October 2, 2023 • 37 mins
California Governor Gavin Newsom appoints black lesbian from Maryland, Laphonza Butler, president of EMILYs List, to replace Feinstein. Trump speaks to reporters outside civil fraud trial in New York. Will any of the Trump trials have impact on his poll numbers? C&B take a call on Mar-a-Lago value. Who's the victim of alleged Trump fraud?
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 back in now number two Clay Travis Monday edition
of the program. Encourage you guys to go subscribe to
the Clay and Buck Podcast. We're going to be breaking
out our friend Carol Markowitz in the Clay and Buck
podcast team. We will also continue to have Tutor Dixon.
We're adding more every single week. Basically that is unique
and original that you guys can enjoy if you go
(00:28):
sign up for the Clay and Buck podcast, and we
appreciate all of you who have done so. We certainly
love all of you listening on five hundred or so
am FM stations all over the country as well. Basically,
you can find the show everywhere and you can go
download as always the iHeartRadio app and stream this show
(00:49):
anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
So on Friday.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Show, as Buck was knee deep, probably way higher than
knee deep in moving boxes getting into his new place,
we talked about the death of Dianne Feinstein and how
quickly it was likely to be the case that California
Governor Gavin Newsom would have a new nominee to replace her,
(01:14):
and we said that he had announced. Gavin Newsom had
prior that he would only pick a black woman as
his selection when it came, if it became necessary for
him to announce a replacement, and so already this morning
there has been I believe it's been officially announced. The
(01:35):
story certainly went out on Sunday evening. Newsom picked a
woman named Lafonza Butler. She may actually live in Maryland,
she may not even live in California, but she hit
the trifectas she is black, a woman, and gay. Maybe
even hit for the cycle since she worked at Emily's
List and that is one of the biggest donors in
(01:58):
the entire Democrat political base. So Gavin Newsom has done
what Joe Biden did Buck, which is pick someone for
the job, much like Joe Biden picked maybe Kamala Harris.
I think it's probably the case that he picked his
vice president because she was a black woman. But we
know specifically that Joe Biden had done what Buck. He
(02:21):
had said Katanji Brown Jackson, who was his pick for
the Supreme Court. He said specifically he would pick a
black woman for the Supreme Court. He had made a
pledge that he would pick a woman for his vice
presidential running mate, not that it would be a black woman,
but probably not a surprise that he picked a black woman.
And now Gavin Newsom has picked a black woman after
saying I will limit my search to only black women.
(02:44):
It's worth noting that black women make up about six
percent of the United States population.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
So when you.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Are saying I'm only going to pick a black woman,
another way of analyzing this is you are specifically saying
I'm excluding ninety four percent of the American population from consideration.
And what I think is even worse is you're delegitimizing
your pick on its face because you're not even arguing
(03:12):
they're the most qualified person. You're telling us I'm picking
based on identity politics, and then you're doing it.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
What do you think of as as fuck? Well, this
is I think, in some ways a window into Newsom's
aspirational thinking for himself, as in he understands that any
opportunity that he can have to try to build strength
(03:39):
with the most consistently Democrat voting demographic of all the
highest percentage, which is the black female voter in America
is and in Democrat primary is really the deciding factor
in a lot of the key states in the early States.
So the politics for Gavin Newsom are right clear. Look,
(04:02):
I think that there's a lot of work to be
done in the aftermath of that Supreme Court decision that
finally said you can't do this racial discrimination in college admissions.
There need to be a lot of lawsuits, and there
need to be state companion laws or you know, laws
pass at the state level to that Supreme Court decision
(04:26):
that solidify that you can't do this. Now there's stuff
like that in Florida. I think there are some states
that are taking action on this. But the whole apparatus
of dei and what has been called in the Supreme
Court the racial entitlement state, it's not going to dismantle itself.
It must be actively dismantled. And the way to do
(04:47):
that is through is through the law, is through the
legal system, because until that happens, you're just going to
have more of this, which is okay, it's not constitutional,
but people are still going to find ways to use
race and and gender identity and and you know, sexual
orientation and all these different things as well social engineering tools,
(05:11):
but also as means of building political coalitions and of
wielding power and discriminating against people in the process. The
funniest thing about this all is have they figured out
yet if she's even a California resident. They think she's
a Maryland resident, right that This is what I was seeing,
which you would think that that that would be a problem,
Like I think you got to live in the state
(05:32):
you're supposed to be the senator from. I guess we'd
have to look and see what the specific, uh specific
requirements may be. But Gavin Newsom is I mean, he's running.
I just don't think he's running this time around. And
so every move that he makes is going to be
calculated to that end and to that effect. And this
is a guy who is as charming as he may be,
(05:55):
as wind swept as his hair may look while he's
drinking his chardonnay on the front of his yacht out
at the Catalina Island Festival Catalieda Wine Festival.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
A couple of things on this buck that I think
are amazing, not to mention, of course, his hair is fabulous.
I actually, when I saw the story about whether she
was a resident of California, I think that Gavin Newsom
is so diabolical. I actually thought to myself, I wonder
if this gets him off the hook. If he points
(06:25):
a black woman, she then is determined not to be
a resident of the state and then not eligible. Does
he have to pick another black woman like? I don't
know how far the identity politics rules require, So I'm
wondering if he picked someone he knew was ineligible so
that he could actually pick the person he wanted to
without violating his pledge.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Second part of this, and I love this.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Meghan Markle, who I guess technically qualifies as a black woman,
is talking about running for this Senate seat. Do you
think that Meghan Markel or her representatives reached out to
Gavin Newsom to let it be known that she would
be okay being appointed to the United States Senate? And
can you imagine the reaction if Gavin Newsom had appointed
(07:09):
Megan Markle as California's new senator?
Speaker 1 (07:12):
You know this, That's what I wrot.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
It's tough to know with Megan Markle. It's tough to
know what she's doing for attention or what her PR
team puts out for attention versus what is a true
delusion that she is suffering from? Right, So was this
a story floated out? Because now people like you and
me and so many others have to address this because
it crosses over into our world, right when you're talking
(07:39):
about being the next interim senator from California, it crosses
over into our world. But also I think that there
are people who once they achieve a certain degree of
money and notoriety and fame and wealth, their narcissism gets
put on steroids and they lose all all sense of
(08:00):
like reality and accountability around them.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
You know.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Now they think they're they're capable of doing absolutely anything.
And the crazy part of this whole situation is Clay,
I mean, Megan Mark will be a better senator than
Diane Feinstein, you know, toward the area. Let's be honest.
I mean, yeah, that is a statement of fact. They
had a they had a senator, and I wasn't here
when she passed away. And you know, rest in peace.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
And or anti death or anti death on this web.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Anti death of any of anybody out there. But in
the final years here, I mean, you had somebody who
was not not able to control not only her personal affairs,
is in bank accounts and those kinds of decisions but
her personal affairs like getting ready and combing her hair
and doing things like that, I mean personal care. I
(08:48):
also saw that Nancy Pelosi's daughter was very involved with
Diane Feinstein as her like a primary caregiver for her.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
I mean, she had a buck. She wasn't able.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
She had a power of attorney signed over. I don't
know that most people understand how crazy this is. She
had a power of attorney. She wasn't able to bind
herself legally to any document someone else had to sign
for her. She was able to still bind the whole
state of California for purposes of voting in the Senate.
You shouldn't be able to have no power of attorney
in your private life and still be serving in your
(09:23):
public life. I mean she had she voted the day
before she died. Buck, she had no idea what she
was voting on.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
Yeah, well this is but this is where you start
to get to all these conversations, all these discussions that
occur about whether somebody has the leadership capabilities or the
cognitive ability or whatever for this role. This is now
just all about the the edifice of Democrat power, and
if you are a reliable vote in that whole process.
