April 16, 2024 • 36 mins
NPR suspends editor who criticized network. NPR names new radical leftist CEO. Author and journalist Julie Kelly talks to Clay and Buck about today's SCOTUS hearing on the J6 charges that represent half of Jack Smith's case against Trump. If SCOTUS strikes down the J6 prosecutions, will it have any impact on Democrats?
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
All right, hour two Clay in Buck kicks off. Now, everybody,
thank you for being with us. Talking about the Trump
trial in the first hour. We'll get back to the
latest with that for sure. Also some drama up on
Capitol Hill. Marjo Taylor Green and a couple of others
now are thinking about replacing Speaker Johnson. Meet the new
(00:29):
speaker same as the old speaker. I don't want to
say we told you so, but I kind of told you.
A lot of you agreed, some of you disagreed. But
now we see changing out the speaker when you have
a razor thin majority in the House to begin with,
isn't going to give you all the things you want.
We'll talk about it, though, and there's some interesting ideas
and options out there to be sure. It's I think
(00:51):
it's an interesting debate. Nothing else allows people to vent
some of their irritation with the Rhinocaucus such as it is.
But we mentioned this story to you. Wanted to return
to this one for a second. NPR, which is best
known for being I think the radio station you hear
(01:12):
in the background that is intended to help make.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
You fall asleep. It's really good. You know.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
They all kind of talk like this, and they have
this very sort of, you know, mellow way of speaking,
and they just got and you know, you kind of
get dazed into it. I haven't listened to a lot
of NPR. Occasion'm in a car. Somebody has it on.
NPR has suspended that editor we mentioned who claimed left
wing bias at the outlet and said that they had
(01:37):
lost America's trust. NPR suspension here of this guy after
he had a scathing online essay embracing a because MPR
has embraced a progressive worldview, prompting quote this is from
CNN Clay's favorite favorite place last twenty four hours. Yes,
they want they want him suspended. They want Clay locked up.
(01:58):
That's what we know about CNN prompting fierce right wing backlash,
calling for the defunding of Public, the public radio network.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
And yeah, they got into some of this.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I have to say they they're I'm not surprised they
did this at all. I didn't really process at first
that this guy still work for NPR at some level, though,
I think Clay. One of the lessons here is for
people that wake up and recognize, Oh, I don't work
for a news organization, I work up for I work
(02:31):
for a propaganda entity that does the work of the
left of the Democrat Party. They know that, and they
expect their employees to know that, And the whole game
is everybody knows, but nobody's allowed to talk about it.
This is true, by the way, at CNN, this is
true at ABC News, this is true at all of
these plays New York Times. So did you really think
(02:55):
he was going to get.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Away with it? What do you make of this? So
I look at this in the content.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
His name, by the way, is Uri Berlinner, I think,
which sounds like a made up name. But Uri Berlinner
found that there were seventy six registered Democrats in the
Washington DC NPR office and there were no Republicans. And
he raised that as an issue because they claim that
they care about the overall fairness of their doctrine. So
(03:24):
my first thought is, we have to legitimately get to
the case buck, We're not one single dollar of taxpayer
money direct or indirect goes to fund NPR. If they
can work in the marketplace and if they can make
a living as all businesses do. More power to them.
The government doesn't fund Clay and Buck. We stand alone
(03:48):
as a capitalistic venture based on you guys listening and
sponsorship dollars and everything else. So this to me is
number one. Number two. The new woman that they hired.
I don't know if you've seen some of her some
of her tweets, but even by NPR standards, this woman
is crazy. This woman's name is this is the person
(04:10):
who's suspending Yuri Berlinner. Her name is Catherine Mayer or Marr.
I'm not sure how you pronounce it. She tweeted this
lots of jokes about leaving the US, and I get it,
But as someone with SIS white mobility privilege, I'm thinking
I'm staying and investing in ridding ourselves of this specter
(04:33):
of tyranny. Uh So, I didn't even know that sis
white mobility privilege existed. I guess that means if you're
white and you can walk, I was going to ask
you this is it?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Is it economic mobility or physical mobility we're talking about here?
Is it you have the the financial means to leave
a place, or is it you have the actual physical
ability to walk out of a place as in being
more mobile.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Do we know? I that's a great question. You may
be right.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I didn't even think about it as an economic way
of analyzing things. I thought it because I tied this
in with you know, they did away with the use
of the disabled list in Major League Baseball.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
You knew this, right, Yes, they now have the uh.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
I think it's the injured list because they found that
the disabled list was considered to be not respectful enough
of people with disabilities. So I believe they've changed the
name in Major League Baseball to the injured list. Here's
a couple of Catherine Mar's other It's a good question.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Maybe maybe some of our woke translators out there know
the answer to that.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Here's a couple of her other tweets.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Buck I do wish Hillary wouldn't use the language of
boy and girl. It's erasing language for non binary people.
She tweeted. These these are her tweets. This is the
person who's in charge of NPR. I'm an unalloyed progressive
and supporting Hillary this time around. She also said the
(06:01):
best part of Arizona GOOTV is my Biden grandpa hat.
So she's walking around in a Biden for President with
one of those massive N ninety five masks on her.
These are things that she's tweeted. So this woman is
far left wing. I saw this, Tommy.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
This is running NPR.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yes, I saw this not only in the specter of
this guy gets suspended for telling the truth, which is
NPR is a rig news organization, but that he's being
suspended by, to your point, effectively a left wing communist
who is ostensibly arguing that she is representative of the
American public. We just no American taxpayer dollars. Yesterday was
(06:44):
tax Day. I cut checks. I was not happy to
cut I bet you did too. I know a lot
of you out there listening did too. The idea that
any dollars that I send in would go to support
NPR in any way direct or indirect is fundamentally unacceptable.
It's time to truly cut them off.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's fascinating too that they the people that are so
obsessed with diversity and inclusion just as words. We all
know what that means. It's really just uh, you know,
race based mark cosmetic diversity. It's cosmetic diversity, right, But
put that aside for a second. The people that are
obsessed with diversity and inclusion think it's okay that NPR,
(07:22):
which does get some public funding.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Those it's not a lot, okay, But what's not a lot?
Why do you get any? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, you know, how about we get you know,
oh well the Clay and Buck show. The government Just
kick us like, you know, five to ten mil. You know,
it's no big deal. Just kick us five or ten mil.
It's not a lot, right, I mean, why not eighty
seven registered Democrats, zero Republicans working at NPR. How can
anyone think that a news organization that does not even
(07:50):
feel the need to have a a token Republican right?
Does does it even feel the need to have Hey,
like we you know, we hate Bob who sits or
Bill who sits in the corner and is our like
crazy right winger, But at least we know what half
the country thinks if we talk to them.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
They don't even want that.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
They want like a Maoist cultural revolution level purity in
that newsroom. They want it to be only people that
all agree and see the country the same way, knowing
that half the country things. I don't think people that
work at NPR are like I have like difference of opinion.
I think that there are a lot of times delusional
(08:28):
and mentally ill like I think there's something wrong with them.
I think they have anxiety disorders that they actually think
are political positions. And that's where we are as a country.
So I just think we need to be honest.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
About it and think about how much self selecting is
going on. If an organization that has as many employees
as NPR is one hundred percent has Democrats, And this
is why the diversity and inclusion people to me are
full of it. The only diversity that matters is diversity
(09:01):
of thought, and what they're doing is using cosmetic diversity
as a cover to have a lot of people who
look different and think the exact same.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
How does that benefit any organization well?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
And the way the way diversity and inclusion actually functions
at institutions that are considered elite, at least in terms
of you know, it's hard to get higher or hard
to get admitted thinking about schools in that context, right,
the truth of a Harvard an NPR is not Harvard
by any means, but similar idea, the same mentality work.
