, so our state's falling apart. We're not about
to turn this into the Handmaid's Tale.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
Ron.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
You know, we're not banning books. We're not trying to
restrict Yeah, like you know what his line is.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
He's just gonna go after him. I'm sorry, Ron, fascist
says what you know? And Rod gonna say what And
you know, this is what's gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
It's just gonna be He's gonna Here is one that
I think crystallizes this in addition to all these other facts.
Buck and maybe we mentioned this when we come back,
and I'll bring it up, disney World versus disney Land.
I think it's a compelling example. I'll give you some
of that data when we come back. But disney World
versus Disneyland epitomizes to me DeSantis versus newsom right and wrong.
(14:21):
As we came and continue to recover from the excesses
and failures of much of our government during COVID.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
We live in a world fast becoming influenced by artificial intelligence.
Some might say world improved by AI. Time will tell.
Of course, there are risks too, but according to tech
expert Colin ted Ards, this is just the beginning of
a new era that could make you wealthier than ever before.
But you have to invest in the markets the right way.
And there's one mega tech company that is all in
(14:50):
on AI and Colin has been following it. This company
has spent over two hundred billion dollars on their AI project.
The CEO of this firm says AI will impact act everything,
and AI may be bigger than the Internet itself. Through
Collins knowledge, he's found a little known supplier that's delivering
a key piece of technology making this new AI project possible.
(15:11):
He's confident anyone who gets shares in this supplier today
could see massive gains. But you need to act now
before it's too late. There's a fair amount of activity
around this company already. Get all the details at new
aiproject dot com. This could be a once in a
lifetime opportunity. Check out this website for yourself. Newaiproject dot
(15:32):
Com paid for by Brownstone Research.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
The Torch of Truth passed and still lit every day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
If you look at.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
History and you opened a newspaper venue month of any year,
and of course there's always tough.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Stuff going on, wars.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
And depressions and recessions. But if you look at this
time and was having in Ukraine a six hundred mile
front free and democratic European nation, six hundred thousandties, huge
humanitarian crisis, NATO on the border of NATO, nuclear blackmail,
and it's affecting you know, all oil and gas, migration,
(16:10):
food costs, and all international military and economic relationships. That's
pretty tough. And that was before the terrorist attack in Israel.
And so I look at those things, it's kind of
it's dangerous.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
What a rough time right now. That's that was Jamie Diamond,
who is the CEO of the biggest bank in the
world JP, JP Morgan Chase. And he's a player. I
think he agree. He's he's an astute guy. He's a
smart guy to get to that place. He certainly understands
the markets, the economy, and has to keep an eye
(16:45):
on international international affairs. And he's just saying what we
all see and know, which is that this is this
is a messy world we are dealing with. I'll probably
get into a little more of the Biden administration's latest
on the Israel Hamas war in the third hour today,
although we also have a guest I think is Viveke
third hour or is Julie kill.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
Vic's third hour. Julie Kelly's gonna be with us next hour.
We can talk to Veveca. Talking to Viveke about Ukraine
and Israel might make some headlines Ukraine, you know, Comma
and then Israel, so I think that'll be interesting. Anyway,
this is the moment, Claire, where we start to see
We're going to start to see more and more, I.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Believe, going to the end of the year and then
the new year. Some of the Democrat plans to try
to just grind out however they can some kind of
victory for Biden, and then they'll figure out who's really
going to be president, you know, going into twenty twenty four,
once the ballots are counted, however they're counted, however they're
(17:46):
cast and you see this, I think with the student
loan plan here Biden, as I said at the top
of the show, eight hundred and thirteen thousand more Americans
have been told their student loan dead is wiped. That's
not really the appropriate term, as we know, it's really
just transferred. Now. This just means that this is something
that the debt transfers from one to another in this
(18:07):
case transfers to the taxpayers overall. So he's forgiven a
total of one hundred and twenty seven billion dollars for
three point five million borrowers. Now I just note, Clay,
you know, Biden did much better than Trump did with
with particularly the young cohort of voters like twenty to thirty,
(18:30):
twenty to thirty five. That's an area of strength for him.
And it seems to me this time around the plan
is going to be there's a lot of things they
will do, but one of them is just use the
taxpayers money gun, take the taxpayers credit card, if you will,
and just start start going on a spending spree to
buy off who they need to buy off to get
the votes they need.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
Yeah, and you could see this was what was going
to happen when the Supreme Court struck down his initial
student loan relief. And again, and it isn't actually relief,
It isn't actually forgiveness. Anybody who uses that term is
not being honest with the audience that is reading. What
happens is somebody else's debt obligations that they took out
(19:15):
to receive an individual benefit and education is then put
on too, you and me and everybody else out there
who either never took out loans on our own educational
behalf or paid them off like I did. Buck, I
didn't pay off all my law school loans until I
think I was thirty seven or thirty eight years old.
