April 16, 2024 • 59 mins
Don't throw me in the briar patch. Communism is an Invasive Species. Julie Kelly on today's SCOTUS hearing on the J6 charges. Winning on merit.
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 Klay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in, Oh Boy, Chaos, Chaos, Chaos. I feel like
that could be the story that we begin with for
the next six months as we move closer to November fifth,
the Trump trial underway. So all of you know I
have not yet been arrested. If you missed yesterday show,
CNN says that I've committed felonies and should be arrested.
(00:27):
Maybe we'll play that audio for you a little bit
later in the program, but I want to update you
with everything that's going on right now, which is I
would say remarkably chaotic, even with the Trump standard of
chaos that often applies. So let me give you like
a rundown of what is transpiring as we speak. Julie
(00:48):
Kelly is going to join us at one thirty eastern
right now. The Supreme Court is hearing a case on
whether or not half of the charges that Jack Smith
brought related to January sixth on Donald Trump can be
applied or not to his actions on that day. And
(01:09):
this gets into the weeds a little bit, and we
will be talking about this in detail with her. But
you may have heard us discussing it for some time. Essentially,
prosecutors tried to use a corporate statute that was passed
as a part of Sarbanes Oxley that was designed to
restrict corporate governance Mouthfeissans, and they are trying to use
(01:33):
that to apply it to people who walked into the
Capitol on January sixth by saying that they were obstructing
an official proceeding. And the Court is having to analyze
whether or not that has been appropriately applied to the
January sixth defendants. An early spoiler alert this morning, Buck,
I was listening and reading about that argument. I don't
(01:56):
think this is going to be close. I think it's
going to be at least three that they cannot use
these statutes, and it may go all the way out
to potentially some of the liberal justices as well, who
have evinced a great deal of skepticism.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Also, we'll get Julie Kelly's read have you seen this?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I mean, I think if they were to go seven
to two or something in that magnitude to strike this down,
it would be a huge blow to Jack Smith and
all of the Democrats that have tried to use this
January sixth statute.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Well, I also think that it goes into a larger framework,
a bigger it's evidence in a bigger trial, if you will,
that how many times can they try to use the
law against Trump and they have to get slapped down?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (02:46):
You look at all the different prosecutors, all the different
efforts to destroy Trump that we are finding the system
itself is saying is outrageous, meaning they've tried to abuse
the system to destroy Trump. And then people have had
to step in at the Supreme Court level, for example,
and say, guys, what are you doing. That's not constitutional,
(03:07):
that's not lawful. And the best example is the nine
to zero of what Colorado was trying to do. And
then Maine dabbled in for a second of removing Trump
from the ballot. To be very clear, the most left
wing justices I think in the history of the Supreme Court, okay,
and certainly the most among the most anti Trump judges
(03:29):
you'll find anywhere went along with the majority and that
they said, guys, you can't just say we think he
did a thing that hasn't been proven in court, and
we're going to remove him from the ballot and he
can't be president. He can't do that, right, I mean,
you're effectively overriding federal elections, Clay, if this happens now
to your point about the Supreme Court argument this morning,
if that gets struck down, they will have abused another
(03:52):
statute to pile up against not just Trump but his supporters.
Their abuse isn't just a matter of opinion, and their
abuse of the law is becoming increasingly a matter of
fact over and over again. And this is also important
they are trying now. This has just happened.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
The prosecutors have filed emotion to hold Trump in contempt
for violating the gag order that was put on place
in place for him in the Manhattan criminal trial. Trump
has already weighed in this morning and I listened and
I was like, wow, this is what he said outside
of the courtroom as we were as he entered this morning.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
So this is a couple of hours ago. I think. Now, listen,
we have a judge who shouldn't be on this case.
He's totally conflicted.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
But this is a trial that should never happen or
should have been thrown out a long time ago.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
If you look at a job at the term andy
regard the all.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Great legal skos is not one that we've been able
to find that said this should be a trial right
now in Pennsylvania and far in many other states.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
North Camp Judji campaign.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
This is all coming from the bite one White House because.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
They guy can't put two sentences together.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
You can't campaign maybe a using this in order to
try and win an election, and it's not working that way.
It's working the opposite player.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Okay, So that is Trump this morning. He also posted
on truth right before he went into the courtroom. Buck,
this conflicted Trump hating judge won't let me respond to
people that are on TV lying and spewing hate all
day long. He's running roughshod over my lawyers and legal team.
The New York system of quotation marks justice is being
(05:45):
decimated by critics from all over the world. I want
to speak or at least be able to respond. Election interference, rigged,
unconstitutional trial. Take off the gag order now, Buck, here's
my question for you. Are they gonna put them in
jail over this? Because I think that's where this is headed.
I think this judge wants Trump in jail for VIAT
(06:08):
for contempt. And I don't think it's crazy to think
it's gonna happen. I think Trump may want it to happen.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Well, this is there are some parts of this that
are legal analysis and parts of this that become very
obviously political analysis, and I know they're intertwined as well.
I know we get this question all the time, and
it's funny because I don't know anybody who has an
answer to it. How do you incarcerate somebody who has
lifetime twenty four to seven Secret Service protected. We started
(06:36):
asking this years ago. Yeah, we've been looking at this
for a long time now. There is precedent for you know,
taking taking a person and putting them in I think
they call it administrative administrative segregation where you know, for example,
if a cop gets put in like state prison, they
sometimes will move because you know, maybe.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
A protective custody basically different to the other members of
the of the jail.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Yeah, and you could do something like that, but you
would have to have Secret Service, like I think Trump might.
This is I understand, this is crazy. Can I just
preface this. I know what we're saying here is crazy,
but we're in a crazy time everyone. I think there's
a situation where maybe they would because if they hold
him in contempt.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
What he's going to be forty eight hours or something, right,
I thinen him in cuffs and they walk, they purple walk.
That's what I'm saying. That's the question.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
They want to break, the seal, they want to establish,
just like remember the Brag trial was the first one
to bring an indictment, which I always thought was significant
because yeah, it was flimsy, but they knew that there
was no process by which it would likely be overturned
or stopped in New York. So they wanted to set
the precedent, and all the omens came in Clay. I
(07:52):
think they could put him. I think they think, I'll
put it that way. They think they could end up
putting him in and administer great. By the way, if
we have somebody from like Bureau of Prisons or you know,
New York State Bureau of Prisons, or just in general,
let us know if you think there is some precedent.
My sense is they would have to shut down like
(08:13):
a wing of a holding facility, and then there have
to be secret service there to protect him. But he'd
have to be inside of a cell for a couple
of days, and that's what they would That's what they would.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
They can't. I don't think that.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
I mean that the New York State can't say you
no longer have Secret Service protection. They can't do that.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Okay, so that leads to them, which is crazy. There
aren't a lot of precedents for this, Okay, there's no president,
like there's no I mean, there are precedents for famous
people being held in contempt of court. Never someone would
secret Service protection. They never a former and likely future
president of the United States though. So here is my
(08:53):
question for you. Then, as a part of that.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Is this Trump as I've used this innound because I
remember growing up watching it.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Do you know brer Rabbit at Allbuck? Do you remember
the Braer Rabbit stories? No, ok, I don't know what
you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
I don't know what percentage of people out there will
remember this. I'm in Georgia, by the way, which is
where I think that Joeld Chandler Harris Breer Rabbit stories originated.
They were later made into cartoons, all this stuff Breer Rabbit,
and before they decided that Splash Mountain was racist at
Disney World, Breer Rabbit was the star of Splash Mountain.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
If any of you have been on the Splash Mountain.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Ride at Disney, Okay, Breer Rabbit would always say, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Whatever you do, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Is Donald Trump daring
marchand this judge, as well as the larger Democrat party
apparatus to put him in jail, because in the same
(09:55):
way that the mugshot was a huge benefit to Trump,
is him getting put in jail for contempt of court
a huge political win for him?
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Leave aside the legal for right now.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
I do think so, especially especially on this because even
people who are casual observers.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Of the news, which is most people, because most.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
People are you know, we have a hyper attuned and
informed audience most of America. As much as I love America,
people have other things that don't watch the news, even
if you or watch much of the news, uh, and
they get their news from bad places.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
In a lot of play, in a lot of context too.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
I think that the that Donald Trump in a cell,
the reason being he was held in contempt by a judge,
the reason being he's speaking out against a trial that
has to do with a business administrative accounting error. That's
all this is that is what we're talking about here.
(10:55):
I think that any normal person who has not been
just steeped in Trump arrangement syndrome would say to that,
this is this, we can't have this in our country.
And I think that's why the polls are all showing
what they're showing right.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Now, Clay, That's that's the truth.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, And this is why. I mean, look, you things
cut through. I think what you said is a good
a good point. What percentage of people do you think
have seen the Trump mug shot photo? What percentage of
American voters? One hundred percent. I think it's almost impossible
that you would not have seen the Trump mugshot picture,
even if you're not paying attention to the news on
(11:30):
a day to day basis. I mean, I think if
you can name the current vice president, you've seen the
mugshot photo, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Like, I think if you have.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Shot photo, then they canname the vice president. I think
it's almost one hundred percent of voters would have seen
that photo. My point is almost one hundred percent of voters.
