June 1, 2023 • 36 mins
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy joins Clay and Buck to discuss the timing of possible Trump indictments and trials and what's happened to the rule of law and fairness in America. Elon Musk: Leftists have no sense of humor. Dem talking points: DeSantis is more Hitler than Hitler. Carrie Sexton running in NYC Tunnel to Towers Tower climb this weekend.
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 (00:06):
Welcome back in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton Show.
We appreciate all of you hanging out with us. Bill
O'Reilly was great at the top of the last hour.
We are joined now by Andy McCarthy, who is an
expert and helping us to break down the legal shenanigans
and pratfalls that are currently uh I would say sort
(00:27):
of transfixing the nation, particularly as it pertains to Donald Trump.
And Andy McCarthy, of course, former federal prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York, regular Fox News contributor. So, Andy,
I want to start with I think you're with both
Buckin and myself based on past appearances, that you believe
(00:48):
there will be federal charges brought against Trump, So that
I think you agree there. You can shan, you can
tell us if you disagree. But my question for you
is what would the tie frame look like for a
federal criminal trial for Donald Trump? Based on your experience,
How quickly do you think the DC Circuit could get
(01:10):
this the charges brought, could get the trial underway? What
sort of time frame in your mind? Are we looking
at here, Clay.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
You know, I think the one thing that the government,
meaning the Justice Department, always has complete control over is
when to indict. After that, the court really kind of
it depends on the eccentricities of the judge and a
lot of moving parts that exist here that don't exist
(01:40):
in the normal case. For example, you know, Trump is
facing a civil fraud trial in New York in October.
I believe that starts October third. That's the Letitia James,
State Attorney General big fraud case that they were hoping
was going to be a criminal case, but she brought
it as a civil case, and now this New York trial.
(02:03):
I know Trump is trying to get this move to
federal court. I don't think he's going to succeed in that.
The judge there has that that trial goes on March
twenty fifth of twenty twenty four, which by the way,
is two weeks after Super Tuesday. In between, we know
that the state prosecutor Fulton County, Georgia has told the
(02:25):
court to clear its decks for the first two weeks
of August, so presumably she's going to bring her indictments
at that point. So I've always thought that this is
very political. This is a uniquely political Justice department, and
I think they like the havoc that having Trump under
(02:46):
these you know, investigations and charges. I think they liked
the havoc that that's playing in the Republican race.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Sorry, My question, I guess is do you think it's
likely that they could get this trial completely finished before
November of twenty twenty four or do you expect that
Trump through motioning and trying to Let's presume he gets
charged in June or July.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Let's just presume that happens.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Is this something that could get pushed beyond the election,
or are you thinking to yourself, no, They're going to
have a federal trial of Donald Trump before November of
twenty four.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, it really depends on the judge. I mean, I
think there are judges who, depending on how they also
charge this. I mean, I think he's going to charge
it mainly as an obstruction case, which is pretty straightforward.
If I'm wrong about that and it's classified documents in
the forefront of it, then I can see a lot
(03:46):
more motion practice with respect to that, because there's all
kinds of things that come up about you know, whether
he had the right to keep it, whether it actually
was classified, whether it matters whether it was puss. But
I mean, you can see the the number of challenges
there might be. Whereas if the case is as simple
as he got a subpoena that told him to turn
(04:08):
overall documents more classified, and he not only thwarted the subpoena,
he provided the grand jury with a statement that turned
out to be false. That's you know, it depends on
depending on how you charge that. You could charge that
pretty straightforward. And the other thing I think we need
to bear in mind here is we're dealing with a
special counsel. So even if he doesn't indict things, I've
(04:32):
always thought that he'll write a narrative report of some kind,
like for example, I don't think he's going to charge
anything with respect to January sixth, but I do believe
he's going to write a narrative report that lays out
in painful detail all the icky things that will be
laid at Trump's feet with respect to that, and I
expect that to be released probably like in September, before
(04:55):
the election, if Trump is still a candidate at that point.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Andy, it's buck how much of a of a real risk.
Do you think there is here on the obstruction Let's
say they just do obstruction on the federal level. Is
that a pretty easy thing for them to prove? And
you know, how do you see that playing out? Basically,
if he's found guilty, is it they're going they can
(05:19):
pay a fine?
Speaker 1 (05:19):
I mean, what do you think happens?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
I think people will say, Buckett, let's cut to the chase.
If he gets convicted, I think people will say, no,
one's above the law. And you know, they'll argue that
he ought to do some time, depending on what the
sentencing guideline say, what.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
Do you think, like what could what could you do?
Like for obstruction? What could you be looking at? Is
it months?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Yeah, well he's his first offender. It would be a
five year count. The judge probably would take into account that,
you know, at that point that sensitive government secrets were involved.
The Justice Department and the Democrats would push very heavily
for some prison time and he probably gets some.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
So is this crazy?
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Because I just want to you know, for any who's listening,
who's just you know, it's just like, oh my gosh,
is this even crazy to talk about? Or do you
think this is a is this a real thing that
you believe can happen?
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Buck? If you asked me a year ago, is it
too crazy to talk about a guy who's running for president,
who's looking at two trials already scheduled, with a couple
of war down the pike, I would have said, you're nuts,
that that's too crazy to contemplate. Now I've changed. I
think nothing's too crazy to contemplate.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Okay, and so we're not either, So talking about it
makes sense. That's what I want to make sure.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, it's a criminal investigation. And look, this guy is
doing everything that a prosecutor would do to bring criminal charges,
including immunizing the lawyers who provided the statement to the
grand jury, which the Justice Department doesn't just Willy Nelly
immunize people. You give someone immunity because there's somebody more
(07:00):
more important up the chain that you want to go after.
That's the only reason they do it.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Why is this case? I got a caller question. I
sometimes I'll scan through the callers. Why is this case
in DC circuit? Given that the raid happened at mar
A Lago, that the obstruction may well have occurred at
mar A Lago, Why would this not be a Florida
court that would be hearing this as opposed to d C.
It was an interesting question. I'm not an expert in
(07:27):
the procedure. I'm curious your analysis of that.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Because the grand jury is in d C. So the
charge would be that he's obstructing the investigation and obstructing
the grand jury, in particular the grand jury's in the
District of.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Columbia, because that's an advantage that is I think significant.
Our audience understands that the Department of Justice wants this
DC circuit, right, I mean from your perspective if you're
a defense attorney for a Republican president, I mean, what
are we talking about in terms of the jury pool
that they would get.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. They much prefer DC to Florida.
And you've mentioned the d C circuit. They much prefer
the d C circuit than say, the Eleventh Circuit, which
is a more you know, it's a the eleventh circuits
a better mix for Trump than the d C circuit.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
And Andy on.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
The Atlanta prosecution is that, you know, we had our
mutual friend Bill O'Reilly on before he thinks that's super weak,
like no problem for Trump, even if it's brought. What's
what's your assessment.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
I don't. From what I know about the case, I'm
very suspicious of it, and I think, in particular, like,
here's a good reason why I think that this Fanny
Willis was the district attorney, is likely overplaying her hand.
Apparently central to this case is the idea of the
(08:55):
fake electors, the notion that you know, they put together
this group of electors who were who were going to
stand as Trump electors if they were able to pull
off this idea of reversing the result of the election.
But as I understand it, with these electors, they considered
themselves not fake. They considered themselves contingent. And what they
(09:17):
meant by that is if and only if Trump was
able to prevail in court to get the election undone,
or if the state legislature for whatever reason invalidated the
popular vote and substituted its own legislative vote for Trump,
then they would stand ready to assume a legitimate position
(09:41):
as Trump electors, and they would have to be certified
by the state. To me, that's not fake, that's a contingency.