(09:51):
You can make a very clear argument it doesn't matter.
I mean, these this isn't this isn't Cicero in the
you know, in the Roman Forum or whatever, trying to
make her in front of the Roman Senate, trying to
make some kind of persuasive argument. See John Fetterman for example.
What you have is a system that is increasingly self perpetuating,
(10:13):
regardless of who the specific leaders may be. You know,
it operates like a massive machine instead of a bunch
of individuals who have leadership capabilities. You know this this
individual who has been named as the likely appointee here,
Lafonsa Butler. She's going to be the third black woman
(10:35):
who ever serve in the Senate, and she'll be the
third openly lgbt Q plus person to serve in the
in the chamber. And you know, I wonder, Clay, I
I sit here and I say, is this where we
are now? Where just that alone, being able to add
to those lists, or being able to be counted in
(10:57):
those categorizations is can considered more important than anything that
will be done in the role. By this, I mean,
and I think that say about what our leadership class
is really all about.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Well, I mean it points out to California in a
scary way as the presumptive leader right now in the
identity politics caravan, and a part of me Buck feels
like the only way identity politics gets blown up. And
I hate to even have to contemplate that this is real,
but that Kamala Harris ends up president of the United States.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
I know you say, I've heard this theory with you, right,
and I hear it through you know, I hear you
in Clay. How bad could it possibly be that they
would think that it's bad enough that it would overcome
the benefits that they see from the diversity you know it.
I mean, she's probably she's probably better at the job
(11:55):
than Joe Biden is right now.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
But I do think she would be so bad, Buck,
that if she were the nominee, she would get squashed.
I really do believe, and I understand you can make
the argument the nominee doesn't even matter, which is that
that's the real scary logical.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
But she's just one person, right, So if she's just
one person, they're not. I mean, why would that bring
down the whole diversity and inclusion edifice If she's bad
at her job? They'd say, all right, well, Kamala failed,
but the next diversity inclusion candidate's going to be fantastic.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I think you're starting to see all over America people
get elevated beyond their ability, and there are lots of
jobs where it, like I would say, I hate to
say this, I think any.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Any sort of.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Mediocrity could do the job of United States senator, and
they don't. You have to be so bad at the
job of a senator to really be noticed. I mean,
Fetterman can't speak, and so we kind of notice that
he's really bad at that job. There are a lot
of United States Senators that aren't very smart, by the
way of both parties, that aren't very skilled, that aren't
very politically astute, and in theop of one hundred, you
(13:01):
kind of get lost when you're the decider in chief.
The scary thing about the logical extension of your argument, Buck,
is that it doesn't even matter who president is. Yeah, right,
because that's really Joe Biden's like that. That's the scary
thing about Biden. This is the argument that I'm making though.
That's they I get.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
I hear you. You know, you come from a private
sector and entrepreneurship background where the results are really all
that matters. Yeah, And you know, I saw this in
the CIA. From a government perspective, it's always the machinery
and everyone's super replaceable and people want the minimum amount
(13:40):
of accountability and responsibility and the maximum benefit of being
in the role all the time. That's the way the
whole system operates, right, So.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
That's scary to me, Like, this is why I couldn't
do government jobs, right, Like I mean, mine is the
background is entrepreneurship and also buck sports, where if you
suck at your job in sports, everybody sees and you
get replaced. And if you suck, typically as the CEO
of a for profit corporation, you typically are gonna get
(14:07):
replaced because your failure is noticeable in terms of the results.
The scary thing about your argument is most government jobs,
your performance is almost unnoticeable and you're just a cog
that they plug in. Joe Biden's a perfect example of that.
Like what does he actually do on a day to
day basis? I don't even know.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
This is my argument, top to bottom. It doesn't really
matter anymore because of the way the system functions. And
that's why, right, Yeah, and that's why when someone comes
along who is a system disruptor, and for a lot
of people, that's why Trump is so appealing. It is
such a threat to this system. I mean, whether you're
talking about the FBI, the CIA, the CDC, those entities
(14:48):
are slothful, bloated, and highly bureaucratic until the system itself
feels challenged. Yeah, and then they move with a ferocity
and a focus that would blow people's minds. Then all
of a sudden, you know, that's that's when you when
you're a whistleblower in the FBI, you find out real
fast how effective the FBI can be when they want to,
(15:09):
and what kind of intimidation or you know, CDC, CIA
and any of these places. So I mean with Kamala,
you say that she would do it a terrible job,
and yeah, of course you and I and the people listening.
She's she's not a person of high levels of competence.
The weakness with Kamala and this is another part of
the argument too, it's not that she couldn't be president.
I don't think any Democrats think that because Joe Biden's
(15:32):
play Look at some.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
John Kerry buffoon.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
That guy was almost president Al Gore total clown almost president. Mean,
you go back, you look at these people. They're not impressive,
They're not smart, they know leadership capabilities. You know they
got a famous last name, or are they married a
really rich lady or you know, right place, right time.
The problem with Kamala is she's not a good politician.
In the campaign. She can't win, right that's where that
(15:57):
that's what they're worried about doing the job. The advisors
would do all of that. You know, it's sort of
a self perpetuating machine. What do you think, folks? Eight
hundred two two two eight a two how do you
see it? Are you want to fixed income? You'll benefit
from an investment that delivers consistent returns without compromising your
financial security. Phoenix Capital Group offers high yield corporate bonds
(16:17):
with returns of nine to thirteen percent annual interest that
pays out monthly with two thousand plus satisfied investors paid
on time every time. Phoenix Capitol Group is giving investors
a new high yield option investing in domestic energy assets.
Start earning these high yields and learn more about multiple
offerings today at PHX on air dot com. Learn more
By downloading the free investment guide at phxon air dot com,
(16:40):
you can diverse by your investments and earn nine to
thirteen percent annual interest. The Phoenix Capital Group can help
you out today. Investment in bonds at a certain amount of
risk associated with it, and you should only invest if
you can afford to bear the risk of loss. Before
making investment decisions, you should carefully consider and review all
risks involved. Visit PHX on today.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton chuck up a win for
Team Reality.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Trump is speaking, Well, maybe if he's still going, we'll
join it in progress here in a few moments, because
we've got a tight turnaround on the air right now.
But he is talking in court play and he is
I'm an unloading on this whole process, this civil trial
he faces on the judge, on the evaluation that the
(17:30):
judge put on Marl Lago, which was preposterous as anybody
who has access to the Internet could figure out for
themselves quite quickly. But Trump is I think you're gonna
see a lot of this. He's standing in the courthouse
right now and he's just leading to rip.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I think it's kind of an early preview for what
these criminal trials may look like. As you sort of
contemplate that this potentially is starting in March, I'm surprised
that he's at this civil trial. We'll take some of
these cuts, we'll share and continue to discuss this with you,
but in the meantime, Mike Glyndell started his business twenty
years ago, offering a brand new kind of pillow at
a very good price, everything you can want in a pillow.
(18:06):
Fast forward twenty years, the product that started all got
a major upgrade, the MyPillow two point zero, same patent,
an adjustable phil of the original MyPillow, but now made
with temperature regulating thread, cooler to the touch, great for
anybody contending with night sweats. Regular price for a Queen
size MyPillow less than eighty bucks, but for a limited
time you can get it for just thirty nine ninety
(18:27):
nine with our names Clay and Buck as the promo code.