(19:36):
Not uncommon. By the way, There are so many of
you out there listening to me right now, I'm sure
who have been paying off debts that you accrued an
education or graduate school or wherever you may have gone
for decades.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And that's not uncommon. So you paid your debts.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Many of you will have paid for kids and grandkids
based on the fact that you saved up to be
able to take care of your family's own educational needs.
You may have paid off kids or grandkids loans to
try to make their lives better with your personal savings.
And now the federal government comes in and says, hey,
we're just gonna wipe all this clean. And you now,
(20:15):
meaning you, me and everybody else out there who never
took out these debts have even more debt to have
to pay off. And it's all a game designed to
allow Democrats to stay to all of these younger borrowers
in their twenties and thirties. Joe Biden cares about your
financial situation. He's going to take away your debt. And
(20:38):
then the Supreme Court strikes it down. And what do
they say, Oh, it's the big bad Republicans and the
Supreme Court, many of whom were appointed by Donald Trump.
That won't allow you to get out of the debt
that you yourself created. And ultimately, this is just an abdication
of individual responsibility, which is the foundation now of much
of the left's ideology, that you are not responsible for
(21:01):
your own choices, but instead that there's a collectivist group
that should take on your responsibility.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
And why should people? I mean, let's look at it
this way. People are struggling right now if they've bought
bought houses recently, or bought a home to live in
because of the mortgage rate. The mortgage rate is a
function entirely of government policy. This is fed decision making,
and it's fed decision making in response to overspending that
the government did. So you can make a case that
(21:31):
people that are getting crushed by mortgage payments right now,
who can afford truly half the house value now that
they could of two or three years ago based on
the rate change on a month to month basis, where's
their relief? Right, And you start to say, why are
we privileging? I mean, I understand the argument. They say, well,
you know, we encourage people to go to college, and
(21:53):
then the debt isn't dischargeable, and credit card debt isn't
really dischargeable these days either. It's very hard and people
are putting on credit cards now, food, clothing, gasoline. So
you know, we don't want people running around naked and
starving to death in America, So why don't we just
wipe away credit card debt.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Not only that, the housing situation is I think a
ticking time bomb, and not only commercial real estate, which
you've heard us talking about, which is also a major issue.
But let me just give you a rough approximation. We
are selling now fewer homes than we have in decades,
and part of that is the mortgage rates being up
(22:31):
seven to eight percent, as many of you out there know.
But also it is not leading to a decline in prices.
We're selling fewer and fewer homes, but prices are continuing
to tick up. I think they were up three point
nine percent on average in the past year. Why is
that because the supply of available housing is not where
(22:52):
it should be because so many people are fortunate enough
to have low interest rates locked in that they're not
putting their houses on on the market. And the people
who are putting their houses on the market are still
getting more money, which means many of you out there
that are renting right now are completely and utterly priced
out of being able to buy a home because the
(23:14):
amount that's required, in combination with continuing to rise housing
prices and interest rates, is leading to a devastating economic
hit on many people. And buck think about this for
a minute. What should happen when mortgage rates go up?
In a rational and free environment, housing prices would come
down because the amount that people have to afford to
(23:37):
pay for housing is not growing at the rate that
is required with those mortgage rates and also with the
increase in housing prices. But because mortgage rates accelerated so rapidly,
many people out there, and a lot of you are
listening to me right now, are not going to be
putting your house on the market because you can't bear
to give up your two and a half or three
percent mortgage to take on a seven percent or eight
(23:59):
percent mortgage, even if you would like to move because
you got new kids, uh and they're starting school and
you want to be in a better school district, or
maybe your elderly and your kids have moved out of
your home and you don't need the big house anymore
that you've got, and you'd like to be able to move,
but you're not going to give up that two and
a half percent mortgage. I've got a two and a
half percent mortgage. I haven't paid it off. I'm afraid
(24:21):
I want a two and a half percent mortgage. I
got a two and a half percent mortgage in my
rate in my house right now. I would be a
madman to pay off that two and a half percent
mortgage that I've got when mortgage rates are seven and
a half or eight percent, and a lot of you
are in a similar position to me, and that is
curtailing the overall availability of housing in the in the
(24:43):
entire nation.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Isn't the treasury at like four percent four point five
percent right now? Ten year Treasury notes something like.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
That, Yeah, four point five I think, and the and
the current rate is I think five point twenty five
to five point five percent. In terms of what the
Fed Fund rate is so again, they're probably going to
come down because I think one of the ways that
Biden's going to try to juice the economy is They're
going to try to bring interest rates down, probably starting
in the spring. I would bet on a couple of
(25:09):
rate cuts before the election, so Biden can argue, we
beat inflation and now we're bringing interest rates back down.