I'm saying voters because you know forty percent of people
are not voting. I think almost one hundred percent of
voters will see if Trump is arrested. They may not
pay attention to the results of the trial. They may
not be following on a day to day basis like
(11:59):
we are. And to me, I think it's highly likely
that it would work to his favor. And I wonder
how much political calculus in the same way. We've talked
for a long time now, ever since the raid on
mar Lago in what August of twenty two, we have
said there's a two tier story here, the legal and
the political, and they're intertwined in a way that we've
(12:20):
never seen before. Something can be smart and legally and
really poor decision of politically and vice versa. And also,
I think something to remember about where the Democrats are
and the anti Trump machinery. They thought all along that
these trials, that these prosecutions would destroy Donald Trump. They
have no choice but to see all of this through.
(12:41):
To withdraw all of it at this point, or to
withdraw all the efforts to say, all right, you know
the elections coming up, we're going to defer. Delay would
be essentially to admit that they had made some political
calculation error. So they have to go all the way
with this, and I think that in New York, what
you're seeing is if they brought this trial and I'm
(13:04):
gonna say, I mean they they did this to Trump's
uh Trump Incorporate, you know, corporation accountant Alan Weiselberg, who's
gone to prison, and they just sent to Peter Navarro,
uh to prison. He's serving a sentence right now for
not testifying to Congress because he's associated with Trump. If
they did this to anyone, Clay, it would be an outrage.
That they're doing it to the person who is leading
(13:25):
in the presidential nomination contest right now according to every
single polling company in the United States is It's outrageous
beyond words. But they have what are they going to do?
They won't stop, so they're going to see this all
the way through.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
I don't see a way around it. I mean I
think that and and locking Trump up. Please, if you're
from if you if you worked in prisons, and you
have some idea of how they could do this, I
don't even know what would they do? How would this go?
Let us know, because I'd be very curious to hear it.
I think the only answer is if they would have
(14:00):
have to have the Secret Service come in clear a wing,
shut down the wing, and it would almost be like
you remember when Pablo Escobar got to build his own prison,
kind of be a little bit like that, because like
your guys would be running the thing, and uh, nobody
would really be.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
And I don't know.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Also, Buck, he has to be in court, so I
don't even know how they can jail him because the
judge is already said that he has to be present
in court, even if it means that he misses his
son's graduation potentially, So if he gets put in court,
it further delays the process of the trial. I mean,
it's put in jail, it further delays the process of
(14:36):
the trial.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
I just I don't even know. I this is fascinating.
I don't even know how this plays out.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
But yeah, to your point eight hundred two A two
two eight eight two, if you have some theory, based
on your knowledge of the New York court system, what
this would be like or how it would work, I
would actually be be fascinated to hear. Yeah, I'm gonna
we're gonna dive into this, and I think, uh, I
mean it's gonna.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
The thing is I just want to prepare all of you.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
It's gonna get crazier. It's gonna get crazier. Yes, not
seen peak crazy.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
We're just touching the tip of the iceberg right now
of the crazy that's coming.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
That is correct, Yes, all right? Eight hundred two A
two two eight a two.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
And you know this past year, the dedicated staff of
people at Preborn's network of clinics saved Are you ready
for this? Fifty eight thousand babies, thanks in large part
to your generosity and your dedication to this nonprofit. You know,
we talk a lot about the laws here and how
do how do we work with in this state and
save as much life as possible. I mean, that's a
(15:37):
worthy cause and the pro life movement is focused in
on that and doing what they can. But you know,
there's also what Preborn does where it's just helping to
create that bond between mother and baby in the womb,
so that mother, even if she's very troubled by the pregnancy,
wasn't expecting it, worried about the finances, she says, I'm
gonna give.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
My child life. That's what Preborn does.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
It helps create that incredibly powerful bond between mother and child,
and then it is more likely that mom is going
to make the choice for life. That's a critical part
of the pro life mission, and Preborn is doing a
day in and day out. One woman who visited the
preborn clinics was Katrina. Now she was thinking that she
(16:19):
was tending toward life for unborn baby, but people around
her were pressuring her to get an abortion. But by
God's grace, she was led to a Preborn Network clinic
where she was given a free ultrasound. When she saw
that baby on sonogram, she was amazed to see the
baby's movements, but then she heard the heartbeat and that
was it. In that moment, she realized there was a
(16:39):
miracle growing inside her womb, and Katrina's little baby was
born soon thereafter. Every day, Preborn celebrates two hundred miracles
just like this one. An ultrasound costs US twenty eight
dollars that can be the difference between life and death
for a child. All you have to do is dial
pound two five zero say the keyword baby. That's pound
(17:01):
two fifty say baby. Or you can donate online visit
preborn dot com, slash buck that's preborn dot com, slash
b u c K sponsored by preborn.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Making sense in an insane world. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
All right, Hour two Clay in Buck kicks off. Now everybody,
thank you for being with us talking.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
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 speaker same as the old speaker. I
(17:44):
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 someting ideas and options out there to be sure.
It's I think it's an interesting debate. Nothing else allows
(18:05):
people to vent some of their irritation with the Rhino
Caucus 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 in the background that is intended to
(18:26):
help make you fall asleep.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
It's really good. You know.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
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 occidis. You'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
(18:50):
lost America's trust. NPR suspension here of this guy after
he had a scathing online essay embracing a because MPs
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.
(19:10):
That's what we know about CNN prompting fierce right wing backlash,
calling for the defunding of Public, the public radio network.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
And yeah, they got into some of this.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
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
(19:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Knows, but nobody's allowed to talk about it.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
This is true, by the way, and this is true
at ABC News, this is true at all of.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
These plays in New York Times. So did you really
think he was gonna get away with it? What do
you make of this?
Speaker 2 (20:10):
So I look at this in the context of 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
(20:31):
about the overall fairness of their doctrine. So 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
(20:52):
all businesses do. More power to them. The government doesn't
fund Clay and Buck. We stand a one as a
capitalistic venture based on you guys listening and sponsorship dollars
and everything else.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
So this to me is number one. Number two. The
new woman that they hired.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
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
who's suspending Yuri Berlinner. Her name is Catherine Mayer or
mar I'm not sure how you pronounce it. She tweeted
this lots of jokes about leaving the US, and I
(21:33):
get it, But as someone with SIS white mobility privilege,
I'm thinking I'm staying and investing in ridding ourselves of
this specter of tyranny. 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
(21:55):
ask you, this, 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 (22:11):
Do we know? I, oh, that's a great question. You
may be right.
Speaker 4 (22:14):
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. You knew this, right, Yes,
they now have the uh. 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
(22:37):
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 (22:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Maybe maybe some of our woke translators out there know
the answer to that.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Here's a couple of her other tweets.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Buck I do wish Hillary wouldn't use the language of
boy and girl. It's erasing language for non binary people,
She tweeted.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
These are her tweets. This is the person who's in
charge of NPR.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
I'm an unalloyed progressive and supporting Hillary this time around.
She also said the 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.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
These are things that she's tweeted. So this woman is
far left wing. I saw this communist is running NPR.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
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
(23:57):
tax day. I cut checks. I was not happy to
cut 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 4 (24:13):
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
(24:34):
which does get some public funding those.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
It's not a lot, okay, But what's not a lot?
Why do you get any? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (24:39):
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 new organization that does not even
(25:02):
feel the need to have a a token Republican right?
Does it even feel the need to have Hey, like
we you know, we hate Bob who sits our 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. They don't even
want that. They want like a Maoist cultural revolution level
(25:24):
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 thinks. 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 and mentally ill like I think there's something
wrong with them. I think they have anxiety disorders that
(25:44):
they actually think are political positions, and that's where we
are as a country. So I just think we need
to be honest 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,
(26:06):
And this is why the diversity and inclusion people to me,
are full of it. The only diversity that matters is
diversity 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 (26:23):
How does that benefit any organization well?
Speaker 4 (26:25):
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 hired 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.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
The truth of an NPR is.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
They think that there is more more to be gained
from the perspective that you get of having a white
you know, let's say a white guy who's you know, parents,
you know, went to Cornell or something, and we're doctors
sitting next to a black guy whose parents went to
(27:10):
you know, went to Dartmouth, and our doctors 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
(27:31):
very similar perspectives, but are different 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
(27:55):
enough for the Demens. Not like he's a Republican who
was pointing out the flaws that he saw here. He's
just somewhat of an honest liberal, not a progressive, an
honest liberal who looks around and says, we don't really
have a marketplace of ideas here, and we're failing as
a result. You know, I think of ideologies in this way,
you know. And this is this has been true of honestly,
(28:16):
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
other approach that could be at hand, they will not
have power. So this is why they need absolutism. They
(28:37):
need uniformity. And I've said it reminds me, you know.
I went and I went and took my little nephew
and my family to the We had an amazing alligator tour.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
You know.
Speaker 4 (28:46):
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
learn like pythons for these pythons boa constrictors, and they
eat a lot of the native wildlf. The thing is,
they're not trying to establish a balance in the ecosystem.
They're gonna like kill all the native species, birds and
(29:09):
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 lickfish 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. Communists,
(29:29):
ideologically aren't invasive species. They do not seek This is
why it's so fascinate. They talk about like diversity and inclusion,
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 in newsroom after newsroom
(29:52):
over the last twenty years. Somehow it never is the
case that they go, oh my gosh, I woke up
one day in the washing the 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 the existence
(30:14):
of other ideas is a threat to the existence of
my ideas.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
It's all or nothing with them.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
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 (30:30):
Ain't getting better.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
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 unemployment offices out there. You've seen things
like this happen.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
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. No,
the problem is that he talked it, not let's talk
about it. You shut your mouth, you do the work
of the communist party, you call yourself a good, loyal
(31:05):
progressive democrat, and you go forward.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
All right.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
Look, if you're a firearms enthusiast like I am, where
do 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.