You can also get a king size pillow for just
ten bucks.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
More.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Like every mypillo product comes with a ten year warrant,
sixty day money back guarantee two months. To make sure
that my Pillow's right for you, go to my pillow
dot com click on the radio. Listeners special Square to
get the Queen Size MyPillow two point oh for thirty
nine ninety nine King size for ten bucks more. Enter
the promo code Clay and Buck. You can also call
eight hundred and seventy nine to two thirty two sixty
(18:56):
nine for the MyPillow two point oh now softest, smoothest,
coolest pillow You'll ever own. Welcome back in Clay, Travis
Buck Sexton show, Trump speaking to reporters outside of the
civil fraud trial in New York City. We'll play you
that cut here in a moment, but Buck, something for
you to think about.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
We were just talking about it off air, and all
of you out there too as well.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
The entire purpose of this civil fraud trial seems to
be to attack Trump and argue that he's not as
rich as he claims to be, but he's.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Still really rich.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
And is there anybody out there who cares whether Trump
I think is a billionaire just based off the real
estate assets that he owns, whether it's mar A Lago,
whether it's the golf courses. You know, we went out
to Bedminster, Buck, I have no idea what the value
of Bedminster is, but it's a lot, certainly, the value
(19:54):
of his penthouse in Trump Tower, all the different real
estate holdings. I don't know what Trump's network is. A
lot of that would be determined by what a buyer
would pay for a physical asset at any point in time.
But I feel like he's got to be a billionaire.
I mean, heck, the airplane that he flies in by itself,
the Trump Force, one big jumbo jet is probably I mean,
(20:18):
some of you out there are more knowledgeable on private
aviation than I am, but that's got to be I mean,
a fifty million dollar airplane forty or fifty million dollar
airplane at a minimum, I would think, And if you can,
you send me a message or something, if you're an
expert in aircraft, and let me know what you think
that's worth. But my point of all this is this
(20:39):
attack seems to me buck very strange because there's a
lot of things you can come after Trump on, whether
he's really rich or not. Doesn't feel like an angle
that you can attack him on. And they tried this
with like the tax returns and everything else. Will you
and I were talking off air, I don't know how
many billionaires there are on the planet.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
There's only a few thousand of them.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Trump is one of the wealthiest people on the planet,
I think. I mean, whether he's the four thousand wealthiest
person or whether he's the six hundred and thirty fourth,
does that really change anybody's opinions of Trump in any way.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
No, But that's I don't think that's the purpose of
the civil fraud trials. I think what they're doing here,
it's it's really a multi pronged strategy. First of all
the legal strategies we know is clearly a multi pronged effort.
It's civil and criminal. They're they're coinciding, They're timing these
things so that Trump is going to have maximum you know,
(21:42):
maximum legal headache at the time of the election or
you know, in the election year. Part of this is
clay to drain time, resources, and energy, I think, which
is a guarantee. The process is the punishment. So by
dragging him into these cases in his legal bills, yes,
he's a very wealthy guy, but his legal bills for
(22:04):
all these different cases have got to be absolutely enormous. Yes,
and so that's now you could say, well, that's not
gonna make much difference. Well, he's going into election, and
he's got to raise money. He's gonna be running a
campaign that's going to cost they're gonna they're gonna raise
a billion dollars I'm sure, running for president. So that's
an aspect of it. And then also it just goes
(22:27):
to I don't think this is about trying to convince
anyone who's a Republican that Trump isn't that rich or whatever.
To your point, they don't care. It's just to try
to try to hit him with the label of he's
a fraud. He lost a fraud case in court, he's
a fraud. According to our court system, he's a fraud.
(22:47):
Oh and by the way, he's a criminal. It's just
more of the information and operations, you know, information warfare
campaign against Trump as a brand. So that to me is,
you know, that's how they're seeing it. I don't think
they view it as well, he's not rich, so people
aren't going to want to vote for him anymore.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Well, I think they're I want to say, not that rich. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
So, by the way, according to our staff, there were
three thousand and ninety four billionaires in twenty twenty two.
Seven hundred and fifty six of those people are in
the United States according to that data. So Trump is
one of the richest people in the world. I actually
this ties in. And by the way, here's Trump. Let's
go ahead and play this. This is Trump explaining why
(23:31):
he's in New York City for this fraud trial today.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Listen, mister Trumble, you want to be here in person
today because I want to.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
Watch this witch hundred oh a witch hunt for years.
This is really now getting nerve between Jack Smith and
between all of these the UJ people helping them along.
This is a fewer witch hunt for purposes of interferior
with the elections of the United States of America. It's
(24:00):
totally illegal. This judge should be this party shouldn't be allowed.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
To be a judge.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Sang it Okay. So the one thing I think is
interesting here, Buck is I think we are setting ourselves
up in the event that these cases actually go to trial,
and the first one is scheduled to start in March.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
In terms of the criminal cases in.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
DC, I think Trump may do press conferences every day
while the trial's going on. And this is important because
Jack Smith is trying to gag him. Right now, we're
going to see a criminal trial that is truly not
leave aside the fact that Trump is the currently former
(24:42):
president running for presidential office.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Again.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I can't even remember a time buck when a criminal
defendant would do press. I mean, I'm laughing about it.
It's so crazy where a criminal defendant would potentially do
daily press conferences.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
I'm not talking about his lawyers.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
I'm talking about the defendant himself potentially on the steps
of the courthouse as basically his campaign strategy. Because I
think that's a little bit of a preview of what
you just saw.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
That's that is the campaign. I mean, this is the
million dollar question, or maybe the trillion dollar question, given
the stakes these days, is will these appearances going forward
in twenty twenty four, because there's going to be more
of them, whether it's just to get trials moved or
motions or whatever, will be will be visual of Donald
(25:33):
Trump showing up and saying this is all rigged. I mean,
usually the lawyer is the one that does this too,
which I think is so interesting. The speaks for himself there.
Usually you'd be you'd have a lawyer, especially in a
criminal case, you'd have a lawyer do all the talking.
I think that you're going to see this is something
that that the Democrats believe is very effective for Trump
(25:56):
in the primary. The gamble that they are taking is
that it will be toxic in swing states to independent voters. Uh,
and that's now, that's.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
What they What do you think? Yeah, I get it,
and I'm like, I'm it's I mean, it's interesting because
we had the Eging Carol case, right, and they were like,
we're going to brand Trumps as a rapist. Yeah, and
they got a conviction. The oh's five million dollars whatever
it was sexual assault. We can argue about these act
derivations of that and how it was applied. Nobody seemed
(26:28):
to care. Like the Eging Carroll thing happened, and I
think she sued him again, he went and denied it,
and it's all occurred in there. There may be another
defamation trial, whatever it's going to be. It legitimately had
zero impact. And so the question that I'm trying to
wrap her in my head and I'm curious what you
would say right now, A part of me feels like
(26:48):
none of this is going to have any impact because
every voter has already weighed in.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yew, maybe I'm true.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
I think that's true of ninety eight percent of the
electorate and the last two percent is what they think
will end up determining the election. Right, So it doesn't
it doesn't feel like it does anything in the in
the immediate sense, it's not convincing people in a way
that you could see and that they're going to make
the polls move. But at the end of the day,
(27:18):
there is going to be a decision made by a
few hundred thousand people probably in the six states, the
five states that really matter, and will a Republican presidential contender,
you know, will they view this as it's all a
witch hunt, or will they view it as he brought
this on himself, or I just don't want to deal
with this headache anymore. You know. The noise and nobody
(27:41):
can really tell you how that shakes out. That's the
big part of this that is left out sitting. No
one really knows. So Democrats, hey, they've thrown I mean,
if you one thing that won, they got four criminal
I mean I know there's but four criminal prosecutions of
him outstanding right now. Four The guy's never faced a
criminal prosecution in this omo eighty years of life, and
now he faces four. So they just decided kitchen sink
(28:04):
is the way.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
I think this is so crazy, too, Buck, because we're
coming up when now we're in October, it's, you know,
thirteen months until the actual election, and you guys know
how things work. It's gonna get to Thanksgiving and then
Christmas and then New Years. And I feel like as
twenty twenty four begins, this is every single one of
(28:26):
you out there listening to us right now, especially if
you're a guy. You've had a friend who was engaged,
and I bet a lot of women have two I
can only speak to guys and you've been like, I
can't believe this wedding's gonna happen, and you're like, well,
it's six months away.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
Something will happen.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
And I feel like for the Democrats, it's as if
they don't really realize what wheels they've put in motion.
