April 17, 2024 • 44 mins
NPR whistleblower Uri Berliner resigns. Andy McCarthy on the Trump trial. The Federalist CEO Sean Davis on Capitol Hill.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of The Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast. Welcome in everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Wednesday edition of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
starts right now, and we have much to discuss, as
is often the case here, a lot of news breaking,
a lot of things happening.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
We've got the Trump trial in NYC.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Jury selection fully underway, a number of jurors making it
through the early stages of the gauntlets that is jury selection.
We will discuss how a little bit the same way
that the Supreme Court. We're told there's a non partisan
institution jury selection. A lot of people clearly have animus
(00:47):
against Trump, for example, and it seems some of them
are in this jury process trying to suggest that, oh,
but I could still be impartial. Yeah, we'll discuss this
in detail. Trump also going up to the well a bodega,
which is like a small neighborhood grocery store New Yorkers
(01:08):
all know, but for other folks across the country, bodega
is not as common a thing. The isn't it isn't
that the one also where I think I think doctor
Jill Biden, And just so you're clear, we call her
that sarcastically.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Some of you write in and say she's not really
a doctor.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
We know that's the point we like to be, you know,
like doctor Jill Biden's getting called in by her pager
on an episode of Graze and.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Had to me to save lives.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
She wrote a like a PhD dissertation that was absolute
garbage for I think the University of Delaware or something
on education. Uh so, yeah, anyway, but yes, doctor Jill Biden.
I think she was the one who said but bodega
or something. She couldn't she didn't know what a bodego was.
It's pretty funny, but this is about the bodega guy
(01:55):
who defended himself with a with a knife on video
against an assailant who was much bigger, who cornered him
and for no reason started just punching him, and he
defended himself with a knife and the guy died, and
he was charged with murder. If you remember Alvin Bragg,
we were outraged here on this show and said it
(02:16):
at the time, and the pressure from people of New
York and across the country who recognized what an outrage
this is push Bragg to drop those charges. But Trump
is going to visit that store proprietor go visit the
guy working at the bodega he went. And this is
highlighting I think a big difference between Democrats and Republicans
(02:40):
going into this election cycle. Also a lot of hubbub,
a lot of stuff going on online around the salary
that Caitlin Clark has the president or at least his staff. Again,
we know Joe Biden doesn't write his tweets, but it's
on his behalf, right, So the White House apparatus put
(03:03):
out a tweet upset about how much money Caitlin Clark,
the NCAA female basketball superstar, how much she is going
to make. It is by professional athletic standards, not a
lot of money. And there's the Biden White House is
saying this is unfair because Joe Biden neither knows nor
(03:25):
understands the first thing about running a business, economic supply
and demand, anything like that. So we will definitely want
to dive into some of that because it's well, it
just shows that one side here lives in reality and
the other side lives in a delusion. And then we've
got this is the big one for me today. You know,
(03:46):
Clay and I were going back and forth on this
one on air, just talking about because he was he
started bringing to my attention that tweets around NPR's new chief,
the chief Commissar of np R. And the thing about
(04:06):
it is, when you look at her tweets, it's very
apparent that everything that you think is true of the
head of NPR is in fact true of the head
of NPR. And Uri Yuri Yuri I think right, Uri
Yuri Uri Berliner, who is the guy who is an
(04:28):
MPR editor who said, hey, hold on a second, there
are eighty seven editors in the newsroom, and not a
single one of them is a Republican. Every one of
them is a registered Democrat. That can't be a journalistic
enterprise of any seriousness. Clay he has resigned. I have
(04:49):
his real quick here's his resignation letter sent to Katherine
Maher who We're going to have some fun with you
in a second. I'm resigning from NPR, great American institution
where I've worked for twenty five five years. I don't
support calls to defund NPR. Well, too bad. I respect
the integrity of my colleagues and wish for ENDPR to
thrive and do important journalism but I cannot work in
(05:10):
a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO
whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR. In
my free press essay, Clay, is this a shockwave through
the communist media? Well, we will, we will dive into it,
you know. In that regard. First, I gotta say, look
(05:31):
at some of the tweets from oh we have better
than tweets. We have Katherine Maher I suppose no relation
to Bill Maher, same spelling of the last name. We
have Katherine Maher here, the new NPR CEO. I think
she just took over in January of this year, so
it's new. The kind of things that you think, without
(05:53):
even knowing an NPR boss would say, she is like
made in a lab by communists. It's amazing when you
actually hear her view of things. For example, she's one
of these individuals who works in journalism and you really
have to put the scare quotes. The scare quotes must
(06:15):
be there. She's one of these people who works in
journalism but thinks that the First Amendment is an impediment
to the real mission. And you say, well, hold on
a second, how can freedom of expression and free speech
be a challenge to journalism. The only way is if
journalism is actually propaganda, is if you're taking a partisan
(06:38):
point of view in order to bring about a certain
conclusion in the mind of the audience. Hmmm. Catherine Maher
Back in twenty twenty one June of twenty twenty one,
during the pandemic, she was CEO of Wikimedia. So I
think she was running Wikipedia like that falls under And
let me tell you Wikipedia, just like Twitter was before
(07:01):
Elon bought it, It is a communist enclave. They absolutely
control Wikipedia. There's so much bias, all kinds of things
going on there that you know, people should be very
cognizant of. Whenever you do a Wikipedia search, I should
also be very cognizant. Ginger has found her way into
(07:22):
the studio and while I am doing a live radio
show for millions of people, is dropping her favorite chew
toy on my feet and saying you must throw this.
So if you're watching the video wondering why the chew
toy is being thrown, there you go. Catherine mar twenty
twenty one June. This is what she said when she
was running Wikimedia.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Play it.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
We took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation
coming into the not just the last selection, but also
looking at how we supported our editing community in an
unprecedented moment where we were not only dealing with the
global pandemic, we were dealing with a novel virus, which is
by definition means we knew nothing about it in real time,
trying to figure it out as the pandemic went along.
(08:02):
And so we really set up in response to both
the pandemic but also in response to the upcoming US
election and as a model for future elections outside of
the US, including a number that are happening in this year.
The model was around how do we create sort of
a clearing house of information that brings the institution of
the Wikimedia Foundation with the editing community in order to
(08:24):
be able to identify threats early on through conversations with
government of course, as well as other platform operators, to
understand sort of what the landscape looks like.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
That's a lot of jargon to say we were coordinating
with the Biden administration to decide what could be said
on Wikipedia and through Wikimedia about the pandemic.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
That is state media. Now.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
This is also interesting because NPR likes to have it
both ways. Oh, we're just like honest journalists, man, like,
we just care about the truth journalism. And yet they
take money from the federal government. I believe state governments
also give money to NPR. And when people like me
point this out, and conservatives have been saying this for years,
(09:13):
you know, we don't get any state money, right, I
mean I said to Clay, I said, look, you know,
if the federal government wants to give us five or
ten million bucks, I'd say, hey, you know, I mean,
we wouldn't take it.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
I'm just kidding.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, we'd think about it, but we probably wouldn't take it.
Why would you have state funding of this? It's absurd
on its face, it makes no sense. And then they say, well,
it's only federal government one percent of our budget or something,
to which I say, great.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Then you don't need it.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
It can't be we don't need the funding, but don't
take away our funding. But that's the game that NPR plays.
Oh no, it's not like we're relying on state funds.