But that is where we are, and many of you
are now handcuffed by the financial rapidity of the rise.
And this doesn't even get into buck I'm seeing this.
I've got some commercial real estate investments. There are lots
(25:30):
of banks out there that do not want to refinance
loans because they have got so much debt on their
books that is from an earlier era. They are avoiding
and trying to get out of commercial real estate exposure,
which is leading to many different properties out there that
(25:51):
rely on people to show up. And again, commercial real
estate was only fifty percent of people basically or even
going into the office. Now we got a ticking time
bomb going on they that is slowly going to reveal
itself as many of these low rates get wiped off
the books and a lot of deals from a real
estate perspective, don't paper at at at the at the
(26:12):
rates of mortgage properties that we're talking about right now, just.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Every decision that the federal government makes in the next
year is going to be the I mean, the entire
machinery of the federal government, including the FED, which I
know is independent, sure it is, it's all going to
be made to paper over and delay any reckoning of
(26:36):
what has been done to the economy and playing the
games with rates and the debt and everything else. So
just look at it that way, and I think you'll
be able to anticipate they will pull every lever they
have to confuse people or to mislead people about the
true strength of the economy so that Democrats can stay
in power. That will be the whole plan.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
It's right, you're one hundred percent right about that, and
a lot of you out there are going to see
that that is totally broken. But in the meantime, look
out look. Saving money's good. We all commit to doing
so one way or another. A lot of you trying
to save money right now based on where the economy is,
based on what you're having to pay for housing costs.
There's a great app that's saving people money on gas, groceries, restaurants.
(27:18):
Called Upside, you get actual cash back from your everyday purchases,
saving you money on the items you're purchasing more often.
Upside is an incredible app for anyone who buys gas,
groceries or dines out. To get started, download the free
Upside app, create an account, and when you do, use
our promo code Clay in Bucks, so you get an
extra twenty five cents back on each gallon of gas
(27:39):
you buy with the first use of your Upside app.
If you like saving money, app's going to help you
wherever you are. It tells you the gas stations or
the grocery stores closest to you. They give you money back,
and there's dozens and dozens of them to choose from.
Restaurant choices, whether it's Subway, Jersey, Mike, Starbucks list is
along very recognizable. In comparison to credit card rewards or
loyalty program you can earn three times more cash back
(28:02):
with Upside, probably why they have a four point eight
star rating on the App Store. Download the free Upside
app today and use our promo code Clay and Buck
for that extra twenty five cents back for every gallon
on your first tanket that of gas. The Upside app
great money saver all year long.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
The Clay and Buck Podcast deep dives with cool content,
surprise guests. Get it all on the iHeart app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Joined now
by one of the most diligent and hardworking people in
all of media, Julie Kelly, who has been covering the
January sixth cases in a way that frankly, almost no
one else has. And we appreciate all the work she's
done and coming on the show for almost three years.
Now off and on to continue to update all of you.
(28:51):
So first, thanks Julie. Second, Buck and I have been talking.
By the time we come back from New Year's going
to be about eight weeks out theoretically from the start
of Jacksmith's trial against Donald Trump. Is that actually going
to start? You think on March fourth? Where are we
and when would we find out? If March fourth is
(29:14):
not going to be go time? Because for as much
attention as everybody's given to Iowa and New Hampshire, which
are obviously on the horizon too, even more unprecedented is
we're not very far away from what would be the
start of the first criminal trial of a leading presidential
candidate in any of our lives.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
Right, You're exactly right. And there is the pre trial
schedule of sorts already that's been under way now for
the past few months. And I'll tell you what is
going to start on January ninth is the beginning of
the jury selection process, which should be very interesting. We're
still wating Donald Trump's lawyers to file a change of
(29:55):
venue motion, which we are expecting really any time, but
she will deny that, as as every judge who's handle
of January sixteenge a venue motion denied, every single one.
