BONUS! Daily Review with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton - Apr 22 2025

Meet our friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton!  If you love Verdict, The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too.

Here’s a sample episode recapping four Tuesday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts: 

 

Biden Coverup

Clay and Buck discuss revelations about President Joe Biden's mental and physical health. The hosts highlight the shift in media narratives, including Jake Tapper's upcoming book and Elizabeth Warren's interview on the Talk Easy podcast, where she defends her previous statements about Biden's acuity. They critique the media's portrayal of Biden during his presidency, comparing it to historical propaganda.  Clay and Buck also delve into the broader implications of Biden's presidency, discussing the role of Jill Biden and the political strategies surrounding Biden's re-election campaign. 

 

David Zweig Blockbuster (@davidzweig)

Interview with investigative journalist David Zweig, who discusses his new book, "An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions." Zweig shares insights into the failures of American public policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on the detrimental impact of prolonged school closures. He highlights the lack of scientific evidence supporting these closures and the political pressures that influenced decisions, including the role of teachers' unions.

The hosts and Zweig delve into the revisionist history surrounding the pandemic response, emphasizing the importance of demanding evidence-based policies. Zweig recounts his experiences with silent dissent among medical professionals and the challenges he faced in reporting the truth. He hopes his book will serve as a corrective to the narrative and arm readers with the knowledge to recognize and challenge misinformation in future crises.

Clay and Buck also discuss the broader implications of the pandemic on public trust in institutions, with Zweig expressing his disillusionment with the legacy media and the left establishment. He shares how his worldview has been fundamentally altered by the events of the pandemic and the dishonesty he encountered.

 

Harvard vs. Trump

The legal dispute between Harvard University and the Trump administration over the withholding of billions in taxpayer dollars. The hosts critique the extensive federal funding of universities and question the necessity of such subsidies, especially given the ideological biases and discriminatory practices at institutions like Harvard.

The discussion includes the ethical concerns surrounding NPR's government funding and its role as a competitor in the media landscape. Clay and Buck argue for the elimination of taxpayer subsidies to NPR, highlighting the unfair advantage it provides in the marketplace.

 

TX Rep. Chip Roy (@RepChipRoy)

Interview with Rep. Chip Roy of Texas on SCOTUS blocking Trump deportations and the Democrats traveling to El Salvador and their defense of Abrego Garcia. He criticizes the Democrats for prioritizing non-citizens over American victims of crime committed by illegal immigrants. Roy emphasizes the need for significant authority for the president to remove individuals who were wrongfully allowed into the United States. He also discusses the broader implications of the Democrats' stance on immigra

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in Tuesday edition Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate
all of you out there listening and hanging out with us.
We have got a bevy of stories to dive in
with all of you today. Congressman Chip Roy, great State
of Texas will join us at one thirty Eastern time.
David's wife, who I would say Buck of the left

(00:25):
leaning media, may have been the most honest person in
the way that he covered COVID for New York Magazine
if I remember correctly back.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
In the day.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
And he's got a book out that is just savaging
the decision to shut down schools that he wrote about
for some time, masking all of the chaos that came
out of COVID, and I think we will enjoy that
conversation with him, and I hope that his book, which
is designed to be an early version of the historical

(00:57):
record of what we went through with COVID, will become
a clarion call for those who are pursuing truth going
forward on the historic record, because one thing you and
I've been talking about for years now is not only
we knew you and I early on that much of
the COVID failures were inexcusable.

Speaker 2 (01:17):
But what is the.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
Lesson that will be drawn in the decades ahead for
people who are studying this era of history. And I
hope we are starting to get some of that truth
out into the public record. As you know, you read
the book, the Great Influenza Book that everybody suddenly started
buying up during COVID, and much of the way that

(01:42):
we responded to the influenza epidemic the Spanish flu back
in the nineteen nineteen ish era, unfortunately, was reflected one
hundred years later. And one of the things that you saw, Buck,
and we'll dive into this a little bit later with
David Zwaig, but just off the top here, one of
the things that you saw was people just didn't want
to talk about it. They just kind of put it

(02:04):
in the background and pretended that it hadn't happened at all. Now,
that was much more traumatic in general, because the percentage
of people who died was higher. The people who died
from the Spanish flu tended to be much younger, whereas
the people who had COVID issues in this country thankfully
tended to be on the older end of the spectrum.

(02:24):
I say thankfully because you didn't have otherwise fully healthy
people dropping who otherwise would have had decades of life. Thankfully,
COVID did not have hardly any impact at all on
the young. Because if you had reversed this and COVID
had had the same impact on the super young that
it did on the age, I think the way that
America and the world responded would have been very different.

(02:46):
But this book that he is writing, I've got a
copy of it in my house and I've already started
to read it a little bit, is I think, an
important historic record.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
So we will talk with him at two. Speaking of
important historic records, all of the books are now being
written that we told you would be written in the
wake of the twenty twenty four election having to do
with Joe Biden, and the mental and physical lies about
him being at the peak of his abilities are now

(03:16):
being exposed. You can go back in time. We told
you they would try to protect him as long as
they could. They would argue that he was sharp as attack.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Now even Jake Tapper, who tried to argue that any
attacks on Joe Biden for his mental and physical health
were cheap fakes. Now even he has written a book
that is going to be out I think in the
next couple of weeks, and even the left leaning media
are now holding their politician's feet to the fire when

(03:47):
they do interviews. This interview that I want to play
for you guys is of Elizabeth Warren. Buck does a
very good Elizabeth Warren impersonation, if I must say so myself.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
They this is Uh.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
I want to make sure that I give credit because
I got an email from these guys saying, hey, we're
an independent podcast and can you if you're going to
share this. This is on the Talk Easy podcast. This
is Sam Gregoso interviewing Elizabeth Warren and they have this
exchange about Joe Biden's Did I mispronounce that? Did you say,

(04:23):
greg I think it's Fredoso right the way I have
it written here is Grugoso. But it's possible our team
changed the got the name wrong. But Fragoso or grug Goso. No, it' scrugoso.

Speaker 2 (04:36):
You're right. I should just shut my face keep going.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
This is this is the podcast that it's from. I
just wanted to give them credit. Elizabeth Warren being held
accountable for her lies and listen to how she responds
to the questions about Joe Biden's physical and mental wellbeing.
This is cut one.

Speaker 4 (04:55):
Do you regret saying that President Biden had a mental acuity,
he had a sharpness to him. You said that up
until July of last year, I said what I believed
to be true, And you think he was as sharp
as you.

Speaker 3 (05:09):
I said, I had not seen decline, and I hadn't
at that point.