The truth of an NPR is they think that there
(09:36):
is more more to be gained from the perspective that
you get of having a white you know, let's say
a white guy whose uh, you know, parents, you know,
went to Cornell or something, and we're we're doctors sitting
next to a black guy whose parents went to uh,
(09:58):
you know, went to Dartmouth. They think that that, okay, well,
there's diversity there. But they don't think that there's diversity
if you have somebody who grew up you know, in
rural eastern Kentucky really poor. Yeah, they don't think of
that as diversity. They don't think of that as expanding perspective. So,
you know, two people that would have lived very similar
lives and often share very similar perspectives, but are different
(10:22):
ethnicities that somehow to them brings different perspectives to the conversation.
That's far more valuable than somebody who, for example, grew
up really poor in disadvantage and somebody who grew up
really richly. They don't, they don't view that as necessary
at all. And this guy, Yuri Berliner, is a Democrat,
so he's just not leftist enough for the demence, Like
(10:43):
he's a Republican.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Who was pointing out the flaws that he saw here.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
He's just somewhat of an honest liberal, not a progressive
and honest liberal who looks around and says, we don't
really have a marketplace of ideas here, and we're failing
as a result.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
You know, I think of ideologies in this way, you know.
And this is this has been true of honestly, of
communists all along. Is they want to infiltrate an organization,
a country, an entity, and then they need uniformity. They
need to control the entire thing because their ideas stink
and their results are horrible, and so if there's any
(11:19):
other approach that could be at hand, they will not
have power. So this is why they need absolutism. They
need uniformity. And I've said it reminds me, you know,
I went and uh, I went and took my little
nephew and my family to the We had an amazing
alligator tour.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
You know.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
One of the big problems in the Everglades is they
have these there's a bunch of different invasive species, but
a big one is the boa constrictors. Right, They've got
a ord of like pythons formice pythons, boa constrictors, and
they eat a lot of the native wildlife. And the
thing is they're not trying to establish a balance in
the ecosystem. They're gonna they're gonna like kill all the
(11:55):
native species birds and different things, and because they will
take over. That's why they're an invasive species. Lionfish, the
same thing on the reefs here. That's why they go
out they hunt these lines. You ever see those things
are crazy looking whackfish.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Or the carp up in the Midwest that have gotten
into so many of the lakes and rivers all over
the Midwest to take over and dominate this invasive species
from Asia.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Communists, ideologically aren't invasive species. They do not seek This
is why it's so fascinate. They talk about like diversity
and inclusion and all this stuff whatever. They actually do
not seek parody, representation, anything else. They want ideological across
the board conformity. Which is why the New York Times
NPR look at the same story clay that plays out
(12:38):
in newsroom after newsroom over the last twenty years. Somehow
it never is the case that they go, oh my gosh,
I woke up one day in the Washington Post was
so right wing and only far right, maga hat wearing
We don't think that way. They the communist Democrat think
in terms of it can only be my way, and
(13:01):
the existence of other ideas is a threat to the
existence of my ideas. It's all or nothing with them.
And that's what you see at NPR, and that's what
you see at campus after campus, news organization after news organization,
and now unfortunately, company after company, and it.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Ain't getting better.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
And it's interesting that when someone speaks out and a
lot of people say, you know what, he's right, they
immediately try to silence him. And that's happening lots of places,
probably in your employment offices out there.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
You've seen things like this happen.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
And they don't even they don't even feel the need
to address the underlying critique, which is obviously a problem.
You have any news organization that only has Democrats and
that's getting public funding, that should be an embarrassment.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
No, the problem is that he talked about it. Not
let to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
You shut your mouth, you do the work of the
Communist Party, You call yourself a good, loyal, progressive Democrat,
and you go forward.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
All right.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Look, if you're a firearms enthusiast like i am, where
you have one in your life. I want to tell
you about this incredible firearms manufacturer, Bear Creek Arsenal. This
should be your new firearms manufacture of choice. Veteran owned
and operated base right here in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear
Creek Arsenal makes high quality firearms at an incredible value.
(14:16):
I mean, I know some of you out there probably
have ars that you paid I don't know, one thousand bucks,
maybe fifteen hundred four. You can get a Bear Creek
Arsenal rifle that is every bit as good.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
And I was out of the range testing him out
this weekend.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
I had my most expensive AAR, which is crazy expensive,
and my Bar Creek Arsenal. Bearkreek Arsenal is every bit
as good of a tool, every bit as good of
a firearm, and it's a fraction of the price. I'm
telling you, when you see the value, the craftsmanship, the
precision of Bear Creek Arsenal, you're gonna love it. Amazing pistols,
gear rifles. Go check it out for yourself. Bear Creekarsenal
(14:53):
dot com, slash buck that's the website. Go to Bear
Creekarsenal dot com slash buck. Use my name Buck as
your promo code get ten percent off your first order.
That's Bear Creekarsenal dot Com slash buck and use promo
code buck for ten percent off.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Making Sense in an Insane World.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. We're going
to be joined by Julie Kelly from Washington, d C.
She's been in the Supreme Court this morning listening to
arguments surrounding a huge portion of the jan six charges
and whether or not the application of that statue to
January sixth is or is not permissible under the law,
(15:36):
and spoiler alert, it sounds like those charges are going
to get struck down by the Supreme Court. That's significant
not only for everyone out there who is charged with
Jan six related violations relating to these statutes, but also
because it is half of the four charges that have
(15:59):
been brought by Jack Smith against Donald Trump. So it's
possible that Jack Smith is going to lose half of
his case on the jan sixth federal prosecution, which may
never go to trial anyway. But it sounded Buck, and
we'll talk to Julie see if she agrees like this
was going to flip and get struck down by a
(16:19):
six ' to three margin at least, and some of
the liberal justices sounded like they were open to the
idea that this had been misapplied against Jan six defendants
as well.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Prosecutors shouldn't think of their job as highly creative, right.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
The law should be straightforward.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It shouldn't be Hey, I don't like this person, so
let me find a way to interpret in bad faith
the words on this page so that I can, you know,
put someone in prison and pretend that this is somehow justice.
That is what they're clearly doing. I mean, when they're
talking about the law at issue here, it was not
(17:01):
meant to be used against people like the Jan six protesters, rioters,
whatever you want.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Yes, it was not meant for that purpose.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
So extending it to that purpose should be something that
prosecutors are very slow to do. But man, I actually
the Conrad Black thing, I really we should dig that
up a little bit, Clay, I got to go back
and read. It was a long time ago. I mean,
it was over a death.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
I know the name, but I don't remember the particulars
of that case. It was one When you read what
they did to Conrad Black. It was They basically said
that they didn't like the way he was running his
company and therefore he was guilty of honest services fraud.
It was one of the original take you know, put
out a political hit on a conservative media person, one
(17:47):
of the original instances of that. So let me let
me dig into it a bit, because I think it
might illuminate some of what we're seeing right now. But
it was a sham what they did to that guy,
and I.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Don't want to read on it now that you brought
it up.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, you know, we cut through the noise of the
nonsense coming from the mainstream media and spend as much
time sharing the truths as we can, especially truths and
no one else is gonna tell you. And when it
comes to the stock market, which can feel very opaque,
that's what Mark Chakin does. He cuts through the noise
and the nonsense. Mark worked on Wall Street for fifty years.