Like you realize you get engaged, eventually, a wedding ceremony happens,
right like you have to talk to your buddy. At
some point you understand what you've done here, Like the
wheels are moving and suddenly are we going to get
(29:05):
to March?
Speaker 1 (29:07):
And Democrats are gonna have to answer questions?
Speaker 2 (29:10):
I mean they're already starting to, you know, with the
gag orders and everything else. I mean, are they going
to try to put Trump in prison? Has anybody even
thought about what happens with Secret Service protection? I mean,
I think probably what they would do, Buck is just
put him on try to put him on house arrest
at mar A Lago. But during a presidential campaign, even
(29:30):
that is crazy. What I'm getting at is the permutations
of Democrat insanity. We haven't yet started to reap the
consequences of their decisions in a broad way, and I
wonder if they've even contemplated the wheels of justice that
they put in motion, because eventually we're gonna get to March,
(29:51):
and it's gonna happen for a lot of us really quick,
because it's going to come out of the holidays and
we're gonna be like, holy crap, this is two months away.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
People are prepared for what we're gonna see.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Buck, I really am not sure as a nation that
they've even thought through what this.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Is going to look like.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I think that's true.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
And I just I can't believe this is where we are.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Since nine eleven, the Tunnel the Towers Foundation has been
committed to supporting America's heroes in their families, Heroes to
put their lives on the line to protect our country,
our communities, and all of us. Heroes like nine to
eleven first responder Lieutenant Joseph Maelo, he answered the call
to help others on America's darkest day. Years later, he
suffered a fatal heart attack in the line of duty,
leaving behind his wife and two kids. When heroes like
(30:37):
Lieutenant Mayelo lose their lives in the line of duty
or severely injured, Tunnel the Towers is there to help.
Tunnel the Towers paid the mortgage on the Mayellow family home,
lifting the family's financial burden during their darkest hours. America's
heroes and their families need your help now more than ever.
Join Tunnel the Towers on its mission to do good
in their honor. More than ninety five cents of every
(30:59):
dollar you donate to Tunnel the Towers goes to the
programs there. Donate eleven dollars a month at t twot
dot org. That's t the number two t dot org.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
Learn laugh and join us on the weekend on our
Sunday Hang with Clay and Fuck podcast, Fight It on
the iHeart Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Well, welcome back everybody. We have an exciting programming note.
As of today, playing Buckshow will be carried on the
Armed Forces Network. That's over one hundred and seventy countries,
every Navy ship. We love our military, we thank them
and are so grateful to them, and it is fantastic
(31:40):
that we're going to be heard now starting today on
the Armed Forces Network, and we send our thoughts and
our thanks to all those who serve all around the world.
I've got some calls, got some VIP emails. Remember if
you want to be at Clay and Buck VIP, go
to Clayndbuck dot com. You can sign up there. Please
do it. Great way to support the show and get
(32:01):
some cool extras and some behind the scenes stuff. And
we got Paul writing it as a VIP right representative.
Bowman should be charged and pay a fine for creating
a false emergency situation. He is not above the law,
even though he may think so. We have and then
he writes excellent leadership in DC in quotes. So that's
(32:22):
something that we've been talking about. I think it is
possible that there'll be minor consequences there will be no
major consequences for Congressman Bowman. So let's now also take
some of our calls.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Here.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
We have Russell in Tampa, Florida. What's going on? Russell, Hey,
excited to be with you.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Just want to bring up a couple points. I'm a
lifelong Florida native and a full time rematch real estate agent.
And what people don't realize when a property is sold
in the state of Florida, it's assessed typically for eighty
percent of the purchase price number one, number two. Assessments
are capped by STO in the state of Florida. Homesteads
could only go up three percent a year, commercial property
(33:06):
ten percent a year. So depending on the number of
years and what he paid for the property, that assessment
is going to be way off point. That's point number one,
point number two. Every prosecutor and the judge in New
York I want to know what they sold their last
home for and how much over the assessment they sold
it for. They should be sued for fraud as well.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Thank you for the call.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Here's the big issue on the Trump fraud trial that
I see Buck, and I think that Trump people should
be hammering this as hard as they can.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
In order for there to be a fraud, doesn't there
have to be a victim?
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Like, what is the crime of the And I know
it's not a criminal trial right now, but what is
the civil fraud? The banks got paid, the loans didn't
go bad. How do you have a fraud when there's
no victim of a fraud? And I haven't hurt a
good argument for this in any way to even justify
(34:04):
how this proceeding could be going on.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Well, that was always the big argument against all this
was that the banks are one sophisticated financial correctors you
would certainly hope so, and two did not lose anything
in any of these processes. So how can you have
a crime without a crime? Right? Yes, well, where's the
no harm no foul principle applied here in a financial context?
(34:29):
But Clay it almost you know, you start to go
a little crazy with some of this stuff when you
analyze it from a legal perspective, because the law is
just the tool here. It's really just politics, right, So Currense,
you see it through a political lens that it all
makes sense because they're not even making serious legal arguments
(34:50):
with some of this stuff. Or I should say they're
not making arguments that should be taken seriously.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Yeah, there are some things I disagree with on the
charges criminally, Like I don't believe they should be applied
the New York City case, for instance, Oh, we're going
to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony on a bookkeeping
charge effectively, but I understand the logic under which the
charge could occur. I don't even understand the logic of
how you make an argument here, you know, mar a Lago, bookkeeping,
(35:19):
the possession of papers. I understand how these arguments could
be made from a legal perspective, I don't support them.
I don't even understand how you can have a civil
action for fraud when there is no consequence of any
fraud at all. That's the one that I just keep
coming back to again and again. If you're right, it's
(35:40):
totally political, but I don't even understand how it gets
over the hurdle to even be able to be a
broad case when there is no victim of the fraud.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
In any respect.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Well, this is an argument that comes up sometimes in
mortgage fraud cases, right where they'll say, well, there's a
mortgage fraud even if the mortgage is being paid and
it doesn't seem like the bank has had has had losses.
So you know, I'm not sympathetic to the argument that
there should be criminal felony charge is brought against an
(36:12):
individual when there hasn't been any actual harm done to
anyone that I can point to. But again, we're getting
into the legal realities here when we understand that the
political necessity for Democrats is what's driving absolutely all.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Yeah, and I think you just look at it too.
And again I would hammer this more and more than
the Trump people even are. In addition to there being
no actual victim here, what are they even trying to
teach by bringing this charge. I don't even understand the
larger state perspective here. And then of course you can
get into the fact that Leticia James said, Hey, you
(36:48):
need to elect me because I'm going to go after Trump.