But by January nights, a judge Chuck Kin has asked
both sides for a draft of a jury questionnaire which
will be sent to hundreds of DC residents to begin
(30:17):
reading out unqualified jurors as they try to pick an
impartial jury in a city that voted ninety two percent
for Joe Biden. So that will begin right after the
first of the year.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
What kind of other decisions have we seen, Julie, thanks
for being here with us from this judge that indicate
what Trump can expect here, and my understanding is that
there have been a number of motions put before her,
and that effectively at this point anybody who thought the
fix was in beforehand is looking like that was oppression
(30:49):
to analysis.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Well, it certainly is, because as we expected with Judge
chuck Kin, and I've talked about with you guys repeatedly,
she already has a record of making inflammatory statements about
Donald Trump himself about January sixth, and of course people
his supporters who went to the Capitol that day. So
(31:12):
she's already portrayed proven herself quite frankly, to be a
brazen partisan. And the fact that she's handling this case.
Of course, they filed a motion for asking her to recuse.
She denied that. No surprise there, But she is acting
as another member of Special Council Jacksmith's prosecution team, a
(31:33):
rubber stamp, so we know that of course, she imposed
this broad gag order against the President, his lawyers, and
unspecified parties that now is on appeal. A three judge
panel at the DC Circuit heard that appeal last Monday,
a three judge panel made up of all Democratic judges.
I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that it's on
(31:55):
a temporary stay or hold until they decide what to
do with that. Donald Trump has filed three motions to
dismiss Jacksmith's January six indictment against him for selective prosecution.
Of course, a very strong argument there, unconstitutional and just
not meeting the statutory obligations for those four accounts in
(32:15):
the indictment. Those are still sitting on her desk. But
what she did this week is she denied defense councils
seeking subpoenas government for witnesses for the defense, including missing
materials that the January sixth Select Committee did not turn
over to the incoming Republican majority, as they were required
(32:38):
to do by its enabling legislation. I'll have a piece
upon that soon. There are records, especially Secret Service records
and others who their transcripts are not available. Furthermore, you guys,
remember we were told that all the materials would be
turned over and made public. All of the video interviews,
(33:00):
you know, the clips that we saw during the televised
prime time hearings. All of those video full video recordings
have not been turned over to the House to Congress,
and that is in violation again of the enabling legislation.
But what she denied this week is she said, oh,
there's no such thing as missing materials. This is a
(33:20):
fishing expedition. It's not relevant to the indictment, which of
course it is, and denied Trump's motion to compel the
production of those missing records by Nehra and other bodies
who are supposed to have them.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
Julie, I just want to go back to the timeline again.
Speaker 3 (33:37):
You said jury selection process could begin January ninth, right
out of New Year beginning. I keep asking because I
think it's so significant. March fourth is the day before,
if I'm not mistaken, Super Tuesday, when there might well
be a Republican nominee officially selected. Do you think that
Trump is going to go on trial March fifth, or
(33:59):
do you do you think we're going to end up?
I mean, that's basically three months from now, if I'm
doing the math right here. Or do you think this
thing is going to get delayed more substantially and the
trial will not begin on March March fourth?
Speaker 5 (34:13):
I still am surprised, and I'm not completely satisfied that
Jacksmith is not going to add through superseding indictment. I
know This is something I've talked about with you guys repeatedly,
and a superseding indictment would add defendants to this case.
And we know that there are six unindicted co conspirators
listed in this indictment and Jacksmith's indictment. That includes individuals
(34:36):
like Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, people
who have been charged in Fanny Willis's indictment. So there's
still a chance that he will want to add defendants
and add charges, and I'll tell you why. And we've
also talked about this. One of the four counts against
him is sort of a legal jeopardy, and that's the
(34:57):
obstruction of an official preceding count that could very well
be headed to the Supreme Court because there are now
petitions filed before the Supreme Court to take up the
legality of the DOJ using that obstruction counts against three
hundred plus Jenuary six defendants, including Donald Trump. If the
Supreme Court agrees to hear that case to reverse the
(35:20):
appellate order that has upheld this count, that's going to
put his whole indictment at risk. So there's still moving
parts to this that I don't think are settled enough
to say definitively that that March forth trial date will stick. Now,
it could because we know that they want to expedite
this process and get Trump behind bars before election day.
(35:44):
So Jacksonith still is going to have some obstacles ahead
of him. So there's a likelihood that the trial would
be delayed if he does hand down a superseding indictment
for this case. But for now, I guess we have
to look ahead. Stick in jury selection process will start,
and then you're going to start to see so many
(36:04):
more motions file in, emotions filed seeking the appalate courts involvement,
and then of course the Supreme Court as well.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Speaking of Julie Kelly, you can check out her substack
Declassify with Julie Kelly and Julie Before we h we
close up here, I just wanted to know the new
Hunter Biden strategy of going on offense despite the fact
that he's already been indicted once and maybe indicted again.
Can you shed any light on what you think the
future of the Biden incorporated legal reality will be?