But if you take it away from us, you're destroying
like access to information for you know, one hundred million Americans.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Or whatever it is. They say that listens to it
or has acces to it.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
But back to the point here, why is this a
moment that I think is getting so much attention from
emberby One? You have an NPR the guy worked there
for decades, So it's not like what you get on
the left. Sometimes on the left you'll have some infiltrator,
you know, get somebody who's like, oh, like I managed
(10:23):
to get a job at Fox News. I worked there
for two months, and it's propaganda. I mean, no, no,
this is a guy. Uri Berliner is a guy who
was drinking the kool aid for a long time. I mean,
it's not like NPR just went woke. It is the
most woke. In fact, it's so woke that when someone
(10:43):
tells me in real life that they're an NPR listener,
I'm actually somewhat curious to hear what they have to say,
Like I want to know, you know, if they listen
to CNN, I know it's just all I hate Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
But if they listen to.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
NPR, they're just like, yeah, we just need to get
rid of gender entirely, and we just need a global government,
and we all need to get rid of capitalism. And
he's just like, wait, what like they're they're on this
whole other level of delusion and separation from from reality.
And we have more by the way of Catherine Moore again,
(11:16):
the First Amendment is the foundation upon which really all
American rights are built. Right, if you cannot speak, and
that's why the whole thing when Clay and I were
talking about the trial in New York and there was
that you know that imbecile swallwell.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Oh, you can't say that, Clay.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
When that was going on, I remember thinking, if you
can't talk about a trial, and what's justin unjust? We
do we by definition, do not live in a free society.
And when the people who are supposed to be the
most stalwart defendant, defenders of defendant trial, defenders of the
First Amendment, when they are on the other side, it's
(12:00):
not even that they refuse to do their job. They
have joined the enemies of the First Amendment. They are
part of the censorship apparatus. They are going above and
beyond to silence people who disagree with them or who
just refuse to carry the water of the communist democrat
(12:22):
left in this country. When you reach that point, you
see that we're actually at a dangerous moment in time
for our most basic freedoms. I'm going to get into
more of this Catherine mar lady in a sect, because
she's amazing. I'm telling you, she is the perfect NPR CEO,
all of her positions. I've got her tweets here and
(12:43):
what you need to know. If you're saying, oh, buck,
I don't even listen to NPR, I don't even care.
Her mentality is reflected in the executive suites of every
major newspaper and news organization that is not explicitly right
of center in America, and every editorial room, every newsroom
(13:08):
for a for a publication that would not be identified
by the left as conservative. So right, whether whether you
would say the Wall Street Journal is conservative or not.
Guess what the left thinks. It's very conservative. I think
it's ultra right wing.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
They're crazy.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
This is an exploration of the mindset of the censorious,
totalitarian left, and that's why I think it's so fascinating.
But also I mentioned the Uri Berliner guy. It's too
much for him after twenty years. If you've been working
at NPR for twenty years, how crazy must NPR be
(13:46):
for you to finally say, for twenty years I was
okay with these commies, but now they've gone too far,
you know, in a sense, he shows what I've been
saying now for over a decade. The acceleration of the
lunis from the left is very real, and it's happening
all the time. This is not the same Democrat party
(14:06):
it was ten or twenty years ago. It's certainly not
the same media that it was. So we'll discuss and
if any of you have any funny NPR anecdotes, I
would love to hear them, or just you know, if
you've listened to NPR recently and you found yourself, if
you're in the car and you're looking for Clay and
Buck on the AM, and all of a sudden you
find yourself listening to NPR, it's like an assault on
(14:28):
your ear drums all of a sudden. But I know
it can be very melodic sounding. It's like, oh, well,
today we're talking about the best way to make a
summer salad. You know, I know, I know they sneak
that stuff in there. Eight hundred two A two two
eight a two. You know, we get to the truth
on a whole range of topics here every day on
this program. And that's the mission that Clay and I have.
But that's also the mission that our friend Mark Chakin
(14:50):
has when he covers US stocks. He wants to cut
through the noise and the nonsense. He's not looking to
follow the herd. He's trying to find ways to show
people who believe in his research, in his work, how
to make money in the markets by going against the
most obvious front page stuff from their journal, by finding
(15:11):
things that others don't see, including their media, and in
AI stocks, all the hype around all that stuff. Mark
knows what's real and what's not, and he's saying right
now is a new dawn for US stocks. He predicts
dozens of specific companies will be impacted in just the
next ninety days. That's why Mark has agreed to share
one of his favorite AI stocks to buy now with
(15:34):
our listeners. He put everything in a new presentation you
can watch for free at twenty twenty four aistock dot com.
That's twenty twenty four aistock dot com twenty twenty four
aistock dot com paid for by Shakin Analytics.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
I just tweeted out something that's gonna drive everybody crazy.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
Buck.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I said that there's news out there right now that
John Tape we were talking about the w n B
A and Caitlin Clark being underpaid, underpaid. By the way
we're efforting Andy McCarthy, you can imagine that this is
kind of a busy time for Andy, although he can't
cite the Mets as an excuse for where he is
right now. I don't think but the uh John Tay
(16:22):
Porter is an NBA player who was just banned for
life for betting on the NBA, And I just tweeted,
is he banned from the w n B A two
or could he decide now that he's a w n
B A player, the greatest women's college basketball and women's
women's basketball player of all time, and he'd be a
(16:43):
hero of the left, because there's nothing braver than deciding
you aren't the gender that you actually are. And as
we're efforting uh Andy, did you see this tweet that
that that came out about me? Buck? Even even me
who was used to this is a story, Even me
who is used to people saying all sorts of crazy
(17:05):
things about me, This story I saw and I just
thought to myself, this is really kind of part and
parcel for where we are. They're angry at me, still
over saying that Trump should not be convicted, and this
is this is pretty uh, this is pretty wild. The
idea that you would decide this is from a website.
(17:29):
The headline is anti gay sportswriter's rage tweet about should
you see this book about Trump's hush money trial could
cost him his law license? And here's the opening paragraph
of the article. That's the headline. Homophobic sports writer Clay
Travis couldn't resist the urge to insert himself into Donald
(17:49):
Trump's felony hush money trial. Travis founder of the right
wing rage site OutKick. Have you ever heard me say
anything anti gay? And I just want to if I
had have. I want to make it clear that I
love lesbians, particularly good looking lesbians, very fond of their work,
and so I want to make it clear that I
love all gay people. But that's a headline, like I
(18:12):
said that Trump shouldn't be convicted, and suddenly I'm a
homophobic bigot according to the headlines. I don't even what's
the connection here, other than leftists decide how to attack you.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
I thought about this because, first of all, I'm just
gonna tell you from when I was in New York
and also down here in South Beach. We are very
popular with the gays, okay, just for you know, they
love us. We get along great. That's not like Trump now,
great relations. We have a lot. We have a lot
of stalwart gay Some of them could call in now
and just sort of give us a high five. A
(18:43):
lot of stalwart gay and lesbian listeners.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Here's what.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Here's what they do, though, or rather the people attacking
you what they're doing. They like to use questioning trans
as anti gay. These are not the same thing at all,
and not even not even remotely the same thing, but
they try to create this. That's why the smashing together
of all the letters right occur, LGPDQ, I A plus
(19:13):
right if you What they try to do is say,
this is a very clear tactic of the left. If
you have any issue with any policy relating to any
of the the alphabet group, yes, you are opposed to
the entire alphabet group, which is which is a complete slander.