(31:28):
I mean, I know some of you out there probably
have ars that you paid I don't know, one thousand.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Bucks, maybe fifteen hundred four.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
You can get a Bear Creek Arsenal rifle that is
every bit as good. And I was out of the
range testing him out this weekend. I had my most
expensive ar, 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,
(31:58):
you're gonna love it. Amazing histols gear rifles. Go check
it out for yourself. Bear Creekarsenal 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 1 (32:21):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton making sense in an insane world.
Speaker 4 (32:26):
We're joined by our friend Julie Kelly. Please check out
her substack declassified with Julie Kelly and Julie appreciate you
being with us. Let's dive right into it.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
Fisher v.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
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 (32:54):
Right. So, this relates to the government's use DOJ's use
of fifteen twelve C two Obstruction of an official person
be eating 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
(33:14):
first time ever is weaponized that statute to criminalize political
dissent and charge now roughly three hundred and fifty January
sixth protesters with this felony offense 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. The District Court
(33:37):
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 2 (33:48):
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 courtroom.
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. What I thought was likely
based on what I saw, I see this as a
(34:10):
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 (34:26):
So, just to clarify, I wasn't in the courtroom today.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Oh my bad.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
I know that's okay. Fortunately, you can cover all of
these proceedings on the Supreme Court website and also see
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
think it was as strong as it needed to be,
and the questions were tough as to the two different
(34:53):
parts of the statutes 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
be fine. But look the idea that you can take
an entire code of the US Criminal Code fifteen twelve,
(35:17):
which only has to do with tampering with evidence or
witnesses in judicial proceedings, and clip out this sub section
and set this aside from everything else to make it
sound that official proceeding which is used throughout fifteen twelve,
meaning a judicial proceeding, not a function of Congress. To
(35:38):
carve 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 became
quite clear during the discussion today.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
Actually, Julie, can we jump in here real quick because
we want to play for everybody hear Supreme Court is gorshic.
This is cut twenty eight dealing with exactly what you're
talking about, which is, oh so only in this congressional
instance is obstruction a problem play?
Speaker 6 (36:10):
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 before a vote qualify? For
twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 7 (36:30):
The actus 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 (36:46):
Most scrupted roadtests that actually obstructs and impedes and an
official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.
Speaker 7 (36:55):
Not necessarily, we would just have to have the evidence
of intent, and that's a they.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Tend to do it all right.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
Yeah, I just think he knewked their whole argument here.
I don't know how they get around this. There's absolutely
no legal basis to she's saying, Oh, well, corrupt men's
ray or something. Yeah, they're obstructing. They won't 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 (37:24):
That's exactly what she was saying. And I'll take this
a step first. Or 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
(37:44):
the past six months, especially in Washington, DC 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, all of these cases are being
handled by the local DC prosecutor, which means they will
(38:05):
be local offenses. So I was a little surprised that
Elizabeth Peyligor was not better prepared to answer the selective
prosecution angle of fifteen twelve y 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
(38:28):
someone screaming during a proceeding of the Supreme Court or
a Senate confirmation hearing or anything we've seen 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.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
That's okay.
Speaker 5 (38:44):
Satisfy the inquiring minds of the justices.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Julie, 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 you down with, oh, there's
never going to be any impact on this, And now
it seems likely that the Supreme Court is going to
strike down I think prosecutions under this statute if we
(39:11):
are correct about that, and in June, the Supreme Court
issues and 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. What is the impact then,
where do we go from there?
Speaker 5 (39:25):
Well, thank you for 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 reversed the DOJ
(39:48):
Matthew Graves, the DCUs Attorney, and seventeen judges on the
DC District and Circuit courts who out hold discount even
when they knew understood how vague it was, how brot
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 will
(40:12):
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 Attorney's Office in
DC and d OJ for abusing this law to yes
creates a set of political prisoners who only have been
(40:34):
subjected to the selling when no one else has. And
Elizabeth Priliguard said today no one else will be just
j fixers.
Speaker 2 (40:45):
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
(41:06):
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 (41:21):
You're exactly right. So this has great jeopardy to jectsima's
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
(41:43):
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
(42:06):
of evidence, evidence, impairment, document treading, et cetera. So if
they come back and they say the January sixth is
not an official proceeding as there it leads to fifteen twelve,
then I don't see how jack Smith continues to keep
those two counts in his four account indictments. There are
other ways that Supreme Court could hedge and protect within
(42:28):
Jacksmith's indictment. You heard a little bit of Amy Cony
Barrett which made me nervous, sort of reiterating Jack Smith's
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.
(42:49):
But you know this will be also I should have
had it Special Council Jacksmith and his team of the
Black Eye to him as well for bringing such a vague,
untested statute and a presidential criminal indictment against Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Julie Kelly declassified on substack. Please subscribe to it. Julie,
we'll be talking to you a lot between now on
the election. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 5 (43:11):
Thanks, guys really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
She really is doing fabulous work. Buck.
Speaker 4 (43:16):
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.
Right now, you can take advantage of the My 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 Mypillows made with the all
new Giza fabric just twenty five dollars each, or their
(43:39):
two pack multi use My Pillows for just twenty five bucks,
or their six pack towel sets for the same price
just twenty 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 names
Clay and Buck as the promo code. It's the MyPillow
Extravaganza sale. Just go to my pillow dot Com click
(43:59):
on the radio listener special square for these twenty five
dollars deals. You'll get free shipping on orders over seventy
five bucks. Use the promo code Clay and Buck to
access the sale. That's my pillow dot Com promo code
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Keep up with Clay and Bucks campaign coverage with twenty
four a Sunday highlight reel from the week. Fight it
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Welcome back in our number three Clay Travis Buck Sexton
Show Tuesday Edition. I want to say thanks to the
great people at news Talk one oh six in one
of six point three FM down in Atlanta.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
They are hosting me today.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
I'm going to an event for Kelly Bluffler and for
Governor Brian Kemp and a lot of other Georgia politicos.
I'm speaking there tonight and then Buck, I'm getting on
a late night flight and I'll be in the air
going to Seattle before we talk about Seattle, which that's
going to be fascinating. Yes, are you going to tell
(45:02):
Governor Kemp while you're in his home state your theory
about how maybe dark Horse Trump VP, you know, maybe
maybe out of nowhere all of a sudden.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
I think Trump is gonna win. I just want to see.
I want to know what his face is when you
tell him what.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
I think Trump is gonna win Georgia by eight points.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
I don't think it's gonna be close. I think it's
gonna be like I'm putting it on. I'm putting it
on the prediction.
Speaker 2 (45:27):
The projection eight points, I think seven or eight points.
I think it's going to be a very comfortable win
in Georgia. Of all the states, if you had to
ask me, which state is most likely to flip from
twenty twenty, either in favor of Democrats or in favor
of Republicans.
Speaker 4 (45:44):
I think Georgia is going to be back in red camp.
And I actually think you're gonna start to see Biden
spending less time and money in Georgia because the numbers
out there are really bad for them.
Speaker 3 (45:57):
In Georgia.
Speaker 4 (45:57):
The most recent poll has Trump up to in Georgia.
There is no Senate race. There is no governor's race.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
There's nothing to motivate in state voters for Democrats in
any kind of substantial way.
Speaker 3 (46:12):
And you'll recall in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
Two, basically every statewide candidate except Hershelwalker won by seven
or eight points.
Speaker 3 (46:22):
So it wasn't just that they won.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
It was despite the fact that Stacy Abrams, I believe,
outspent Brian Kemp and they had a close race in
twenty eighteen. He trounced her in twenty twenty two. So
I appreciate the atl for taking care of me. I'm
going to be down here again in June to watch
the Atlanta Braves with my kids.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
I can't wait it. We wait for it.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
We got a great affiliate again, News Talk Extra one
oh six point three FM. We appreciate all of you
out there listening in Atlanta and then Buck I'm headed
to Seattle, which is crazy town. I'm going to be
speaking at a Hillsdale College event that they are doing
in s So I'm gonna get on I don't know,
a midnight flight basically and fly all the way to
(47:04):
the West coast, and I'll be doing the show Wednesday
and Thursday, from there. So anyway, we'll see how how
I do in crazy town. I haven't been to Seattle
since everything fell apart with Chaz, remember that, like the
Autonomous region and everything. I mean, even for twenty twenty
standards of crazy, people looked at Seattle, Portland, and San
(47:29):
Francisco and said, you guys are crazy. The standard for
crazy was high, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco all exceeded
it by massive amounts. So we'll see what it looks like.
I haven't been to the city since. Like I said,
I think I was like twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen that
I was in Seattle, beautiful place, filled with a lot
of crazy leftists. So we'll see how I do there.