So you know, to the extent they're building the case
on that, I think they're building it on sand Andy.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
We've talked a lot about pardons.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Last week we had Ron DeSantis on and I asked
the Santas, Hey, let's pursue you got elected president. Would
you pardon Donald Trump in the event there are Department
of Justice federal charges brought against you? How important do
you think? Purely from a president perspective, both Trump and
other Republican candidates addressing these potential charges might make sense.
(10:19):
And also Trump could, if he were elected president in November,
pardon himself, right. I don't believe we've ever seen a
situation like that. Just from a legal perspective, the president
would have the ability. Let's say a Trump got re
elected to pardon himself as soon as he took the
oath of office in January, right, So I mean we
(10:41):
could and this is crazy, but I mean we could
have a situation where Trump is facing time in prison
and he gets sworn in in January, Andy, and he
completely pardons himself from all federal charges. Right, Like that
could be. And then I'm laying out a hypothetical here
for you. Do you see any way that Biden follows
(11:02):
the Gerald Ford president as it pertained to Nixon, and
even though it's an opposing party, might decide to pardon
himself because it's politically advantageous. Just kind of analyze the
pardon situation in general for.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Us, Well, there's no limitations on the pardon power in
terms of who can be pardoned. So there's nothing in
the constitution that says the president can't pardon himself. I
know that people push back and say, there's a you know,
there's an ancient Anglo American legal doctrine that you know,
you can't be the judge in your own cause. But
(11:37):
I think the pushback on that is that there's nothing
in the Constitution that says that with respect to the
pardon power. So the only limitations on the pardon power
is it has to be a crime that's already been committed.
That is, you can't give somebody a prospective get out
of jail free card, and it only applies to federal offenses. So,
for example, Steve Bannon is now facing trial well in
(12:00):
New York State, in fact, from Alvin Bragg in Manhattan
in September, based on the charge that that Trump pardoned
him for. Because there's a New York State analog and
the pardon doesn't doesn't affect the state prosecution. So with
that in mind, I think, you know, could Trump if
(12:22):
he got in pardon himself. I guess he could could Biden,
you know in theory. Yes, I wouldn't expect those things
to happen if I were and if I were distant.
Is there any other candidate? The way I would try
to navigate this question, which is a which is a
difficult one, would be to simply say one of the
(12:43):
guidelines the Justice Department follows is that somebody who you
pardon has to seek the pardon. In other words, the
idea is that the person asks for a pardon because
the person's important. So if I were dissent, is there
anyone else? I'd say, I'd have to table that until
we see what President Trump's position is. Is he asking
(13:04):
for apart?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Good point?
Speaker 4 (13:06):
And you know this is why it's why we put
out the Andy bat signal here that makes sense of
a whole range of these things before. But before we
let you go, Andy, Uh, just a very broadle It's
not usually the end. Usually you get a question from
Clay about baseball here, but I'm gonna throw at you
on is the is the rule of law in trouble
(13:26):
in a way that you haven't seen since you were
twenty three years in the Southern District as a federal prosecutor.
Do you do you feel worried about what's going on
here with the weaponization of law over politics.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yes, I think that the people don't. I think grasp
how important it is to the to the public legitimacy
of the law, that the public accepts that that the
law is even handed. And if the public comes to
believe that we actually do have two tiers of justice,
(13:57):
and the quality of justice a person gets to his
or her political affiliation, then you're asking for lawlessness because
you don't have a legitimate legal system. You just have
a you know, a political hack system. And if we
lose the rule of law, we can't have a flourishing society.
So I think we make a real mistake if we
(14:19):
take for granted that like the rule of laws are
then will always be here because a lot of it
depends on public perception, fairness and due process, and I
think we're very cavalier about that.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
Andy McCarthy, everybody, Andy, We're gonna be talking to you more.
Thanks for making the time for us today.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
All right, guys, have a great day.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
I also want to express my thanks to those of
you who joined me for an exclusive interview recently with
an extraordinary stock market analyst by the name of well
Mason Sexton. He happens to be my dad. Interview was
online and video form, and Mason told us all about
the great disruption of twenty twenty three. If you missed it,
you can still catch the replay now at Disruption twenty
twenty three dot com. Mason, my Dad, receive worldwide attention
(15:00):
for his uncanny prediction of the nineteen eighty seven stock
market crash and then went on to make many other
incredibly accurate and timely market calls. Now he's making his
first major prediction in thirty years about something he sees
coming that is truly terrifying for America over the next
three years, which should set off within a matter of weeks.
And this interview Mason reveals the controversial, strange secret that
(15:22):
has allowed him to make some of the biggest calls
in market history. The interview is still up online, but
it won't be there forever, so take advantage now give
it a watch. You can watch our conversation about the
great disruption at Disruption twenty twenty three dot com. That's
disruption twenty twenty three dot com.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Inspiring you to seek out the truth the Clay Travis said,
Buck Sexton show Rinson back and.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Forth recently with whether Twitter is really the free speech
platform free speech within the confines of the law that
many had been hoping for. Elon Musk, waiting on that today,
said that yes, it is the case, despite some consternation
of whether the Matt Walsh Deey Wire movie What Is
a Woman?
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Will be shown? But I thought this was kind of.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
A worthwhile point to make, Clay, because we see this
over and over again, is that the left has no
sense of humor, like nothing is allowed to be funny anymore.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
That continues on. They hate parody.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
They hate, for example, of the Babylon b because it
makes jokes from a conservative perspective. Here's Elon talking about
how people on the left no sense of humor Play
twenty three.
Speaker 5 (16:32):
The essence of a lot of comedy is a revealed truth,
like a hidden truth that people understand intuitively or explicitly,
and there's that sort of moment of revealed, you know,
kernel of truth of often unacknowledged truth. And in that
unacknowledged truth is the humor. If you're premised don't a lie,
(16:54):
you can no longer be funny because there's no revealed truth.
You know, a lot of people on the left have
no sense of humor. Enough funny And if if there,
if there's so many no fly zones, you know that
you have to you have to avoid all the time,
then something left to make.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Fun about.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
Yeah, And and misery is a close companion for authoritarianism
and viciousness.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
So there you go. Authoritarians typically do not have great
senses of humor.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
The North North Korea not not the home of a
lot of great stand uff.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
These days, which is why this is part of my
new book book.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
I spend a decent amount of time arguing Republicans should
be the party of jokes. Now, sometimes that means that
you and your party might be the butt of jokes.
But it's amazing to me the degree to which the
left now wants to censure comedy. And it's incredible that
Republicans have an opportunity to be the party that likes
(17:51):
to laugh. I would have never believed that this is possible,
but Evlon Musk is getting at that kernel of truth
there and his sit down with Seth Dylan and the
Babylon b come making a big difference out there right now.
Is Innovation Refunds. They were early on in figuring out
the IRS tax refund program called the Employee Retention Credit.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
That's the ERC.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Their website, Get Refunds dot Com is how you get
started working on all of these returns. In fact, Innovation
Refunds already completed over seventeen thousand returns for all different
sorts of businesses like yours, including construction, retail, restaurant, bar, hotel,
so many more. Government data experts estimate eighty six percent
of small businesses were eligible to receive an ERC tax credit.
(18:33):
Challenge cutting through the red tape to get you your money,
that's what getrefunds dot Com does. It takes about ten
minutes and you can be well on your way to
getting up to twenty six thousand dollars per employee. Innovation
Refunds already help clients claim over five billion dollars in
payroll tax refunds. You can get started today no cost,
Get refunds dot Com, download the getrefunds dot Com app.