But you see what I mean. That's that's the game
that's played. So because you question, you know and I
(19:37):
do too, obviously, and not just question. I disagree with
the policy around men competing against women in athletics. They
think this is crazy. It's crazy, yes, because we disagree
with that so strongly. They go, oh, well, you must
be anti gay as well, and it's like, no, these
are These are completely different things, and that is a
(19:57):
dishonest slander meant to attack some buddy who, to your point,
find anything you or I have ever said that could
be classified as gay.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
We bring in now Andy McCarthy, who is I bet
doing more media than he's ever done in his entire life. Andy,
we got seven jurors seated so far. How would you
assess the way this trial is going right now? Has
anything surprised you? Where are we from your perspective?
Speaker 5 (20:26):
The pace the jury selection has really surprised me because
you mentioned media when we were doing it on Monday,
I guess you know, I tried to warn people ahead
of time that nothing really happens during jury selection. It
was you know, obviously it's historic that it's the first
formal day of the trial against the first former president
(20:47):
who happens to be the de facto Republican nominee. But
nothing much was going to happen, and nothing seemed to
happen the first day a few rulings that were interesting,
but beyond that not much. And the estimates play were
that they thought it might take until early May, yeah,
get a jury because of a glacial pace of Monday.
(21:09):
But then the thing picked up like a rocket Tuesday,
and you know, they could they could have a setback tomorrow.
But the you know, to the extent the judge that
he may have a jury fully selected by Friday. That's
entirely possible.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Any thanks for being with us. You know we're gonna
have to keep you for another segment. We have too
many questions, so just get ready for that. But one
thing that we've been wondering about, or I've been I've
been wondering about, particularly this whole notion of a an
impartial jury for Trump in New York City on this case,
it seems to me, like I understand, you know, you
(21:45):
go to trial with the justice system you have, and
you know, it's kind of like you go to war
with the army you have. This is what we got
is trial by jury system, and in general it's very
very good. But to me it just seems like a farce.
I mean, some of the people that are already it
seems have been in can tension are obviously anti Trump, Like,
how do we get is that just baked in at
this point?
Speaker 5 (22:07):
Well, you know, the thing is that you're not. The
idea is not to get people who all like Trump,
or who all like Bragg for that matter, because there's
a lot of resentment against Bragg and Manhattan too. The
thing to remember about all this is that the people
the movement progressives who vote in elections like the one
(22:32):
where Bragg was elected, that's a vanishingly small number of
people in Manhattan, and you know, they're very motivated, so
they kind of punch above their weight. Trump is apt
to find a number of really good jurors in Manhattan.
I liked trying cases in Manhattan. Now, you know, that
was twenty years ago and we were Federals, so we
(22:55):
were drawing from the Bronx in West Yester too, But
we had a lot of Manhattan jurors.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
I thought they were good.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
Earth The process is supposed to lend itself to a
pretty searching examination of these jurors, so you can make
a discriminating choice about them. There's a lot of latitude
to move to remove people by choice. I have a
bye for cause rather I haven't heard too much complaining
(23:21):
that they wanted people removed from cause with the judge
refused to remove, which is part of why it's going faster.
I think. I think they got rid of a lot
of cause objections the first day and one big fell swoop.
But also remember, in terms of balance, even though if
you even if you accept as a premise that Manhattan
(23:44):
is cut against Trump, which which it clearly is, Trump
only needs one, you know to win here, Bragg needs twelve.
And that's a big difference when you have a case
like b like Bragg has, which is a kind of
a dog's breakfast of a case.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
When we come back, I want to ask you this question, Andy,
what would happen if Trump were convicted? What's the process
that would play out? Thank you for joining us. You
good to come back for one more segment?
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yeah, of course, great. Yeah, let's get into neck like us.
You know, are they going to lock him up if
they can? Is really what we want to dive into
and what would that look like and how would this
all work? What the process is? But first up, I
want to remind everybody about the incredible work being done
by the Preborn network of clinics they saved this past
year fifty eight thousand tiny babies lives. That was only
(24:33):
possible because of the generosity of you, the pro life
community in this country. Here's what Preborn does. They welcome
pregnant moms who are making a difficult decision. Are they
going to give life to their unborn child or choose abortion?
And they do this by providing them with a free
ultrasound and when they see that tiny heartbeat on the screen,
(24:53):
so often the decision is for life. One woman who
visited a preborn clinic this past year was being pressured
by her family to abort her unborn child, but she
favored the idea of life, which led to finding the
Preborn Network. Clinic closest to her preborn provided her support
and supplies, and she was also given that free ultrasound.
When she saw her baby on the sonogram, that godly
(25:14):
connection was made the baby's tiny movements, the little heart beat,
She realized, I'm giving life to my child.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Every day.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
Preborn celebrates two hundred miracles in the same way. An
ultrasound cost just twenty eight dollars. Twenty eight dollars and
it's one hundred percent tax deductible. Have you can give more,
by the way, five hundred or even five thousand, and
some of you have some of you have given five
thousand dollars as a leadership gift already. But if you
can give twenty eight dollars whatever you can, spare five
(25:43):
dollars that can be the difference between the life and
death of a tiny baby. We have to do a lot.
I know there's fights in the legal realm right now,
but we have to do what weeken culturally as a
community of life, to support life wherever we can. Please
dial pound two five zero from your phone and say
the keyword baby. That's pound two five zero, say baby,
(26:05):
or visit preborn dot com slash buck that's preborn dot
com slash bucek sponsored by Preborn. All right, Andy, let's
dive right, And if we're speaking to Andy McCarthy of
National Review and Fox News twenty plus years Southern District
(26:27):
of New York prosecutor. Andy, if they find Trump guilty,
what do you think happens? I mean, give us the
timeline and the possible punishments.
Speaker 5 (26:39):
Well, allowing that things are moving a little faster than
we thought, and we'll see if that continues. Let's say
the trial goes into mid to late May, maybe early June.
If he were to get convicted, I think it matters
a lot what he gets convicted of, and we can
come back around and talk about that. But let's assume
for arguments, say he gets convict could have one or
(27:00):
more selonies in the indictment, which are all the charges
of felonies in the indictment. He would have a maximum sentences.
I understand the way New York groups statutory counts of
four years, and sentencing is normally about three months after
(27:22):
a conviction. This is a non violent crime. He's a
first sender in New York. He should not get a
sentence of incarceration. But you know, if you had asked
me about Alan Weifelberg, who Bragg has prosecuted twice in
the last two years, I would have told you he
shouldn't get one either. And they have him in now
(27:42):
where I think his second five months stint at rikers.
So there'll be a lot of pressure from the left,
which certainly Brag and the judge seemed to be very
keen to to put him in prison for some period
of time. I think Trump will be able to delay that,
(28:02):
and my understanding is the way New York appellate law
works is that once he appeals, the sentence can be
you know, any sentence imposed can be frozen until the
appeal's done.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
And the appeal would take well after the election.
Speaker 5 (28:17):
Oh yeah, be into next year for sure.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
And honestly, Andy, this is a crazy question. But given
it's a state charge, he doesn't if he got elected president,
how do state charges that have already and I don't
know what the president would be here because there's truly
never been one. How does state criminal charges apply to
a president of the United States if it was a
(28:42):
conviction that occurred prior to his election.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
As you say, Play, the most important thing is that
this has never happened before. So you know, we're kind
of spitballing here. But my view would be the Trump
Justice Department would argue under the supremacist clause that any
sentence ought to be postponed until after his term is over. That,
(29:08):
in other words, the state can't execute a sentence that
would prevent the federal government from doing its ordinary functions.