Speaker 4 (05:14):
You did not see any decline from twenty twenty four
Joe Biden to twenty twenty one Joe Biden.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
Oh, when I said that, you know the thing is
he Look, he was sharp. He was on his feet.
I saw him live event. I had meetings with him
a couple of times.

Speaker 4 (05:32):
Senator on his feet is not praise. He can speak
in sentences is not praise.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
Fair enough, fair enough.

Speaker 2 (05:43):
What you have to remember here is that was he
an out and out vegetable.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
No, he was not.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
He was able to open his eyes and blink. And
I did not see an S O S coming from
him him and so Clay I saw one of his
feet is an all timeline. He was able to stand
is an unbelievable dess. This is like the conversation you

(06:13):
would have about somebody who was declining and like changed
their will in the last days. Were they of sound
mind or not? Well, he was on his feet.

Speaker 6 (06:24):
We're talking about the president of the United States, the commander.

Speaker 2 (06:29):
In chief, and she is saying, essentially, he wasn't a
full blown vegetable. So don't blame me. I just kept
going with the rest of the crowd here. She's not alone.
All the rest of them did this too. And I
think that more than anything, what happened here, Clay, was

(06:51):
that the anti Trump media became so it was like
a river that could only flow in one direction, and
nobody was ever Nobody was ever told what you're saying
is too crazy, and I mean nobody at MSNBC, nobody
in the Democrat Party, New York Times, New York Times,
Washington Post. Whatever you said about Trump, he's Hitler. He's

(07:15):
worse than Hitler. He's a monster. Whatever it was was
actually supported by the infrastructure of the Democrat Party. The
apparatus was cheering for it, so all corrective mechanisms were gone.
And so when you have that, you can have a
situation like exactly what transpired, where they just knew there's

(07:38):
no upside to speaking the truth about Biden. Anything that
is going to go against Trump is incentivized within our
own ecosystem, and so they all just had their marching
orders as crazy as I was going to say, like Lemmings,
But as you will see in my new book, which
has finally been cleared by the CIA, Lemmings don't commit

(07:59):
mass suicide everybody. That's a crazy story. But there's other
things that you talk about in the book that you
will like as well. Yes, Clay, this was something that
they now have to take some degree of accountability for
when there's really no pain politically for them, because they
can't move on without addressing it at some level, because

(08:20):
people like you and me able just keep on dunking
them under the water on this as we should.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
You know, I thought it was interesting too. I saw
a graphic I think it was from Axios this morning
that the coverage of misinformation and disinformation has basically ended
on CNN and on MSNBC. They're not trotting out their
fact checkers anymore. I would submit to.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
You, Buck that the Joe Biden cover up ended the
misinformation and disinformation era. Now, Trump winning obviously had a
substantial impact on that as well, but when the entire
left wing media, legacy media wind up together. And I

(09:06):
think you're right that maybe the most devastating single statement
that anybody made was Joe Scarborough basically lighting his entire
career on fire when he said this was the best
version of Biden. His show hasn't recovered and those networks
haven't recovered from this. So here's the thing, Elizabeth Warren
is trying to rewrite history in real time here in

(09:28):
this way. It's not clay that they said. The narrative
at the time go back to exactly what you brought
up with Joe Scarborough. The narrative at the time wasn't
Biden isn't as bad as they say. He's semi coherent
and maybe we can push him across the finish line
and then have VP Comma a takeover. That would have

(09:51):
been somewhat disingenuous, or you know, that would have been dishonest,
But on a scale of one to ten, dishonesty level
six or seven, they went to dishonesty level eleven, which
was Biden is the best he has ever been. Biden
is in fact the sharpest version he has ever been,

(10:13):
which just goes to show the desperation and the lie.
You know that that's what it really was. It wouldn't
be enough to try to just soft pedal it and say, look,
he's lost his fastball, but you know, I think he
can still get a dumb That's not what they were saying.
There's like Biden's fine, how dare you bring anything up?
It was Stalinism level propaganda. It was this guy. It's

(10:36):
like Kim Jong ill and on and Kim Il Sung
who can all hit holes in one every time they
play golf. You know, it was that level madness. Let me,
by the way, you were correct, It is Sam Forgoso.
Oh oh, look at the buckster. He thought, you know
he's got a sharp ear.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
I'm just trying to help so our staff, who I'm
immediately gonna throw under the bus. I wouldn't they write it.
They wrote it as Sam Grugoso. But is Sam Fragoso
who had that interview? And I do give him credit
because anyone who said that Biden was able to serve
as president in a fully honest media they should have

(11:16):
to answer for that. They should have to explain why
they said that, and not only the not only politicians.
Have you ever heard Joe Scarborough be asked or pushed
in any way on that viral clip where he argued
that this was the best version of Biden that had
ever existed, had held Helm accountable.

Speaker 2 (11:38):
To be fair, I think that he is just trying
to ride out things and wait and wait so that
by the time anyone asks him about like I don't
think he's putting himself in a position where even Elizabeth Warren,
because she's not as bad based on the soundbites with
this as some of the others, she's trying to take
the medicine. Now. I think scar Barborough knows that it's

(12:01):
it's brand annihilation that he faces if the wrong person
gets him on the hot seat and asks him this question.
You can't come back from that. Why should someone listen
to Joe Scarborough about anything? If he's that dumb or
that dishonest, Why would you care what he thinks about
a single thing and exists. I don't want to. I
don't care what ice cream flavor he thinks is best.

(12:24):
Yours answers Pistacio, which is, by the way, maybe even
worse than Joe Scarborough's answer would be to be fair,
you see pistascio lovers get from Clay and just flute
playing ways outrageous.

Speaker 1 (12:36):
We'll take some of your calls on this. I do
think that these conversations that we're gonna have with David
Swig are important. And if you are out there and
you argued that this was the best version of Biden,
the two by four is coming for you because these
books are coming out and everyone in the legacy media
is trying to cover their backsides on this, and so

(12:57):
they're now covering the release of books in every little detail.
For instance, I'm reading that Biden was supposed to do
his prep work from Camp David and he got too
tired and he just went outside by the pool and
fell asleep, which but remember they were telling everybody his
prep has been amazing, and then they tried to say, well,

(13:19):
he has a little bit of a cold after the
debate performance. Imagine you're trying to prepare the president for
debate and he's like, I'm tired, and he just goes
outside by the pool and falls asleep. That's a story
that's out there right now.