(18:18):
Guy's got a lot of experience and he even invented
three new indices for the Nasdaq, and he's predicted some
of the biggest market shifts of the past decade, including
the recent focus on AI stocks. Mark says many Americans
are about to miss out on a critical turning point
in this AI frenzy. He's calling it a new dawn
for US stocks and predicts dozens of specific companies will
(18:41):
be impacted in just the next ninety days, which is
why Mark has agreed to share one of his favorite
AI stocks to buy now with our listeners. He put
everything you need to know in a new presentation you
can watch for free at twenty twenty four aistock dot Com.
That's twenty twenty four aistock dot Com paid for by
Shakin Analytics. We're joined by our friend Julie Kelly. Please
(19:02):
check out her substack declassified with Julie Kelly and Julie
appreciate you being with us. Let's dive right into it.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Fisher v.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments today. Before we
get into where you think the judges are going. Judges
are going, can you just give us background as to
what's at issue here and why it's such a big deal,
not just for Trump but for a lot of j
six defendants.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Right. So, this relates to the government's use DOJ's use
of fifteen twelve C two obstruction of an official preceding statute.
This was passed in the wake aftermath of the en
Run Arthur Anderson scandal. It has to do with evidence
tampering or document shredding, as we saw in that case.
What the DOJ has done for the first time ever
(19:49):
is weaponize that statute to criminalize political dissent and charge
now roughly three hundred and fifty January sixth protesters with
this felony offent, punishable by up to twenty years in prison. It, finally,
three years later, has made it to the Supreme Court
and oral arguments. Joseph Fisher was one of these defendants charged.
(20:10):
The District Court Judge Carl Nichols is the only one
who dismissed this count against him, and the DOJ appealed that,
which is how now we got to the Supreme Court
oral arguments today.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Okay, Julie, I listened to part of this. I saw
the questions. I wasn't able to listen to every minute
like you were, because you were inside of this court room.
But I have been in the Supreme Court before and
been able to forecast by watching and listening and seeing
body language and everything else.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
What I thought was likely based on what I saw.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
I see this as a six ' to three at worst,
when that would strike down the use of these statutes.
Do you agree or disagree with that? How would you
assess your read of the justices questions and where their
opinions may lie as a result.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
So, just to clarify, I wasn't in the courtroom today.
I know that's okay. Fortunately, you can cover all of
these proceedings on the Supreme Court website and also c SPAN,
and it's just easier to do it that way. I
will tell you I was a little worried, I think,
and disappointed at first with Fisher's attorney's presentation. I didn't
(21:22):
think it was as strong as it needed to be,
and the questions were tough as to the two different
parts of the statute that are now in question. But
I sort of agree it could be sixty three, it
might be five to four. Amy Cony Barrett again seemed
a little bit unclear as to her position, which might
(21:43):
be fine. But look the idea that you can take
an entire code of the of the US Criminal Quotes
fifteen twelve, which only has to do with tampering with
evidence or witnesses in judicial proceedings, and clip out this
sub and set this aside from everything else to make
(22:04):
it sound that official proceeding which is used throughout fifteen twelve,
we mean a judicial proceeding, not a function of Congress.
To calm that out and not only now take the
novel approach of using it to congressional proceedings, but of
course only apply it to those people involved in the
events of January sixth, which, as you guys know, this
(22:25):
became quite clear during the discussion today.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Actually, Julie, can we can we jump in here real
quick because we wanted to play for everybody hear Supreme
Court Justice Gorsic, this is cut twenty eight dealing with
exactly what you're talking about, which is, oh so only
in this congressional instance.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
Is obstruction a problem play.
Speaker 6 (22:44):
It would a sit in that disrupts a trial or
access to a federal courthouse qualify, Would a heckler in
today's audience qualify? Or at the City of the Union address,
would pulling a fire alarm for a vote qualify? For
twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 7 (23:04):
The Act as rays does require obstruction, which we understand
to be a meaningful interference. We'd also have to be
able to prove that they acted corruptly, and this sets
a stringent men's RAYA. It's not even just the mere
intent to obstruct. We have to show that also, but
we have to show that they had corrupt intent in
acting in that way.
Speaker 6 (23:21):
Disrupted protests that actually obstructs and impedes, and an official
proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.
Speaker 7 (23:29):
Not necessarily. We would just have to have the evidence
of intent, and that's a.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
They intend to do it, all right.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, I just think he knuked their whole argument here.
I don't know how they get around this. There's absolutely
no legal basis that she's saying, Oh, well, corrupt men's
ray or something. Yeah, they're obstructing, they want obstruct and
they're obstructing. Really, it seems to me, July, what she's
saying is, well, if you know it's climate change protesters,
we like them, so we're not going to throw them
in prison for twenty years.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
That's exactly what she was saying. And I don't take
this a step first, sir. I just emailed last week
the spokeswoman for the DCUs Attorney's office, the federal prosecutor
handling now fourteen hundred plus JA six cases and I
asked her, do you have any of the pro Palestinian
anti Israel demonstrators who have done the same sort of
conduct over the past six months, especially in Washington, DC
(24:23):
and unlawfully entering capital buildings and disrupting Senate hearings. Have
they faced any federal charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding?
And she told me no, that all of these cases
are being handled by the local DC prosecutor, which means
they will be local offenses. So I was a little
surprised that Elizabeth Peyligor was not better prepared to answer
(24:46):
the selective prosecution angle of fifteen twelve c. Two and
the potential slippery slope, which is a justice that seemed
concerned about that if you carved this out and turn
this into a felony punishable by twenty years up to
prison for someone screaming during a proceeding of the Supreme
Court or a Senate confirmation hearing, or anything we've seen
(25:08):
especially the past six months. But she's saying, oh, no,
that won't apply, and they're asking, well why not, Well,
I just don't think it will. That's okay, satisfy the
inquiring minds of the justices Julie.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
As always, you're doing an incredible job covering this, and
I have to give you credit. Years ago you started
raising this as a potential issue, and I think a
lot of people shot.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
You down with, oh, there's never going to be any
impact on this.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
And now it seems likely that the Supreme Court is
going to strike down I think prosecutions under this statute.
If we are correct about that, and in June the
Supreme Court issues an opinion you said maybe five four
six ' three, I think you would agree that it's
likely that they are going to strike it down.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
What is the impact? Then? Where do we go from there?
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Well? Thank you are saying that. That's why today was
so gratifying, because I have been covering this for over
three years and hearing from more importantly the defendants and
their families and what this substruction felony charge has destroyed
their lives and families and bankrupted them. So what it
will mean for them They will get to go back
and say that the Supreme Court has has reversed the DOJ.
(26:22):
Matthew Graves, the DC US Attorney, and seventeen judges on
the DC District and Circuit courts who else held discount
even when they knew understood how vague it was, how
broad it was, how selectively it has been applied, and
the slippery slope that it creates. These defendants now will
get long awaited exoneration and hopefully they you know, they
(26:45):
will have this charge reversed, they will be released from prison,
they'll have the charge drop, they won't face prison time.