(47:50):
But two major legal issues that are unfolding. You just
heard us talk with Julie Kelly, the analysis of whether
the Jan six political persecutions, because I do think persecution
and prosecution are intertwined in many ways here, are permissible
or not under the Sarbines Oxley obstruction of an official
(48:11):
preceding standard. It seems likely that many of those convictions
are going to get struck down. Maybe it'll be five
to four, maybe it'll be six to three. Maybe even
get a liberal to come on, but that would come
out in June would be a huge story because it
implicates half of Jack Smith's case in Washington, DC. It
would also be a huge story, as you just heard
us talking, because for years leftists have been saying, oh,
(48:35):
these Jan six insurrection cases, they're one hundred percent legally permissible,
They're necessary, we have to hold everybody accountable. What you're
probably likely to hear is that there was major prosecutorial overreach. Simultaneously,
they are trying to hold Trump in contempt of court
in New York City, where day two of his criminal
(48:58):
trial in the Alvin Bragg cases underway. And what we
have been talking about, I think fairly on this show,
Buck since August of twenty two, when Lamar A Lago
Ray basically kicked into high gear. The way that Merrick
Garland and the Department of Justice we're going to all
come after Donald Trump. How is this playing in the
(49:19):
larger political arena? What would happen if Trump got arrested?
How would they even handle it? These are things that
are truly unprecedented that we are continuing to break down.
Speaker 4 (49:29):
Yeah, I think anybody who tells you they know where
all this is going is making that up. It's not possible.
Did you want to get to the Stephen A. Smith Clay, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:39):
I want to play this because I would argue that
Stephen A. Smith very middle of the road guy. He's
not a politically from ESPN. He's going to come on
the show. We're going to get him on somewhat soon.
He's being more outspoken on a variety of different areas.
I've done his podcast a couple of times. We had
interesting conversations, but he had this to say yesterday.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
We've talked a lot about black.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
Men and the possibility that if you look at the
polling from Wall Street Journal, maybe thirty percent of black
men are willing to support Trump. Here is here's what
Stephen A. Smith had to say about the cases in
his hometown of New York City.
Speaker 8 (50:14):
To my liberal friends out there, all you're doing is
showing that you're scared. You can't beat them on the
issues and the merits. That's why he keeps saying it's
a political campaign against me. That's why he keeps saying
they can't beat me at the election at the polls.
This is the only way they could do it. And
(50:35):
if you don't put him in jail, and he still
goes from being the presumptive GOP nominee to the official
GOP nominee, and he goes to the polls even though
he was going to whine about winning and being rigged again.
You have given more fodder to that argument, which means
we'll never have peace in this country because tens of
(50:55):
millions of.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
People see what extent the other.
Speaker 8 (51:00):
Is willing to go through just to keep him out
of office because they can't beat him on their own merits.
Speaker 4 (51:06):
I do think this is a fundamental point. I mean,
this is a central point of everything that we're talking
about here. If what Trump did is so bad, and
if it's so clear he's so awful, why is he
ahead in the polls and why are they so scared
of what's going to happen in the fall. And they
don't have an answer for that, and they won't process it,
(51:27):
they won't think it through. But I think stephen A
hits right into the center of it. It's something we've
discussed here many times. The best way for there to
be a referendum on Trump's behavior, whether just talking about
his four years as president or what you think about
whether that should change because of January sixth. This is
ultimately the most clear political question right This is about
(51:50):
who should lead the nation according to the vote of
the American people. Let the people have their say. All
these efforts that they have are to either stop Trump
entirely now and look, he's clearly the nominate. It's not
about just having him win the primary anymore, if it
ever was, it's to stop him from being able to
(52:12):
run entirely or now. I think this is what they've
shifted gears toward. Just make it so it's really hard
for him to win as he's running, but not based
upon what people want, based upon the fact that they
are rigging the system. I mean, this is they're rigging
the election. Even if Trump wins, it will be an
election that is rigged against him, just based upon these
(52:34):
legal challenges. And they can't come up with an answer.
If Trump is so bad, why are you terrified that
the American people are going to vote for him over
Joe Biden? Like, what is the response to that after
four years of Trump and four years of Biden? Americans
of voting age are likely to say, based on what
we see right now, yeah, I want Trump to be
(52:55):
president again.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
It's not even just that, too, Buck, It's that their
only even willing by and large to bring charges in
juries that are rigged in their favor, that is, political
locales that overwhelmingly favored Democrats. So that's why I think
one of the most difficult and I think Stephen a
hit on it. We've been hitting on this quite a lot.
That's why I think one of the most difficult questions
(53:17):
to answer is not only why are you trying to
keep him from running? Why are you trying to put
him in prison? It's also why are you doing these charges?
Why are you bringing them entirely in a in a
jury rig to a large extent process, Because I'm not
we said this earlier. If you told me, hey, it's
(53:40):
a fifty to fifty America, which I think it's fair
to say that roughly, it is like everybody out there
listening would have to agree. If you told me that
they were going to try to bring charges against Trump
to put him in prison for the rest of his life,
I would still think it's an awful precedent to set
in the United States, because sooner or later, somebody else
will also have the same result that Trump has. Now
(54:02):
somebody else is going to get charged as a method
of lawfare. But at least if you allowed the jury
to be in a jurisdiction that's fifty to fifty, I
would say, okay, like, let's see how it actually plays out.
Which is why South Florida. I'm not that nervous about
South Florida. I don't think that there will be a
jury that is overwhelmingly made up of Trump haters. I
(54:25):
think there's going to be a jury in New York
City that, just based on the numbers, is likely to
be made up of Trump haters. And I think I
don't think it's crazy to think that there are going
to be people that want to see Trump put in
prison for the rest of his life that are a
part of this jury pool. Now, maybe some of them
will say, hey, you know what, I can't fairly and
impartially render justice.
Speaker 3 (54:46):
We already saw that happen a little bit. They'll step out.
Speaker 2 (54:48):
I think there's other people that will be happy to
be on this jury because they want to hold Trump responsible.
Speaker 3 (54:55):
They want to be the deciders. And I look at
this and I say.
Speaker 4 (55:02):
Fundamentally, we can have one hundred and fifty million people
render a verdict on Trump's behavior, on Trump's whether or
not he's able to be president, or we can have
twelve in a incredibly biased jurisdiction. And to me, the
one hundred and fifty million is the answer no matter
how much you trust juris do you want twelve people
(55:22):
trying to decide who can be president?
Speaker 3 (55:24):
Or do you want one hundred and fifty million? It
does go to the ultimate point.
Speaker 4 (55:28):
I think about the mental instability of many of the
Democrats that are pushing for this, or the the emotional
and ideological surrender that they've had. Right, they just whatever
the anti trump Ism demands, they will go. For the
fact that Alvin Bragg has turned that one preposterous charge,
it's worth everybody knowing or keeping this in mind. I
(55:51):
think it's thirty four right, It's a thirty four felony
count indictment. It was one thing we're talking about, and
he's charging it thirty four time, which is specifically against
prosecutorial guidelines. You're not supposed to. You know, if someone
hands you drugs and then you say, hold on time
my shoe, and you hand it back to them, and
then they hand the drugs back to you. You know,
(56:11):
you don't charge these as separate drug possession crimes, right,
You're not supposed to do that because it's obviously unjust.
That's exactly what Alvin Bragg is doing. He's saying, oh, well,
they like xerox did or they emailed it or whatever
that every time, we're going to charge that as an
additional felony. And you have to wonder that any Democrat
who supports the prosecution going on in New York City
is also telling you that in America today, it would
(56:34):
be more just not preferable for you know what you
think the politics of the country should be. It would
be more just for Donald Trump to be in prison
for years and not be able to run, although I
think he would still run from prison. That's a whole
other conversation. That's insane. But it'd be more just for
Donald Trump to sit in a prison cell over a
clerical error, over a Stormy Daniel's payoff or whatever hush
(56:58):
money or whatever they're calling it. Then it would just
allow the American people to say, do I or do
I not want Donald Trump to be president for four
more years?
Speaker 3 (57:07):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (57:07):
That's insane. I mean, this is this is the decision
that we're being faced with as a country, or rather
the decision they want to deny us as a country
based upon what exactly and the moment you dig into
a clay. It's all just so flimsy and underhanded.
Speaker 3 (57:25):
It's one hundred percent what it is.
Speaker 2 (57:26):
And I wonder how many people that are in general
not paying that much attention or ultimately coming to that
same conclusion. If the guy's so bad, how come they
can't just let everybody go vote, Let the American people
decide whether Trump is able to or not able to
be the next president of the United States. That's how
democracy works. Yeah, eight hundred two two two eight to two.
(57:48):
We'll get some of your calls on this issue coming
up on the back half of this hour. You know, look,
people think mortgage rates are extremely high, and look, they
are higher than they were just a few years ago.
And we know who's just responsible for inflation of the
past three years time and the rise and interest rates
as they've tried to combat that that they created. But
by comparison, when you put mortgage rates side by side
(58:10):
with credit card interest rates, I mean, mortgage rates are
far lower. Mortgage rates are much lower than the average
credit card rate, which is about twenty two percent. So look,
if you're a homeowner, refinancing with American Financing can help
you pay off that credit card debt and lower your
monthly expenses, and the mortgage interest is tax deductible. They're
(58:31):
saving homeowners just like you an average of eight hundred
and fifty four dollars a month. American Financing's salary based
mortgage consultants will show you how much you can save
every month with no upfront fees and no obligation. You
may even close in as fast as ten days and
possibly delay two mortgage payments, giving you greater savings upfront.
(58:51):
Call American Financing Today eight hundred seven seven seven eight
one zero nine. That's eight hundred seven seven seven eight
one zero nine. Or visit America and Financing dot net.
That's American Financing dot net. Animals one eight two three
three four animals, Consumer Access dot Org.