Speaker 2 (13:33):
You know, there's a movie, The Death of Stalin that's
actually pretty clever for what it is, and it's it's
a farce, right, but it's what does everyone do when
Stalin dies around him? The Fall of Biden movie that
you could make where you basically go weekend at Bernie's.
I mean, you just it would be if if anyone
in Hollywood wanted to take this idea, it would be

(13:55):
utterly hilarious and I think everybody would want to go
see it, and you could base it off of the
real stories here.

Speaker 1 (14:02):
By the way, I will say, as we go to break,
imagine what Jill Biden saw. Imagine what the wife of
the president, the first lady, what she saw. I still
think she is maybe the biggest villain here because she
was willing to drag his basic corpse right across the
finish line so she could keep living in the White House.

Speaker 2 (14:24):
I mean she is. I imagine I have a I
want to just because I feel like fighting with Clay today.
I have a very different take on Jill Biden that
I would like to share when we come back. I
have a very different take than you on this. I
do not expect she is to me the worst villain here.
Buck thinks she's a hero. We'll talk about him. We No, no, no,
that's not the take, you naughty man. We'll come back, though.

Speaker 1 (14:48):
In the meantime, President Trump isn't the only person that
says Obamacare sucks. A lot of you out there feel
that way, And if you're stuck with Obamacare, otherwise known
as the Affordable Care Act, you can replace your over
price plan with Ease for Everyone, the only group plan
any adult in the US is eligible to join. Monthly
cost as low as two hundred and sixty two bucks,

(15:09):
you get free unlimited prescriptions, ninety three percent of all
drugs covered available at no extra cost, including insulin, huge
savings on brand names, free unlimited virtual primary care, urgent care.
With just a thirty dollars copay, you get generous cash
back reimbursements, doctor office, visits, emergency room, visits, ambulance, transportation.

(15:31):
Compare Ease for Everyone to Obamacare. It's a no brainer.
Get affordable healthcare for as low as two hundred and
sixty two bucks a month. Today visit Ease for Everyone
dot com slash clay. That's Ease for Everyone dot com
Forward slash clay. You can also find the info on
our sponsors page. Again, Ease for Everyone dot com slash

(15:54):
clay paid for by Affordable Benefit Choices.

Speaker 7 (15:58):
Saving America one thought at a time. Clay Travis and
Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (16:09):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. Rolling through the Tuesday
edition of the program, and we are joined now by
David Zwig, investigative journalist and author. He's got a brand
new book. I think you guys are gonna love it.
I've already started to check it out. We got it
at the home. Buck is holding it up right now.
An abundance of caution, American schools, the virus, and a

(16:33):
story of bad decisions. David, thanks for joining us in
our New York City studio. I know we've had you
on before, and I think it's fair to say that
a lot of your reporting was not necessarily well received
by people on the left, and that you are not
some far right wing conspiracy conspiracy theorist. You just did

(16:55):
something wild. You looked at the data, and you were
willing to write about what the data showed, and you
were as Buck and I have both been profoundly angered
and still angry over the failures of American public policy
as it pertains to COVID. What pushed you to write
this book and what do you hope that people take from.

Speaker 6 (17:15):
It's it's a very good assessment. Yeah, in the beginning,
very early on, it seemed reasonable to me. I wasn't
knowledgeable about what was happening. I live right outside New
York City. Okay, the schools are closed, everything shut down.
But very quickly after that, I watched my kids just

(17:35):
wilting away in the kind of the gray light of
their chromebooks, sitting alone in their bedrooms, and I was like,
this isn't going to work for a long period of
time like this, this is how can this be? And
and from there I just started kind of researching and
digging in. I was in the middle of writing a
book and a totally different topic at the time, but

(17:56):
this was just so crazy what was happening. I wanted
to learn more about what was going on, and very
quickly I started to speak with experts in Europe and elsewhere,
because you couldn't speak to them in the United States.
And it was very obvious that there was no reason
for the schools to remain closed. And that kind of

(18:17):
set me off on this path. And as you noted
this very much was what was termed a contrarian view
against the establishment, and it was certainly a challenging position
for me writing for mainstream publications to get my reporting
in there. But I pulled it off, and I think

(18:40):
people kind of perceived me. I think it's true as
basically the only guy who's really able to do that,
to write a number of pieces. They were all backed
by evidence showing why the establishment view was so wrong.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
David, you said something I want to return to if
I can. You said that there was no reason for
the schools to be closed. There was no medical reason
for the schools to be closed. But I am sure
in the course of your research you found a whole
slew of non medical reasons or rationales or horse trading

(19:16):
that led to the continuation of public school closures. While
you know, I grew up in New York City, so
I know that system pretty well. Went to you know,
went to Catholic school there. There's private schools, parochial schools,
public schools. Parochial and private were open for business in
that in that fall after the initial pandemic, and yet
public schools were remote. Why Yeah, I mean, one of

(19:39):
the things that's so remarkable, and it's it's almost astonishing
that this actually happened in real time, and it's kind
of one of the mean reasons of why I wrote
this book was to make sure that what happened isn't
just memory hold and the idea.

Speaker 6 (19:55):
As you noted, kids were in school, in private schools,
They were in school in red districts and in you know,
red states, while at the same time, a kid could
be down the block in public school and he was
kept home while his best friend you know, in a
different area or went to private school, was in school
every day. So the irony to me is that on

(20:17):
the left, which traditionally perceives itself as being that the
heroes of the underprivileged in our society, they championed the
rules and the guidelines and the policies that actually harmed
underprivileged kids the most. And it's like one of the
most tragic ironies of the pandemic to me that this

(20:39):
was the result that you had people vigorously It wasn't
just advocating, but as you know, anyone who disagreed was
immediately vilified. You were some right wing crank, You are
a piece of garbage. If you disagreed with them.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
Well, I mean, I am a right wing crank, so
I can imagine what would be like for you being.

Speaker 6 (20:55):
Yeah, it was a turncoat. Yeah, I was ben a
dic darnold here I was. I was you know, immediately
cast us. I was called a murderer. You know, how
could you do this? One of the things that's so
important that and this is kind of like the original
sin that I talk about in the book. At the
end of April, in the beginning of May, in twenty twenty,

(21:15):
schools began to open in Europe. And it's not just
like some little school in Tibet somewhere with twelve kids.
We're talking about millions of kids. We're back in school.
And the European Union, the education ministers met in May
and at that meeting they said, we have observed no

(21:36):
negative consequences of opening our schools. They met a second
time in June they had the same determination. No one
reported this. I ultimately reported it myself in June. But
this is kind of an astonishing thing. This wasn't, you know,
a random blog, This wasn't an obscure medical journal. This
is the European Union and their official announce regarding opening

(22:01):
schools where millions of kids were in There was there
was no negative consequence, and as far as I'm aware,
no one in the US media reported on this meeting
that sort of set things on the course, you know,
where we were just kind of never to come back
from that.