And this will represent a huge black eye to the
DC Federal court system and the US Attorne Office in
DC and d OJ for abusing this law too. Yes,
creates a set of political prisoners who only have been
(27:08):
subjected to the selonies when no one else has and
is Elizabeth Piliguard said today no one else will be
just JA sixers.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Julie, how does it apply to Trump? So we know
that they're trying to still rush through this case. I
believe this would knock in theory two of the four
charges that Jack Smith is trying to bring against Trump
out of the contemplation. Right, What would that mean as
you see it for that trial in the event that
(27:40):
we're right and this ruling comes down, because to make
it like kind of Trump specific I believe I'm correct
that two of the four charges against Trump for January
sixth related charges in DC are these aspects that are
being examined.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
You're exactly right. So this is has great jeopardy to
jacksmith criminal indictment in Washington against Donald Trump, which of
course is now and definitely postponed until the Supreme Court
renders an opinion on presidential immunity. Those hearings are next Thursday,
by the way, for people who want to tune in.
But this does jeopardize his indictment, and it should if
(28:17):
the Supreme Court comes back, and they need to very
clearly say any congressional proceeding, including the events of January sixth,
does not apply to the meaning of official proceeding in
the entirety of fifteen twelve, including fifteen twelve C one
and C two. And this has to do with destruction
(28:40):
of evidence, impairment, document treading, etc. So if they come
back and they say the January six is not an
official proceeding as or at leads to fifteen twelve, then
I don't see how Jack Smith continues to keep those
two counts in his four account indictment. There are other
ways the Supreme Court could head and protect within Jack
(29:02):
Smith's indictment. You heard a little bit of Amy Cony
Barrett which made me nervous, sort of reiterating Jack smith
talking points that the electoral certificates represent a document or
record in an official proceeding, So hopefully the court will
come back with a strong resolution to that as well.
(29:22):
But this will be also I should have had it
special counsel Jacksmith and his team of Black Eye to
him as well for bringing such a vague, untested statute
and a presidential unprecedented criminal indictment against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Julie Kelly declassified on substack. Please subscribe to it. Julie,
We'll be talking to you a lot if you're now
on the election. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 5 (29:45):
Thanks, guys really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
She really is doing fabulous work book.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
If anybody's out there and wants to keep their eyes
on all of these cases, I don't know of anybody
that's working harder and giving more interesting takes than Julie.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Right now, you can.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Take advantage of the mind Pillow twenty five dollars Extravaganza
sale going on right now. Great deals, perfect way to
experience so many of their fantastic products. You'll find items
like They're My Pillows made with the all new Giza fabric,
just twenty five dollars each, or their two pack multi
use My pillows for just twenty five bucks, or their
six pack towel sets for the same price just twenty
(30:19):
five dollars. Maybe you want to try the sandals with
the summer coming again, just twenty five dollars. Dozens of
items at the price point. Use our name's Clay and
Buck as the promo code. It's the MyPillow Extravaganza sale.
Just go to my pillow dot com click on the
radio listener special square For these twenty five dollars deals.
You'll get free shipping on orders over seventy five bucks.
(30:41):
Use the promo code Clay and Buck to access the sale.
That's My pillow dot Com promo code Clay and Buck.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
Keep up with Clay and Bucks campaign coverage with twenty
four a Sunday highlight reel from the week. Find it
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Welcome back in Clay ms Buck Sexton Show. I appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
rolling through the Tuesday edition of the program and Obviously,
the stories which are going to dive back into right
at the top relate to everything having to do with
legal processes being put in place against Trump, both in
(31:19):
New York City but also the argument in Washington, d c.
Which would directly impact him. And I really think I
don't in the same way, Buck, I'm curious how you
would analyze this when the Supreme Court came out nine
to zero and said, hey, you can't. You can't take
(31:39):
Trump off the ballot Colorado, and that obviously killed attempts
to take him off the ballot in Maine and anywhere
else in the country. I think they tried to do
it in Illinois as well, and there were a lot
of left wingers out there that had been telling their audiences, Oh,
this is very legitimate, man, this is a really strong opinion.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Then you get slapped down.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
I know, if, as I think is likely, Buck, the
Supreme Court comes out and says, hey, these January sixth
political prosecutions have been impermissible, you could say, even illegal
under the law. How are all those people going to
respond who've been saying that anybody who argued these jan
(32:20):
six cases were illegitimate and that the people were being
unfairly prosecuted going to be able to sit down and
talk to their audiences again. I guess they'll probably just
say the Supreme Court is corrupt. But there are a
lot of l's getting stacked here for left wing liberal
interpretations of what the court is going to do.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
I see two things with this. One is, unfortunately, the
anti Trump audience in America will forgive any any lie,
any transgression, any amount of bull crap, as long as
it was intended to hurt Trump.
Speaker 3 (32:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
So it doesn't matter if you say, oh my, look,
madau with the taxes.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Right, if you.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Say we are thirty days from me exposing that Donald
Trump is actually a lizard person, I'm gonna pull his
mask off. You're gonna see he's actually a lizard. He's
got the little FOURK tongue, the whole thing. And thirty
days passes, and sure enough, you don't have the goods.
They don't get mad. They just say, okay, well you
were trying to take down Trump, right. It's part of
the mania. It's part of I think the the disorder
(33:25):
that people have of anti Trump isn't that it becomes
something that is always self justifying. So that's that's one
piece of it. Right, as long as you're trying to
hurt Trump, they'll forgive you for anything. What he forgive
is even the right word. That's fine. Just as long
as anti Trump, they're on board, even if you over
promise and underdelivered, because look at Russia collusion. For four years,
everybody who was involved as a Democrat in Russia collusion,
(33:46):
even your buddy Eric Swowall, they all got, you know,
elevated effectively by Democrat Party. That's part one, and then
just part two real quick. I mentioned this in the
first hour. If what Trump did was so bad and
so clearly illegal, they wouldn't have to keep concocting novel
and illegitimate legal theories to get him. You know, it'd
(34:07):
be pretty straightforward. He did X, we prove why Z
is the result. Instead, it's always well, if you look
at this and you talk about that, and you know, presto,
it's always a magic trick to prove Trump guilty of
something when it should be ironclad, and it's the opposite
of that.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
We come back at the top of the third hour,
I'm gonna play a clip. Stephen A.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Smith basically addressed this, and I thought It was somewhat
interesting because I don't see him as a particularly partisan guy.
But one of the questions we've been asking from the
get go is how is this going to this case
in New York City in particular, going to be received
in a general sense, And we talked about and will reinforce.
(34:50):
Most people are not actually going to be following this
minute by minute trial as many of you are going.
You're super plugged in, you're engaged politically. Most people don't
do that. They just kind of have a generalized sense
about Trump and what is being attempted to do, what
(35:11):
they're trying to do to him. I think what you
just hit on, Buck and what I think we're gonna
play for you at the top of the third hour
is a lot of people just see this as a
panic because if Trump was really so bad, why can't
you just beat him in an election? If Trump is
such a uniquely hit larian figure, why can't you just
(35:34):
line up, go head to head against him and beat him?
And there are more polls out of the swing states
and Trump is up in six of them, and I
think there is an increasing panic. Democrats never thought that
we would be here. They didn't think we'd be here
in mid April before the November election with Trump leading
in many of the swing states. They never thought they
(35:56):
would be here, and that's going to lead them, I think,
to start to make more irrational decisions. You know how
when a panic sets in a lot of times, you
don't make the best decision for your side because you're
allowing emotion and fear to govern the choices that you make.
I think Democrats are starting to get there. I think
(36:16):
they know that they've hit an iceberg and they're seeing
the Titanic take on water the SS Biden and I
don't think they have a good game plan right now.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
This is my concern is that they're going to get
increasingly erratic, vicious, and desperate as this election gets closer.