(18:57):
What a buck in Klay Travis bucksexon show. All of
you are having fantastic Thursdays. We roll towards the end
of the week and the first day of June. We've
been talking a lot about the peril that Trump may
find himself in from a legal perspective, and if you're
just getting in your car, Andy McCarthy is phenomenal. I
(19:19):
don't know that anybody breaks down legal issues anywhere in
media better than he does, and we try to have
him on the show to answer as many of these
questions as we can, because so much of what's going
on is unprecedented as it pertains to what the Department
of Justice is trying to do Donald Trump. But it's
important to note this, there are a lot of great
(19:42):
Republican candidates out there running for president, Tim Scott, Vivik Ramaswami,
we know next week Mike Pence and Chris Christy are
going to run. It's a pretty deep bench and I'm
not trying to leave anybody out right. There's a lot
of people that are running now for the Republican nomination,
and it's important to note this. While Trump has been
(20:03):
the target basically since he came down the escalator, in
Trump Tower back in twenty fifteen. They're going to try
and tar and feather whoever the Republican is that starts
to surge in the polls, or if it's someone other
than Trump ends up being the nominee.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
A lot.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Like I said, very deep bench, lots of good talent
out there, especially if you compare it to who's running
on the Democrat side. Reason why I bring that up.
You are starting to hear and we told you this
would happen as DeSantis is the top rival of Trump
right now. They are already getting their talking points ready.
Trump was Hitler. That's what they said, That's how they acted.
(20:44):
Now they are arguing, you know, actually, DeSantis, he might
even be a more dangerous version of Trump.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
This is where the talking point he might be more
Hitler than Hitler. How is that possible? It's tough. I
don't even know.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
When you say that someone is basically the devil, it's
hard to argue that somebody else is actually worse than
the devil. But this cut, We've had it held over
for a couple of days, been meaning to play it
because I think it's representative of what they will try
to do in terms of tarring and feathering. Whoever did
(21:19):
the Republican nominee is. Remember they turned Mitt Romney into
maybe the most blandly, inoffensive politician in any of our lives.
As you said, Ned Flanders is the perfect example for
those a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
He's rich, Ned Flanders, rich Ned Flanders.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
But remember he was giving people cancer while abusing dogs
and bullying kids in high school, while he was keeping
women tiny versions of them inside of binders.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
These were the attacks. Handing out cancer.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Yeah, abusing dogs, shaving heads of kids in high school.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
He didn't like or whatever, like just lunacy.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
I mean it was lunacy and that was we know
Mitt Romney was from the Democrat perspect Yeah, that's about
as good a Republican as you're going to get in
terms of not, you know, not being the fighter who's
going to go to the mat for conservative values on
a whole range of issues.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So here is this audio. I just want to play
it for you because we're telling you what their game
plan is going to be before they even really fully
deploy it.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Here they are on MSNBC.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
This is less Sunday that saying Ron de Santis, he's
actually way more dangerous than Donald Trump.
Speaker 6 (22:29):
I say this with conviction. I think Rond de Santis
is far more dangerous than Donald Trump for a very
specific reason. Donald Trump is willing to ignore the rules,
ignore the Constitution, and frankly lead to the incitement of
January sixth. But Donald Trump is a transactional figure. He'll
do whatever it takes to win. Ron De Santis, I believe, actually,
in his ethos, is a cultural warrior who wants to
(22:50):
take us back one hundred years and believes he can
use the Constitution to that in and ultimately has a
very dark vision of what America will be. So the
idea of pardoning January sixth convicts, if you will, at
this point, is because he believes we are engaged in
a real war that he has to win now.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
So they're referring to that answer he gave on our
show there. I didn't even know that part of it,
but Buck, I mean, we've said this is coming here
you go. DeSantis is worse than Hitler too.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
And I want to be clear.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
If let's say vivek Ramaswami were to get a lot
of a lot of play all of a sudden in
the polls, right, Let's say Nikki Haley. You know, Senator Scott,
I don't know if anyone's still thinking about whether young
Kin might throw in or not.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
But it doesn't matter any of them.
Speaker 4 (23:40):
Yeah, you will start to see just to prepare the
Democrat base whoever opposes Joe Biden. And I gotta say
I was surprised Bill saying still to this day that
Biden is not I give him credit for sticking by
his guns, Bill O. Riiley, but saying that Joe Biden
may may not be the nominee, not again as a
health issue. That doesn't that could happen. Anybody that like
(24:03):
the Democrat convention, they can try to pull something that's
I would give somebody and I always do this wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Is it one to ten Vegas odds on that one?
Is that right? Meaning? I think it's almost not no way.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
That you would give them ten to one odds one
to one, it would mean you think it's going to happen.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
Yes, I think so ten to one that that there's
no way Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Isn't going to be the nominee. I'm getting into some double.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Negatives here, but anyway, the other side of this is
on the Republican with the Republican slate.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
I think we should all be very clear.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
They're going to do the politics of personal destruction against
whoever it is that they view as a challenge. They
do it at the Senate level too, and at any
competitive race. This is what you can expect from them,
and they're certainly going to do it in the Republican
presidential contest or in the primary contest. And I do
think as well. You know, I don't know, I've seen.
(24:58):
I've gotten a couple of notes, and please send us
to your thoughts if you don't call in at Clayandbuck
dot com, uh and become a VIP and tell us
what you think about all this. You know, I don't
understand some of them. Some people see him upset that
we even talk about or that you even asked the
question about the pardoning of Trump. And I'm sitting here
and I'm saying, so, let's just say they were gonna
(25:19):
there's gonna be like an impeachment part three. I know
they can't appeach me. He's not the president right now?
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Do we not?
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Do we not talk about it? Because that's what they
want us to do.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
I mean, I think that it's better to get ahead
of what we think is coming here. And I haven't
heard anyone say they don't think Trump is going to
be indided, So we might as well mentally prepare for
what this is going to be like and try to
come up with strategies so that I mean, the man
not only has the right to speak, as our friends say,
(25:49):
he is the right to speak, he is he has
the right to be an American who campaigns for president
without the crazy shenanigans, without the without the rigging of
the system, the legal system against him, which I think
is what we all see coming. So we're expressing outrage
at what is going on here, and I think it
is a cardinal issue. Now, Andy McCarthy, again, I would
(26:11):
encourage all of you to go listen to the conversation
we had with him at the top of this hour.
He pointed out something that is important. You have to
request a pardon.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
So one way that some of these politicians running for
the presidency on the Republican side could dodge this question
is say, well, that presumes that President Trump were to
ask for a pardon, and he has to make that
choice in the event that he's not the nominee, because
the other option here obviously is Trump could be the nominee,
(26:40):
he could win the twenty twenty four election, and he
could pardon himself on all federal related charges that could happen.
But the reason why I think it's so significant, Buck,
is to me, it goes directly to the heart of
what you believe the American justice system should do. Because
(27:01):
if you legitimately believe that a chief political opponent of
the party in power should be put in prison for
let's be honest, trumped up charges that would never be
brought but for political related reasons, then you are actually
setting an incredibly dangerous president that undermines and potentially destroys
(27:27):
the rule of law in America, because once you put
one political candidate in jail and try to keep him
from being elected president, we are now setting the president
that this is okay in American politics, something that's never
happened in two hundred and fifty years. And we've had duels, Buck,
We've had guy, We've had top political leaders try to
kill each other in feuds, and we've never had the
(27:50):
chief political rival ever put in prison.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
Well, this is why I think the context of the
media already democrat alon media saying that DeSantis or anyone else.