Speaker 5 (36:36):
You know, it's so interesting, you know, he look, we've
seen Hunter Biden interviewed. He's a very good performer. We
know that he's an artist, so I think that he
will portray himself, you know, as a victim here. He
will turn on the water works. He will try to
get sympathy. You know that he was a legitimate businessman.
His father wasn't involved, and so this is just all optics.
(36:59):
It doesn't look ClickHouse Republicans are going to fall for it.
But quite frankly, I'd like to keep the pressure up
in the focus on what's happening with Donald Trump and
the January sixth defendants who are still being rounded up, arrested, prosecuted,
sentenced to excessive prison time, because I think that that
poses a far greater danger to the country and certainly
(37:22):
to the twenty twenty four election. Sort of this theater
related to Hunter Biden and who and when and how
he's going to testify.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
All right, outstanding stuff.
Speaker 3 (37:33):
As always, Julie, you got to keep us updated, shoot
us text anytime you got an update, and you need
to come on because this is going to get if
they actually start this trial in March. I don't even
know how crazy it's going to be. But I guess
last question really quickly. Do you think there's going to
be television cameras in this courtroom? I know Jack Smith
has opposed it. The media outlets have all been in
favor of it. Trump has been in favor of it.
(37:55):
Chuck Kin obviously does not seem to dislike media attention.
Do you think that she would make an exception on
a federal trial here or do you think this is
going to be something that people have to cover from
inside of the courtroom.
Speaker 5 (38:07):
This is going to be a huge battle because, to
your point, we have Trump's attorneys and major news organizations
who are seeking at least one camera in the courtroom,
which is generally not allowed in federal trials. But it's
not a camera at least real time audio access, which
the DC Appellate Court has. So I'm not sure how
Chuck can get get away with completely cutting off any
(38:28):
sort of live coverage of the proceedings, even if it's
just an audio, you know, YouTube, which the appellate court has.
But Jack Smith, this guy is so dirty, He is
so shady. He wants to keep discovery evidence hidden from
the president himself. He does not want any real time coverage.
Of course, he wants the gag order, so you know
(38:50):
this is a prosecution that is he wants held basically
in secret and for major news organizations, and you have
to be in the courtroom them or one of the
media rooms to cover it because he wants friendly news
organizations to put their spin on what's happening instead of
hearing Judge Chuck and Jack Smith and all of the
(39:12):
evidence in real time for the American people can have
access to this unprecedented criminal proceeding.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
Julie Kelly, everybody, Julie, thanks for being with us.
Speaker 5 (39:22):
Thanks, guys, always appreciate you having me on.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
Some organizations are on a mission. Preborn is one of those.
For seventeen years, they've opened their clinics to pregnant women
making a difficult choice between life and abortion. Preborn's goal
is to empower each woman to choose life for their
unborn child. They do that by offering free ultrasounds to
those women and plenty of support for the first two
years of motherhood. The gift of an ultrasound is often
(39:47):
the difference maker when a mother to be meets her
unborn child and realizes the miracle of life in a
new way. It often leads to the birth of that child.
That's what the staff that the Preborn Networks of clinics
have been doing every day and the results are hard heartwarming.
Each day they're helping to save the lives of two
hundred babies. That's an accomplishment, particularly in a day and
age when abortion is so prevalent. Preborn relies on donations
(40:09):
to exist and be effective. And now through a match
your tax deductible gift is doubled. And because Preborn supports
both mothers and babies with diapers, car seats, counseling, and
more for up to two years, you could offer double blessings.
Now is the time to put your year end right
offs to work. Please donate today and allow your money
to have twice the impact by with the matching gift.
(40:31):
Use your cell phone dial pound two fifty and say
the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty say baby, or
go to Preborn dot com slash buck. That's preborn dot com.
Slash buck. Preborn has a one hundred percent charity rating
sponsored by Preborn. Once more Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
That you didn't here on the show, get podcast extras
in the Clay and Buck podcast feed, find it on
the iheartapp or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
Third Hour Clay end Buck kicks off right now. Now
we've got our friend Vivek Ramas Swami with us now
he is running for president of the United States. He's
in the Republican primary right now. The Vike always appreciate
you making the time for us.
Speaker 4 (41:12):
Good to be on man, how are you? You know?
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Pretty good? Pretty good? I wanted to get your take
first off. I mean we're you know, we're on the
cusp pier of a debate that you won't be a
part of. One of your competitors, Ron de Santis, governor Florida,
will be tomorrow this Gavin Newsom, Ron DeSantis throwdown the
blue state red state thunderdome if you will, or you know,
(41:37):
the big the big battle underway. What do you make
of what we're seeing here? How do you think it's
going to go?