Because I'll be honest, I'm surprised at how resoundingly their
anti Trump lawfair has backfired thus far. That could change,
It doesn't look like it will anytime soon, and if
(36:47):
it doesn't play, they're going to be beyond pull.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Out all the stops. What comes next? Great question, We'll
talk about it when we come back. Final hour, two
day editions
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
All right, hour two Clay in Buck kicks off. Now, everybody,
thank you for being with us. Talking about the Trump
trial in the first hour. We'll get back to the
latest with that for sure. Also some drama up on
Capitol Hill. Marjo Taylor Green and a couple of others
now are thinking about replacing Speaker Johnson. Meet the new
(00:29):
speaker same as the old speaker. I don't want to
say we told you so, but I kind of told you.
A lot of you agreed, some of you disagreed. But
now we see changing out the speaker when you have
a razor thin majority in the House to begin with,
isn't going to give you all the things you want.
We'll talk about it, though, and there's some interesting ideas
and options out there to be sure. It's I think
(00:51):
it's an interesting debate. Nothing else allows people to vent
some of their irritation with the Rhinocaucus such as it is.
But we mentioned this story to you. Wanted to return
to this one for a second. NPR, which is best
known for being I think the radio station you hear
(01:12):
in the background that is intended to help make.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
You fall asleep. It's really good. You know.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
They all kind of talk like this, and they have
this very sort of, you know, mellow way of speaking,
and they just got and you know, you kind of
get dazed into it. I haven't listened to a lot
of NPR. Occasion'm in a car. Somebody has it on.
NPR has suspended that editor we mentioned who claimed left
wing bias at the outlet and said that they had
(01:37):
lost America's trust. NPR suspension here of this guy after
he had a scathing online essay embracing a because MPR
has embraced a progressive worldview, prompting quote this is from
CNN Clay's favorite favorite place last twenty four hours. Yes,
they want they want him suspended. They want Clay locked up.
(01:58):
That's what we know about CNN prompting fierce right wing backlash,
calling for the defunding of Public, the public radio network.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
And yeah, they got into some of this.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
I have to say they they're I'm not surprised they
did this at all. I didn't really process at first
that this guy still work for NPR at some level, though,
I think Clay. One of the lessons here is for
people that wake up and recognize, Oh, I don't work
for a news organization, I work up for I work
(02:31):
for a propaganda entity that does the work of the
left of the Democrat Party. They know that, and they
expect their employees to know that, And the whole game
is everybody knows, but nobody's allowed to talk about it.
This is true, by the way, at CNN, this is
true at ABC News, this is true at all of
these plays New York Times. So did you really think
(02:55):
he was going to get.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Away with it? What do you make of this? So
I look at this in the content.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
His name, by the way, is Uri Berlinner, I think,
which sounds like a made up name. But Uri Berlinner
found that there were seventy six registered Democrats in the
Washington DC NPR office and there were no Republicans. And
he raised that as an issue because they claim that
they care about the overall fairness of their doctrine. So
(03:24):
my first thought is, we have to legitimately get to
the case buck, We're not one single dollar of taxpayer
money direct or indirect goes to fund NPR. If they
can work in the marketplace and if they can make
a living as all businesses do. More power to them.
The government doesn't fund Clay and Buck. We stand alone
(03:48):
as a capitalistic venture based on you guys listening and
sponsorship dollars and everything else. So this to me is
number one. Number two. The new woman that they hired.
I don't know if you've seen some of her some
of her tweets, but even by NPR standards, this woman
is crazy. This woman's name is this is the person
(04:10):
who's suspending Yuri Berlinner. Her name is Catherine Mayer or Marr.
I'm not sure how you pronounce it. She tweeted this
lots of jokes about leaving the US, and I get it,
But as someone with SIS white mobility privilege, I'm thinking
I'm staying and investing in ridding ourselves of this specter
(04:33):
of tyranny. Uh So, I didn't even know that sis
white mobility privilege existed. I guess that means if you're
white and you can walk, I was going to ask
you this is it?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Is it economic mobility or physical mobility we're talking about here?
Is it you have the the financial means to leave
a place, or is it you have the actual physical
ability to walk out of a place as in being
more mobile.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Do we know? I that's a great question. You may
be right.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I didn't even think about it as an economic way
of analyzing things. I thought it because I tied this
in with you know, they did away with the use
of the disabled list in Major League Baseball.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
You knew this, right, Yes, they now have the uh.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
I think it's the injured list because they found that
the disabled list was considered to be not respectful enough
of people with disabilities. So I believe they've changed the
name in Major League Baseball to the injured list. Here's
a couple of Catherine Mar's other It's a good question.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Maybe maybe some of our woke translators out there know
the answer to that.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Here's a couple of her other tweets.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Buck I do wish Hillary wouldn't use the language of
boy and girl. It's erasing language for non binary people.
She tweeted. These these are her tweets. This is the
person who's in charge of NPR. I'm an unalloyed progressive
and supporting Hillary this time around. She also said the
(06:01):
best part of Arizona GOOTV is my Biden grandpa hat.
So she's walking around in a Biden for President with
one of those massive N ninety five masks on her.
These are things that she's tweeted. So this woman is
far left wing. I saw this, Tommy.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
This is running NPR.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yes, I saw this not only in the specter of
this guy gets suspended for telling the truth, which is
NPR is a rig news organization, but that he's being
suspended by, to your point, effectively a left wing communist
who is ostensibly arguing that she is representative of the
American public. We just no American taxpayer dollars. Yesterday was
(06:44):
tax Day. I cut checks. I was not happy to
cut I bet you did too. I know a lot
of you out there listening did too. The idea that
any dollars that I send in would go to support
NPR in any way direct or indirect is fundamentally unacceptable.
It's time to truly cut them off.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's fascinating too that they the people that are so
obsessed with diversity and inclusion just as words. We all
know what that means. It's really just uh, you know,
race based mark cosmetic diversity. It's cosmetic diversity, right, But
put that aside for a second. The people that are
obsessed with diversity and inclusion think it's okay that NPR,
(07:22):
which does get some public funding.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Those it's not a lot, okay, But what's not a lot?
Why do you get any? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, you know, how about we get you know,
oh well the Clay and Buck show. The government Just
kick us like, you know, five to ten mil. You know,
it's no big deal. Just kick us five or ten mil.
It's not a lot, right, I mean, why not eighty
seven registered Democrats, zero Republicans working at NPR. How can
anyone think that a news organization that does not even
(07:50):
feel the need to have a a token Republican right?
Does does it even feel the need to have Hey,
like we you know, we hate Bob who sits or
Bill who sits in the corner and is our like
crazy right winger, But at least we know what half
the country thinks if we talk to them.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
They don't even want that.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
They want like a Maoist cultural revolution level purity in
that newsroom. They want it to be only people that
all agree and see the country the same way, knowing
that half the country things. I don't think people that
work at NPR are like I have like difference of opinion.
I think that there are a lot of times delusional
(08:28):
and mentally ill like I think there's something wrong with them.
I think they have anxiety disorders that they actually think
are political positions. And that's where we are as a country.
So I just think we need to be honest.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
About it and think about how much self selecting is
going on. If an organization that has as many employees
as NPR is one hundred percent has Democrats, And this
is why the diversity and inclusion people to me are
full of it. The only diversity that matters is diversity
(09:01):
of thought, and what they're doing is using cosmetic diversity
as a cover to have a lot of people who
look different and think the exact same.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
How does that benefit any organization well?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
And the way the way diversity and inclusion actually functions
at institutions that are considered elite, at least in terms
of you know, it's hard to get higher or hard
to get admitted thinking about schools in that context, right,
the truth of a Harvard an NPR is not Harvard
by any means, but similar idea, the same mentality work.