That's why we brought up Romney. It doesn't matter who
it is. They've trained the Democrat base to believe that
Republicans who want power, who are conservatives, I mean, right,
(28:15):
it's not they don't have a big problem with, you know,
people who are willing to toe the line of the Democrats,
but they've trained the Democrat base to think that those
individuals are monsters who should be not just beaten at
the ballot box, but should be subject to criminal prosecution
for their wrong think.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Essentially.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
I mean, this is getting really deep into totalitarian psychology.
And whoever the person is, it's going to be the
same thing, right, And once they established this president, this
is always what we've been saying about, whether it was
the completely frivolous impeachments of Trump that occurred and now
the absurd charges in New York City. They are setting
(28:56):
precedents that will be used and abused going going forward.
So that's why I think it's so it's so important
the American people really understand the full weight of what's
going on here. That's why I asked, ANDYA said, is
the rule of law in trouble? And what does that
mean for our society. Yeah, the debt is really bad,
or it can destroy our economy over the long term.
(29:17):
But in the shorter term, if we have a play,
if we have a country where we now have a
two tier justice system based on your political party, and
everyone really feels that, knows that and that's how it operates,
what kind of country do we really have? And that's
what we're all looking at right now. That's the reality
that we face. That's how critical this is. It's about Trump,
but it's also about more than Trump, way bigger than Trump.
(29:40):
Trump is the vessel right now under which the attack
is occurring, but it's not going to stop with him.
That's the precedent, the danger of it being set. You'd
be amazed how much of your information is online. Sure,
a lot of it is behind companies that you do
business with, and they try to protect it as best
they can. It's that kind of information though, that's cyber
hackers seek, working anonymously behind their keyboards and computer screens.
(30:04):
The cleverest of them succeed, and when they do, they
often sell your information to the highest bidders, who use
it to make illegal purchases, bank account withdrawals, and more,
I'll give you a brand new example revealed in the
past week. A good sized insurance company called Managed Care
of North America suffered a data breach that exposed the
personal information of nearly nine million people. Hackers had access
(30:24):
to the MCNA systems ten days or so earlier this winter.
They got confidential patient information including full names, addresses, birth dates,
driver's license numbers, phone numbers, social security numbers, and also
protected healthcare information. Just think what a cyber thief could
do with that. In the way of identity theft, it's
important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting
(30:46):
our lives. Protecting your identity can be easy with LifeLock
by Norton. This is a company you can rely on
to watch for signs that your information is being used
without your permission. No one can prevent all identity theft
or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy
to help protect yourself with LifeLock. Join now and save
twenty five percent off your first year with my name
(31:06):
buck as the promo code. Call one eight hundred LifeLock
or head to LifeLock dot com and use promo code Buck.
That's promo code b Uck for twenty five percent off.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Heard it on the show here.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
More on the podcast Clay and Buck podcast, Deep Dives.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
More contents, more common sense. Find the guys on the
iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
Closing up shop here on Clay and Buck. So it's
a great time to remind you all to check out
the iHeartRadio app. Please download it.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's free.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
It's a great app all around, allows you to listen
live or on demand.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
To the Clay and Buck Show.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
We also have a bunch of podcasts that we put
into the feed that you could listen to. I've recorded
Clay this week with doctor j Batachario, one of the
great Barenton Declaration authors about COVID, just.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
A full Now that we are where we are, what
do we know.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
That we should have you know, should have known all
along from a brilliant, brilliant MD.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
So.
Speaker 4 (32:09):
Also going to be talking to Young Me Park today
for next week we're going to be taping and she's
the North Korean defector who's she's been making the rounds
talking on different shows.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
About what it was like and she's got a new
book out.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
So anyway, I hope people will go subscribe to the
Clay and Buck podcast stream. Oh and Tutor Dixon of course,
the Tutor Dixon Show appears in there. Tutors doing a
great show. And I just would put in a plug here.
You guys all know how much we love the Talenta
Towers Foundation. I mean, does just such amazing work. Frank
(32:42):
Siller is an incredible guy, the organization he's built, and
they're just really doing the stuff that we talk about.
They're helping families of the fallen in our wars, the
first responders, severely injured veterans. Can't think of a more
worthy cause. And as you know, my wife Carrie is
running on Monday in the Tunnel to the Towers climb
(33:06):
and she's hoping to get to her goal. And she's
part of the Fox News team because she works at Fox.
So if you can go to Clayanbuck dot com and
give one hundred percent of the money goes right to
Tunel the Towers Foundation.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
It's going for the Fox.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
News team that she's part of representing for Tunnel to Towers.
So if you have a chance to donate, go to
Clayanbuck dot com. Because I'll look like a good husband
if she meets the team goal, and it couldn't be
for a worthier cause every dollar goes towards tunnel to towers.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
Frank is amazing and congrats to carry for doing that event.
So if people want to go.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
It's stories.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
By the way, that's a I would she would have
to carry me, which would be embarrassing for me.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
That's a lot of stairs, no doubt. Not only would
she potentially have to carry you.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
I was thinking, man, it feels like you might get
dizzy running, you know, just in basic circles, you know,
up the up, the to the top like that.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
So how many how long?
Speaker 4 (34:02):
How far do you could run right now, flat out
before you're like I'm done?
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Like, how far do you think you can go? Yeah,
one hundred yards? I don't know.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
I think I might get to one hundred and fifty
hundred yards and then I'm pretty much I'd be like
I got to read a book.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
I'd like to think that I could like feel to,
you know, punt or a kick off at the goal
line and just run full sprint all the way to
the other side. But first of all, you don't sprint
very often. I would definitely pull a hamstring or two
as well, which would be bad. You don't want that,
you know, kids, I think you I don't remember the
last time I would have run full speed one hundred yards.
(34:41):
I think the odds and likelihood of an injury would
actually be very very substantial if I if I undertook that.
So I bet you know. We used to do this
buck speaking of charity. Everybody thinks they're fast if you
played sports, and everybody thinks they would have a fast
forty time, which is what the measure and for the
NFL Combine, for instance, because you see like big fat
(35:05):
guys relatively speaking on the field and it seems like
they're moving slow, and so you think to yourself, oh,
I would be faster than that, you know person on
the field. Almost no one can break a five h forty.
We used to do this for charity. People could donate
fifty bucks, come out, try to run. It's true. Speed
(35:25):
is so rare. People have no concept for how fast
real stud athletes actually are. Even if you were fast
on your high school team, you're not very fast.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Well, this is it's true of ultra elite marathoners as well.
I've been at the finish of the or the last
leg of the New York City Marathon many a number of.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Times over the years.
Speaker 4 (35:45):
Oh yeah, watching, not running. Watching and when you break down,
they're running twenty six miles and they're doing it. What
is it sub five minutes breakdown or something like that.
I think it's like in the high fours. Maybe it's
you know, fine, I can run one mile at sub
six right now, I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
You know, it's tough.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Most most people can't even run one mile as fast
as the marathon's twenty six. Yeah, that's I mean, if
you've ever tried to run like a six minute mile,
it's not easy to do. Those dudes do twenty six
of them in a row of like sub five. So there,
you can not as athletic as you thought. There's your
lesson from the Clay and Buck Show today, So yeah,
(36:27):
please do go.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
If you can donate to the link it's on Clayanbuck
dot com and send us your thoughts here on some
things you want us to hit tomorrow. Love to get
some topic ideas and those you if we didn't hit
it today, vip emails or you can, you know, message
us on Facebook or Twitter, and we're looking forward to
talking to me on Friday, and it's gonna be an
(36:49):
interesting day.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
That much I am certain of the game. Thanks for
rolling with us.