And I kind of doubt that the that the state
would fight that point. I think you know what they
want here is to get Trump convicted. You know, look,
I've been surprised by a lot of things.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
But I don't I know, We've got a million just
I have to ask this, is there any chance that
they could? Because Andy, what they've done in DC is
I call it warp speed, right they or ludicrous speed.
They've moved faster in the j six trial than all
my friends who are federal defense attorneys and federal prosecutors say,
like ever happens? Could they do the sentencing much sooner
than three months after if he's found guilty?
Speaker 5 (29:52):
You know, they could try. I think his lawyers could
you know, tie that.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
Up for a while.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
But I don't really see the big point of doing that,
fuck because again, the appeal would mean he they wouldn't
be able to execute the sentence, and what they really
really want is to call him a convicted felon. I
think how much she gets sentenced beside the point. And
it could be scandalous if you put Trump in jail
(30:17):
when Bragg is taking serious, serious crimes and turning it
into turning them into misdemeanors or not charging them at all.
That's certainly not going to be helpful to Biden.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Andy, you heard about the left is fired up at
me for my jury tweets and comments that I've made
on this show. Do you think that I will be
arrested for jury tampering? As Eric Swallwell has requested, as
Joy Read and CNN have requested.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
Well, I would say, no, Clay, but you know, I'm
not in New York today, and Alvin Bragg is the
DA there. He's got a different idea when you're on
on this side of the political aisle than would be
the case in the normal case. In all seriousness, I
think that you know, what you said is not something
(31:10):
I would say, but it's not the crime of jury tampering.
It's basically First Amendment free speech. I'm you know, I
like the jury system. I'm one of these.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
You still have some faith in a andy, which I appreciate.
I'm not sure I do as much, especially seeing what
we're seeing for some of these jurors. But you know,
it's the best thing we got. I get it.
Speaker 5 (31:34):
Yeah. But you know, one of the things we talked
about just probably a month ago was how ridiculous it
was that the civil fraud trial was just a bench
trial in front of a garron right and I think
the only reason for making that point is because it's
more fair to have a jury trial. And the implicit
in that is that we think that, you know, twelve
sensible people are more likely to come to a correct
(31:57):
result than one movement progressive. So you know that's I'm
still banking on that.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
If there were a mistrial, let's say they couldn't get
a verdict, there's no way they could get a case rescheduled, right.
This would basically be Bragg falling on his face if
in some way he doesn't get the felony conviction.
Speaker 5 (32:15):
Yeah, I think I think number one would be ridiculous
if he wanted to try it again, because if they
don't get him on this, it's going to because it's
going to be because it's a ridiculous case, which Bragg
knew in the first place, and that's why he shut
it down in twenty twenty two. If they don't get
a conviction, it's going to be because of things like
Michael Cone, which doesn't get better over time. But the
(32:37):
other thing, just to be totally practical about it, is
Trump's dance cards going to be filled up with you know,
classified information proceedings down in the Florida case. And all
of the free trial stuff in the Washington case. The
j sixth case is going to start up again once
the Supreme Court rules on immunity. Because when they rule
(32:58):
on immunity, assuming they rule against Trump, which I do,
and then the case is good, the jurisdiction off the
case is going to go back to Judge chuck In
and she's going to start having hearings and putting the
pedal to the metal.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Well, the good news.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
It sounds like Andy, neither Trump nor Clay are going
to the big House and going to be cellmates, perhaps
having to pick who gets top bunk anytime soon.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Let's let's let's pray for that outcome.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
I agree with that. Pray for television chef, That's what
I can.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
I tell you one thing Andy, when Clay was on,
when the heat was turned up on Clay, you know
what he said, I'd love to have Andy as my
defender if I if I actually play charges.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
I would, I would, I would, I would hire You
might make some money off this before all of a sudden, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
I might come out of retirement to that case.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
There we go, all right, everybody, we won't take you
up to Capitol Hill for a moment here and the
Shenanigans involving Republican leadership in the House. Our friend Sewn
(34:02):
Davis joins us now. He is the co founder and
CEO of the Federalists. Great work being done at the
Federalist dot com day in and day out. Sean, thanks
for being here.
Speaker 4 (34:12):
With us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
So tell everybody what's going on, because there's there's this
noise about Marjorie Taylor Green wanting to replace Johnson. Wait,
did Johnson do something? There's money going overseas ninety billion?
What has happened? First?
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Before we dive too far into what the heck is next, So.
Speaker 5 (34:34):
Let's back up.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
You know, Kevin McCarthy was deposed, They had a motion
of ak removed him. They put in Mike Johnson, I
think late October, early November. Mike Johnson looked good from
the outset, said all the right things, seemed to believe
all the right things. But specifically, he made a number
of claims and promises foremost of which was he was
not going to be moving money overseas for Ukraine or
(34:57):
anyone else until our own border was secure. Those were
his words. That was an ironclad, obvious explicit commitment, and
instead we are in a position right now where he
is attempting to force through the House under threat of emotion,
to vacate from Marjorie Taylor Green, which is pending a massive,
massive overseas aid bill something like one hundred billion dollars
(35:20):
in Ukraine, a bunch of money in Israel, a bunch
of money throughout throughout Asia, and not a dime.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
For the border.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
And so what's happening is there is chaos, in disunity
and all kinds of rancor in the House right now
surrounding this. And it is all because Mike Johnson, for
reasons I simply do not understand, refuses to honor his
pledge and his promise to fix and fund border security
(35:50):
before throwing another one hundred billion dollars at a non
American problem overseas.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
So where does this all go? I mean, effectively, are
we just going to be waiting until November to see
and Sean, it's good to talk with you, Good to
see you on Friday at the Marshall Blackburn event, and
keep up the good work, as I said, then, but
where does this all go? Are we just waiting till
November to see? Who's going to have control of the
House until then? Does it matter a great deal who
(36:16):
the speaker is?
Speaker 4 (36:19):
Well, right now, we Democrats control the House. Right now,
if you look at which bills have passed over the
last six months or so, I think all but one
has been passed with the majority of Democrat votes, not
with the majority of Republican votes. So right now Democrats
are controlling the House. They're calling the shots. Democrats are
controlling the Senate. So the question we have is can
(36:42):
we get to November without completely shooting ourselves in the
foot and give Republican voters a reason to actually vote
for Republicans and take back our country Because looking at
it right now, you look what Republicans are doing in Washington.
They have the majority now, albeit it to a slim one.
They have the majority. They have the numbers they can
actually bring Biden and Schumer over in the Senate to
(37:05):
heal and yet they refuse to do so again for
reasons I simply do not understand. So from my perspective,
the challenge for November is getting there without actually losing
the majority, which we've been steadily losing for the last
six months.
Speaker 5 (37:21):
I think it's now.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
Down to two seats, but actually getting to November with
the reason for Republican voters to vote for Republicans, because
I'll tell you right now, looking at what they're doing
in Washington, I'm having a tough time coming up with
a good reason to vote for Republicans in the House
when all they do is past Democrat bills.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
Yeah, and Sean, I just have to wonder how many
times we're supposed to go through this.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
Cycle.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
And look, it's some people in both Congress and in
the media do this whole Oh we need if we
have a new leader, everything will be fine. We talked
about this when there was the push to get rid
of McCarthy. It's like, okay, but is everything going to change?
Is everything going to be fine? Or is this just now,
you know, groundhog Day for us? I mean, what do
(38:06):
you think the posture should be of Republicans in the
House between now and the elections that we don't lose
the majority, which is really about as thin as it
could possibly be already.