Speaker 4 (41:45):
I don't really care one or another. I think it's
a random charade between you know. I think it's interesting
how Ron DeSantis wasn't running for president for a year
and a half while being a governor, in much the
same way that Gavin Newsom is also now not running
for president. That times what Gavin Newsom is doing so.
I think it's a nice little win for Gavin Newsom
to be able to pre bolster what will almost surely
(42:07):
be the seat that he takes as the Democratic nominee
after they get their puppet Joe Biden out of the way.
I do think that we're missing the point if we
think that Joe Biden is really the nominated. Republicans who
have trained their fire on Joe Biden are missing the
point that he's not really in any meaningful sense, the
president or the nominee. He is a puppet for the
(42:29):
managerial class. And so in some ways I think that
this does a great favor to providing a platform for
Gavin Newsom to be able to advance and get a
head start on that presidential campaign, but without actually having
declared it. And you know Republican establishment that once again
continues scoring a series of own goals, it doesn't surprise
me that they have failed to see that for what
(42:51):
it is.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
I agree with you that Joe Biden is not going
to be the nominee. Buck and I have a stake
bet over this.
Speaker 2 (42:59):
I agree. So I think this is going off the
rails real fast, but going.
Speaker 3 (43:03):
So you may be able to come join us on
that on that dinner if we end up being correct.
But if you are right, and if I am right
that Joe Biden is not going to be the nominee,
you think it will be Gavin Newsome. How do they
get past Kamala Harris without being racist and sexist? And
how does the fix happen? I was debating this with
my wife the other the other day. How do they
(43:24):
go about removing Joe Biden? What do you think that
process would look like? Because I agree with you that
he's not going to be the guy. How do you
see it playing out?
Speaker 4 (43:32):
Well, They've already got the cards lined up a little bit. So,
first of all, the Kamala Harris problem is easy. You
make a hollowed out husk of a joke of the
vice presidential role and have her, dude be in the
place where she can do the least damage possible, be
the vice president, give her no responsibility. And that's the
one thing that I would say that Joe Biden has
done well is make sure that Kamala Harris doesn't have
any responsibilities. So I think the less she does for
(43:55):
the country, some people make fun of her for not
showing up. I think that's been one of the great
national service system possibly could have done, was actually to
stay far away from anything that affected this country. So
I think that can just continue for another fort to
eight years in the Democrats view, I think that solves
the identity politic problem. Now, what about the Biden problem
to the extent that there is still a man who
(44:16):
has some semblance of free will left in that body.
You know what if he doesn't want to step aside
and out of the way. Well, here's the answer to that.
This is what the so called documents investigation on Biden
is all about. And a little bit of the Hunter
Biden investigations play this role too. These are cards that
I think they don't want to pull unless they have to,
(44:39):
but they are what you call in the business world
a call option, right. I think that that's a option
that they can exercise if they need to in order
to get the old man out of the way. And
so that's what that documents cases all about. And there's
a little bit of a twofer built into that because
when they do that, even if Biden cries foul or whatever,
they already have the narrative set up to say that, well,
they said that we had a politicized investigation of Donald
(45:01):
Trump in the document's case. But see now we're just
applying it even handedly. That there is actually one rule
of law that's sort of the Merrick Garland deep state
line that they have ready to go. It legitimizes everything
they're doing against Trump while also getting Biden out of
the way in one fell swoop. And so I think
that's kind of how the managerial class deep state operates.
(45:22):
It operates and transcends above the lines of traditional partisanship.
And so they'll just close the loop in both addressing
the allegations of politicization of the justice system while using
that very justice system or in justice system, as the
case may be, to sideline Biden and achieve the actual
goals of the manual class that has lost or will
(45:43):
have lost their use for Biden. So mark my words,
or maybe I should say our words on that we're
on the at least one of us is on the
side of this. And I think it'll be in the
next three to four months if this happens, and I'll
even give you a very specific prediction on timing. What
they're waiting for is for the Trump trials to begin
and that's really when I'll be able to slip that
in while minimizing the fallout from it, because their bet
(46:04):
is that he'll be almost the runaway nominee by then
wait for his trials to begin and then and then
roll that out. I think that's what the establishment in
the managerial class of the Democratic Party is currently thinking.
Speaker 2 (46:17):
Speaking of a Viake Ramaswami, he is running for president
and Vivek, you've you've got some interesting numbers looking forward
here into Iowa and New Hampshire. What is your pathway
here and and why at this point, I mean, you're
still still very much in the mix. Why at this
(46:38):
point should it be you and not just Donald Trump,
who's out thirty points forty points depending on the poll,
ahead of the pack.