Speaker 2 (22:18):
Okay, So I want that's an important point.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
I want you to expound upon something that happened that
a lot of people have forgotten in June of twenty twenty.
And I may get the official name wrong, but it
was like the American Association of Pediatricians or something like
that said schools needed to open back up and we
could do it safely.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
That was a big story in June.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
And then Randy Winegarden and the American Federation of Teachers
somehow kind of got into their universe and they ended
up you probably, I'm sure it's in the book it is.
They ended up reversing their guidance. What do you think
now when you see Randy Winegarden going around on show saying, oh,
I never said that I wanted schools to be shut down.

(23:04):
What does the evidence show us and how important was
it from a science perspective for those pediatricians? And I
remember their argument being David correg me if I'm wrong
that while the virus wasn't going to go away, kids
had far more to gain by being in school than
they did to fear from the virus. That was June
of twenty twenty. And then they completely reversed themselves under
political pressure.

Speaker 6 (23:25):
So what happened was the American Academy of Pediatrics put
out a guidance that was unambiguous. It said, we've got
to get kids in school. Don't even worry about six
feet of distancing. If you can do it, great, but
if you can't, don't worry. Just three feet is fine, whatever,
just get the kids in the building. Shortly thereafter, Donald
Trump tweeted we must open schools in the fall, all

(23:46):
caps with a bunch of exclamation points. Within days, the
American Academy of Pediatrics put out a new statement. Gone
was any mention of don't worry about distancing. Gone was
the idea of get kids in school no matter what,
And instead they mentioned money. It's really important for a
lot of money to flow to schools. And then the
second important thing about that revised statement was who authored it,

(24:10):
And it wasn't just the American Academy of Pediatrics. It
was co authored with the two largest teachers unions in
the country.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
It was so.

Speaker 6 (24:17):
Stark what happened that even NPR reported on this. But
I got to tell you, this is part of a
larger thing. And I talk about this a lot in
the book, where I show this behind the scenes thing
that was going on. So as I started writing these
articles challenging the sort of dogma and the establishment view,
people started reaching out to me from around the country parents,
regular people, but also a lot of doctors. And these

(24:39):
are doctors, not just some suburban pediatrician, but people who
are at elite institutions, are top university hospitals in the country.
And they were saying, hey, thank you so much for
writing this. I just want you to know I think
it's terrible what's happening with kids. I think these policies
for keeping schools closed and these mask mandates, there isn't
good evidence behind this. Schools are open in Europe, all

(25:01):
these things. And they said, but all this has to
be off the record because they were afraid to be
cast out by their peers, or in many instances they
were explicitly told. And I have examples of this in
the book, they were explicitly told by their superiors, by
the administrators at their hospitals, do not say anything about this.
So I had this bizarre experience where I'm observing this

(25:23):
narrative that's going on in the culture, this sort of
manufactured consensus that wasn't real. And I had this very lonely,
strange experience where I'm getting all these text messages and
emails and I'm talking with all these doctors who are
disagreeing with this, but the dissent was silent. I wasn't
allowed to talk about it, and they were too afraid
or weren't allowed to speak about it themselves. So my

(25:46):
book gives what I hope is this deep, behind the
scenes account of what actually happened during the pandemic, not
the narrative that we were all fed. And I'm hoping
that when people finish reading this that they're going to
be armed with enough information so they can actually understand
and see how the gears turn within the legacy media

(26:07):
and how they turned where they were working in conjunction
with different institutions of power. So it's not just for
a pandemic, but for when any other crisis happens. That
your listeners and they're like, oh, I read about that
in Swig's book. I see exactly what's happening now.

Speaker 2 (26:22):
We're speaking to David's way. The book is an abundance
of caution. I have my copy in my hands here.
American Schools, the virus, and a story of bad decisions.
One of reason we want to have you on, David
is we like to reward people who were right when
it mattered and did good work when it mattered on
this issue. So congrats on the book, and we hope
people will we'll pick up a copy because I think
it's very important.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
Right.

Speaker 2 (26:43):
It's a lot easier for people to jump on the
bandwagon now, but we know that you were early on
this and you got heat to that end. Just one
that Clay might have a question for you in closing.
I don't know if you're a sports fan, you like
the SEC or anything, but that's always a possibility here
at the end too. But if you were to walk
around right now, you know, sort of tell us what

(27:03):
it's like on the other side of it, because they'll
still talk to you. They won't talk to us that much.
Some of them listen to the show because it is
so entertaining. But generally speaking, we have a center to
write audience. If you walked around Park Slope or you
walked around I don't know, you know Santa Monica, and
just talk to people who watch I don't know CNN
read the New York Times at the LA Times and said, hey, guys,

(27:26):
the next time around, we're all we're all clear that
we don't shut down the schools for this, right? Are
they clear on that?

Speaker 6 (27:33):
I think there's been a softening, So I think that's
the good news. The bad news is is that there
is this revisionist history. There's this narrative that they've been pushing,
which is in the beginning, it was we have to
close schools, we have to do all this stuff. Eventually,
when it was so obvious that that wasn't beneficial, it
was so obvious this was only causing harm, then they shifted.
Then the narrative was, well, this is regrettable, but it

(27:56):
was an understandable thing.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
This was a fog of war decision. It was case.

Speaker 6 (28:00):
We did the best we could. And what I show
in the book over and over is that information was
known in real time, and that example about the European
Union is just one of many. They knew what was happening,
it was ignored or it was dismissed. So when you
asked me that question, my fear is that when the
next crisis happens and it doesn't have to be a pandemic,

(28:21):
that once again there's this excuse of we're building the
plane as we fly it.

Speaker 8 (28:26):
We don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
Sorry, we're doing the.

Speaker 6 (28:27):
Best we can. Don't accept it. It's not true. Demand evidence,
And that's what my book is about at its core,
is you can't say stuff without providing evidence and over
and over, and I cite these long examples in the
New York Times and all these other media outlets. They
kept quoting all these experts saying things, but they didn't
provide any evidence. They never challenged them. Journalists shirked their

(28:51):
core duty, which was to actually question the statements by
those in power. So I'm hoping my book will act
as a counter as a corrective, as this is an
actual real history of what happened, and it works as
its own guidebook to help arm people to understand how
the gears turned behind the scenes, so we can try
to prevent something like this from happening again.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
Last question, you came from the left and bucks right.
I'm just curious from your perspective, we hope that the
historic record twenty forty years, sixty years from now is
going to be a worthy lesson. How much less faith
do you personally have in the so called legacy media
than you did before COVID happened. So David Zuwig twenty

(29:34):
nineteen compared to David Zuwaig twenty twenty five, how are
you different?