Speaker 4 (38:17):
I think the job of the House right now is
to block nonsense from Joe Biden and to force Democrats
to take votes they don't want to take so that
we can maybe hopefully secure our border and fix the
damage that's been done to the country. So stop the nonsense.
Biden is doing forced Democrats.
Speaker 5 (38:35):
To take bad votes.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
Congressional Republican leadership is doing the opposite. They're like running
away from trying to make Democrats take tough votes. Why
on earth do they not make Democrats just vote up
or down on Israel and secure US border. That to
me is the easiest thing in the world, and yet
Republican leaders are doing everything they can to make it
as difficult and pointless as possible. And honestly, I think
(38:58):
the big problem is we have no leadership in Washington, DC.
We actually have no representation is normal voters, people who
spend six seven months a year working just to fund
the government. We have no one in Washington who seems
to care about the things that are bothering us every day.
Gas prices, how groceries are unaffordable, how roads and bridges
(39:20):
are broken. All the things that we used to take
for granted, which are just basic kind of daily necessities
of life, are completely unaffordable. And what people in Washington,
what Republican leaders are focusing on, is not fixing those problems.
But in sending more money to Ukraine. So I personally
think we need a complete wholesale cleaning of the House
(39:40):
of Leadership, and we actually need to put people in
there who are true leaders, who care about the country
more than they care about what the established sent.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
How do they explain ninety five billion dollars in this
appropriate House Appropriations Committee going overseas and not as I
understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, not
a dollar going for the border. How can they make
that calculation and not expect people to just say, what
are you doing?
Speaker 4 (40:04):
I don't think they care. I truly don't think they can.
I don't know if it's something that's in the water.
I mean Mike Johnson, for example, This guy had a
press conference where he straight up said we're not doing
this nonsense until we fix the border, and then he's
gone and apparently forgotten he ever said that, because you'll
notice none of his lieutenants or him ever actually try
(40:26):
to explain their way around it. They just want you
to forget they ever made the bletche And I think
people in Washington, I think they just don't care. I
think they've drunk the kool aid when it comes to
Ukraine or Russia or whatever, and they have decided, again
for reasons to elude me, that a regional war between
Russia and Ukraine that doesn't involve US is the literal
(40:48):
most important thing happening in the world today. And if
you're upset about gas prices or crime, or your streets
falling apart, or the border being non existent, it's only
because you're a tool.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Of Putin joh On. I don't know if you've got
a strong take on this, but there's also talk that
somehow this border bill could also include TikTok, and we
know that the Senate moved aggressively on TikTok, and the
House has to kind of figure out what to do.
What do you think should happen with TikTok?
Speaker 4 (41:18):
I think TikTok should be banned. I'm not really down
with the whole, uh divesting thing. It looks it looks
a little too much like the intel surveillance state just
wants to make sure it's buddies, it's Facebook or Google
have control of this massive surveillance tool so that then
they can use it against their own people a lot
more than they care about blocking China. So I think
(41:41):
you know it's a tool of a communist government. Of
course it shouldn't exist here anymore than we would have
been cool with importing a bunch of radios from the
Soviet Union in nineteen sixty that we knew they were
listening in on during the midst of the Cold War.
If somebody had proposed that in you know, nineteen fifty
or nineteen sixty, they were to look at you like
you were a crazy person. Yeah, well, of course we
(42:01):
should have Soviet radios with lifting devices in their homes
in the middle of the Cold War. So I think
TikTok should be banned. But I also have pretty serious
concerns about a government picking and choosing which websites are
allowed to exist in this country. So while I think
TikTok should be banned, that bill that they were pushing
was an awful bill. It was poorly written, it was
(42:22):
poorly reasoned. It had terrible downstream effects and unintended consequences.
I think the bill was a disaster. But as far
as allowing Chinese surveillance and spy tools to be in
our pockets walking around with us, I think that's insanity.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
No doubt. Sean look forward to seeing you again sometime
soon in the great state of Tennessee. Keep up the
good work and appreciate you being flexible.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
Today y'all are crushing it.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Keep it up.
Speaker 4 (42:46):
Thank you for having me on for sure.
Speaker 1 (42:48):
That's Sean Davis, CEO, founder of the Federalists. They do
great work there, including our friend Molly Hemingway, who does
fantastic articles for them as well. When you switch your
cell phone service to pure Talk, you're getting the best
service for the least amount of money every month. In fact,
twenty bucks a month gets you unlimited talk text, plenty
of five G data from Pure Talk, same quality of
service as AT and T, Verizon or T Mobile have
(43:10):
the cost though average sized family, you'll save almost one
thousand dollars a year, no contracts or activation fees. They
make it easy. When you switch to pure Talk, you
keep your phone and your phone number, and their customer
service team is great. They're all here in the good
old USA, eager to help make the switch today. Save
an additional fifty percent off your first month. Choose a
(43:30):
wireless company who shares our values and who creates American jobs.
That's Pure Talk. My fifteen year old, well sorry, he
just turned sixteen. My sixteen year old has his own
puretalk phone. I was texting with him a little bit
earlier during the day. I use it to stay in
touch with him. Soon, my fourteen year old will get
his own cell phone. It'll be a puretalk phone. We
use it to stay in touch with our family. You
(43:51):
can do the same and you can save a bundle
in the process. Style pound two fifty say the keywords
clay and buck make the switch today that's pound two
five zero say the key words play and buck.
Welcome to today's edition of The Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast. Welcome in everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Wednesday edition of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
starts right now, and we have much to discuss, as
is often the case here, a lot of news breaking,
a lot of things happening.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
We've got the Trump trial in NYC.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Jury selection fully underway, a number of jurors making it
through the early stages of the gauntlets that is jury selection.
We will discuss how a little bit the same way
that the Supreme Court. We're told there's a non partisan
institution jury selection. A lot of people clearly have animus
(00:47):
against Trump, for example, and it seems some of them
are in this jury process trying to suggest that, oh,
but I could still be impartial. Yeah, we'll discuss this
in detail. Trump also going up to the well a bodega,
which is like a small neighborhood grocery store New Yorkers
(01:08):
all know, but for other folks across the country, bodega
is not as common a thing. The isn't it isn't
that the one also where I think I think doctor
Jill Biden, And just so you're clear, we call her
that sarcastically.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Some of you write in and say she's not really
a doctor.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
We know that's the point we like to be, you know,
like doctor Jill Biden's getting called in by her pager
on an episode of Graze and.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Had to me to save lives.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
She wrote a like a PhD dissertation that was absolute
garbage for I think the University of Delaware or something
on education. Uh so, yeah, anyway, but yes, doctor Jill Biden.
I think she was the one who said but bodega
or something. She couldn't she didn't know what a bodego was.