Speaker 4 (46:45):
Yeah. So, look, I think it's going to take a
leader from the next generation to do this. I think
you get to be an outsider one, and unlike the
other candidates who are trying to Monday Morning quarterback Trump
after kissing his feet and begging for money and endorsement
for years, on the other way around, I have not
been getting Donald Trump's feed, but I respect his legacy
and I think that he's been an excellent president, but
(47:06):
I think it's going to take somebody from the next
generation now to take that America First movement to the
next level. And if you look at there are certain
things I've issues I've espoused in this race. I mean,
from being open about the fact that Ukraine is not
some democracy and our own taxpayer money is funding the
persecution of Christians in Ukraine or the persecution of Christians
in Armenia, or for that matter, the fact that we
(47:28):
need to shut down agencies like the FBI, or that
Ronald McDaniel needs to be fired, or the fact that
the climate change agenda is a hoax, and one of
the Iowa's specific issues a carbon capture pipeline that they're
using and building across the state, using eminent domain to
seize the land of farmers to bury carbon dioxide into
the ground. Across any of these issues, there's a reason
(47:50):
why I'm the only Republican candidate who's actually been able
to stand for these issues with a spine. I'm an
outsider in this race. And you know what every politician
is dancing. There's the tune of their biggest donor on
the debate stage. In my case, that biggest donor is me,
and I think that's a big difference between me and
the rest of this field. I think Trump had a
big element of that, which is why I respect him.
But now it's going to take a leader from the
(48:10):
next generation with fresh legs to actually reach the next generation.
Forty percent of our donors right now are first time
ever donors to the Republican Party, which is unheard of
in our party, it's normally two percent. We're bringing young
people along in droves, so I think I can win
that general election and landslide by bringing those young people along.
I also think my past that you're asking about, I
(48:32):
think we're going to shock the world with what we
do in those first two primary states, including in Iowa.
So I'm undoubtedly among the major candidates right now the underdog,
but I think that's exactly where we want to be sitting.
We're going to shatter expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire,
and that's going to propel us forward to the rest
of this race. And you know, I think that having
the expectations set where they are exactly where we want them.
(48:55):
You know, guys running my Iowa operation used to do
this for both Santorum in twenty twelve and then Ted
clus in sixteen, and you know, I'm pulling ahead of
where Santorum was at this time in that race, and
he ended up winning Iowa. Santorum didn't have the money
to continue though. In my case, we've lived the American dream.
We are stopping at nothing to succeed in reviving this country.
(49:16):
And so yes, I'm confident we're going to be able
to go the distance.
Speaker 3 (49:19):
You've done more events I saw you share this than anybody.
I think Ron DeSantis in second place. If you are
not correct right, let's say you don't as shatter expectations
and you're not the clear number two in Iowa or
New Hampshire. Would you consider endorsing anyone other than Donald Trump?
(49:40):
Or if at some point you have to put your
support behind someone else, is it fair to say Trump
has got your support, that he would be your guy?
Or would you consider Nicky Haley or Ron DeSantis or
Chris Christy or somebody else?
Speaker 4 (49:55):
I mean, I mean, I think someone like a Nicky
Haley should come nowhere within spitting distance of the White House,
not just in the presidency, but even as it relates
to touching our foreign policy and marching US into World
War three so they can make more money off of it.
So put that to one side. I've said it's been
very clear since the beginning. There's two America First candidates
in this race, and I think it needs to be
one of us that leads this country. That's Donald Trump.
(50:16):
For myself, I think I'm uniquely positioned to take our
agenda further because I can reach the next generation to
do it. And you know what, so I expect Donald
Trump's full support if I'm the nominee, and he'll have
my full support if he is a nominee. But I
think that's got to be an America First candidate, and
there's really only two of them in this race, and
I think both of us can win a general. But
(50:36):
I think I could do this in a landslide, and
I can do this in a way that frankly goes
further with our own agenda because we're going to bring
that next generation along. We're already seeing that in this campaign,
and I think that's the way I'm going to lead
this country as well. So I've been crystal clear about that.
I think it's the answer to your question is not
even close it's either Trump for myself.
Speaker 2 (50:56):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
So we had Chris Christy on Wednesday and I asked
him the same question, and he said, obviously he's very
anti Trump. He specifically said that he wouldn't support you.
He said he would support Nicki Haley or Ron DeSantis.
Mitt Romney basically said the same thing. Why do you
think Chris Christy and Mitt Romney have that perspective? And
(51:19):
I'm curious, given that Mitt Romney was the nominee in
twenty twelve, can you think of a bigger Republican turncoat
than Mitt Romney.
Speaker 4 (51:28):
It'd be hard I'd be hard pressed to do it.