The truth of an NPR is they think that there
(09:36):
is more more to be gained from the perspective that
you get of having a white you know, let's say
a white guy whose uh, you know, parents, you know,
went to Cornell or something, and we're we're doctors sitting
next to a black guy whose parents went to uh,
(09:58):
you know, went to Dartmouth. They think that that, okay, well,
there's diversity there. But they don't think that there's diversity
if you have somebody who grew up you know, in
rural eastern Kentucky really poor. Yeah, they don't think of
that as diversity. They don't think of that as expanding perspective. So,
you know, two people that would have lived very similar
lives and often share very similar perspectives, but are different
(10:22):
ethnicities that somehow to them brings different perspectives to the conversation.
That's far more valuable than somebody who, for example, grew
up really poor in disadvantage and somebody who grew up
really richly. They don't, they don't view that as necessary
at all. And this guy, Yuri Berliner, is a Democrat,
so he's just not leftist enough for the demence, Like
(10:43):
he's a Republican.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Who was pointing out the flaws that he saw here.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
He's just somewhat of an honest liberal, not a progressive
and honest liberal who looks around and says, we don't
really have a marketplace of ideas here, and we're failing
as a result.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
You know, I think of ideologies in this way, you know.
And this is this has been true of honestly, of
communists all along. Is they want to infiltrate an organization,
a country, an entity, and then they need uniformity. They
need to control the entire thing because their ideas stink
and their results are horrible, and so if there's any
(11:19):
other approach that could be at hand, they will not
have power. So this is why they need absolutism. They
need uniformity. And I've said it reminds me, you know,
I went and uh, I went and took my little
nephew and my family to the We had an amazing
alligator tour.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
You know.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
One of the big problems in the Everglades is they
have these there's a bunch of different invasive species, but
a big one is the boa constrictors. Right, They've got
a ord of like pythons formice pythons, boa constrictors, and
they eat a lot of the native wildlife. And the
thing is they're not trying to establish a balance in
the ecosystem. They're gonna they're gonna like kill all the
(11:55):
native species birds and different things, and because they will
take over. That's why they're an invasive species. Lionfish, the
same thing on the reefs here. That's why they go
out they hunt these lines. You ever see those things
are crazy looking whackfish.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Or the carp up in the Midwest that have gotten
into so many of the lakes and rivers all over
the Midwest to take over and dominate this invasive species
from Asia.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Communists, ideologically aren't invasive species. They do not seek This
is why it's so fascinate. They talk about like diversity
and inclusion and all this stuff whatever. They actually do
not seek parody, representation, anything else. They want ideological across
the board conformity. Which is why the New York Times
NPR look at the same story clay that plays out
(12:38):
in newsroom after newsroom over the last twenty years. Somehow
it never is the case that they go, oh my gosh,
I woke up one day in the Washington Post was
so right wing and only far right, maga hat wearing
We don't think that way. They the communist Democrat think
in terms of it can only be my way, and
(13:01):
the existence of other ideas is a threat to the
existence of my ideas. It's all or nothing with them.
And that's what you see at NPR, and that's what
you see at campus after campus, news organization after news organization,
and now unfortunately, company after company, and it.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Ain't getting better.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
And it's interesting that when someone speaks out and a
lot of people say, you know what, he's right, they
immediately try to silence him. And that's happening lots of places,
probably in your employment offices out there.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
You've seen things like this happen.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
And they don't even they don't even feel the need
to address the underlying critique, which is obviously a problem.
You have any news organization that only has Democrats and
that's getting public funding, that should be an embarrassment.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
No, the problem is that he talked about it. Not
let to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
You shut your mouth, you do the work of the
Communist Party, You call yourself a good, loyal, progressive Democrat,
and you go forward.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
All right.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Look, if you're a firearms enthusiast like i am, where
you have one in your life. I want to tell
you about this incredible firearms manufacturer, Bear Creek Arsenal. This
should be your new firearms manufacture of choice. Veteran owned
and operated base right here in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear
Creek Arsenal makes high quality firearms at an incredible value.
(14:16):
I mean, I know some of you out there probably
have ars that you paid I don't know, one thousand bucks,
maybe fifteen hundred four. You can get a Bear Creek
Arsenal rifle that is every bit as good.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
And I was out of the range testing him out
this weekend.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
I had my most expensive AAR, which is crazy expensive,
and my Bar Creek Arsenal. Bearkreek Arsenal is every bit
as good of a tool, every bit as good of
a firearm, and it's a fraction of the price. I'm
telling you, when you see the value, the craftsmanship, the
precision of Bear Creek Arsenal, you're gonna love it. Amazing pistols,
gear rifles. Go check it out for yourself. Bear Creekarsenal
(14:53):
dot com, slash buck that's the website. Go to Bear
Creekarsenal dot com slash buck. Use my name Buck as
your promo code get ten percent off your first order.
That's Bear Creekarsenal dot Com slash buck and use promo
code buck for ten percent off.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Making Sense in an Insane World.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. We're going
to be joined by Julie Kelly from Washington, d C.
She's been in the Supreme Court this morning listening to
arguments surrounding a huge portion of the jan six charges
and whether or not the application of that statue to
January sixth is or is not permissible under the law,
(15:36):
and spoiler alert, it sounds like those charges are going
to get struck down by the Supreme Court. That's significant
not only for everyone out there who is charged with
Jan six related violations relating to these statutes, but also
because it is half of the four charges that have
(15:59):
been brought by Jack Smith against Donald Trump. So it's
possible that Jack Smith is going to lose half of
his case on the jan sixth federal prosecution, which may
never go to trial anyway. But it sounded Buck, and
we'll talk to Julie see if she agrees like this
was going to flip and get struck down by a
(16:19):
six ' to three margin at least, and some of
the liberal justices sounded like they were open to the
idea that this had been misapplied against Jan six defendants
as well.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Prosecutors shouldn't think of their job as highly creative, right.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
The law should be straightforward.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It shouldn't be Hey, I don't like this person, so
let me find a way to interpret in bad faith
the words on this page so that I can, you know,
put someone in prison and pretend that this is somehow justice.
That is what they're clearly doing. I mean, when they're
talking about the law at issue here, it was not
(17:01):
meant to be used against people like the Jan six protesters, rioters,
whatever you want.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Yes, it was not meant for that purpose.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
So extending it to that purpose should be something that
prosecutors are very slow to do. But man, I actually
the Conrad Black thing, I really we should dig that
up a little bit, Clay, I got to go back
and read. It was a long time ago. I mean,
it was over a death.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
I know the name, but I don't remember the particulars
of that case. It was one When you read what
they did to Conrad Black. It was They basically said
that they didn't like the way he was running his
company and therefore he was guilty of honest services fraud.
It was one of the original take you know, put
out a political hit on a conservative media person, one
(17:47):
of the original instances of that. So let me let
me dig into it a bit, because I think it
might illuminate some of what we're seeing right now. But
it was a sham what they did to that guy,
and I.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Don't want to read on it now that you brought
it up.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, you know, we cut through the noise of the
nonsense coming from the mainstream media and spend as much
time sharing the truths as we can, especially truths and
no one else is gonna tell you. And when it
comes to the stock market, which can feel very opaque,
that's what Mark Chakin does. He cuts through the noise
and the nonsense. Mark worked on Wall Street for fifty years.