It's pretty funny, but this is about the bodega guy
(01:55):
who defended himself with a with a knife on video
against an assailant who was much bigger, who cornered him
and for no reason started just punching him, and he
defended himself with a knife and the guy died, and
he was charged with murder. If you remember Alvin Bragg,
we were outraged here on this show and said it
(02:16):
at the time, and the pressure from people of New
York and across the country who recognized what an outrage
this is push Bragg to drop those charges. But Trump
is going to visit that store proprietor go visit the
guy working at the bodega he went. And this is
highlighting I think a big difference between Democrats and Republicans
(02:40):
going into this election cycle. Also a lot of hubbub,
a lot of stuff going on online around the salary
that Caitlin Clark has the president or at least his staff. Again,
we know Joe Biden doesn't write his tweets, but it's
on his behalf, right, So the White House apparatus put
(03:03):
out a tweet upset about how much money Caitlin Clark,
the NCAA female basketball superstar, how much she is going
to make. It is by professional athletic standards, not a
lot of money. And there's the Biden White House is
saying this is unfair because Joe Biden neither knows nor
(03:25):
understands the first thing about running a business, economic supply
and demand, anything like that. So we will definitely want
to dive into some of that because it's well, it
just shows that one side here lives in reality and
the other side lives in a delusion. And then we've
got this is the big one for me today. You know,
(03:46):
Clay and I were going back and forth on this
one on air, just talking about because he was he
started bringing to my attention that tweets around NPR's new chief,
the chief Commissar of np R. And the thing about
(04:06):
it is, when you look at her tweets, it's very
apparent that everything that you think is true of the
head of NPR is in fact true of the head
of NPR. And Uri Yuri Yuri I think right, Uri
Yuri Uri Berliner, who is the guy who is an
(04:28):
MPR editor who said, hey, hold on a second, there
are eighty seven editors in the newsroom, and not a
single one of them is a Republican. Every one of
them is a registered Democrat. That can't be a journalistic
enterprise of any seriousness. Clay he has resigned. I have
(04:49):
his real quick here's his resignation letter sent to Katherine
Maher who We're going to have some fun with you
in a second. I'm resigning from NPR, great American institution
where I've worked for twenty five five years. I don't
support calls to defund NPR. Well, too bad. I respect
the integrity of my colleagues and wish for ENDPR to
thrive and do important journalism but I cannot work in
(05:10):
a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO
whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR. In
my free press essay, Clay, is this a shockwave through
the communist media? Well, we will, we will dive into it,
you know. In that regard. First, I gotta say, look
(05:31):
at some of the tweets from oh we have better
than tweets. We have Katherine Maher I suppose no relation
to Bill Maher, same spelling of the last name. We
have Katherine Maher here, the new NPR CEO. I think
she just took over in January of this year, so
it's new. The kind of things that you think, without
(05:53):
even knowing an NPR boss would say, she is like
made in a lab by communists. It's amazing when you
actually hear her view of things. For example, she's one
of these individuals who works in journalism and you really
have to put the scare quotes. The scare quotes must
(06:15):
be there. She's one of these people who works in
journalism but thinks that the First Amendment is an impediment
to the real mission. And you say, well, hold on
a second, how can freedom of expression and free speech
be a challenge to journalism. The only way is if
journalism is actually propaganda, is if you're taking a partisan
(06:38):
point of view in order to bring about a certain
conclusion in the mind of the audience. Hmmm. Catherine Maher
Back in twenty twenty one June of twenty twenty one,
during the pandemic, she was CEO of Wikimedia. So I
think she was running Wikipedia like that falls under And
let me tell you Wikipedia, just like Twitter was before
(07:01):
Elon bought it, It is a communist enclave. They absolutely
control Wikipedia. There's so much bias, all kinds of things
going on there that you know, people should be very
cognizant of. Whenever you do a Wikipedia search, I should
also be very cognizant. Ginger has found her way into
(07:22):
the studio and while I am doing a live radio
show for millions of people, is dropping her favorite chew
toy on my feet and saying you must throw this.
So if you're watching the video wondering why the chew
toy is being thrown, there you go. Catherine mar twenty
twenty one June. This is what she said when she
was running Wikimedia.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Play it.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
We took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation
coming into the not just the last selection, but also
looking at how we supported our editing community in an
unprecedented moment where we were not only dealing with the
global pandemic, we were dealing with a novel virus, which is
by definition means we knew nothing about it in real time,
trying to figure it out as the pandemic went along.
(08:02):
And so we really set up in response to both
the pandemic but also in response to the upcoming US
election and as a model for future elections outside of
the US, including a number that are happening in this year.
The model was around how do we create sort of
a clearing house of information that brings the institution of
the Wikimedia Foundation with the editing community in order to
(08:24):
be able to identify threats early on through conversations with
government of course, as well as other platform operators, to
understand sort of what the landscape looks like.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
That's a lot of jargon to say we were coordinating
with the Biden administration to decide what could be said
on Wikipedia and through Wikimedia about the pandemic.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
That is state media. Now.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
This is also interesting because NPR likes to have it
both ways. Oh, we're just like honest journalists, man, like,
we just care about the truth journalism. And yet they
take money from the federal government. I believe state governments
also give money to NPR. And when people like me
point this out, and conservatives have been saying this for years,
(09:13):
you know, we don't get any state money, right, I
mean I said to Clay, I said, look, you know,
if the federal government wants to give us five or
ten million bucks, I'd say, hey, you know, I mean,
we wouldn't take it.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
I'm just kidding.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, we'd think about it, but we probably wouldn't take it.
Why would you have state funding of this? It's absurd
on its face, it makes no sense. And then they say, well,
it's only federal government one percent of our budget or something,
to which I say, great.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Then you don't need it.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
It can't be we don't need the funding, but don't
take away our funding. But that's the game that NPR plays.
Oh no, it's not like we're relying on state funds.
But if you take it away from us, you're destroying
like access to information for you know, one hundred million Americans.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Or whatever it is. They say that listens to it
or has acces to it.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
But back to the point here, why is this a
moment that I think is getting so much attention from
emberby One? You have an NPR the guy worked there
for decades, So it's not like what you get on
the left. Sometimes on the left you'll have some infiltrator,
you know, get somebody who's like, oh, like I managed
(10:23):
to get a job at Fox News. I worked there
for two months, and it's propaganda. I mean, no, no,
this is a guy. Uri Berliner is a guy who
was drinking the kool aid for a long time. I mean,
it's not like NPR just went woke. It is the
most woke. In fact, it's so woke that when someone
(10:43):
tells me in real life that they're an NPR listener,
I'm actually somewhat curious to hear what they have to say,
Like I want to know, you know, if they listen
to CNN, I know it's just all I hate Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
But if they listen to.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
NPR, they're just like, yeah, we just need to get
rid of gender entirely, and we just need a global government,
and we all need to get rid of capitalism. And
he's just like, wait, what like they're they're on this
whole other level of delusion and separation from from reality.
And we have more by the way of Catherine Moore again,
(11:16):
the First Amendment is the foundation upon which really all
American rights are built. Right, if you cannot speak, and
that's why the whole thing when Clay and I were
talking about the trial in New York and there was
that you know that imbecile swallwell.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Oh, you can't say that, Clay.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
When that was going on, I remember thinking, if you
can't talk about a trial, and what's justin unjust? We
do we by definition, do not live in a free society.
And when the people who are supposed to be the
most stalwart defendant, defenders of defendant trial, defenders of the
First Amendment, when they are on the other side, it's
(12:00):
not even that they refuse to do their job. They
have joined the enemies of the First Amendment. They are
part of the censorship apparatus. They are going above and
beyond to silence people who disagree with them or who
just refuse to carry the water of the communist democrat
(12:22):
left in this country. When you reach that point, you
see that we're actually at a dangerous moment in time
for our most basic freedoms. I'm going to get into
more of this Catherine mar lady in a sect, because
she's amazing. I'm telling you, she is the perfect NPR CEO,
all of her positions. I've got her tweets here and
(12:43):
what you need to know. If you're saying, oh, buck,
I don't even listen to NPR, I don't even care.
Her mentality is reflected in the executive suites of every
major newspaper and news organization that is not explicitly right
of center in America, and every editorial room, every newsroom
(13:08):
for a for a publication that would not be identified
by the left as conservative. So right, whether whether you
would say the Wall Street Journal is conservative or not.