Speaker 1 (59:08):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of
truth
Welcome to today's edition of The Klay, Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in, Oh Boy, Chaos, Chaos, Chaos. I feel like
that could be the story that we begin with for
the next six months as we move closer to November fifth,
the Trump trial underway. So all of you know I
have not yet been arrested. If you missed yesterday show,
CNN says that I've committed felonies and should be arrested.
(00:27):
Maybe we'll play that audio for you a little bit
later in the program, but I want to update you
with everything that's going on right now, which is I
would say remarkably chaotic, even with the Trump standard of
chaos that often applies. So let me give you like
a rundown of what is transpiring as we speak. Julie
(00:48):
Kelly is going to join us at one thirty eastern
right now. The Supreme Court is hearing a case on
whether or not half of the charges that Jack Smith
brought related to January sixth on Donald Trump can be
applied or not to his actions on that day. And
(01:09):
this gets into the weeds a little bit, and we
will be talking about this in detail with her. But
you may have heard us discussing it for some time. Essentially,
prosecutors tried to use a corporate statute that was passed
as a part of Sarbanes Oxley that was designed to
restrict corporate governance Mouthfeissans, and they are trying to use
(01:33):
that to apply it to people who walked into the
Capitol on January sixth by saying that they were obstructing
an official proceeding. And the Court is having to analyze
whether or not that has been appropriately applied to the
January sixth defendants. An early spoiler alert this morning, Buck,
I was listening and reading about that argument. I don't
(01:56):
think this is going to be close. I think it's
going to be at least three that they cannot use
these statutes, and it may go all the way out
to potentially some of the liberal justices as well, who
have evinced a great deal of skepticism.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Also, we'll get Julie Kelly's read have you seen this?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I mean, I think if they were to go seven
to two or something in that magnitude to strike this down,
it would be a huge blow to Jack Smith and
all of the Democrats that have tried to use this
January sixth statute.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Well, I also think that it goes into a larger framework,
a bigger it's evidence in a bigger trial, if you will,
that how many times can they try to use the
law against Trump and they have to get slapped down?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (02:46):
You look at all the different prosecutors, all the different
efforts to destroy Trump that we are finding the system
itself is saying is outrageous, meaning they've tried to abuse
the system to destroy Trump. And then people have had
to step in at the Supreme Court level, for example,
and say, guys, what are you doing. That's not constitutional,
(03:07):
that's not lawful. And the best example is the nine
to zero of what Colorado was trying to do. And
then Maine dabbled in for a second of removing Trump
from the ballot. To be very clear, the most left
wing justices I think in the history of the Supreme Court, okay,
and certainly the most among the most anti Trump judges
(03:29):
you'll find anywhere went along with the majority and that
they said, guys, you can't just say we think he
did a thing that hasn't been proven in court, and
we're going to remove him from the ballot and he
can't be president. He can't do that, right, I mean,
you're effectively overriding federal elections, Clay, if this happens now
to your point about the Supreme Court argument this morning,
if that gets struck down, they will have abused another
(03:52):
statute to pile up against not just Trump but his supporters.
Their abuse isn't just a matter of opinion, and their
abuse of the law is becoming increasingly a matter of
fact over and over again. And this is also important
they are trying now. This has just happened.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
The prosecutors have filed emotion to hold Trump in contempt
for violating the gag order that was put on place
in place for him in the Manhattan criminal trial. Trump
has already weighed in this morning and I listened and
I was like, wow, this is what he said outside
of the courtroom as we were as he entered this morning.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
So this is a couple of hours ago. I think. Now, listen,
we have a judge who shouldn't be on this case.
He's totally conflicted.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
But this is a trial that should never happen or
should have been thrown out a long time ago.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
If you look at a job at the term andy
regard the all.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Great legal skos is not one that we've been able
to find that said this should be a trial right
now in Pennsylvania and far in many other states.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
North Camp Judji campaign.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
This is all coming from the bite one White House because.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
They guy can't put two sentences together.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
You can't campaign maybe a using this in order to
try and win an election, and it's not working that way.
It's working the opposite player.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Okay, So that is Trump this morning. He also posted
on truth right before he went into the courtroom. Buck,
this conflicted Trump hating judge won't let me respond to
people that are on TV lying and spewing hate all
day long. He's running roughshod over my lawyers and legal team.
The New York system of quotation marks justice is being
(05:45):
decimated by critics from all over the world. I want
to speak or at least be able to respond. Election interference, rigged,
unconstitutional trial. Take off the gag order now, Buck, here's
my question for you. Are they gonna put them in
jail over this? Because I think that's where this is headed.
I think this judge wants Trump in jail for VIAT
(06:08):
for contempt. And I don't think it's crazy to think
it's gonna happen. I think Trump may want it to happen.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Well, this is there are some parts of this that
are legal analysis and parts of this that become very
obviously political analysis, and I know they're intertwined as well.
I know we get this question all the time, and
it's funny because I don't know anybody who has an
answer to it. How do you incarcerate somebody who has
lifetime twenty four to seven Secret Service protected. We started
(06:36):
asking this years ago. Yeah, we've been looking at this
for a long time now. There is precedent for you know,
taking taking a person and putting them in I think
they call it administrative administrative segregation where you know, for example,
if a cop gets put in like state prison, they
sometimes will move because you know, maybe.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
A protective custody basically different to the other members of
the of the jail.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Yeah, and you could do something like that, but you
would have to have Secret Service, like I think Trump might.
This is I understand, this is crazy. Can I just
preface this. I know what we're saying here is crazy,
but we're in a crazy time everyone. I think there's
a situation where maybe they would because if they hold
him in contempt.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
What he's going to be forty eight hours or something, right,
I thinen him in cuffs and they walk, they purple walk.
That's what I'm saying. That's the question.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
They want to break, the seal, they want to establish,
just like remember the Brag trial was the first one
to bring an indictment, which I always thought was significant
because yeah, it was flimsy, but they knew that there
was no process by which it would likely be overturned
or stopped in New York. So they wanted to set
the precedent, and all the omens came in Clay. I
(07:52):
think they could put him. I think they think, I'll
put it that way. They think they could end up
putting him in and administer great. By the way, if
we have somebody from like Bureau of Prisons or you know,
New York State Bureau of Prisons, or just in general,
let us know if you think there is some precedent.
My sense is they would have to shut down like
(08:13):
a wing of a holding facility, and then there have
to be secret service there to protect him. But he'd
have to be inside of a cell for a couple
of days, and that's what they would That's what they would.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
They can't. I don't think that.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
I mean that the New York State can't say you
no longer have Secret Service protection. They can't do that.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Okay, so that leads to them, which is crazy. There
aren't a lot of precedents for this, Okay, there's no president,
like there's no I mean, there are precedents for famous
people being held in contempt of court. Never someone would
secret Service protection. They never a former and likely future
president of the United States though. So here is my
(08:53):
question for you. Then, as a part of that.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
Is this Trump as I've used this innound because I
remember growing up watching it.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Do you know brer Rabbit at Allbuck? Do you remember
the Braer Rabbit stories? No, ok, I don't know what
you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
I don't know what percentage of people out there will
remember this. I'm in Georgia, by the way, which is
where I think that Joeld Chandler Harris Breer Rabbit stories originated.
They were later made into cartoons, all this stuff Breer Rabbit,
and before they decided that Splash Mountain was racist at
Disney World, Breer Rabbit was the star of Splash Mountain.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
If any of you have been on the Splash Mountain.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Ride at Disney, Okay, Breer Rabbit would always say, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Whatever you do, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Is Donald Trump daring
marchand this judge, as well as the larger Democrat party
apparatus to put him in jail, because in the same
(09:55):
way that the mugshot was a huge benefit to Trump,
is him getting put in jail for contempt of court
a huge political win for him?
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Leave aside the legal for right now.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
I do think so, especially especially on this because even
people who are casual observers.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Of the news, which is most people, because most.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
People are you know, we have a hyper attuned and
informed audience most of America. As much as I love America,
people have other things that don't watch the news, even
if you or watch much of the news, uh, and
they get their news from bad places.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
In a lot of play, in a lot of context too.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
I think that the that Donald Trump in a cell,
the reason being he was held in contempt by a judge,
the reason being he's speaking out against a trial that
has to do with a business administrative accounting error. That's
all this is that is what we're talking about here.
(10:55):
I think that any normal person who has not been
just steeped in Trump arrangement syndrome would say to that,
this is this, we can't have this in our country.
And I think that's why the polls are all showing
what they're showing right.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Now, Clay, That's that's the truth.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, And this is why. I mean, look, you things
cut through. I think what you said is a good
a good point. What percentage of people do you think
have seen the Trump mug shot photo? What percentage of
American voters? One hundred percent. I think it's almost impossible
that you would not have seen the Trump mugshot picture,
even if you're not paying attention to the news on
(11:30):
a day to day basis. I mean, I think if
you can name the current vice president, you've seen the
mugshot photo, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Like, I think if you have.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Shot photo, then they canname the vice president. I think
it's almost one hundred percent of voters would have seen
that photo. My point is almost one hundred percent of voters.