I think that his niece, who's running the RNC, has
been an abysmal failure. Ronna Romney McDaniel, who is running
the Republican National Committee, has led us through failure after
failure after failure after failure twenty eighteen, twenty twenty, twenty
twenty two, and twenty twenty three. Her salary is nearly
tripled in the meantime, and so I called for her resignation.
So I think that that family, you know, doesn't I
(51:49):
think have a lot of warm feelings towards me. But
the reason is deeper than that. It's an ideological divide
in the GOP. Do you want to go back in
the direction of Dick Cheney in believing that it's the
job of the US to serve as the global arbiter,
as the policeman of the world, while a bunch of
people in the military industrial complex get to make money
doing it, from Dick Cheney to Nikki Haley to a
(52:11):
lot of people on the Democratic side who are benefiting
from this financial grift of our military industrial complex as well.
Is that the direction you want to go? Or do
you want to go to a future where the US
president has a sole moral duty to the US citizens
right here at home. That's a fundamental ideological split. And
I think the Chris Christy and Mitt Romney and Carl
(52:33):
Rove and Nick Cheney and Nicki Haley and Zi Graham
and you know, you just got straight down the list
of that Republican establishment, Chris Sununu whatever, They're all on
one side of that ideological divide. And there are certain
day Ron the Santus is too, though sometimes he's you know,
Schrodinger is Ron, as I like to call him. You
never know whether he's inside which side of the wall.
He's actually on to play on a physics analogy here.
(52:55):
But yeah, I think that everybody else, you know where
they are. They're on one side of that divide, and
I think Donald Trump and I are on the other
side of that divide. And so it's clear why that
Mitt Romney, he was clear he said he would rather
vote for a Democrat in twenty twenty four than Donald Trump.
For myself, I take that as a kind of positive endorsement,
but I don't think he meant it that way regardless.
I think America First is the way of the future.
(53:16):
I think we're bringing along a seit. I was just
in an event. I'm here in rural Iowa looking at
farmland on a bus. As we're talking here, we actually
just said that. Last event, I had a number of
people who were independence, one of whom was the Libertarians
that he switched over his registration so that he's able
to vote in the caucus for us. These people are
not polled. These people, I think are going to be
what allow us to shock the world. The set of
(53:39):
people who are not polled who are actually supporting us.
The numbers are wild in Iowa and in New Hampshire,
Iowa in particular, that's going to be a shock. And
so I think we're going to be successful, not only
winning the nomination, but precisely because I'm getting that back in.
I think I can win the general in a landslide
like what Reagan delivered in nineteen eighty. And I know
that sounds about as ridiculous for me to say as
(54:00):
it did for Reagan to say in November of seventy nine,
but that's what I think we're on track to do.
And you know, it's not just even winning the election
that's the destination for me, that's just the start line.
The destination is January twenty thirty three, when I leave
this office after two terms, what do I want to
say we did. I think we're going to shut down
the deep state, declare independence from China, keep us out
(54:21):
of World War three, revive national pride in this country.
And I think I'm the single candidate who can do
those things better than anybody else. And so we're going
to see this through to the end, and I think
we're going to be successful in doing it.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
The veg Ramaswami, everybody but Vague appreciate you being here.
Speaker 4 (54:37):
Thank you, guys. Take care.
Speaker 2 (54:40):
That is going to be interesting, right.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
If he's right and he's going to bring out a
lot of new voters, then that would be intriguing to see.
If he's not and he doesn't exceed expectations, I don't
know that I've seen him say anywhere else that he
would endorse Donald Trump. It's not shocking, but I think
he's the only person remaining in the race who would
endorse Trump. We'll talk about that a bit more when
(55:04):
we come back. In the meantime. My Pillow company focused
on making comfortable products for your home. No matter what
you get to experience in the way of their products, pillows, sheets, slippers,
their towels, they're all manufactured with comfort and mind. New
line of towels perfect example, soft thick towels absorbent from
the first time you use them. You won't find these
my towels from My Pillow in stores, but you'll find
(55:26):
them online. If you're looking to replace and upgrade your towels,
you'll be amazed. You can get towels of this quality
and for fifty percent off the introductory price on a
six piece set just twenty nine to ninety eight. Designer
Premium line just twenty bucks more. Every set comes with
a sixty day money back guarantee. Go online to my
pillow dot Com. Click on the radio Listeners special square.
(55:49):
You'll find the my Towels right there in a multitude
of colors. Use our names Clay and Buck. For the
fifty percent off that's my pillow dot Com. Use the
code Clay and
Speaker 1 (55:59):
Buck speaking truth and having fun Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton
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.