Guess what the left thinks. It's very conservative. I think
it's ultra right wing.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
They're crazy.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
This is an exploration of the mindset of the censorious,
totalitarian left, and that's why I think it's so fascinating.
But also I mentioned the Uri Berliner guy. It's too
much for him after twenty years. If you've been working
at NPR for twenty years, how crazy must NPR be
(13:46):
for you to finally say, for twenty years I was
okay with these commies, but now they've gone too far,
you know, in a sense, he shows what I've been
saying now for over a decade. The acceleration of the
lunis from the left is very real, and it's happening
all the time. This is not the same Democrat party
(14:06):
it was ten or twenty years ago. It's certainly not
the same media that it was. So we'll discuss and
if any of you have any funny NPR anecdotes, I
would love to hear them, or just you know, if
you've listened to NPR recently and you found yourself, if
you're in the car and you're looking for Clay and
Buck on the AM, and all of a sudden you
find yourself listening to NPR, it's like an assault on
(14:28):
your ear drums all of a sudden. But I know
it can be very melodic sounding. It's like, oh, well,
today we're talking about the best way to make a
summer salad. You know, I know, I know they sneak
that stuff in there. Eight hundred two A two two
eight a two. You know, we get to the truth
on a whole range of topics here every day on
this program. And that's the mission that Clay and I have.
But that's also the mission that our friend Mark Chakin
(14:50):
has when he covers US stocks. He wants to cut
through the noise and the nonsense. He's not looking to
follow the herd. He's trying to find ways to show
people who believe in his research, in his work, how
to make money in the markets by going against the
most obvious front page stuff from their journal, by finding
(15:11):
things that others don't see, including their media, and in
AI stocks, all the hype around all that stuff. Mark
knows what's real and what's not, and he's saying right
now is a new dawn for US stocks. He predicts
dozens of specific companies will be impacted in just the
next ninety days. That's why Mark has agreed to share
one of his favorite AI stocks to buy now with
(15:34):
our listeners. He put everything in a new presentation you
can watch for free at twenty twenty four aistock dot com.
That's twenty twenty four aistock dot com twenty twenty four
aistock dot com paid for by Shakin Analytics.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
I just tweeted out something that's gonna drive everybody crazy.
Speaker 4 (15:59):
Buck.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I said that there's news out there right now that
John Tape we were talking about the w n B
A and Caitlin Clark being underpaid, underpaid. By the way
we're efforting Andy McCarthy, you can imagine that this is
kind of a busy time for Andy, although he can't
cite the Mets as an excuse for where he is
right now. I don't think but the uh John Tay
(16:22):
Porter is an NBA player who was just banned for
life for betting on the NBA, And I just tweeted,
is he banned from the w n B A two
or could he decide now that he's a w n
B A player, the greatest women's college basketball and women's
women's basketball player of all time, and he'd be a
(16:43):
hero of the left, because there's nothing braver than deciding
you aren't the gender that you actually are. And as
we're efforting uh Andy, did you see this tweet that
that that came out about me? Buck? Even even me
who was used to this is a story, Even me
who is used to people saying all sorts of crazy
(17:05):
things about me, This story I saw and I just
thought to myself, this is really kind of part and
parcel for where we are. They're angry at me, still
over saying that Trump should not be convicted, and this
is this is pretty uh, this is pretty wild. The
idea that you would decide this is from a website.
(17:29):
The headline is anti gay sportswriter's rage tweet about should
you see this book about Trump's hush money trial could
cost him his law license? And here's the opening paragraph
of the article. That's the headline. Homophobic sports writer Clay
Travis couldn't resist the urge to insert himself into Donald
(17:49):
Trump's felony hush money trial. Travis founder of the right
wing rage site OutKick. Have you ever heard me say
anything anti gay? And I just want to if I
had have. I want to make it clear that I
love lesbians, particularly good looking lesbians, very fond of their work,
and so I want to make it clear that I
love all gay people. But that's a headline, like I
(18:12):
said that Trump shouldn't be convicted, and suddenly I'm a
homophobic bigot according to the headlines. I don't even what's
the connection here, other than leftists decide how to attack you.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
I thought about this because, first of all, I'm just
gonna tell you from when I was in New York
and also down here in South Beach. We are very
popular with the gays, okay, just for you know, they
love us. We get along great. That's not like Trump now,
great relations. We have a lot. We have a lot
of stalwart gay Some of them could call in now
and just sort of give us a high five. A
(18:43):
lot of stalwart gay and lesbian listeners.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Here's what.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Here's what they do, though, or rather the people attacking
you what they're doing. They like to use questioning trans
as anti gay. These are not the same thing at all,
and not even not even remotely the same thing, but
they try to create this. That's why the smashing together
of all the letters right occur, LGPDQ, I A plus
(19:13):
right if you What they try to do is say,
this is a very clear tactic of the left. If
you have any issue with any policy relating to any
of the the alphabet group, yes, you are opposed to
the entire alphabet group, which is which is a complete slander.
But you see what I mean. That's that's the game
that's played. So because you question, you know and I
(19:37):
do too, obviously, and not just question. I disagree with
the policy around men competing against women in athletics. They
think this is crazy. It's crazy, yes, because we disagree
with that so strongly. They go, oh, well, you must
be anti gay as well, and it's like, no, these
are These are completely different things, and that is a
(19:57):
dishonest slander meant to attack some buddy who, to your point,
find anything you or I have ever said that could
be classified as gay.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
We bring in now Andy McCarthy, who is I bet
doing more media than he's ever done in his entire life. Andy,
we got seven jurors seated so far. How would you
assess the way this trial is going right now? Has
anything surprised you? Where are we from your perspective?
Speaker 5 (20:26):
The pace the jury selection has really surprised me because
you mentioned media when we were doing it on Monday,
I guess you know, I tried to warn people ahead
of time that nothing really happens during jury selection. It
was you know, obviously it's historic that it's the first
formal day of the trial against the first former president
(20:47):
who happens to be the de facto Republican nominee. But
nothing much was going to happen, and nothing seemed to
happen the first day a few rulings that were interesting,
but beyond that not much. And the estimates play were
that they thought it might take until early May, yeah,
get a jury because of a glacial pace of Monday.
(21:09):
But then the thing picked up like a rocket Tuesday,
and you know, they could they could have a setback tomorrow.
But the you know, to the extent the judge that
he may have a jury fully selected by Friday. That's
entirely possible.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Any thanks for being with us. You know we're gonna
have to keep you for another segment. We have too
many questions, so just get ready for that. But one
thing that we've been wondering about, or I've been I've
been wondering about, particularly this whole notion of a an
impartial jury for Trump in New York City on this case,
it seems to me, like I understand, you know, you
(21:45):
go to trial with the justice system you have, and
you know, it's kind of like you go to war
with the army you have. This is what we got
is trial by jury system, and in general it's very
very good. But to me it just seems like a farce.
I mean, some of the people that are already it
seems have been in can tension are obviously anti Trump, Like,
how do we get is that just baked in at
this point?
Speaker 5 (22:07):
Well, you know, the thing is that you're not. The
idea is not to get people who all like Trump,
or who all like Bragg for that matter, because there's
a lot of resentment against Bragg and Manhattan too. The
thing to remember about all this is that the people
the movement progressives who vote in elections like the one
(22:32):
where Bragg was elected, that's a vanishingly small number of
people in Manhattan, and you know, they're very motivated, so
they kind of punch above their weight. Trump is apt
to find a number of really good jurors in Manhattan.