I'm saying voters because you know forty percent of people
are not voting. I think almost one hundred percent of
voters will see if Trump is arrested. They may not
pay attention to the results of the trial. They may
not be following on a day to day basis like
(11:59):
we are. And to me, I think it's highly likely
that it would work to his favor. And I wonder
how much political calculus in the same way. We've talked
for a long time now, ever since the raid on
mar Lago in what August of twenty two, we have
said there's a two tier story here, the legal and
the political, and they're intertwined in a way that we've
(12:20):
never seen before. Something can be smart and legally and
really poor decision of politically and vice versa. And also,
I think something to remember about where the Democrats are
and the anti Trump machinery. They thought all along that
these trials, that these prosecutions would destroy Donald Trump. They
have no choice but to see all of this through.
(12:41):
To withdraw all of it at this point, or to
withdraw all the efforts to say, all right, you know
the elections coming up, we're going to defer. Delay would
be essentially to admit that they had made some political
calculation error. So they have to go all the way
with this, and I think that in New York, what
you're seeing is if they brought this trial and I'm
(13:04):
gonna say, I mean they they did this to Trump's
uh Trump Incorporate, you know, corporation accountant Alan Weiselberg, who's
gone to prison, and they just sent to Peter Navarro,
uh to prison. He's serving a sentence right now for
not testifying to Congress because he's associated with Trump. If
they did this to anyone, Clay, it would be an outrage.
That they're doing it to the person who is leading
(13:25):
in the presidential nomination contest right now according to every
single polling company in the United States is It's outrageous
beyond words. But they have what are they going to do?
They won't stop, so they're going to see this all
the way through.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
I don't see a way around it. I mean I
think that and and locking Trump up. Please, if you're
from if you if you worked in prisons, and you
have some idea of how they could do this, I
don't even know what would they do? How would this go?
Let us know, because I'd be very curious to hear it.
I think the only answer is if they would have
(14:00):
have to have the Secret Service come in clear a wing,
shut down the wing, and it would almost be like
you remember when Pablo Escobar got to build his own prison,
kind of be a little bit like that, because like
your guys would be running the thing, and uh, nobody
would really be.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
And I don't know.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Also, Buck, he has to be in court, so I
don't even know how they can jail him because the
judge is already said that he has to be present
in court, even if it means that he misses his
son's graduation potentially, So if he gets put in court,
it further delays the process of the trial. I mean,
it's put in jail, it further delays the process of
(14:36):
the trial.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
I just I don't even know. I this is fascinating.
I don't even know how this plays out.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
But yeah, to your point eight hundred two A two
two eight eight two, if you have some theory, based
on your knowledge of the New York court system, what
this would be like or how it would work, I
would actually be be fascinated to hear. Yeah, I'm gonna
we're gonna dive into this, and I think, uh, I
mean it's gonna.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
The thing is I just want to prepare all of you.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
It's gonna get crazier. It's gonna get crazier. Yes, not
seen peak crazy.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
We're just touching the tip of the iceberg right now
of the crazy that's coming.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
That is correct, Yes, all right? Eight hundred two A
two two eight a two.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
And you know this past year, the dedicated staff of
people at Preborn's network of clinics saved Are you ready
for this? Fifty eight thousand babies, thanks in large part
to your generosity and your dedication to this nonprofit. You know,
we talk a lot about the laws here and how
do how do we work with in this state and
save as much life as possible. I mean, that's a
(15:37):
worthy cause and the pro life movement is focused in
on that and doing what they can. But you know,
there's also what Preborn does where it's just helping to
create that bond between mother and baby in the womb,
so that mother, even if she's very troubled by the pregnancy,
wasn't expecting it, worried about the finances, she says, I'm
gonna give.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
My child life. That's what Preborn does.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
It helps create that incredibly powerful bond between mother and child,
and then it is more likely that mom is going
to make the choice for life. That's a critical part
of the pro life mission, and Preborn is doing a
day in and day out. One woman who visited the
preborn clinics was Katrina. Now she was thinking that she
(16:19):
was tending toward life for unborn baby, but people around
her were pressuring her to get an abortion. But by
God's grace, she was led to a Preborn Network clinic
where she was given a free ultrasound. When she saw
that baby on sonogram, she was amazed to see the
baby's movements, but then she heard the heartbeat and that
was it. In that moment, she realized there was a
(16:39):
miracle growing inside her womb, and Katrina's little baby was
born soon thereafter. Every day, Preborn celebrates two hundred miracles
just like this one. An ultrasound costs US twenty eight
dollars that can be the difference between life and death
for a child. All you have to do is dial
pound two five zero say the keyword baby. That's pound
(17:01):
two fifty say baby. Or you can donate online visit
preborn dot com, slash buck that's preborn dot com, slash
b u c K sponsored by preborn.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Making sense in an insane world. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
All right, Hour two Clay in Buck kicks off. Now everybody,
thank you for being with us talking.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
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 speaker same as the old speaker. I
(17:44):
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 someting ideas and options out there to be sure.
It's I think it's an interesting debate. Nothing else allows
(18:05):
people to vent some of their irritation with the Rhino
Caucus 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 in the background that is intended to
(18:26):
help make you fall asleep.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
It's really good. You know.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
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 occidis. You'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
(18:50):
lost America's trust. NPR suspension here of this guy after
he had a scathing online essay embracing a because MPs
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.
(19:10):
That's what we know about CNN prompting fierce right wing backlash,
calling for the defunding of Public, the public radio network.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
And yeah, they got into some of this.
Speaker 4 (19:23):
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
(19:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Knows, but nobody's allowed to talk about it.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
This is true, by the way, and this is true
at ABC News, this is true at all of.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
These plays in New York Times. So did you really
think he was gonna get away with it? What do
you make of this?
Speaker 2 (20:10):
So I look at this in the context of 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
(20:31):
about the overall fairness of their doctrine. So 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
(20:52):
all businesses do. More power to them. The government doesn't
fund Clay and Buck. We stand a one as a
capitalistic venture based on you guys listening and sponsorship dollars
and everything else.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
So this to me is number one. Number two. The
new woman that they hired.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
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
who's suspending Yuri Berlinner. Her name is Catherine Mayer or
mar I'm not sure how you pronounce it. She tweeted
this lots of jokes about leaving the US, and I
(21:33):
get it, But as someone with SIS white mobility privilege,
I'm thinking I'm staying and investing in ridding ourselves of
this specter of tyranny. 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
(21:55):
ask you, this, 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 (22:11):
Do we know? I, oh, that's a great question. You
may be right.
Speaker 4 (22:14):
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. You knew this, right, Yes,
they now have the uh. 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
(22:37):
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 (22:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Maybe maybe some of our woke translators out there know
the answer to that.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Here's a couple of her other tweets.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Buck I do wish Hillary wouldn't use the language of
boy and girl. It's erasing language for non binary people,
She tweeted.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
These are her tweets. This is the person who's in
charge of NPR.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
I'm an unalloyed progressive and supporting Hillary this time around.
She also said the 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.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
These are things that she's tweeted. So this woman is
far left wing. I saw this communist is running NPR.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
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
(23:57):
tax day. I cut checks. I was not happy to
cut 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 4 (24:13):
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
(24:34):
which does get some public funding those.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
It's not a lot, okay, But what's not a lot?
Why do you get any? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (24:39):
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 new organization that does not even
(25:02):
feel the need to have a a token Republican right?
Does it even feel the need to have Hey, like
we you know, we hate Bob who sits our 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. They don't even
want that. They want like a Maoist cultural revolution level
(25:24):
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 thinks. 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 and mentally ill like I think there's something
wrong with them. I think they have anxiety disorders that
(25:44):
they actually think are political positions, and that's where we
are as a country. So I just think we need
to be honest 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,
(26:06):
And this is why the diversity and inclusion people to me,
are full of it. The only diversity that matters is
diversity 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 (26:23):
How does that benefit any organization well?
Speaker 4 (26:25):
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 hired 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.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
The truth of an NPR is.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
They think that there is more more to be gained
from the perspective that you get of having a white
you know, let's say a white guy who's you know, parents,
you know, went to Cornell or something, and we're doctors
sitting next to a black guy whose parents went to
(27:10):
you know, went to Dartmouth, and our doctors 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
(27:31):
very similar perspectives, but are different 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
(27:55):
enough for the Demens. Not like he's a Republican who
was pointing out the flaws that he saw here. He's
just somewhat of an honest liberal, not a progressive, an
honest liberal who looks around and says, we don't really
have a marketplace of ideas here, and we're failing as
a result. You know, I think of ideologies in this way,
you know. And this is this has been true of honestly,
(28:16):
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
other approach that could be at hand, they will not
have power. So this is why they need absolutism. They
(28:37):
need uniformity. And I've said it reminds me, you know.
I went and I went and took my little nephew
and my family to the We had an amazing alligator tour.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
You know.
Speaker 4 (28:46):
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
learn like pythons for these pythons boa constrictors, and they
eat a lot of the native wildlf. The thing is,
they're not trying to establish a balance in the ecosystem.
They're gonna like kill all the native species, birds and
(29:09):
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 lickfish 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. Communists,
(29:29):
ideologically aren't invasive species. They do not seek This is
why it's so fascinate. They talk about like diversity and inclusion,
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 in newsroom after newsroom
(29:52):
over the last twenty years. Somehow it never is the
case that they go, oh my gosh, I woke up
one day in the washing the 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 the existence
(30:14):
of other ideas is a threat to the existence of
my ideas.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
It's all or nothing with them.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
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 (30:30):
Ain't getting better.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
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 unemployment offices out there. You've seen things
like this happen.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
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. No,
the problem is that he talked it, not let's talk
about it. You shut your mouth, you do the work
of the communist party, you call yourself a good, loyal
(31:05):
progressive democrat, and you go forward.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
All right.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
Look, if you're a firearms enthusiast like I am, where
do 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.