Speaker 6 (29:38):
I would say, if I may not just the legacy media,
but the entire left establishment, if you will, my experience
during the pandemic and what I observed and what I
experienced as a journalist actually chasing down the evidence and
the facts has completely shattered my entire worldview that I had.

(29:59):
I was a mug liberal. I've always been an independent
I was not like a staunch Democrat, So I was
an independent minded person, but I tended to believe in
these institutions, and what I observed and experienced was the
absolute failure and these people who were the good guys.
I've recount some stuff in the book about I had
evidence from Arizona, the state itself, which differed from a

(30:21):
study that the CDC put out and when I contacted
the CDC, I said, hey, I have evidence that I
have data that's differing from what you have in your study.
And I knew what they had was wrong because I
had the official data. And their response to me was,
we look through it, there are no errors. When you
can't come back from something like that, and like I

(30:41):
remember just like kind of hunched over with like a
migraine that night talking to my wife. So to answer
your question, I'm I just feel entirely differently about how
the world works, and you just can't recover from something
like that. When you know, you would think something like
the NSA or fence department might pull some type of

(31:02):
BS on that this was a health department, and the
CDC they were lying through their teeth right to me
in email, saying there were no errors when I knew
they knew that I knew, and I knew that they
knew that I knew that this was complete BS and
they didn't care. You can't recover from something like that.
So my book is filled with kind of that type

(31:23):
of stuff where I this was this was almost like
a cathartic endeavor where I had to set the record
straight so people and hopefully not just your audience, though
I know they're going to be receptive, I think, but
I'm hoping that I can persuade some independent minded.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
People as well.

Speaker 6 (31:39):
That's my real goal is like to help people see
what's really going on.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
David's wag everybody in abundance of caution, David, thank you
so much. Yeah. The Preborn Network of Clinics has a
team of people who live by a mission to save
the lives of unborn babies. They see the access and
widespread availability of abortions for pregnant women debating such a decision,
and Preborn does all they can to convince a pregnant
mother there's a better option than abortion, give life to
that tiny baby growing inside them. They accomplish this with

(32:07):
just a twenty eight dollars expense, a dollar figure you
and I can donate, knowing it well may save a life,
and so often it does. Preborn operates clinics and communities
across our nation where abortion rates are high. As they
do this on purpose, the resources and services they offered,
including that ultrasound to meet that unborn baby, really gives
mom another option, a better one. In twenty years time,

(32:29):
they've saved three hundred thousand plus lives to date. To
donate securely, dial pound two fifty and say the keyword baby.
That's pound two fifty say baby, Or visit preborn dot
com slash Buck Preborn dot com slash Buck sponsored by Preboard.

Speaker 7 (32:47):
Clay Travison, buck Sexton Mic drops that never sounded so good.
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (32:58):
Welcome back in Clay Ras buck Sexton Show. There is
now another legal dispute that is underway. Harvard is reportedly
going to sue Trump and the Trump administration.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
Over the withholding of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars
that have otherwise been going to the the university Harvard,
but also a lot of other universities. And I grabbed
this stat and credit New York Times where it was,

(33:33):
and I shared it on social media the other day.
I don't know if you have seen this yet, Buck,
but we are going to spend, or we did spend
in twenty twenty three sixty billion dollars in taxpayer money
more to colleges and universities, sixty billion dollars.

Speaker 1 (33:53):
Harvard is getting billions of that. But the money is
being spent many different universities across the country, and this
was thirty times what they spent in nineteen fifty three
if you account for inflation. So there's a graphic, and
I shared the graphic and the New York Times had

(34:15):
it up, and you look at it, and what we
are spending on universities blew my mind. Here's a question
for you, because I would put this in the same category. Now,
the defense of this is going to be saying, okay, well,
they're doing research, and we want them doing research, development,

(34:35):
all these different things. If it's such a great idea,
why aren't the universities funding their own research and development?
Why is it the responsibility of you and me and
so many of you out there listening to us right
now to not only potentially be paying tuition and room
and board that is exorbitant for many of these colleges

(34:55):
and universities nationwide, but for us also to be fun
with our dollars huge amounts of the bureaucracy that exist
at these universities. I actually give Trump credit. I never
really thought about it before. I didn't know the dollars
were this extensive. Did you know that we were given
sixty billion dollars to colleges and universities and why should

(35:17):
we be doing this?

Speaker 2 (35:19):
Well, you know, one thing that you've heard a lot
about is this is for research for R and D. Okay,
like what, yeah, I want to know that if we're
hearing this, because there's a lot that you can say
is research. I mean, is this the kind of research
where we're spending money to find out the mating habits
of you know, TC flies or something like? What exactly

(35:41):
is this money being spent on at these schools or
even worse, is it looking at Is it just a
lot of people being hired to do sociology research to
for the progress of DEI initiatives? I mean, we have
no idea, right, So your first point, Clay, did I
know or do I think the general public had any
idea how much money was going to the university. I

(36:01):
knew the answer was that there was money, and it
was considerable. I didn't know sixty billion dollars. That's hot.
And the second part of it is, well, this is
where you get more into the Doge piece. What exactly
is this money being spent on? And then you can
add to that. We'll hold on a second why are
we to fund these universities. We've already decided that the

(36:23):
government's going to backstop the loans, so now everyone can
get a loan to go. I'll just be honest to
a workless four year college degree at a play or whatever,
at a place that does not have any incentive really
to make sure that it's graduates are getting jobs that
can help them pay back the loans, because it doesn't
matter to them. It's not their problem, right. The colleges

(36:45):
and universities have no incentive to address what the job
market actually looks like them. I'm saying they don't do
any of this, But from the macro view, it's just
there's no skin in the game for the college and universities,
and the tuition keeps going up because why not, because
it's not their problem. The government is backstopping this stuff,

(37:07):
and anybody can get these loans. So that's part one
of it, or rather that's part three of it. And
I just think that then you add to this the
ideological realization that we all have had for a long time,
but just what factories of insanity these places are. And
I think that the campus pro Hamas stuff was just
the latest iteration of this. But I mean I had
friends who were in law school Clay during the George

(37:29):
Floyd stuff, and what was law school and what was
being sent around in law schools was nuts. Yeah, you
know you want to talk about do you do you
think any of them thought that Derek Chauvin should get
due process? This is law schools. Yeah, of course, of
course not.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
I also think this ties in and I'm going to
start hammering this really aggressively. In PR said that Trump
was going to fire Pete Hegseth. You can go read
INPR dot org or INPR dot com or whatever the
heck their website is. It is full on left wing
propaganda daily. We compete with them. Why should regardless of

(38:08):
what your politics are, why should in PR be getting
millions and millions of dollars in government funding. We don't
get millions and millions of dollars in government funding. We
don't get favorable treatment when it comes to AD dollars
being allocated basically from the federal government. If we're directly

(38:28):
competing with NPR, which we are. Now, you know, you
guys have brains, so you probably don't listen to MPR
that often. But in many of the five hundred and
fifty some odd stations that we are on on a
daily basis, there are a lot of stations out there
that will be top competing options with us, will be NPR.