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome back in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton Show.
We appreciate all of you hanging out with us. Bill
O'Reilly was great at the top of the last hour.
We are joined now by Andy McCarthy, who is an
expert and helping us to break down the legal shenanigans
and pratfalls that are currently uh I would say sort
(00:27):
of transfixing the nation, particularly as it pertains to Donald Trump.
And Andy McCarthy, of course, former federal prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York, regular Fox News contributor. So, Andy,
I want to start with I think you're with both
Buckin and myself based on past appearances, that you believe
(00:48):
there will be federal charges brought against Trump, So that
I think you agree there. You can shan, you can
tell us if you disagree. But my question for you
is what would the tie frame look like for a
federal criminal trial for Donald Trump? Based on your experience,
How quickly do you think the DC Circuit could get
(01:10):
this the charges brought, could get the trial underway? What
sort of time frame in your mind? Are we looking
at here, Clay.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
You know, I think the one thing that the government,
meaning the Justice Department, always has complete control over is
when to indict. After that, the court really kind of
it depends on the eccentricities of the judge and a
lot of moving parts that exist here that don't exist
(01:40):
in the normal case. For example, you know, Trump is
facing a civil fraud trial in New York in October.
I believe that starts October third. That's the Letitia James,
State Attorney General big fraud case that they were hoping
was going to be a criminal case, but she brought
it as a civil case, and now this New York trial.
(02:03):
I know Trump is trying to get this move to
federal court. I don't think he's going to succeed in that.
The judge there has that that trial goes on March
twenty fifth of twenty twenty four, which by the way,
is two weeks after Super Tuesday. In between, we know
that the state prosecutor Fulton County, Georgia has told the
(02:25):
court to clear its decks for the first two weeks
of August, so presumably she's going to bring her indictments
at that point. So I've always thought that this is
very political. This is a uniquely political Justice department, and
I think they like the havoc that having Trump under
(02:46):
these you know, investigations and charges. I think they liked
the havoc that that's playing in the Republican race.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Sorry, My question, I guess is do you think it's
likely that they could get this trial completely finished before
November of twenty twenty four or do you expect that
Trump through motioning and trying to Let's presume he gets
charged in June or July.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Let's just presume that happens.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Is this something that could get pushed beyond the election,
or are you thinking to yourself, no, They're going to
have a federal trial of Donald Trump before November of
twenty four.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, it really depends on the judge. I mean, I
think there are judges who, depending on how they also
charge this. I mean, I think he's going to charge
it mainly as an obstruction case, which is pretty straightforward.
If I'm wrong about that and it's classified documents in
the forefront of it, then I can see a lot
(03:46):
more motion practice with respect to that, because there's all
kinds of things that come up about you know, whether
he had the right to keep it, whether it actually
was classified, whether it matters whether it was puss. But
I mean, you can see the the number of challenges
there might be. Whereas if the case is as simple
as he got a subpoena that told him to turn
(04:08):
overall documents more classified, and he not only thwarted the subpoena,
he provided the grand jury with a statement that turned
out to be false. That's you know, it depends on
depending on how you charge that. You could charge that
pretty straightforward. And the other thing I think we need
to bear in mind here is we're dealing with a
special counsel. So even if he doesn't indict things, I've
(04:32):
always thought that he'll write a narrative report of some kind,
like for example, I don't think he's going to charge
anything with respect to January sixth, but I do believe
he's going to write a narrative report that lays out
in painful detail all the icky things that will be
laid at Trump's feet with respect to that, and I
expect that to be released probably like in September, before
(04:55):
the election, if Trump is still a candidate at that point.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Andy, it's buck how much of a of a real risk.
Do you think there is here on the obstruction Let's
say they just do obstruction on the federal level. Is
that a pretty easy thing for them to prove? And
you know, how do you see that playing out? Basically,
if he's found guilty, is it they're going they can
(05:19):
pay a fine?
Speaker 1 (05:19):
I mean, what do you think happens?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
I think people will say, Buckett, let's cut to the chase.
If he gets convicted, I think people will say, no,
one's above the law. And you know, they'll argue that
he ought to do some time, depending on what the
sentencing guideline say, what.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
Do you think, like what could what could you do?
Like for obstruction? What could you be looking at? Is
it months?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Yeah, well he's his first offender. It would be a
five year count. The judge probably would take into account that,
you know, at that point that sensitive government secrets were involved.
The Justice Department and the Democrats would push very heavily
for some prison time and he probably gets some.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
So is this crazy?
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Because I just want to you know, for any who's listening,
who's just you know, it's just like, oh my gosh,
is this even crazy to talk about? Or do you
think this is a is this a real thing that
you believe can happen?
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Buck? If you asked me a year ago, is it
too crazy to talk about a guy who's running for president,
who's looking at two trials already scheduled, with a couple
of war down the pike, I would have said, you're nuts,
that that's too crazy to contemplate. Now I've changed. I
think nothing's too crazy to contemplate.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Okay, and so we're not either, So talking about it
makes sense. That's what I want to make sure.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, it's a criminal investigation. And look, this guy is
doing everything that a prosecutor would do to bring criminal charges,
including immunizing the lawyers who provided the statement to the
grand jury, which the Justice Department doesn't just Willy Nelly
immunize people. You give someone immunity because there's somebody more
(07:00):
more important up the chain that you want to go after.
That's the only reason they do it.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Why is this case? I got a caller question. I
sometimes I'll scan through the callers. Why is this case
in DC circuit? Given that the raid happened at mar
A Lago, that the obstruction may well have occurred at
mar A Lago, Why would this not be a Florida
court that would be hearing this as opposed to d C.
It was an interesting question. I'm not an expert in
(07:27):
the procedure. I'm curious your analysis of that.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Because the grand jury is in d C. So the
charge would be that he's obstructing the investigation and obstructing
the grand jury, in particular the grand jury's in the
District of.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Columbia, because that's an advantage that is I think significant.
Our audience understands that the Department of Justice wants this
DC circuit, right, I mean from your perspective if you're
a defense attorney for a Republican president, I mean, what
are we talking about in terms of the jury pool
that they would get.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. They much prefer DC to Florida.
And you've mentioned the d C circuit. They much prefer
the d C circuit than say, the Eleventh Circuit, which
is a more you know, it's a the eleventh circuits
a better mix for Trump than the d C circuit.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
And Andy on.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
The Atlanta prosecution is that, you know, we had our
mutual friend Bill O'Reilly on before he thinks that's super weak,
like no problem for Trump, even if it's brought. What's
what's your assessment.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
I don't. From what I know about the case, I'm
very suspicious of it, and I think, in particular, like,
here's a good reason why I think that this Fanny
Willis was the district attorney, is likely overplaying her hand.
Apparently central to this case is the idea of the
(08:55):
fake electors, the notion that you know, they put together
this group of electors who were who were going to
stand as Trump electors if they were able to pull
off this idea of reversing the result of the election.
But as I understand it, with these electors, they considered
themselves not fake. They considered themselves contingent. And what they
(09:17):
meant by that is if and only if Trump was
able to prevail in court to get the election undone,
or if the state legislature for whatever reason invalidated the
popular vote and substituted its own legislative vote for Trump,
then they would stand ready to assume a legitimate position
(09:41):
as Trump electors, and they would have to be certified
by the state. To me, that's not fake, that's a contingency.