Speaking of elections, Buck Robert F. Kennedy Junior potentially going
to announce in a third party race. What's the impact
who wins, who loses. We'll talk about at it next
out
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome back in now number two Clay Travis Monday edition
of the program. Encourage you guys to go subscribe to
the Clay and Buck Podcast. We're going to be breaking
out our friend Carol Markowitz in the Clay and Buck
podcast team. We will also continue to have Tutor Dixon.
We're adding more every single week. Basically that is unique
and original that you guys can enjoy if you go
(00:28):
sign up for the Clay and Buck podcast, and we
appreciate all of you who have done so. We certainly
love all of you listening on five hundred or so
am FM stations all over the country as well. Basically,
you can find the show everywhere and you can go
download as always the iHeartRadio app and stream this show
(00:49):
anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
So on Friday.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Show, as Buck was knee deep, probably way higher than
knee deep in moving boxes getting into his new place,
we talked about the death of Dianne Feinstein and how
quickly it was likely to be the case that California
Governor Gavin Newsom would have a new nominee to replace her,
(01:14):
and we said that he had announced. Gavin Newsom had
prior that he would only pick a black woman as
his selection when it came, if it became necessary for
him to announce a replacement, and so already this morning
there has been I believe it's been officially announced. The
(01:35):
story certainly went out on Sunday evening. Newsom picked a
woman named Lafonza Butler. She may actually live in Maryland,
she may not even live in California, but she hit
the trifectas she is black, a woman, and gay. Maybe
even hit for the cycle since she worked at Emily's
List and that is one of the biggest donors in
(01:58):
the entire Democrat political base. So Gavin Newsom has done
what Joe Biden did Buck, which is pick someone for
the job, much like Joe Biden picked maybe Kamala Harris.
I think it's probably the case that he picked his
vice president because she was a black woman. But we
know specifically that Joe Biden had done what Buck. He
(02:21):
had said Katanji Brown Jackson, who was his pick for
the Supreme Court. He said specifically he would pick a
black woman for the Supreme Court. He had made a
pledge that he would pick a woman for his vice
presidential running mate, not that it would be a black woman,
but probably not a surprise that he picked a black woman.
And now Gavin Newsom has picked a black woman after
saying I will limit my search to only black women.
(02:44):
It's worth noting that black women make up about six
percent of the United States population.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
So when you.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Are saying I'm only going to pick a black woman,
another way of analyzing this is you are specifically saying
I'm excluding ninety four percent of the American population from consideration.
And what I think is even worse is you're delegitimizing
your pick on its face because you're not even arguing
(03:12):
they're the most qualified person. You're telling us I'm picking
based on identity politics, and then you're doing it.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
What do you think of as as fuck? Well, this
is I think, in some ways a window into Newsom's
aspirational thinking for himself, as in he understands that any
opportunity that he can have to try to build strength
(03:39):
with the most consistently Democrat voting demographic of all the
highest percentage, which is the black female voter in America
is and in Democrat primary is really the deciding factor
in a lot of the key states in the early States.
So the politics for Gavin Newsom are right clear. Look,
(04:02):
I think that there's a lot of work to be
done in the aftermath of that Supreme Court decision that
finally said you can't do this racial discrimination in college admissions.
There need to be a lot of lawsuits, and there
need to be state companion laws or you know, laws
pass at the state level to that Supreme Court decision
(04:26):
that solidify that you can't do this. Now there's stuff
like that in Florida. I think there are some states
that are taking action on this. But the whole apparatus
of dei and what has been called in the Supreme
Court the racial entitlement state, it's not going to dismantle itself.
It must be actively dismantled. And the way to do
(04:47):
that is through is through the law, is through the
legal system, because until that happens, you're just going to
have more of this, which is okay, it's not constitutional,
but people are still going to find ways to use
race and and gender identity and and you know, sexual
orientation and all these different things as well social engineering tools,
(05:11):
but also as means of building political coalitions and of
wielding power and discriminating against people in the process. The
funniest thing about this all is have they figured out
yet if she's even a California resident. They think she's
a Maryland resident, right that This is what I was seeing,
which you would think that that that would be a problem,
Like I think you got to live in the state
(05:32):
you're supposed to be the senator from. I guess we'd
have to look and see what the specific, uh specific
requirements may be. But Gavin Newsom is I mean, he's running.
I just don't think he's running this time around. And
so every move that he makes is going to be
calculated to that end and to that effect. And this
is a guy who is as charming as he may be,
(05:55):
as wind swept as his hair may look while he's
drinking his chardonnay on the front of his yacht out
at the Catalina Island Festival Catalieda Wine Festival.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
A couple of things on this buck that I think
are amazing, not to mention, of course, his hair is fabulous.
I actually, when I saw the story about whether she
was a resident of California, I think that Gavin Newsom
is so diabolical. I actually thought to myself, I wonder
if this gets him off the hook. If he points
(06:25):
a black woman, she then is determined not to be
a resident of the state and then not eligible. Does
he have to pick another black woman like? I don't
know how far the identity politics rules require, So I'm
wondering if he picked someone he knew was ineligible so
that he could actually pick the person he wanted to
without violating his pledge.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Second part of this, and I love this.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Meghan Markle, who I guess technically qualifies as a black woman,
is talking about running for this Senate seat. Do you
think that Meghan Markel or her representatives reached out to
Gavin Newsom to let it be known that she would
be okay being appointed to the United States Senate? And
can you imagine the reaction if Gavin Newsom had appointed
(07:09):
Megan Markle as California's new senator?
Speaker 1 (07:12):
You know this, That's what I wrot.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
It's tough to know with Megan Markle. It's tough to
know what she's doing for attention or what her PR
team puts out for attention versus what is a true
delusion that she is suffering from? Right, So was this
a story floated out? Because now people like you and
me and so many others have to address this because
it crosses over into our world, right when you're talking
(07:39):
about being the next interim senator from California, it crosses
over into our world. But also I think that there
are people who once they achieve a certain degree of
money and notoriety and fame and wealth, their narcissism gets
put on steroids and they lose all all sense of
(08:00):
like reality and accountability around them.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
You know.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Now they think they're they're capable of doing absolutely anything.
And the crazy part of this whole situation is Clay,
I mean, Megan Mark will be a better senator than
Diane Feinstein, you know, toward the area. Let's be honest.
I mean, yeah, that is a statement of fact. They
had a they had a senator, and I wasn't here
when she passed away. And you know, rest in peace.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
And or anti death or anti death on this web.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Anti death of any of anybody out there. But in
the final years here, I mean, you had somebody who
was not not able to control not only her personal affairs,
is in bank accounts and those kinds of decisions but
her personal affairs like getting ready and combing her hair
and doing things like that, I mean personal care. I
(08:48):
also saw that Nancy Pelosi's daughter was very involved with
Diane Feinstein as her like a primary caregiver for her.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
I mean, she had a buck. She wasn't able.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
She had a power of attorney signed over. I don't
know that most people understand how crazy this is. She
had a power of attorney. She wasn't able to bind
herself legally to any document someone else had to sign
for her. She was able to still bind the whole
state of California for purposes of voting in the Senate.
You shouldn't be able to have no power of attorney
in your private life and still be serving in your
(09:23):
public life. I mean she had she voted the day
before she died. Buck, she had no idea what she
was voting on.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
Yeah, well this is but this is where you start
to get to all these conversations, all these discussions that
occur about whether somebody has the leadership capabilities or the
cognitive ability or whatever for this role. This is now
just all about the the edifice of Democrat power, and
if you are a reliable vote in that whole process.