(38:48):
There are lots of places out there where you might
live or you might not get this show and you
get MPR. Why is that not one of the first
things that they would cut to your point on dogebuck
And if NPR says, well, we're not getting that much money,
and they make the argument that said, Okay, why are
you getting any at all? And you are because it's
coming through local advertisements and everything else. I don't think

(39:10):
a single red scent of taxpayer money should go to
subsidize in PR's coverage in any way of their media outlet.
In the same way that I don't think we should
be spending millions of dollars on Politico subscriptions or anything else.
We shouldn't be giving them a penny.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
Yeah, well, why, I mean, it's sure, the government, the
government in general, you don't really want in the business
of business. You want to let the American people do that.
Would we want the government to create a really bad
smartphone company? No, I think that there's plenty of people
already in that space. There are plenty of people in
the media space. We don't need incumbents who are little

(39:52):
piggies at the trough of government funding to continue to
do what they've been doing. So I completely completely agree
with that. And on that colleges and university side of things,
it's very clear. I mean, Harvard is just the most
prominent example. Understand this, everyone, Harvard has been violating the
Constitution for years with its submissions policies. Now you could
say at the time Harvard thought they were operating within Okay, fine,

(40:15):
I'm not saying that we can hold them responsible after
the fact in a legal sense, but I do think
it's worth noting that Harvard has engaged in a long
practice of discrimination. And when it comes to discrimination, just
look at Section five of the Voting Rights Act. Places
end up being punished or being watched very closely for
historical discrimination, in some cases for decades or more. Right,

(40:39):
I mean, this is the reality of discrimination law, is
that once you find a place that has discriminated under
the law, they are under a dark cloud of suspicion
for a very long time. Legally speaking. Mind, you look
at Section five of the Voting Rights Act a perfect
example of what I'm talking about, although I think now
that Supreme Court's even looked at that and changed formula.

(41:00):
But put that aside, you know what I mean? In general,
I think Clay on this issue, Harvard has shown everybody
that the plan is to continue to get the money,
but to not have to abide by federal guidelines or
so why should you have your cake and either too,
Harvard place. Amen, it's effectively a hedge fund that also
has classes. At this point, it's got an you know

(41:21):
what is it? An eighty billion, sixty billion.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
Fifty three billion dollar endowment as most recently, we don't
know what it's been for like the last year and change.
But to your point, when you take federal dollars, you
agree to be bound in some way by federal guidelines,
and the most basic of federal guidelines is don't discriminate
on the basis of race, and make sure that everybody

(41:44):
has an equal opportunity to be educated and they're not
going to be discriminated against based on ethnicity, religion, anything else.
They failed during the protests surrounding the October seventh related
incidents and many other universities failed as well. I told
our team to get doctor Larry arn There was a
great article interviewing him in the Wall Street Journal weekend edition.

(42:06):
He is the president of Hillsdale College. Hillsdale made the
decision we want our educational mission to be completely independent
of the United States government, and so we are not
going to take any of their dollars. Hillsdale has way
less money than Harvard does, and they have managed to
run their university independently without needing federal dollars. Why wouldn't

(42:30):
that be the standard for Harvard and less buck they
were feeding at the trough of special interest dollars. They've
got a fifty three billion dollar endowment. They can't afford
to run their university without taxpayer subsidies.

Speaker 2 (42:46):
You would think you would think, you know, Harvard. At
one point, the reporting was that they were planning to
just batten down the hatches and do without the federal funds.
But I think they've realized, well, hold on it, it
would be for a number of years. Here you start
to do that math, and there was hundreds of millions
of dollars, feel like it's it actually adds up even
for Harvard. So this is a moment that we've been

(43:08):
waiting for on the right for a long time, which
is just more accountability. These universities have been given tremendous
preferential treatment. From the preferential treatment right, I mean, whether
it's about the tax tax policy supporting the student loans
with government backstopping, which I think is a bad idea.
Now even the discussion although you know Trump is going
to start Trump's Department of Education, not a Department of educator,

(43:31):
who's behind the loans? Who does the loans student lows?
They're going to start underwrit Yeah, it's a good question.
I'm wondering who does the collection or that. I don't know.
But anyway, they're going to start collecting money again. Because
I was like Doe, that would actually mean they do
something that they're supposed to do. Yeah. So I think
that you're going to see more people paying attention to
this issue than they haven't in a while because of that.

(43:54):
And I also think that the universities have betrayed the
mandate that they've implicitly been given by the American people,
which is to educate future leadership and make our people
as smart and competitive in a global marketplace as possible. Instead,
they're educating a ton of foreigners. Okay, start with that,
because the foreigners pay full freight, no help with the

(44:16):
tuition whatever. You go to a lot of the elite
universities and everybody's from Beijing and Dubai. This is just
the truth. Not everybody, but huge percentages of these classes,
and they've become left wing and doctrination factories that are
churning out kids who don't know anything that's not good.
So they're getting slapped down. I like it.

Speaker 1 (44:34):
I also would point out I think there are massive
lawsuits to be filed here. Some of these education loans
are indefensible. For instance, you shouldn't be able to take
out a loan of two hundred thousand dollars to get
a social work degree. You can never pay it back
when your job. And look, I appreciate the people who

(44:55):
take jobs that don't pay that well, but the fact
that these universities would loan somebody fuck two hundred grand
to get a job where you're going to make forty
grand a year, it doesn't ever add up that you
can ever pay these things off. To me, they're predatory. Also,
I think this is a function of hey, we should
be teaching actual basic math and investment and understanding in

(45:16):
schools because the people who agree to these loans, I
don't think they have any concept of how impossible it
is to ever pay them back. Right, if you're a
lawyer or doctor, someone getting a master's degree in business
or something like that, you would.