(18:18):
Guy's got a lot of experience and he even invented
three new indices for the Nasdaq, and he's predicted some
of the biggest market shifts of the past decade, including
the recent focus on AI stocks. Mark says many Americans
are about to miss out on a critical turning point
in this AI frenzy. He's calling it a new dawn
for US stocks and predicts dozens of specific companies will
(18:41):
be impacted in just the next ninety days, which is
why Mark has agreed to share one of his favorite
AI stocks to buy now with our listeners. He put
everything you need to know in a new presentation you
can watch for free at twenty twenty four aistock dot Com.
That's twenty twenty four aistock dot Com paid for by
Shakin Analytics. We're joined by our friend Julie Kelly. Please
(19:02):
check out her substack declassified with Julie Kelly and Julie
appreciate you being with us. Let's dive right into it.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Fisher v.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments today. Before we
get into where you think the judges are going. Judges
are going, can you just give us background as to
what's at issue here and why it's such a big deal,
not just for Trump but for a lot of j
six defendants.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Right. So, this relates to the government's use DOJ's use
of fifteen twelve C two obstruction of an official preceding statute.
This was passed in the wake aftermath of the en
Run Arthur Anderson scandal. It has to do with evidence
tampering or document shredding, as we saw in that case.
What the DOJ has done for the first time ever
(19:49):
is weaponize that statute to criminalize political dissent and charge
now roughly three hundred and fifty January sixth protesters with
this felony offent, punishable by up to twenty years in prison. It, finally,
three years later, has made it to the Supreme Court
and oral arguments. Joseph Fisher was one of these defendants charged.
(20:10):
The District Court Judge Carl Nichols is the only one
who dismissed this count against him, and the DOJ appealed that,
which is how now we got to the Supreme Court
oral arguments today.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Okay, Julie, I listened to part of this. I saw
the questions. I wasn't able to listen to every minute
like you were, because you were inside of this court room.
But I have been in the Supreme Court before and
been able to forecast by watching and listening and seeing
body language and everything else.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
What I thought was likely based on what I saw.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
I see this as a six ' to three at worst,
when that would strike down the use of these statutes.
Do you agree or disagree with that? How would you
assess your read of the justices questions and where their
opinions may lie as a result.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
So, just to clarify, I wasn't in the courtroom today.
I know that's okay. Fortunately, you can cover all of
these proceedings on the Supreme Court website and also c SPAN,
and it's just easier to do it that way. I
will tell you I was a little worried, I think,
and disappointed at first with Fisher's attorney's presentation. I didn't
(21:22):
think it was as strong as it needed to be,
and the questions were tough as to the two different
parts of the statute that are now in question. But
I sort of agree it could be sixty three, it
might be five to four. Amy Cony Barrett again seemed
a little bit unclear as to her position, which might
(21:43):
be fine. But look the idea that you can take
an entire code of the of the US Criminal Quotes
fifteen twelve, which only has to do with tampering with
evidence or witnesses in judicial proceedings, and clip out this
sub and set this aside from everything else to make
(22:04):
it sound that official proceeding which is used throughout fifteen twelve,
we mean a judicial proceeding, not a function of Congress.
To calm that out and not only now take the
novel approach of using it to congressional proceedings, but of
course only apply it to those people involved in the
events of January sixth, which, as you guys know, this
(22:25):
became quite clear during the discussion today.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Actually, Julie, can we can we jump in here real
quick because we wanted to play for everybody hear Supreme
Court Justice Gorsic, this is cut twenty eight dealing with
exactly what you're talking about, which is, oh so only
in this congressional instance.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
Is obstruction a problem play.
Speaker 6 (22:44):
It would a sit in that disrupts a trial or
access to a federal courthouse qualify, Would a heckler in
today's audience qualify? Or at the City of the Union address,
would pulling a fire alarm for a vote qualify? For
twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 7 (23:04):
The Act as rays does require obstruction, which we understand
to be a meaningful interference. We'd also have to be
able to prove that they acted corruptly, and this sets
a stringent men's RAYA. It's not even just the mere
intent to obstruct. We have to show that also, but
we have to show that they had corrupt intent in
acting in that way.
Speaker 6 (23:21):
Disrupted protests that actually obstructs and impedes, and an official
proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.
Speaker 7 (23:29):
Not necessarily. We would just have to have the evidence
of intent, and that's a.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
They intend to do it, all right.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, I just think he knuked their whole argument here.
I don't know how they get around this. There's absolutely
no legal basis that she's saying, Oh, well, corrupt men's
ray or something. Yeah, they're obstructing, they want obstruct and
they're obstructing. Really, it seems to me, July, what she's
saying is, well, if you know it's climate change protesters,
we like them, so we're not going to throw them
in prison for twenty years.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
That's exactly what she was saying. And I don't take
this a step first, sir. I just emailed last week
the spokeswoman for the DCUs Attorney's office, the federal prosecutor
handling now fourteen hundred plus JA six cases and I
asked her, do you have any of the pro Palestinian
anti Israel demonstrators who have done the same sort of
conduct over the past six months, especially in Washington, DC
(24:23):
and unlawfully entering capital buildings and disrupting Senate hearings. Have
they faced any federal charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding?
And she told me no, that all of these cases
are being handled by the local DC prosecutor, which means
they will be local offenses. So I was a little
surprised that Elizabeth Peyligor was not better prepared to answer
(24:46):
the selective prosecution angle of fifteen twelve c. Two and
the potential slippery slope, which is a justice that seemed
concerned about that if you carved this out and turn
this into a felony punishable by twenty years up to
prison for someone screaming during a proceeding of the Supreme
Court or a Senate confirmation hearing, or anything we've seen
(25:08):
especially the past six months. But she's saying, oh, no,
that won't apply, and they're asking, well why not, Well,
I just don't think it will. That's okay, satisfy the
inquiring minds of the justices Julie.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
As always, you're doing an incredible job covering this, and
I have to give you credit. Years ago you started
raising this as a potential issue, and I think a
lot of people shot.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
You down with, oh, there's never going to be any
impact on this.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
And now it seems likely that the Supreme Court is
going to strike down I think prosecutions under this statute.
If we are correct about that, and in June the
Supreme Court issues an opinion you said maybe five four
six ' three, I think you would agree that it's
likely that they are going to strike it down.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
What is the impact? Then? Where do we go from there?
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Well? Thank you are saying that. That's why today was
so gratifying, because I have been covering this for over
three years and hearing from more importantly the defendants and
their families and what this substruction felony charge has destroyed
their lives and families and bankrupted them. So what it
will mean for them They will get to go back
and say that the Supreme Court has has reversed the DOJ.
(26:22):
Matthew Graves, the DC US Attorney, and seventeen judges on
the DC District and Circuit courts who else held discount
even when they knew understood how vague it was, how
broad it was, how selectively it has been applied, and
the slippery slope that it creates. These defendants now will
get long awaited exoneration and hopefully they you know, they
(26:45):
will have this charge reversed, they will be released from prison,
they'll have the charge drop, they won't face prison time.
And this will represent a huge black eye to the
DC Federal court system and the US Attorne Office in
DC and d OJ for abusing this law too. Yes,
creates a set of political prisoners who only have been
(27:08):
subjected to the selonies when no one else has and
is Elizabeth Piliguard said today no one else will be
just JA sixers.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Julie, how does it apply to Trump? So we know
that they're trying to still rush through this case. I
believe this would knock in theory two of the four
charges that Jack Smith is trying to bring against Trump
out of the contemplation. Right, What would that mean as
you see it for that trial in the event that
(27:40):
we're right and this ruling comes down, because to make
it like kind of Trump specific I believe I'm correct
that two of the four charges against Trump for January
sixth related charges in DC are these aspects that are
being examined.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
You're exactly right. So this is has great jeopardy to
jacksmith criminal indictment in Washington against Donald Trump, which of
course is now and definitely postponed until the Supreme Court
renders an opinion on presidential immunity. Those hearings are next Thursday,
by the way, for people who want to tune in.