So you know, to the extent they're building the case
on that, I think they're building it on sand Andy.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
We've talked a lot about pardons.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Last week we had Ron DeSantis on and I asked
the Santas, Hey, let's pursue you got elected president. Would
you pardon Donald Trump in the event there are Department
of Justice federal charges brought against you? How important do
you think? Purely from a president perspective, both Trump and
other Republican candidates addressing these potential charges might make sense.
(10:19):
And also Trump could, if he were elected president in November,
pardon himself, right. I don't believe we've ever seen a
situation like that. Just from a legal perspective, the president
would have the ability. Let's say a Trump got re
elected to pardon himself as soon as he took the
oath of office in January, right, So I mean we
(10:41):
could and this is crazy, but I mean we could
have a situation where Trump is facing time in prison
and he gets sworn in in January, Andy, and he
completely pardons himself from all federal charges. Right, Like that
could be. And then I'm laying out a hypothetical here
for you. Do you see any way that Biden follows
(11:02):
the Gerald Ford president as it pertained to Nixon, and
even though it's an opposing party, might decide to pardon
himself because it's politically advantageous. Just kind of analyze the
pardon situation in general for.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Us, Well, there's no limitations on the pardon power in
terms of who can be pardoned. So there's nothing in
the constitution that says the president can't pardon himself. I
know that people push back and say, there's a you know,
there's an ancient Anglo American legal doctrine that you know,
you can't be the judge in your own cause. But
(11:37):
I think the pushback on that is that there's nothing
in the Constitution that says that with respect to the
pardon power. So the only limitations on the pardon power
is it has to be a crime that's already been committed.
That is, you can't give somebody a prospective get out
of jail free card, and it only applies to federal offenses. So,
for example, Steve Bannon is now facing trial well in
(12:00):
New York State, in fact, from Alvin Bragg in Manhattan
in September, based on the charge that that Trump pardoned
him for. Because there's a New York State analog and
the pardon doesn't doesn't affect the state prosecution. So with
that in mind, I think, you know, could Trump if
(12:22):
he got in pardon himself. I guess he could could Biden,
you know in theory. Yes, I wouldn't expect those things
to happen if I were and if I were distant.
Is there any other candidate? The way I would try
to navigate this question, which is a which is a
difficult one, would be to simply say one of the
(12:43):
guidelines the Justice Department follows is that somebody who you
pardon has to seek the pardon. In other words, the
idea is that the person asks for a pardon because
the person's important. So if I were dissent, is there
anyone else? I'd say, I'd have to table that until
we see what President Trump's position is. Is he asking
(13:04):
for apart?
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Good point?
Speaker 4 (13:06):
And you know this is why it's why we put
out the Andy bat signal here that makes sense of
a whole range of these things before. But before we
let you go, Andy, Uh, just a very broadle It's
not usually the end. Usually you get a question from
Clay about baseball here, but I'm gonna throw at you
on is the is the rule of law in trouble
(13:26):
in a way that you haven't seen since you were
twenty three years in the Southern District as a federal prosecutor.
Do you do you feel worried about what's going on
here with the weaponization of law over politics.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yes, I think that the people don't. I think grasp
how important it is to the to the public legitimacy
of the law, that the public accepts that that the
law is even handed. And if the public comes to
believe that we actually do have two tiers of justice,
(13:57):
and the quality of justice a person gets to his
or her political affiliation, then you're asking for lawlessness because
you don't have a legitimate legal system. You just have
a you know, a political hack system. And if we
lose the rule of law, we can't have a flourishing society.
So I think we make a real mistake if we
(14:19):
take for granted that like the rule of laws are
then will always be here because a lot of it
depends on public perception, fairness and due process, and I
think we're very cavalier about that.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
Andy McCarthy, everybody, Andy, We're gonna be talking to you more.
Thanks for making the time for us today.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
All right, guys, have a great day.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
I also want to express my thanks to those of
you who joined me for an exclusive interview recently with
an extraordinary stock market analyst by the name of well
Mason Sexton. He happens to be my dad. Interview was
online and video form, and Mason told us all about
the great disruption of twenty twenty three. If you missed it,
you can still catch the replay now at Disruption twenty
twenty three dot com. Mason, my Dad, receive worldwide attention
(15:00):
for his uncanny prediction of the nineteen eighty seven stock
market crash and then went on to make many other
incredibly accurate and timely market calls. Now he's making his
first major prediction in thirty years about something he sees
coming that is truly terrifying for America over the next
three years, which should set off within a matter of weeks.
And this interview Mason reveals the controversial, strange secret that
(15:22):
has allowed him to make some of the biggest calls
in market history. The interview is still up online, but
it won't be there forever, so take advantage now give
it a watch. You can watch our conversation about the
great disruption at Disruption twenty twenty three dot com. That's
disruption twenty twenty three dot com.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Inspiring you to seek out the truth the Clay Travis said,
Buck Sexton show Rinson back and.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Forth recently with whether Twitter is really the free speech
platform free speech within the confines of the law that
many had been hoping for. Elon Musk, waiting on that today,
said that yes, it is the case, despite some consternation
of whether the Matt Walsh Deey Wire movie What Is
a Woman?
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Will be shown? But I thought this was kind of.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
A worthwhile point to make, Clay, because we see this
over and over again, is that the left has no
sense of humor, like nothing is allowed to be funny anymore.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
That continues on. They hate parody.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
They hate, for example, of the Babylon b because it
makes jokes from a conservative perspective. Here's Elon talking about
how people on the left no sense of humor Play
twenty three.
Speaker 5 (16:32):
The essence of a lot of comedy is a revealed truth,
like a hidden truth that people understand intuitively or explicitly,
and there's that sort of moment of revealed, you know,
kernel of truth of often unacknowledged truth. And in that
unacknowledged truth is the humor. If you're premised don't a lie,
(16:54):
you can no longer be funny because there's no revealed truth.
You know, a lot of people on the left have
no sense of humor. Enough funny And if if there,
if there's so many no fly zones, you know that
you have to you have to avoid all the time,
then something left to make.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Fun about.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
Yeah, And and misery is a close companion for authoritarianism
and viciousness.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
So there you go. Authoritarians typically do not have great
senses of humor.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
The North North Korea not not the home of a
lot of great stand uff.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
These days, which is why this is part of my
new book book.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
I spend a decent amount of time arguing Republicans should
be the party of jokes. Now, sometimes that means that
you and your party might be the butt of jokes.
But it's amazing to me the degree to which the
left now wants to censure comedy. And it's incredible that
Republicans have an opportunity to be the party that likes
(17:51):
to laugh. I would have never believed that this is possible,
but Evlon Musk is getting at that kernel of truth
there and his sit down with Seth Dylan and the
Babylon b come making a big difference out there right now.
Is Innovation Refunds. They were early on in figuring out
the IRS tax refund program called the Employee Retention Credit.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
That's the ERC.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Their website, Get Refunds dot Com is how you get
started working on all of these returns. In fact, Innovation
Refunds already completed over seventeen thousand returns for all different
sorts of businesses like yours, including construction, retail, restaurant, bar, hotel,
so many more. Government data experts estimate eighty six percent
of small businesses were eligible to receive an ERC tax credit.
(18:33):
Challenge cutting through the red tape to get you your money,
that's what getrefunds dot Com does. It takes about ten
minutes and you can be well on your way to
getting up to twenty six thousand dollars per employee. Innovation
Refunds already help clients claim over five billion dollars in
payroll tax refunds. You can get started today no cost,
Get refunds dot Com, download the getrefunds dot Com app.