Speaker 2 (45:30):
I wouldn't. I wouldn't even tell people to get it. Look,
I looked at getting an MBA and from fancy places,
and I didn't do it. Now I'm sitting here with
Clay because I wanted to media instead. I think the
advance I think advanced degrees. People need far more honesty
in this discussion. Most advanced degrees are not worth very much,
and a lot of advanced degrees are truly worthless. In fact,

(45:52):
they put you deep in the hole. I'll perfect example,
you journalism. Don't ever get a master's in journalism. It
is a waste. I'm not even I don't even know
how journalism schools still exist. Like that's a whole It
is a waste of your time and a lot of
master's degrees in the humanities. Unless you are convinced you're
going to get a teaching job. That is the only

(46:13):
thing that they are worthwhile to do. Uh, and those
are very hard to come by, right, Clay, I mean
you look at this stuff. Most of the threes do
the waste.

Speaker 1 (46:22):
I don't think people do the math, and I think, unfortunately,
we have a lot of people who don't understand how
loans work, and a lot of people who don't understand
how interest rates work. And you don't even sit back
and think how you're going to bankrupt yourself basically getting
a degree that never pays you.

Speaker 2 (46:35):
Actually, I qualified for master's credit from Georgetown School Foreign
Service as an undergrad. So I got master's credit as
an undergrad. You know what? The master's credit was for
a class just like the classes I was taking in undergrad.
I remember thinking, so I would just go to school
for two more years to do two more years of
reading books that I could read on my own. I

(46:56):
don't think so.

Speaker 1 (46:58):
Lessons in Life from Clay and Buck. As hard as
the Israelis have tried to return to a normal life,
difficult to do. Nearly every day there's talk of another
missile attack on one of multiple fronts. You never know
which direction it might be coming. I was over there
in December and I saw for myself how dangerous it
can be. That's why we're partnering with the International Fellowship

(47:20):
of Christians and Jews to help provide life saving aid
and security essentials. Your urgently needed gift today will help
provide security essentials like bomb shelters, flack jackets, bulletproof vest.
Your gift will also help first responders by providing armored
security vehicles, ambulances and more. Join us in standing with Israel.
The importance of knowing the entire world cares about you

(47:42):
and stands by you is important to Israeli citizens, and
IFCJ delivers that message every single day. Call to make
your gift at eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ.
That's eight eight eight four eight eight four three two
five online at SUPPORTIFCJ dot org to give that website again.
Support IFCJ dot org.

Speaker 8 (48:05):
Cheap up with the biggest political comeback in world history
on the Team forty seven podcast playin Book Highlight Trump
Free plays from the week Sundays at noon Eastern. Find
it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (48:20):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck. We've got Congressman Chip
Roy with us now. Sorry, I got my guest timeslots
confused here, but he's fantastic and we appreciate him being
here with us. Congressman Roy, appreciate you. And let's talk
about this. Why are your colleagues all of a sudden
taking these taxpayer funded boondoggles down to El Salvador. What

(48:43):
do they think they're going to prove with this?

Speaker 5 (48:45):
Well, let's kind of hope we're going to talk about
A and M and UT baseball and Austin, but we'll
we'll get to that in a little bit. But look,
we've got we've got my Democratic colleague. You're doing what
they do best right now. And what I mean by
that is they very much believe, and I believe they
mean this. They believe that non citizens should vote. They

(49:09):
believe that non citizens should be able to flood into
the United States, frankly, at whatever level they see fit,
regardless of the law. And they believe that they're in
better standing to try to go defend somebody who has
very obvious ties to MS thirteen, with two courts having

(49:30):
acknowledged that very strong reality or likelihood, and they're fine
going down to try to defend them, rather than standing
up for the Americans. Who were hurt. Now, I mean
a lot of people have been saying this. I mean,
that's nothing new about what I'm saying, But look, I
got to be very personal here when I've gotten to
know Alexis Nunger at the wonderful twenty eight year old

(49:51):
woman whose daughter Jocelyn was murdered last summer by Trende
and Agua outside of Houston. That's a real person, a
real individual who lost their life directly. It's consequence of
the people released into our country. And now Democrats want
to go to Al Salvador to hold up as a
poster child an individual who has an order of removal,

(50:12):
who was had his wife go like file charging against him,
who was stopped transporting a car load of illegals in
a car, and who has non affiliation on MS thirteen.
And that is the poster child for who Democrats would
have put front and center, Not Rachel Moran and her family,
not Joscelyn Hungary's family, not Kayla Hamilton's family. And that's

(50:33):
how out of touch Democrats are. But the good news
is President Trump is trying to do the right thing,
and Republicans in Congress hopefully are waking up to try
to support what President Trump is doing.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
How much of this is just a big structural issue.
We were talking earlier in the show Congressman about the
fact that this is just basically a math problem. If
Biden is going to have, as he did, let in
around ten million illegals, and if you look at the
rate with which Trump is able to deport, let's say
he's going to be able to get three hundred and

(51:04):
fifty thousand people from inside the country out, basic math
would say it would take thirty years of that to
get the ten million that just came in in the
last four years, to say nothing of all the people
who've come in before. How much of this is structural
in that the president has to have the ability to
get people out of the country as easily as the

(51:26):
prior president had to let people into the country.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
That's the real battle here in essence, isn't it.

Speaker 5 (51:33):
Yeah, that's where very well stated. And so for those
of us who in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty, even under
the Trump administration, who was dealing with the complexities of
the law to try to secure the border himself, and
ultimately COVID was a part of that as well. But
then all through the mine administration when we were all saying, guys,
they're doing this on purpose. They're violating and abusing parole

(51:55):
and asylum in our country. We put in place these
laws to try to help people, and they're abusing these
to flood the zone. It's intentional because they know how
hard it will be to remove them. Right now, think
about this, Democrats are doubling down on this guy. Imagine
what they'll do when it is the you know grandmother,

(52:16):
you know who is not a criminal or doesn't have
a criminal history, who came here illegally and was wrongfully
paroled into the United States, put ahead of other people,
flooding our zone, burdening our systems and medicating the hospital
and all that, but isn't a criminal. You know how
that will go. And to your point about the numbers, Okay,
this is why the president and why his team are

(52:37):
fighting this so hard. The president needs to have significant
authority and I believe does to push back and release
people who were wrongfully put into the United States who
or citizens of other countries. It is the only way
to have a sovereign nation. I believe that the president,
believe the Vice President of believe Stephen Miller. I believe
Tom Homan, I believe they are all correct when they

(52:57):
are trying to push back on that notion.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
Speaking to Congressmanship Roy out of Texas a congressman, and
what is it that they I asked Clay this yesterday.
We tried to walk through this so to make the
Democrats who were going down to El Salvador not for vacation,
but to meet with Abrago Garcia, to make them happy,
Trump would negotiate a a I guess a deal or

(53:22):
put it a request with Buquali, the president of El Salvador,
to bring this illegal back to America, so that then
we could say, hey, he's an illegal and send him
back to El Salvador. Or or is it just that
they want to bring him back and then try to
jam up the process so he gets to stay, Like

(53:43):
what is their preferred outcome?