(09:51):
You can make a very clear argument it doesn't matter.
I mean, these this isn't this isn't Cicero in the
you know, in the Roman Forum or whatever, trying to
make her in front of the Roman Senate, trying to
make some kind of persuasive argument. See John Fetterman for example.
What you have is a system that is increasingly self perpetuating,
(10:13):
regardless of who the specific leaders may be. You know,
it operates like a massive machine instead of a bunch
of individuals who have leadership capabilities. You know this this
individual who has been named as the likely appointee here,
Lafonsa Butler. She's going to be the third black woman
(10:35):
who ever serve in the Senate, and she'll be the
third openly lgbt Q plus person to serve in the
in the chamber. And you know, I wonder, Clay, I
I sit here and I say, is this where we
are now? Where just that alone, being able to add
to those lists, or being able to be counted in
(10:57):
those categorizations is can considered more important than anything that
will be done in the role. By this, I mean,
and I think that say about what our leadership class
is really all about.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Well, I mean it points out to California in a
scary way as the presumptive leader right now in the
identity politics caravan, and a part of me Buck feels
like the only way identity politics gets blown up. And
I hate to even have to contemplate that this is real,
but that Kamala Harris ends up president of the United States.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
I know you say, I've heard this theory with you, right,
and I hear it through you know, I hear you
in Clay. How bad could it possibly be that they
would think that it's bad enough that it would overcome
the benefits that they see from the diversity you know it.
I mean, she's probably she's probably better at the job
(11:55):
than Joe Biden is right now.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
But I do think she would be so bad, Buck,
that if she were the nominee, she would get squashed.
I really do believe, and I understand you can make
the argument the nominee doesn't even matter, which is that
that's the real scary logical.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
But she's just one person, right, So if she's just
one person, they're not. I mean, why would that bring
down the whole diversity and inclusion edifice If she's bad
at her job? They'd say, all right, well, Kamala failed,
but the next diversity inclusion candidate's going to be fantastic.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I think you're starting to see all over America people
get elevated beyond their ability, and there are lots of
jobs where it, like I would say, I hate to
say this, I think any.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Any sort of.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Mediocrity could do the job of United States senator, and
they don't. You have to be so bad at the
job of a senator to really be noticed. I mean,
Fetterman can't speak, and so we kind of notice that
he's really bad at that job. There are a lot
of United States Senators that aren't very smart, by the
way of both parties, that aren't very skilled, that aren't
very politically astute, and in theop of one hundred, you
(13:01):
kind of get lost when you're the decider in chief.
The scary thing about the logical extension of your argument, Buck,
is that it doesn't even matter who president is. Yeah, right,
because that's really Joe Biden's like that. That's the scary
thing about Biden. This is the argument that I'm making though.
That's they I get.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
I hear you. You know, you come from a private
sector and entrepreneurship background where the results are really all
that matters. Yeah, And you know, I saw this in
the CIA. From a government perspective, it's always the machinery
and everyone's super replaceable and people want the minimum amount
(13:40):
of accountability and responsibility and the maximum benefit of being
in the role all the time. That's the way the
whole system operates, right, So.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
That's scary to me, Like, this is why I couldn't
do government jobs, right, Like I mean, mine is the
background is entrepreneurship and also buck sports, where if you
suck at your job in sports, everybody sees and you
get replaced. And if you suck, typically as the CEO
of a for profit corporation, you typically are gonna get
(14:07):
replaced because your failure is noticeable in terms of the results.
The scary thing about your argument is most government jobs,
your performance is almost unnoticeable and you're just a cog
that they plug in. Joe Biden's a perfect example of that.
Like what does he actually do on a day to
day basis? I don't even know.
Speaker 3 (14:26):
This is my argument, top to bottom. It doesn't really
matter anymore because of the way the system functions. And
that's why, right, Yeah, and that's why when someone comes
along who is a system disruptor, and for a lot
of people, that's why Trump is so appealing. It is
such a threat to this system. I mean, whether you're
talking about the FBI, the CIA, the CDC, those entities
(14:48):
are slothful, bloated, and highly bureaucratic until the system itself
feels challenged. Yeah, and then they move with a ferocity
and a focus that would blow people's minds. Then all
of a sudden, you know, that's that's when you when
you're a whistleblower in the FBI, you find out real
fast how effective the FBI can be when they want to,
(15:09):
and what kind of intimidation or you know, CDC, CIA
and any of these places. So I mean with Kamala,
you say that she would do it a terrible job,
and yeah, of course you and I and the people listening.
She's she's not a person of high levels of competence.
The weakness with Kamala and this is another part of
the argument too, it's not that she couldn't be president.
I don't think any Democrats think that because Joe Biden's
(15:32):
play Look at some.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
John Kerry buffoon.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
That guy was almost president Al Gore total clown almost president. Mean,
you go back, you look at these people. They're not impressive,
They're not smart, they know leadership capabilities. You know they
got a famous last name, or are they married a
really rich lady or you know, right place, right time.
The problem with Kamala is she's not a good politician.
In the campaign. She can't win, right that's where that
(15:57):
that's what they're worried about doing the job. The advisors
would do all of that. You know, it's sort of
a self perpetuating machine. What do you think, folks? Eight
hundred two two two eight a two how do you
see it? Are you want to fixed income? You'll benefit
from an investment that delivers consistent returns without compromising your
financial security. Phoenix Capital Group offers high yield corporate bonds
(16:17):
with returns of nine to thirteen percent annual interest that
pays out monthly with two thousand plus satisfied investors paid
on time every time. Phoenix Capitol Group is giving investors
a new high yield option investing in domestic energy assets.
Start earning these high yields and learn more about multiple
offerings today at PHX on air dot com. Learn more
By downloading the free investment guide at phxon air dot com,
(16:40):
you can diverse by your investments and earn nine to
thirteen percent annual interest. The Phoenix Capital Group can help
you out today. Investment in bonds at a certain amount of
risk associated with it, and you should only invest if
you can afford to bear the risk of loss. Before
making investment decisions, you should carefully consider and review all
risks involved. Visit PHX on today.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton chuck up a win for
Team Reality.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Trump is speaking, Well, maybe if he's still going, we'll
join it in progress here in a few moments, because
we've got a tight turnaround on the air right now.
But he is talking in court play and he is
I'm an unloading on this whole process, this civil trial
he faces on the judge, on the evaluation that the
(17:30):
judge put on Marl Lago, which was preposterous as anybody
who has access to the Internet could figure out for
themselves quite quickly. But Trump is I think you're gonna
see a lot of this. He's standing in the courthouse
right now and he's just leading to rip.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I think it's kind of an early preview for what
these criminal trials may look like. As you sort of
contemplate that this potentially is starting in March, I'm surprised
that he's at this civil trial. We'll take some of
these cuts, we'll share and continue to discuss this with you,
but in the meantime, Mike Glyndell started his business twenty
years ago, offering a brand new kind of pillow at
a very good price, everything you can want in a pillow.
(18:06):
Fast forward twenty years, the product that started all got
a major upgrade, the MyPillow two point zero, same patent,
an adjustable phil of the original MyPillow, but now made
with temperature regulating thread, cooler to the touch, great for
anybody contending with night sweats. Regular price for a Queen
size MyPillow less than eighty bucks, but for a limited
time you can get it for just thirty nine ninety
(18:27):
nine with our names Clay and Buck as the promo code.
You can also get a king size pillow for just
ten bucks.