(18:57):
What a buck in Klay Travis bucksexon show. All of
you are having fantastic Thursdays. We roll towards the end
of the week and the first day of June. We've
been talking a lot about the peril that Trump may
find himself in from a legal perspective, and if you're
just getting in your car, Andy McCarthy is phenomenal. I
(19:19):
don't know that anybody breaks down legal issues anywhere in
media better than he does, and we try to have
him on the show to answer as many of these
questions as we can, because so much of what's going
on is unprecedented as it pertains to what the Department
of Justice is trying to do Donald Trump. But it's
important to note this, there are a lot of great
(19:42):
Republican candidates out there running for president, Tim Scott, Vivik Ramaswami,
we know next week Mike Pence and Chris Christy are
going to run. It's a pretty deep bench and I'm
not trying to leave anybody out right. There's a lot
of people that are running now for the Republican nomination,
and it's important to note this. While Trump has been
(20:03):
the target basically since he came down the escalator, in
Trump Tower back in twenty fifteen. They're going to try
and tar and feather whoever the Republican is that starts
to surge in the polls, or if it's someone other
than Trump ends up being the nominee.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
A lot.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Like I said, very deep bench, lots of good talent
out there, especially if you compare it to who's running
on the Democrat side. Reason why I bring that up.
You are starting to hear and we told you this
would happen as DeSantis is the top rival of Trump
right now. They are already getting their talking points ready.
Trump was Hitler. That's what they said, That's how they acted.
(20:44):
Now they are arguing, you know, actually, DeSantis, he might
even be a more dangerous version of Trump.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
This is where the talking point he might be more
Hitler than Hitler. How is that possible? It's tough. I
don't even know.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
When you say that someone is basically the devil, it's
hard to argue that somebody else is actually worse than
the devil. But this cut, We've had it held over
for a couple of days, been meaning to play it
because I think it's representative of what they will try
to do in terms of tarring and feathering. Whoever did
(21:19):
the Republican nominee is. Remember they turned Mitt Romney into
maybe the most blandly, inoffensive politician in any of our lives.
As you said, Ned Flanders is the perfect example for
those a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
He's rich, Ned Flanders, rich Ned Flanders.
Speaker 4 (21:35):
But remember he was giving people cancer while abusing dogs
and bullying kids in high school, while he was keeping
women tiny versions of them inside of binders.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
These were the attacks. Handing out cancer.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Yeah, abusing dogs, shaving heads of kids in high school.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
He didn't like or whatever, like just lunacy.
Speaker 4 (21:55):
I mean it was lunacy and that was we know
Mitt Romney was from the Democrat perspect Yeah, that's about
as good a Republican as you're going to get in
terms of not, you know, not being the fighter who's
going to go to the mat for conservative values on
a whole range of issues.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So here is this audio. I just want to play
it for you because we're telling you what their game
plan is going to be before they even really fully
deploy it.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Here they are on MSNBC.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
This is less Sunday that saying Ron de Santis, he's
actually way more dangerous than Donald Trump.
Speaker 6 (22:29):
I say this with conviction. I think Rond de Santis
is far more dangerous than Donald Trump for a very
specific reason. Donald Trump is willing to ignore the rules,
ignore the Constitution, and frankly lead to the incitement of
January sixth. But Donald Trump is a transactional figure. He'll
do whatever it takes to win. Ron De Santis, I believe, actually,
in his ethos, is a cultural warrior who wants to
(22:50):
take us back one hundred years and believes he can
use the Constitution to that in and ultimately has a
very dark vision of what America will be. So the
idea of pardoning January sixth convicts, if you will, at
this point, is because he believes we are engaged in
a real war that he has to win now.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
So they're referring to that answer he gave on our
show there. I didn't even know that part of it,
but Buck, I mean, we've said this is coming here
you go. DeSantis is worse than Hitler too.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
And I want to be clear.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
If let's say vivek Ramaswami were to get a lot
of a lot of play all of a sudden in
the polls, right, Let's say Nikki Haley. You know, Senator Scott,
I don't know if anyone's still thinking about whether young
Kin might throw in or not.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
But it doesn't matter any of them.
Speaker 4 (23:40):
Yeah, you will start to see just to prepare the
Democrat base whoever opposes Joe Biden. And I gotta say
I was surprised Bill saying still to this day that
Biden is not I give him credit for sticking by
his guns, Bill O. Riiley, but saying that Joe Biden
may may not be the nominee, not again as a
health issue. That doesn't that could happen. Anybody that like
(24:03):
the Democrat convention, they can try to pull something that's
I would give somebody and I always do this wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Is it one to ten Vegas odds on that one?
Is that right? Meaning? I think it's almost not no way.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
That you would give them ten to one odds one
to one, it would mean you think it's going to happen.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
Yes, I think so ten to one that that there's
no way Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Isn't going to be the nominee. I'm getting into some double.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Negatives here, but anyway, the other side of this is
on the Republican with the Republican slate.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
I think we should all be very clear.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
They're going to do the politics of personal destruction against
whoever it is that they view as a challenge. They
do it at the Senate level too, and at any
competitive race. This is what you can expect from them,
and they're certainly going to do it in the Republican
presidential contest or in the primary contest. And I do
think as well. You know, I don't know, I've seen.
(24:58):
I've gotten a couple of notes, and please send us
to your thoughts if you don't call in at Clayandbuck
dot com, uh and become a VIP and tell us
what you think about all this. You know, I don't
understand some of them. Some people see him upset that
we even talk about or that you even asked the
question about the pardoning of Trump. And I'm sitting here
and I'm saying, so, let's just say they were gonna
(25:19):
there's gonna be like an impeachment part three. I know
they can't appeach me. He's not the president right now?
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Do we not?
Speaker 1 (25:24):
Do we not talk about it? Because that's what they
want us to do.
Speaker 4 (25:27):
I mean, I think that it's better to get ahead
of what we think is coming here. And I haven't
heard anyone say they don't think Trump is going to
be indided, So we might as well mentally prepare for
what this is going to be like and try to
come up with strategies so that I mean, the man
not only has the right to speak, as our friends say,
(25:49):
he is the right to speak, he is he has
the right to be an American who campaigns for president
without the crazy shenanigans, without the without the rigging of
the system, the legal system against him, which I think
is what we all see coming. So we're expressing outrage
at what is going on here, and I think it
is a cardinal issue. Now, Andy McCarthy, again, I would
(26:11):
encourage all of you to go listen to the conversation
we had with him at the top of this hour.
He pointed out something that is important. You have to
request a pardon.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
So one way that some of these politicians running for
the presidency on the Republican side could dodge this question
is say, well, that presumes that President Trump were to
ask for a pardon, and he has to make that
choice in the event that he's not the nominee, because
the other option here obviously is Trump could be the nominee,
(26:40):
he could win the twenty twenty four election, and he
could pardon himself on all federal related charges that could happen.
But the reason why I think it's so significant, Buck,
is to me, it goes directly to the heart of
what you believe the American justice system should do. Because
(27:01):
if you legitimately believe that a chief political opponent of
the party in power should be put in prison for
let's be honest, trumped up charges that would never be
brought but for political related reasons, then you are actually
setting an incredibly dangerous president that undermines and potentially destroys
(27:27):
the rule of law in America, because once you put
one political candidate in jail and try to keep him
from being elected president, we are now setting the president
that this is okay in American politics, something that's never
happened in two hundred and fifty years. And we've had duels, Buck,
We've had guy, We've had top political leaders try to
kill each other in feuds, and we've never had the
(27:50):
chief political rival ever put in prison.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
Well, this is why I think the context of the
media already democrat alon media saying that DeSantis or anyone else.