Speaker 5 (53:46):
The goal of Democrats is to empower courts to be
able to process every single individual who was parolled into
the United States or released into the United States under
his stylo laws, under which is a million people, and
to be able to say that each one of them
has an individual claim and due process right to get

(54:07):
into court to adjudicate the claim, and I don't believe
that is accurate. Right, they had an administrative process we're
going through and determining what their status is, but they
do not like this is not due process in the
sense for all your listeners out there right there, these
individuals aren't charged with a crime like murder as a nonsenizen.
They come in here and they murder somebody, or I

(54:28):
mean some of them are, by the way. But in
this question, it's not that as to whether, okay, are
they getting into process, are they getting a lawyer, Are
they getting a chance to go into court and prove
their guilt or innocence. This is literally a question of
status and it's an administrative process and they're trying to
get into court. So yeah, I mean, Steven Miller outlined
this pretty well. When you describe the situation with Garcia

(54:51):
down in l Salvador is saying, well, okay, you want
to fly him back here, Well, we can release them
to some other country.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
Right.

Speaker 5 (54:57):
So even if you accept that we can't and bel
Salvador because he's threatened by some other game, which was
his position five years ago, he would still be deportable
to another country because a judges already issued an order
of removal, and that is not the best of my understanding,
appealable other than in the context of the administrative proceedings

(55:19):
in question. It's not a due process claim. So this
is what Democrats are trying to do. They're trying to
game the system in order to achieve the objective. They're
objective of NGOs going into court and filing suit on
every individual who's released into our country so the president
cannot release or remove them by class as Joe Biden

(55:41):
allowed them to come in by class.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
Congressman Ship Roway with us right now. Earlier this show,
we started off with a clip that I bet you've
seen that has gone viral of Elizabeth Warren trying to
explain why she in any way backed the mental and
physical fitness of Joe Biden. I'm curious, what is the

(56:05):
long term fallout in your mind of the biggest why
that's been told in a very, very long time when
it comes to the legacy media and also behind the scenes.
Were Democrats in Congress, were they acknowledging that they thought
there were issues with Biden but they wouldn't say it publicly.

(56:26):
How much discussion do you think there was among Democrats
about what all of us and certainly we've been talking
about on this show for years, could clearly see.

Speaker 5 (56:37):
Well to the second question, which relates to the first.
For the most part, my Democrat colleagues I've met had
a handful of friends who would very honestly and openly
acknowledge their concerns when you'd have a private conversation, but
they were very tight lift about it publicly because the
overwhelming motivating factor for Democrats for the last nine years

(57:00):
has been hostility to Donald Trump. Sit that has literally
been their entire motivating factor. So it did not matter
to them that Joe Biden was very clearly mentally not present.
I don't know if you all remember, but last July
after the debate, when.

Speaker 1 (57:25):
I think we lost it there for a second, broke up,
see if we can get him back here sec to
finish up the interview. The other thing that's that's floating
around out there, Buck is all these books coming out.
I wonder on some level whether the Breillo Garcia conversation

(57:47):
and everything else is a desperate attempt to keep people
from looking at all of these stories that come out.

Speaker 2 (57:54):
I understand it's in.

Speaker 1 (57:55):
The past but it's such a miscalculation to me to
focus on a Braill Garcia as the front facing element
of the Trump deportation policies that I just find it
almost incomprehensibly dumb that this could be as calculated of
a decision as it appears to be, that you could decide, Hey,

(58:15):
this is the ground upon which we want to fight,
and I think we've got Congressman Chip Roy back with
us right now.

Speaker 5 (58:22):
Yeah, sorry about that, Clay. All I was saying was
I introduced resolution calling on the Vice President to carry
out the twenty fifth Amendment, right, And why I did
that was because it was very I wanted to call
the question, because it was important that the question get called.
But to your point, Democrats, let's get back to the
core basis, which by the way, relates to the border
issue and immigration. They don't care. It's all about political power.

(58:45):
It is literally all about political power. And I wish
I didn't have to say that, right, I mean, it
oughtn't be that way. I right to be able to
sit down with some of my Democrat colleagues and figure
out issues that are important for our people. But right
now it is animus towards Trump and it is at
opening the floodgates to people to try to build a
political base for themselves for power. And that's it, that

(59:06):
is driving everything they are doing. It's about political power.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
Congress and Roy, appreciate you being with us, sir, Thank you,
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (59:14):
Guys.

Speaker 1 (59:16):
We'll break down a little bit more of that we
come back. We'll take more of your talkbacks as well.
But I want to tell you a Tunnel to Towers
does incredible work. I was down at the West Palm
Beach Trump golf Course a couple of weeks ago there,
raised millions of dollars there. I know they're going to
be having a big event at Bedminster, another event here
in Nashville. I'm going to be on the road for
some of those may not be able to play. But

(59:38):
I was up at Liberty National raising millions of dollars
for them. And the work that they do is truly
inspiring because they helped take care of heroes like firefighter
James Dickman, passionate about fire safety, aspired to do everything
in his power to keep his community and.

Speaker 2 (59:53):
Fellow firefighters safe. While responding to an apartment fire, James
and his crew tried to save the people thought to
be trapped inside, and when the situation escalated and the
fire got worse, James was not able to escape. He
died in the blazing inferno there cause of the fire,
Arson James leaves behind his loving wife, Jamie and their children.

(01:00:15):
Page and Grant Tunnel.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
The Towers gave the Dickman family the gift of a mortgage
free home, and Jamie, his wife, is grateful to tunnel
the Towers into caring friends like you for lifting the
financial burden of a mortgage off her shoulders. Donate eleven
dollars a month right now to Tunnel to Towers at
t twot dot org. That's t the number two t
dot org news.

Speaker 7 (01:00:39):
You can count on and some laughs too.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.

Speaker 7 (01:00:44):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
Jesse Kelly tears it Up Week nine, six to nine
on sevent ten wor Hey, here's a harsh fact. Forty
percent of women nearly twenty percent of men's suffer from
varicose or spider veins. Now Left untreated, these veins can
cause tired, heavy legs, swelling, burning, cramping, aching, even restless
Legs syndrome. Now in some cases it can lead to

(01:01:10):
serious health risks like blood clots USA v.