Speaker 4 (18:33):
More.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Like every mypillo product comes with a ten year warrant,
sixty day money back guarantee two months. To make sure
that my Pillow's right for you, go to my pillow
dot com click on the radio. Listeners special Square to
get the Queen Size MyPillow two point oh for thirty
nine ninety nine King size for ten bucks more. Enter
the promo code Clay and Buck. You can also call
eight hundred and seventy nine to two thirty two sixty
(18:56):
nine for the MyPillow two point oh now softest, smoothest,
coolest pillow You'll ever own. Welcome back in Clay, Travis
Buck Sexton show, Trump speaking to reporters outside of the
civil fraud trial in New York City. We'll play you
that cut here in a moment, but Buck, something for
you to think about.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
We were just talking about it off air, and all
of you out there too as well.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
The entire purpose of this civil fraud trial seems to
be to attack Trump and argue that he's not as
rich as he claims to be, but he's.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Still really rich.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
And is there anybody out there who cares whether Trump
I think is a billionaire just based off the real
estate assets that he owns, whether it's mar A Lago,
whether it's the golf courses. You know, we went out
to Bedminster, Buck, I have no idea what the value
of Bedminster is, but it's a lot, certainly, the value
(19:54):
of his penthouse in Trump Tower, all the different real
estate holdings. I don't know what Trump's network is. A
lot of that would be determined by what a buyer
would pay for a physical asset at any point in time.
But I feel like he's got to be a billionaire.
I mean, heck, the airplane that he flies in by itself,
the Trump Force, one big jumbo jet is probably I mean,
(20:18):
some of you out there are more knowledgeable on private
aviation than I am, but that's got to be I mean,
a fifty million dollar airplane forty or fifty million dollar
airplane at a minimum, I would think, And if you can,
you send me a message or something, if you're an
expert in aircraft, and let me know what you think
that's worth. But my point of all this is this
(20:39):
attack seems to me buck very strange because there's a
lot of things you can come after Trump on, whether
he's really rich or not. Doesn't feel like an angle
that you can attack him on. And they tried this
with like the tax returns and everything else. Will you
and I were talking off air, I don't know how
many billionaires there are on the planet.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
There's only a few thousand of them.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Trump is one of the wealthiest people on the planet,
I think. I mean, whether he's the four thousand wealthiest
person or whether he's the six hundred and thirty fourth,
does that really change anybody's opinions of Trump in any way.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
No, But that's I don't think that's the purpose of
the civil fraud trials. I think what they're doing here,
it's it's really a multi pronged strategy. First of all
the legal strategies we know is clearly a multi pronged effort.
It's civil and criminal. They're they're coinciding, They're timing these
things so that Trump is going to have maximum you know,
(21:42):
maximum legal headache at the time of the election or
you know, in the election year. Part of this is
clay to drain time, resources, and energy, I think, which
is a guarantee. The process is the punishment. So by
dragging him into these cases in his legal bills, yes,
he's a very wealthy guy, but his legal bills for
(22:04):
all these different cases have got to be absolutely enormous. Yes,
and so that's now you could say, well, that's not
gonna make much difference. Well, he's going into election, and
he's got to raise money. He's gonna be running a
campaign that's going to cost they're gonna they're gonna raise
a billion dollars I'm sure, running for president. So that's
an aspect of it. And then also it just goes
(22:27):
to I don't think this is about trying to convince
anyone who's a Republican that Trump isn't that rich or whatever.
To your point, they don't care. It's just to try
to try to hit him with the label of he's
a fraud. He lost a fraud case in court, he's
a fraud. According to our court system, he's a fraud.
(22:47):
Oh and by the way, he's a criminal. It's just
more of the information and operations, you know, information warfare
campaign against Trump as a brand. So that to me is,
you know, that's how they're seeing it. I don't think
they view it as well, he's not rich, so people
aren't going to want to vote for him anymore.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Well, I think they're I want to say, not that rich. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
So, by the way, according to our staff, there were
three thousand and ninety four billionaires in twenty twenty two.
Seven hundred and fifty six of those people are in
the United States according to that data. So Trump is
one of the richest people in the world. I actually
this ties in. And by the way, here's Trump. Let's
go ahead and play this. This is Trump explaining why
(23:31):
he's in New York City for this fraud trial today.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Listen, mister Trumble, you want to be here in person
today because I want to.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
Watch this witch hundred oh a witch hunt for years.
This is really now getting nerve between Jack Smith and
between all of these the UJ people helping them along.
This is a fewer witch hunt for purposes of interferior
with the elections of the United States of America. It's
(24:00):
totally illegal. This judge should be this party shouldn't be allowed.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
To be a judge.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
Sang it Okay. So the one thing I think is
interesting here, Buck is I think we are setting ourselves
up in the event that these cases actually go to trial,
and the first one is scheduled to start in March.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
In terms of the criminal cases in.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
DC, I think Trump may do press conferences every day
while the trial's going on. And this is important because
Jack Smith is trying to gag him. Right now, we're
going to see a criminal trial that is truly not
leave aside the fact that Trump is the currently former
(24:42):
president running for presidential office.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Again.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I can't even remember a time buck when a criminal
defendant would do press. I mean, I'm laughing about it.
It's so crazy where a criminal defendant would potentially do
daily press conferences.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
I'm not talking about his lawyers.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
I'm talking about the defendant himself potentially on the steps
of the courthouse as basically his campaign strategy. Because I
think that's a little bit of a preview of what
you just saw.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
That's that is the campaign. I mean, this is the
million dollar question, or maybe the trillion dollar question, given
the stakes these days, is will these appearances going forward
in twenty twenty four, because there's going to be more
of them, whether it's just to get trials moved or
motions or whatever, will be will be visual of Donald
(25:33):
Trump showing up and saying this is all rigged. I mean,
usually the lawyer is the one that does this too,
which I think is so interesting. The speaks for himself there.
Usually you'd be you'd have a lawyer, especially in a
criminal case, you'd have a lawyer do all the talking.
I think that you're going to see this is something
that that the Democrats believe is very effective for Trump
(25:56):
in the primary. The gamble that they are taking is
that it will be toxic in swing states to independent voters. Uh,
and that's now, that's.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
What they What do you think? Yeah, I get it,
and I'm like, I'm it's I mean, it's interesting because
we had the Eging Carol case, right, and they were like,
we're going to brand Trumps as a rapist. Yeah, and
they got a conviction. The oh's five million dollars whatever
it was sexual assault. We can argue about these act
derivations of that and how it was applied. Nobody seemed
(26:28):
to care. Like the Eging Carroll thing happened, and I
think she sued him again, he went and denied it,
and it's all occurred in there. There may be another
defamation trial, whatever it's going to be. It legitimately had
zero impact. And so the question that I'm trying to
wrap her in my head and I'm curious what you
would say right now, A part of me feels like
(26:48):
none of this is going to have any impact because
every voter has already weighed in.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yew, maybe I'm true.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
I think that's true of ninety eight percent of the
electorate and the last two percent is what they think
will end up determining the election. Right, So it doesn't
it doesn't feel like it does anything in the in
the immediate sense, it's not convincing people in a way
that you could see and that they're going to make
the polls move. But at the end of the day,
(27:18):
there is going to be a decision made by a
few hundred thousand people probably in the six states, the
five states that really matter, and will a Republican presidential contender,
you know, will they view this as it's all a
witch hunt, or will they view it as he brought
this on himself, or I just don't want to deal
with this headache anymore. You know. The noise and nobody
(27:41):
can really tell you how that shakes out. That's the
big part of this that is left out sitting. No
one really knows. So Democrats, hey, they've thrown I mean,
if you one thing that won, they got four criminal
I mean I know there's but four criminal prosecutions of
him outstanding right now. Four The guy's never faced a
criminal prosecution in this omo eighty years of life, and
now he faces four. So they just decided kitchen sink
(28:04):
is the way.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
I think this is so crazy, too, Buck, because we're
coming up when now we're in October, it's, you know,
thirteen months until the actual election, and you guys know
how things work. It's gonna get to Thanksgiving and then
Christmas and then New Years. And I feel like as
twenty twenty four begins, this is every single one of
(28:26):
you out there listening to us right now, especially if
you're a guy. You've had a friend who was engaged,
and I bet a lot of women have two I
can only speak to guys and you've been like, I
can't believe this wedding's gonna happen, and you're like, well,
it's six months away.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
Something will happen.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
And I feel like for the Democrats, it's as if
they don't really realize what wheels they've put in motion.