(31:28):
I mean, I know some of you out there probably
have ars that you paid I don't know, one thousand.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
Bucks, maybe fifteen hundred four.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
You can get a Bear Creek Arsenal rifle that is
every bit as good. And I was out of the
range testing him out this weekend. I had my most
expensive ar, 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,
(31:58):
you're gonna love it. Amazing histols gear rifles. Go check
it out for yourself. Bear Creekarsenal 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 1 (32:21):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton making sense in an insane world.
Speaker 4 (32:26):
We're joined by our friend Julie Kelly. Please check out
her substack declassified with Julie Kelly and Julie appreciate you
being with us. Let's dive right into it.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
Fisher v.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
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 (32:54):
Right. So, this relates to the government's use DOJ's use
of fifteen twelve C two Obstruction of an official person
be eating 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
(33:14):
first time ever is weaponized that statute to criminalize political
dissent and charge now roughly three hundred and fifty January
sixth protesters with this felony offense 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. The District Court
(33:37):
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 2 (33:48):
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 courtroom.
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. What I thought was likely
based on what I saw, I see this as a
(34:10):
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 (34:26):
So, just to clarify, I wasn't in the courtroom today.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Oh my bad.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
I know that's okay. Fortunately, you can cover all of
these proceedings on the Supreme Court website and also see
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
think it was as strong as it needed to be,
and the questions were tough as to the two different
(34:53):
parts of the statutes 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
be fine. But look the idea that you can take
an entire code of the US Criminal Code fifteen twelve,
(35:17):
which only has to do with tampering with evidence or
witnesses in judicial proceedings, and clip out this sub section
and set this aside from everything else to make it
sound that official proceeding which is used throughout fifteen twelve,
meaning a judicial proceeding, not a function of Congress. To
(35:38):
carve 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 became
quite clear during the discussion today.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
Actually, Julie, can we jump in here real quick because
we want to play for everybody hear Supreme Court is gorshic.
This is cut twenty eight dealing with exactly what you're
talking about, which is, oh so only in this congressional
instance is obstruction a problem play?
Speaker 6 (36:10):
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 before a vote qualify? For
twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 7 (36:30):
The actus 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 (36:46):
Most scrupted roadtests that actually obstructs and impedes and an
official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.
Speaker 7 (36:55):
Not necessarily, we would just have to have the evidence
of intent, and that's a they.
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Tend to do it all right.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
Yeah, I just think he knewked their whole argument here.
I don't know how they get around this. There's absolutely
no legal basis to she's saying, Oh, well, corrupt men's
ray or something. Yeah, they're obstructing. They won't 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 (37:24):
That's exactly what she was saying. And I'll take this
a step first. Or 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
(37:44):
the past six months, especially in Washington, DC 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, all of these cases are being
handled by the local DC prosecutor, which means they will
(38:05):
be local offenses. So I was a little surprised that
Elizabeth Peyligor was not better prepared to answer the selective
prosecution angle of fifteen twelve y 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
(38:28):
someone screaming during a proceeding of the Supreme Court or
a Senate confirmation hearing or anything we've seen 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.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
That's okay.
Speaker 5 (38:44):
Satisfy the inquiring minds of the justices.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Julie, 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 you down with, oh, there's
never going to be any impact on this, And now
it seems likely that the Supreme Court is going to
strike down I think prosecutions under this statute if we
(39:11):
are correct about that, and in June, the Supreme Court
issues and 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. What is the impact then,
where do we go from there?
Speaker 5 (39:25):
Well, thank you for 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 reversed the DOJ
(39:48):
Matthew Graves, the DCUs Attorney, and seventeen judges on the
DC District and Circuit courts who out hold discount even
when they knew understood how vague it was, how brot
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 will
(40:12):
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 Attorney's Office in
DC and d OJ for abusing this law to yes
creates a set of political prisoners who only have been
(40:34):
subjected to the selling when no one else has. And
Elizabeth Priliguard said today no one else will be just
j fixers.
Speaker 2 (40:45):
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
(41:06):
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 (41:21):
You're exactly right. So this has great jeopardy to jectsima's
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
(41:43):
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
(42:06):
of evidence, evidence, impairment, document treading, et cetera. So if
they come back and they say the January sixth is
not an official proceeding as there it leads to fifteen twelve,
then I don't see how jack Smith continues to keep
those two counts in his four account indictments. There are
other ways that Supreme Court could hedge and protect within
(42:28):
Jacksmith's indictment. You heard a little bit of Amy Cony
Barrett which made me nervous, sort of reiterating Jack Smith's
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.
(42:49):
But you know this will be also I should have
had it Special Council Jacksmith and his team of the
Black Eye to him as well for bringing such a vague,
untested statute and a presidential criminal indictment against Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Julie Kelly declassified on substack. Please subscribe to it. Julie,
we'll be talking to you a lot between now on
the election. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 5 (43:11):
Thanks, guys really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
She really is doing fabulous work. Buck.
Speaker 4 (43:16):
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.
Right now, you can take advantage of the My 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 Mypillows made with the all
new Giza fabric just twenty five dollars each, or their
(43:39):
two pack multi use My Pillows for just twenty five bucks,
or their six pack towel sets for the same price
just twenty 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 names
Clay and Buck as the promo code. It's the MyPillow
Extravaganza sale. Just go to my pillow dot Com click
(43:59):
on the radio listener special square for these twenty five
dollars deals. You'll get free shipping on orders over seventy
five bucks. Use the promo code Clay and Buck to
access the sale. That's my pillow dot Com promo code
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Keep up with Clay and Bucks campaign coverage with twenty
four a Sunday highlight reel from the week. Fight it
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Welcome back in our number three Clay Travis Buck Sexton
Show Tuesday Edition. I want to say thanks to the
great people at news Talk one oh six in one
of six point three FM down in Atlanta.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
They are hosting me today.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
I'm going to an event for Kelly Bluffler and for
Governor Brian Kemp and a lot of other Georgia politicos.
I'm speaking there tonight and then Buck, I'm getting on
a late night flight and I'll be in the air
going to Seattle before we talk about Seattle, which that's
going to be fascinating. Yes, are you going to tell
(45:02):
Governor Kemp while you're in his home state your theory
about how maybe dark Horse Trump VP, you know, maybe
maybe out of nowhere all of a sudden.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
I think Trump is gonna win. I just want to see.
I want to know what his face is when you
tell him what.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
I think Trump is gonna win Georgia by eight points.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
I don't think it's gonna be close. I think it's
gonna be like I'm putting it on. I'm putting it
on the prediction.
Speaker 2 (45:27):
The projection eight points, I think seven or eight points.
I think it's going to be a very comfortable win
in Georgia. Of all the states, if you had to
ask me, which state is most likely to flip from
twenty twenty, either in favor of Democrats or in favor
of Republicans.
Speaker 4 (45:44):
I think Georgia is going to be back in red camp.
And I actually think you're gonna start to see Biden
spending less time and money in Georgia because the numbers
out there are really bad for them.
Speaker 3 (45:57):
In Georgia.
Speaker 4 (45:57):
The most recent poll has Trump up to in Georgia.
There is no Senate race. There is no governor's race.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
There's nothing to motivate in state voters for Democrats in
any kind of substantial way.
Speaker 3 (46:12):
And you'll recall in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
Two, basically every statewide candidate except Hershelwalker won by seven
or eight points.
Speaker 3 (46:22):
So it wasn't just that they won.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
It was despite the fact that Stacy Abrams, I believe,
outspent Brian Kemp and they had a close race in
twenty eighteen. He trounced her in twenty twenty two. So
I appreciate the atl for taking care of me. I'm
going to be down here again in June to watch
the Atlanta Braves with my kids.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
I can't wait it. We wait for it.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
We got a great affiliate again, News Talk Extra one
oh six point three FM. We appreciate all of you
out there listening in Atlanta and then Buck I'm headed
to Seattle, which is crazy town. I'm going to be
speaking at a Hillsdale College event that they are doing
in s So I'm gonna get on I don't know,
a midnight flight basically and fly all the way to
(47:04):
the West coast, and I'll be doing the show Wednesday
and Thursday, from there. So anyway, we'll see how how
I do in crazy town. I haven't been to Seattle
since everything fell apart with Chaz, remember that, like the
Autonomous region and everything. I mean, even for twenty twenty
standards of crazy, people looked at Seattle, Portland, and San
(47:29):
Francisco and said, you guys are crazy. The standard for
crazy was high, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco all exceeded
it by massive amounts. So we'll see what it looks like.
I haven't been to the city since. Like I said,
I think I was like twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen that
I was in Seattle, beautiful place, filled with a lot
of crazy leftists. So we'll see how I do there.