But this does jeopardize his indictment, and it should if
(28:17):
the Supreme Court comes back, and they need to very
clearly say any congressional proceeding, including the events of January sixth,
does not apply to the meaning of official proceeding in
the entirety of fifteen twelve, including fifteen twelve C one
and C two. And this has to do with destruction
(28:40):
of evidence, impairment, document treading, etc. So if they come
back and they say the January six is not an
official proceeding as or at leads to fifteen twelve, then
I don't see how Jack Smith continues to keep those
two counts in his four account indictment. There are other
ways the Supreme Court could head and protect within Jack
(29:02):
Smith's indictment. You heard a little bit of Amy Cony
Barrett which made me nervous, sort of reiterating Jack smith
talking points that the electoral certificates represent a document or
record in an official proceeding, So hopefully the court will
come back with a strong resolution to that as well.
(29:22):
But this will be also I should have had it
special counsel Jacksmith and his team of Black Eye to
him as well for bringing such a vague, untested statute
and a presidential unprecedented criminal indictment against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Julie Kelly declassified on substack. Please subscribe to it. Julie,
We'll be talking to you a lot if you're now
on the election. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 5 (29:45):
Thanks, guys really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
She really is doing fabulous work book.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
If anybody's out there and wants to keep their eyes
on all of these cases, I don't know of anybody
that's working harder and giving more interesting takes than Julie.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Right now, you can.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Take advantage of the mind Pillow twenty five dollars Extravaganza
sale going on right now. Great deals, perfect way to
experience so many of their fantastic products. You'll find items
like They're My Pillows made with the all new Giza fabric,
just twenty five dollars each, or their two pack multi
use My pillows for just twenty five bucks, or their
six pack towel sets for the same price just twenty
(30:19):
five dollars. Maybe you want to try the sandals with
the summer coming again, just twenty five dollars. Dozens of
items at the price point. Use our name's Clay and
Buck as the promo code. It's the MyPillow Extravaganza sale.
Just go to my pillow dot com click on the
radio listener special square For these twenty five dollars deals.
You'll get free shipping on orders over seventy five bucks.
(30:41):
Use the promo code Clay and Buck to access the sale.
That's My pillow dot Com promo code Clay and Buck.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
Keep up with Clay and Bucks campaign coverage with twenty
four a Sunday highlight reel from the week. Find it
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Welcome back in Clay ms Buck Sexton Show. I appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
rolling through the Tuesday edition of the program and Obviously,
the stories which are going to dive back into right
at the top relate to everything having to do with
legal processes being put in place against Trump, both in
(31:19):
New York City but also the argument in Washington, d c.
Which would directly impact him. And I really think I
don't in the same way, Buck, I'm curious how you
would analyze this when the Supreme Court came out nine
to zero and said, hey, you can't. You can't take
(31:39):
Trump off the ballot Colorado, and that obviously killed attempts
to take him off the ballot in Maine and anywhere
else in the country. I think they tried to do
it in Illinois as well, and there were a lot
of left wingers out there that had been telling their audiences, Oh,
this is very legitimate, man, this is a really strong opinion.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Then you get slapped down.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
I know, if, as I think is likely, Buck, the
Supreme Court comes out and says, hey, these January sixth
political prosecutions have been impermissible, you could say, even illegal
under the law. How are all those people going to
respond who've been saying that anybody who argued these jan
(32:20):
six cases were illegitimate and that the people were being
unfairly prosecuted going to be able to sit down and
talk to their audiences again. I guess they'll probably just
say the Supreme Court is corrupt. But there are a
lot of l's getting stacked here for left wing liberal
interpretations of what the court is going to do.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
I see two things with this. One is, unfortunately, the
anti Trump audience in America will forgive any any lie,
any transgression, any amount of bull crap, as long as
it was intended to hurt Trump.
Speaker 3 (32:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
So it doesn't matter if you say, oh my, look,
madau with the taxes.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Right, if you.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Say we are thirty days from me exposing that Donald
Trump is actually a lizard person, I'm gonna pull his
mask off. You're gonna see he's actually a lizard. He's
got the little FOURK tongue, the whole thing. And thirty
days passes, and sure enough, you don't have the goods.
They don't get mad. They just say, okay, well you
were trying to take down Trump, right. It's part of
the mania. It's part of I think the the disorder
(33:25):
that people have of anti Trump isn't that it becomes
something that is always self justifying. So that's that's one
piece of it. Right, as long as you're trying to
hurt Trump, they'll forgive you for anything. What he forgive
is even the right word. That's fine. Just as long
as anti Trump, they're on board, even if you over
promise and underdelivered, because look at Russia collusion. For four years,
everybody who was involved as a Democrat in Russia collusion,
(33:46):
even your buddy Eric Swowall, they all got, you know,
elevated effectively by Democrat Party. That's part one, and then
just part two real quick. I mentioned this in the
first hour. If what Trump did was so bad and
so clearly illegal, they wouldn't have to keep concocting novel
and illegitimate legal theories to get him. You know, it'd
(34:07):
be pretty straightforward. He did X, we prove why Z
is the result. Instead, it's always well, if you look
at this and you talk about that, and you know, presto,
it's always a magic trick to prove Trump guilty of
something when it should be ironclad, and it's the opposite
of that.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
We come back at the top of the third hour,
I'm gonna play a clip. Stephen A.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
Smith basically addressed this, and I thought It was somewhat
interesting because I don't see him as a particularly partisan guy.
But one of the questions we've been asking from the
get go is how is this going to this case
in New York City in particular, going to be received
in a general sense, And we talked about and will reinforce.
(34:50):
Most people are not actually going to be following this
minute by minute trial as many of you are going.
You're super plugged in, you're engaged politically. Most people don't
do that. They just kind of have a generalized sense
about Trump and what is being attempted to do, what
(35:11):
they're trying to do to him. I think what you
just hit on, Buck and what I think we're gonna
play for you at the top of the third hour
is a lot of people just see this as a
panic because if Trump was really so bad, why can't
you just beat him in an election? If Trump is
such a uniquely hit larian figure, why can't you just
(35:34):
line up, go head to head against him and beat him?
And there are more polls out of the swing states
and Trump is up in six of them, and I
think there is an increasing panic. Democrats never thought that
we would be here. They didn't think we'd be here
in mid April before the November election with Trump leading
in many of the swing states. They never thought they
(35:56):
would be here, and that's going to lead them, I think,
to start to make more irrational decisions. You know how
when a panic sets in a lot of times, you
don't make the best decision for your side because you're
allowing emotion and fear to govern the choices that you make.
I think Democrats are starting to get there. I think
(36:16):
they know that they've hit an iceberg and they're seeing
the Titanic take on water the SS Biden and I
don't think they have a good game plan right now.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
This is my concern is that they're going to get
increasingly erratic, vicious, and desperate as this election gets closer.
Because I'll be honest, I'm surprised at how resoundingly their
anti Trump lawfair has backfired thus far. That could change,
It doesn't look like it will anytime soon, and if
(36:47):
it doesn't play, they're going to be beyond pull.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Out all the stops. What comes next? Great question, We'll
talk about it when we come back. Final hour, two
day editions
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.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.