Like you realize you get engaged, eventually, a wedding ceremony happens,
right like you have to talk to your buddy. At
some point you understand what you've done here, Like the
wheels are moving and suddenly are we going to get
(29:05):
to March?
Speaker 1 (29:07):
And Democrats are gonna have to answer questions?
Speaker 2 (29:10):
I mean they're already starting to, you know, with the
gag orders and everything else. I mean, are they going
to try to put Trump in prison? Has anybody even
thought about what happens with Secret Service protection? I mean,
I think probably what they would do, Buck is just
put him on try to put him on house arrest
at mar A Lago. But during a presidential campaign, even
(29:30):
that is crazy. What I'm getting at is the permutations
of Democrat insanity. We haven't yet started to reap the
consequences of their decisions in a broad way, and I
wonder if they've even contemplated the wheels of justice that
they put in motion, because eventually we're gonna get to March,
(29:51):
and it's gonna happen for a lot of us really quick,
because it's going to come out of the holidays and
we're gonna be like, holy crap, this is two months away.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
People are prepared for what we're gonna see.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Buck, I really am not sure as a nation that
they've even thought through what this.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Is going to look like.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I think that's true.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
And I just I can't believe this is where we are.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Since nine eleven, the Tunnel the Towers Foundation has been
committed to supporting America's heroes in their families, Heroes to
put their lives on the line to protect our country,
our communities, and all of us. Heroes like nine to
eleven first responder Lieutenant Joseph Maelo, he answered the call
to help others on America's darkest day. Years later, he
suffered a fatal heart attack in the line of duty,
leaving behind his wife and two kids. When heroes like
(30:37):
Lieutenant Mayelo lose their lives in the line of duty
or severely injured, Tunnel the Towers is there to help.
Tunnel the Towers paid the mortgage on the Mayellow family home,
lifting the family's financial burden during their darkest hours. America's
heroes and their families need your help now more than ever.
Join Tunnel the Towers on its mission to do good
in their honor. More than ninety five cents of every
(30:59):
dollar you donate to Tunnel the Towers goes to the
programs there. Donate eleven dollars a month at t twot
dot org. That's t the number two t dot org.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
Learn laugh and join us on the weekend on our
Sunday Hang with Clay and Fuck podcast, Fight It on
the iHeart Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Well, welcome back everybody. We have an exciting programming note.
As of today, playing Buckshow will be carried on the
Armed Forces Network. That's over one hundred and seventy countries,
every Navy ship. We love our military, we thank them
and are so grateful to them, and it is fantastic
(31:40):
that we're going to be heard now starting today on
the Armed Forces Network, and we send our thoughts and
our thanks to all those who serve all around the world.
I've got some calls, got some VIP emails. Remember if
you want to be at Clay and Buck VIP, go
to Clayndbuck dot com. You can sign up there. Please
do it. Great way to support the show and get
(32:01):
some cool extras and some behind the scenes stuff. And
we got Paul writing it as a VIP right representative.
Bowman should be charged and pay a fine for creating
a false emergency situation. He is not above the law,
even though he may think so. We have and then
he writes excellent leadership in DC in quotes. So that's
(32:22):
something that we've been talking about. I think it is
possible that there'll be minor consequences there will be no
major consequences for Congressman Bowman. So let's now also take
some of our calls.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Here.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
We have Russell in Tampa, Florida. What's going on? Russell, Hey,
excited to be with you.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Just want to bring up a couple points. I'm a
lifelong Florida native and a full time rematch real estate agent.
And what people don't realize when a property is sold
in the state of Florida, it's assessed typically for eighty
percent of the purchase price number one, number two. Assessments
are capped by STO in the state of Florida. Homesteads
could only go up three percent a year, commercial property
(33:06):
ten percent a year. So depending on the number of
years and what he paid for the property, that assessment
is going to be way off point. That's point number one,
point number two. Every prosecutor and the judge in New
York I want to know what they sold their last
home for and how much over the assessment they sold
it for. They should be sued for fraud as well.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Thank you for the call.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
Here's the big issue on the Trump fraud trial that
I see Buck, and I think that Trump people should
be hammering this as hard as they can.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
In order for there to be a fraud, doesn't there
have to be a victim?
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Like, what is the crime of the And I know
it's not a criminal trial right now, but what is
the civil fraud? The banks got paid, the loans didn't
go bad. How do you have a fraud when there's
no victim of a fraud? And I haven't hurt a
good argument for this in any way to even justify
(34:04):
how this proceeding could be going on.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Well, that was always the big argument against all this
was that the banks are one sophisticated financial correctors you
would certainly hope so, and two did not lose anything
in any of these processes. So how can you have
a crime without a crime? Right? Yes, well, where's the
no harm no foul principle applied here in a financial context?
(34:29):
But Clay it almost you know, you start to go
a little crazy with some of this stuff when you
analyze it from a legal perspective, because the law is
just the tool here. It's really just politics, right, So Currense,
you see it through a political lens that it all
makes sense because they're not even making serious legal arguments
(34:50):
with some of this stuff. Or I should say they're
not making arguments that should be taken seriously.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Yeah, there are some things I disagree with on the
charges criminally, Like I don't believe they should be applied
the New York City case, for instance, Oh, we're going
to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony on a bookkeeping
charge effectively, but I understand the logic under which the
charge could occur. I don't even understand the logic of
how you make an argument here, you know, mar a Lago, bookkeeping,
(35:19):
the possession of papers. I understand how these arguments could
be made from a legal perspective, I don't support them.
I don't even understand how you can have a civil
action for fraud when there is no consequence of any
fraud at all. That's the one that I just keep
coming back to again and again. If you're right, it's
(35:40):
totally political, but I don't even understand how it gets
over the hurdle to even be able to be a
broad case when there is no victim of the fraud.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
In any respect.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Well, this is an argument that comes up sometimes in
mortgage fraud cases, right where they'll say, well, there's a
mortgage fraud even if the mortgage is being paid and
it doesn't seem like the bank has had has had losses.
So you know, I'm not sympathetic to the argument that
there should be criminal felony charge is brought against an
(36:12):
individual when there hasn't been any actual harm done to
anyone that I can point to. But again, we're getting
into the legal realities here when we understand that the
political necessity for Democrats is what's driving absolutely all.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Yeah, and I think you just look at it too.
And again I would hammer this more and more than
the Trump people even are. In addition to there being
no actual victim here, what are they even trying to
teach by bringing this charge. I don't even understand the
larger state perspective here. And then of course you can
get into the fact that Leticia James said, Hey, you
(36:48):
need to elect me because I'm going to go after Trump.
Speaking of elections, Buck Robert F. Kennedy Junior potentially going
to announce in a third party race. What's the impact
who wins, who loses. We'll talk about at it next
out
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.