(47:50):
But two major legal issues that are unfolding. You just
heard us talk with Julie Kelly, the analysis of whether
the Jan six political persecutions, because I do think persecution
and prosecution are intertwined in many ways here, are permissible
or not under the Sarbines Oxley obstruction of an official
(48:11):
preceding standard. It seems likely that many of those convictions
are going to get struck down. Maybe it'll be five
to four, maybe it'll be six to three. Maybe even
get a liberal to come on, but that would come
out in June would be a huge story because it
implicates half of Jack Smith's case in Washington, DC. It
would also be a huge story, as you just heard
us talking, because for years leftists have been saying, oh,
(48:35):
these Jan six insurrection cases, they're one hundred percent legally permissible,
They're necessary, we have to hold everybody accountable. What you're
probably likely to hear is that there was major prosecutorial overreach. Simultaneously,
they are trying to hold Trump in contempt of court
in New York City, where day two of his criminal
(48:58):
trial in the Alvin Bragg cases underway. And what we
have been talking about, I think fairly on this show,
Buck since August of twenty two, when Lamar A Lago
Ray basically kicked into high gear. The way that Merrick
Garland and the Department of Justice we're going to all
come after Donald Trump. How is this playing in the
(49:19):
larger political arena? What would happen if Trump got arrested?
How would they even handle it? These are things that
are truly unprecedented that we are continuing to break down.
Speaker 4 (49:29):
Yeah, I think anybody who tells you they know where
all this is going is making that up. It's not possible.
Did you want to get to the Stephen A. Smith Clay, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:39):
I want to play this because I would argue that
Stephen A. Smith very middle of the road guy. He's
not a politically from ESPN. He's going to come on
the show. We're going to get him on somewhat soon.
He's being more outspoken on a variety of different areas.
I've done his podcast a couple of times. We had
interesting conversations, but he had this to say yesterday.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
We've talked a lot about black.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
Men and the possibility that if you look at the
polling from Wall Street Journal, maybe thirty percent of black
men are willing to support Trump. Here is here's what
Stephen A. Smith had to say about the cases in
his hometown of New York City.
Speaker 8 (50:14):
To my liberal friends out there, all you're doing is
showing that you're scared. You can't beat them on the
issues and the merits. That's why he keeps saying it's
a political campaign against me. That's why he keeps saying
they can't beat me at the election at the polls.
This is the only way they could do it. And
(50:35):
if you don't put him in jail, and he still
goes from being the presumptive GOP nominee to the official
GOP nominee, and he goes to the polls even though
he was going to whine about winning and being rigged again.
You have given more fodder to that argument, which means
we'll never have peace in this country because tens of
(50:55):
millions of.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
People see what extent the other.
Speaker 8 (51:00):
Is willing to go through just to keep him out
of office because they can't beat him on their own merits.
Speaker 4 (51:06):
I do think this is a fundamental point. I mean,
this is a central point of everything that we're talking
about here. If what Trump did is so bad, and
if it's so clear he's so awful, why is he
ahead in the polls and why are they so scared
of what's going to happen in the fall. And they
don't have an answer for that, and they won't process it,
(51:27):
they won't think it through. But I think stephen A
hits right into the center of it. It's something we've
discussed here many times. The best way for there to
be a referendum on Trump's behavior, whether just talking about
his four years as president or what you think about
whether that should change because of January sixth. This is
ultimately the most clear political question right This is about
(51:50):
who should lead the nation according to the vote of
the American people. Let the people have their say. All
these efforts that they have are to either stop Trump
entirely now and look, he's clearly the nominate. It's not
about just having him win the primary anymore, if it
ever was, it's to stop him from being able to
(52:12):
run entirely or now. I think this is what they've
shifted gears toward. Just make it so it's really hard
for him to win as he's running, but not based
upon what people want, based upon the fact that they
are rigging the system. I mean, this is they're rigging
the election. Even if Trump wins, it will be an
election that is rigged against him, just based upon these
(52:34):
legal challenges. And they can't come up with an answer.
If Trump is so bad, why are you terrified that
the American people are going to vote for him over
Joe Biden? Like, what is the response to that after
four years of Trump and four years of Biden? Americans
of voting age are likely to say, based on what
we see right now, yeah, I want Trump to be
(52:55):
president again.
Speaker 2 (52:57):
It's not even just that, too, Buck, It's that their
only even willing by and large to bring charges in
juries that are rigged in their favor, that is, political
locales that overwhelmingly favored Democrats. So that's why I think
one of the most difficult and I think Stephen a
hit on it. We've been hitting on this quite a lot.
That's why I think one of the most difficult questions
(53:17):
to answer is not only why are you trying to
keep him from running? Why are you trying to put
him in prison? It's also why are you doing these charges?
Why are you bringing them entirely in a in a
jury rig to a large extent process, Because I'm not
we said this earlier. If you told me, hey, it's
(53:40):
a fifty to fifty America, which I think it's fair
to say that roughly, it is like everybody out there
listening would have to agree. If you told me that
they were going to try to bring charges against Trump
to put him in prison for the rest of his life,
I would still think it's an awful precedent to set
in the United States, because sooner or later, somebody else
will also have the same result that Trump has. Now
(54:02):
somebody else is going to get charged as a method
of lawfare. But at least if you allowed the jury
to be in a jurisdiction that's fifty to fifty, I
would say, okay, like, let's see how it actually plays out.
Which is why South Florida. I'm not that nervous about
South Florida. I don't think that there will be a
jury that is overwhelmingly made up of Trump haters. I
(54:25):
think there's going to be a jury in New York
City that, just based on the numbers, is likely to
be made up of Trump haters. And I think I
don't think it's crazy to think that there are going
to be people that want to see Trump put in
prison for the rest of his life that are a
part of this jury pool. Now, maybe some of them
will say, hey, you know what, I can't fairly and
impartially render justice.
Speaker 3 (54:46):
We already saw that happen a little bit. They'll step out.
Speaker 2 (54:48):
I think there's other people that will be happy to
be on this jury because they want to hold Trump responsible.
Speaker 3 (54:55):
They want to be the deciders. And I look at
this and I say.
Speaker 4 (55:02):
Fundamentally, we can have one hundred and fifty million people
render a verdict on Trump's behavior, on Trump's whether or
not he's able to be president, or we can have
twelve in a incredibly biased jurisdiction. And to me, the
one hundred and fifty million is the answer no matter
how much you trust juris do you want twelve people
(55:22):
trying to decide who can be president?
Speaker 3 (55:24):
Or do you want one hundred and fifty million? It
does go to the ultimate point.
Speaker 4 (55:28):
I think about the mental instability of many of the
Democrats that are pushing for this, or the the emotional
and ideological surrender that they've had. Right, they just whatever
the anti trump Ism demands, they will go. For the
fact that Alvin Bragg has turned that one preposterous charge,
it's worth everybody knowing or keeping this in mind. I
(55:51):
think it's thirty four right, It's a thirty four felony
count indictment. It was one thing we're talking about, and
he's charging it thirty four time, which is specifically against
prosecutorial guidelines. You're not supposed to. You know, if someone
hands you drugs and then you say, hold on time
my shoe, and you hand it back to them, and
then they hand the drugs back to you. You know,
(56:11):
you don't charge these as separate drug possession crimes, right,
You're not supposed to do that because it's obviously unjust.
That's exactly what Alvin Bragg is doing. He's saying, oh, well,
they like xerox did or they emailed it or whatever
that every time, we're going to charge that as an
additional felony. And you have to wonder that any Democrat
who supports the prosecution going on in New York City
is also telling you that in America today, it would
(56:34):
be more just not preferable for you know what you
think the politics of the country should be. It would
be more just for Donald Trump to be in prison
for years and not be able to run, although I
think he would still run from prison. That's a whole
other conversation. That's insane. But it'd be more just for
Donald Trump to sit in a prison cell over a
clerical error, over a Stormy Daniel's payoff or whatever hush
(56:58):
money or whatever they're calling it. Then it would just
allow the American people to say, do I or do
I not want Donald Trump to be president for four
more years?
Speaker 3 (57:07):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (57:07):
That's insane. I mean, this is this is the decision
that we're being faced with as a country, or rather
the decision they want to deny us as a country
based upon what exactly and the moment you dig into
a clay. It's all just so flimsy and underhanded.
Speaker 3 (57:25):
It's one hundred percent what it is.
Speaker 2 (57:26):
And I wonder how many people that are in general
not paying that much attention or ultimately coming to that
same conclusion. If the guy's so bad, how come they
can't just let everybody go vote, Let the American people
decide whether Trump is able to or not able to
be the next president of the United States. That's how
democracy works. Yeah, eight hundred two two two eight to two.
(57:48):
We'll get some of your calls on this issue coming
up on the back half of this hour. You know, look,
people think mortgage rates are extremely high, and look, they
are higher than they were just a few years ago.
And we know who's just responsible for inflation of the
past three years time and the rise and interest rates
as they've tried to combat that that they created. But
by comparison, when you put mortgage rates side by side
(58:10):
with credit card interest rates, I mean, mortgage rates are
far lower. Mortgage rates are much lower than the average
credit card rate, which is about twenty two percent. So look,
if you're a homeowner, refinancing with American Financing can help
you pay off that credit card debt and lower your
monthly expenses, and the mortgage interest is tax deductible. They're
(58:31):
saving homeowners just like you an average of eight hundred
and fifty four dollars a month. American Financing's salary based
mortgage consultants will show you how much you can save
every month with no upfront fees and no obligation. You
may even close in as fast as ten days and
possibly delay two mortgage payments, giving you greater savings upfront.
(58:51):
Call American Financing Today eight hundred seven seven seven eight
one zero nine. That's eight hundred seven seven seven eight
one zero nine. Or visit America and Financing dot net.
That's American Financing dot net. Animals one eight two three
three four animals, Consumer Access dot Org.
Speaker 1 (59:08):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of
truth
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.