That's why we brought up Romney. It doesn't matter who
it is. They've trained the Democrat base to believe that
Republicans who want power, who are conservatives, I mean, right,
(28:15):
it's not they don't have a big problem with, you know,
people who are willing to toe the line of the Democrats,
but they've trained the Democrat base to think that those
individuals are monsters who should be not just beaten at
the ballot box, but should be subject to criminal prosecution
for their wrong think.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Essentially.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
I mean, this is getting really deep into totalitarian psychology.
And whoever the person is, it's going to be the
same thing, right, And once they established this president, this
is always what we've been saying about, whether it was
the completely frivolous impeachments of Trump that occurred and now
the absurd charges in New York City. They are setting
(28:56):
precedents that will be used and abused going going forward.
So that's why I think it's so it's so important
the American people really understand the full weight of what's
going on here. That's why I asked, ANDYA said, is
the rule of law in trouble? And what does that
mean for our society. Yeah, the debt is really bad,
or it can destroy our economy over the long term.
(29:17):
But in the shorter term, if we have a play,
if we have a country where we now have a
two tier justice system based on your political party, and
everyone really feels that, knows that and that's how it operates,
what kind of country do we really have? And that's
what we're all looking at right now. That's the reality
that we face. That's how critical this is. It's about Trump,
but it's also about more than Trump, way bigger than Trump.
(29:40):
Trump is the vessel right now under which the attack
is occurring, but it's not going to stop with him.
That's the precedent, the danger of it being set. You'd
be amazed how much of your information is online. Sure,
a lot of it is behind companies that you do
business with, and they try to protect it as best
they can. It's that kind of information though, that's cyber
hackers seek, working anonymously behind their keyboards and computer screens.
(30:04):
The cleverest of them succeed, and when they do, they
often sell your information to the highest bidders, who use
it to make illegal purchases, bank account withdrawals, and more,
I'll give you a brand new example revealed in the
past week. A good sized insurance company called Managed Care
of North America suffered a data breach that exposed the
personal information of nearly nine million people. Hackers had access
(30:24):
to the MCNA systems ten days or so earlier this winter.
They got confidential patient information including full names, addresses, birth dates,
driver's license numbers, phone numbers, social security numbers, and also
protected healthcare information. Just think what a cyber thief could
do with that. In the way of identity theft, it's
important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting
(30:46):
our lives. Protecting your identity can be easy with LifeLock
by Norton. This is a company you can rely on
to watch for signs that your information is being used
without your permission. No one can prevent all identity theft
or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy
to help protect yourself with LifeLock. Join now and save
twenty five percent off your first year with my name
(31:06):
buck as the promo code. Call one eight hundred LifeLock
or head to LifeLock dot com and use promo code Buck.
That's promo code b Uck for twenty five percent off.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Heard it on the show here.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
More on the podcast Clay and Buck podcast, Deep Dives.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
More contents, more common sense. Find the guys on the
iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
Closing up shop here on Clay and Buck. So it's
a great time to remind you all to check out
the iHeartRadio app. Please download it.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's free.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
It's a great app all around, allows you to listen
live or on demand.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
To the Clay and Buck Show.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
We also have a bunch of podcasts that we put
into the feed that you could listen to. I've recorded
Clay this week with doctor j Batachario, one of the
great Barenton Declaration authors about COVID, just.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
A full Now that we are where we are, what
do we know.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
That we should have you know, should have known all
along from a brilliant, brilliant MD.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
So.
Speaker 4 (32:09):
Also going to be talking to Young Me Park today
for next week we're going to be taping and she's
the North Korean defector who's she's been making the rounds
talking on different shows.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
About what it was like and she's got a new
book out.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
So anyway, I hope people will go subscribe to the
Clay and Buck podcast stream. Oh and Tutor Dixon of course,
the Tutor Dixon Show appears in there. Tutors doing a
great show. And I just would put in a plug here.
You guys all know how much we love the Talenta
Towers Foundation. I mean, does just such amazing work. Frank
(32:42):
Siller is an incredible guy, the organization he's built, and
they're just really doing the stuff that we talk about.
They're helping families of the fallen in our wars, the
first responders, severely injured veterans. Can't think of a more
worthy cause. And as you know, my wife Carrie is
running on Monday in the Tunnel to the Towers climb
(33:06):
and she's hoping to get to her goal. And she's
part of the Fox News team because she works at Fox.
So if you can go to Clayanbuck dot com and
give one hundred percent of the money goes right to
Tunel the Towers Foundation.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
It's going for the Fox.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
News team that she's part of representing for Tunnel to Towers.
So if you have a chance to donate, go to
Clayanbuck dot com. Because I'll look like a good husband
if she meets the team goal, and it couldn't be
for a worthier cause every dollar goes towards tunnel to towers.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
Frank is amazing and congrats to carry for doing that event.
So if people want to go.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
It's stories.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
By the way, that's a I would she would have
to carry me, which would be embarrassing for me.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
That's a lot of stairs, no doubt. Not only would
she potentially have to carry you.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
I was thinking, man, it feels like you might get
dizzy running, you know, just in basic circles, you know,
up the up, the to the top like that.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
So how many how long?
Speaker 4 (34:02):
How far do you could run right now, flat out
before you're like I'm done?
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Like, how far do you think you can go? Yeah,
one hundred yards? I don't know.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
I think I might get to one hundred and fifty
hundred yards and then I'm pretty much I'd be like
I got to read a book.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
I'd like to think that I could like feel to,
you know, punt or a kick off at the goal
line and just run full sprint all the way to
the other side. But first of all, you don't sprint
very often. I would definitely pull a hamstring or two
as well, which would be bad. You don't want that,
you know, kids, I think you I don't remember the
last time I would have run full speed one hundred yards.
(34:41):
I think the odds and likelihood of an injury would
actually be very very substantial if I if I undertook that.
So I bet you know. We used to do this
buck speaking of charity. Everybody thinks they're fast if you
played sports, and everybody thinks they would have a fast
forty time, which is what the measure and for the
NFL Combine, for instance, because you see like big fat
(35:05):
guys relatively speaking on the field and it seems like
they're moving slow, and so you think to yourself, oh,
I would be faster than that, you know person on
the field. Almost no one can break a five h forty.
We used to do this for charity. People could donate
fifty bucks, come out, try to run. It's true. Speed
(35:25):
is so rare. People have no concept for how fast
real stud athletes actually are. Even if you were fast
on your high school team, you're not very fast.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
Well, this is it's true of ultra elite marathoners as well.
I've been at the finish of the or the last
leg of the New York City Marathon many a number of.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Times over the years.
Speaker 4 (35:45):
Oh yeah, watching, not running. Watching and when you break down,
they're running twenty six miles and they're doing it. What
is it sub five minutes breakdown or something like that.
I think it's like in the high fours. Maybe it's
you know, fine, I can run one mile at sub
six right now, I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
You know, it's tough.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Most most people can't even run one mile as fast
as the marathon's twenty six. Yeah, that's I mean, if
you've ever tried to run like a six minute mile,
it's not easy to do. Those dudes do twenty six
of them in a row of like sub five. So there,
you can not as athletic as you thought. There's your
lesson from the Clay and Buck Show today, So yeah,
(36:27):
please do go.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
If you can donate to the link it's on Clayanbuck
dot com and send us your thoughts here on some
things you want us to hit tomorrow. Love to get
some topic ideas and those you if we didn't hit
it today, vip emails or you can, you know, message
us on Facebook or Twitter, and we're looking forward to
talking to me on Friday, and it's gonna be an
(36:49):
interesting day.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
That much I am certain of the game. Thanks for
rolling with us.
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.