I liked trying cases in Manhattan. Now, you know, that
was twenty years ago and we were Federals, so we
(22:55):
were drawing from the Bronx in West Yester too, But
we had a lot of Manhattan jurors.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
I thought they were good.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
Earth The process is supposed to lend itself to a
pretty searching examination of these jurors, so you can make
a discriminating choice about them. There's a lot of latitude
to move to remove people by choice. I have a
bye for cause rather I haven't heard too much complaining
(23:21):
that they wanted people removed from cause with the judge
refused to remove, which is part of why it's going faster.
I think. I think they got rid of a lot
of cause objections the first day and one big fell swoop.
But also remember, in terms of balance, even though if
you even if you accept as a premise that Manhattan
(23:44):
is cut against Trump, which which it clearly is, Trump
only needs one, you know to win here, Bragg needs twelve.
And that's a big difference when you have a case
like b like Bragg has, which is a kind of
a dog's breakfast of a case.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
When we come back, I want to ask you this question, Andy,
what would happen if Trump were convicted? What's the process
that would play out? Thank you for joining us. You
good to come back for one more segment?
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yeah, of course, great. Yeah, let's get into neck like us.
You know, are they going to lock him up if
they can? Is really what we want to dive into
and what would that look like and how would this
all work? What the process is? But first up, I
want to remind everybody about the incredible work being done
by the Preborn network of clinics they saved this past
year fifty eight thousand tiny babies lives. That was only
(24:33):
possible because of the generosity of you, the pro life
community in this country. Here's what Preborn does. They welcome
pregnant moms who are making a difficult decision. Are they
going to give life to their unborn child or choose abortion?
And they do this by providing them with a free
ultrasound and when they see that tiny heartbeat on the screen,
(24:53):
so often the decision is for life. One woman who
visited a preborn clinic this past year was being pressured
by her family to abort her unborn child, but she
favored the idea of life, which led to finding the
Preborn Network. Clinic closest to her preborn provided her support
and supplies, and she was also given that free ultrasound.
When she saw her baby on the sonogram, that godly
(25:14):
connection was made the baby's tiny movements, the little heart beat,
She realized, I'm giving life to my child.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Every day.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
Preborn celebrates two hundred miracles in the same way. An
ultrasound cost just twenty eight dollars. Twenty eight dollars and
it's one hundred percent tax deductible. Have you can give more,
by the way, five hundred or even five thousand, and
some of you have some of you have given five
thousand dollars as a leadership gift already. But if you
can give twenty eight dollars whatever you can, spare five
(25:43):
dollars that can be the difference between the life and
death of a tiny baby. We have to do a lot.
I know there's fights in the legal realm right now,
but we have to do what weeken culturally as a
community of life, to support life wherever we can. Please
dial pound two five zero from your phone and say
the keyword baby. That's pound two five zero, say baby,
(26:05):
or visit preborn dot com slash buck that's preborn dot
com slash bucek sponsored by Preborn. All right, Andy, let's
dive right, And if we're speaking to Andy McCarthy of
National Review and Fox News twenty plus years Southern District
(26:27):
of New York prosecutor. Andy, if they find Trump guilty,
what do you think happens? I mean, give us the
timeline and the possible punishments.
Speaker 5 (26:39):
Well, allowing that things are moving a little faster than
we thought, and we'll see if that continues. Let's say
the trial goes into mid to late May, maybe early June.
If he were to get convicted, I think it matters
a lot what he gets convicted of, and we can
come back around and talk about that. But let's assume
for arguments, say he gets convict could have one or
(27:00):
more selonies in the indictment, which are all the charges
of felonies in the indictment. He would have a maximum sentences.
I understand the way New York groups statutory counts of
four years, and sentencing is normally about three months after
(27:22):
a conviction. This is a non violent crime. He's a
first sender in New York. He should not get a
sentence of incarceration. But you know, if you had asked
me about Alan Weifelberg, who Bragg has prosecuted twice in
the last two years, I would have told you he
shouldn't get one either. And they have him in now
(27:42):
where I think his second five months stint at rikers.
So there'll be a lot of pressure from the left,
which certainly Brag and the judge seemed to be very
keen to to put him in prison for some period
of time. I think Trump will be able to delay that,
(28:02):
and my understanding is the way New York appellate law
works is that once he appeals, the sentence can be
you know, any sentence imposed can be frozen until the
appeal's done.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
And the appeal would take well after the election.
Speaker 5 (28:17):
Oh yeah, be into next year for sure.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
And honestly, Andy, this is a crazy question. But given
it's a state charge, he doesn't if he got elected president,
how do state charges that have already and I don't
know what the president would be here because there's truly
never been one. How does state criminal charges apply to
a president of the United States if it was a
(28:42):
conviction that occurred prior to his election.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
As you say, Play, the most important thing is that
this has never happened before. So you know, we're kind
of spitballing here. But my view would be the Trump
Justice Department would argue under the supremacist clause that any
sentence ought to be postponed until after his term is over. That,
(29:08):
in other words, the state can't execute a sentence that
would prevent the federal government from doing its ordinary functions.
And I kind of doubt that the that the state
would fight that point. I think you know what they
want here is to get Trump convicted. You know, look,
I've been surprised by a lot of things.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
But I don't I know, We've got a million just
I have to ask this, is there any chance that
they could? Because Andy, what they've done in DC is
I call it warp speed, right they or ludicrous speed.
They've moved faster in the j six trial than all
my friends who are federal defense attorneys and federal prosecutors say,
like ever happens? Could they do the sentencing much sooner
than three months after if he's found guilty?
Speaker 5 (29:52):
You know, they could try. I think his lawyers could
you know, tie that.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
Up for a while.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
But I don't really see the big point of doing that,
fuck because again, the appeal would mean he they wouldn't
be able to execute the sentence, and what they really
really want is to call him a convicted felon. I
think how much she gets sentenced beside the point. And
it could be scandalous if you put Trump in jail
(30:17):
when Bragg is taking serious, serious crimes and turning it
into turning them into misdemeanors or not charging them at all.
That's certainly not going to be helpful to Biden.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Andy, you heard about the left is fired up at
me for my jury tweets and comments that I've made
on this show. Do you think that I will be
arrested for jury tampering? As Eric Swallwell has requested, as
Joy Read and CNN have requested.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
Well, I would say, no, Clay, but you know, I'm
not in New York today, and Alvin Bragg is the
DA there. He's got a different idea when you're on
on this side of the political aisle than would be
the case in the normal case. In all seriousness, I
think that you know, what you said is not something
(31:10):
I would say, but it's not the crime of jury tampering.
It's basically First Amendment free speech. I'm you know, I
like the jury system. I'm one of these.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
You still have some faith in a andy, which I appreciate.
I'm not sure I do as much, especially seeing what
we're seeing for some of these jurors. But you know,
it's the best thing we got. I get it.
Speaker 5 (31:34):
Yeah. But you know, one of the things we talked
about just probably a month ago was how ridiculous it
was that the civil fraud trial was just a bench
trial in front of a garron right and I think
the only reason for making that point is because it's
more fair to have a jury trial. And the implicit
in that is that we think that, you know, twelve
sensible people are more likely to come to a correct
(31:57):
result than one movement progressive. So you know that's I'm
still banking on that.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
If there were a mistrial, let's say they couldn't get
a verdict, there's no way they could get a case rescheduled, right.
This would basically be Bragg falling on his face if
in some way he doesn't get the felony conviction.
Speaker 5 (32:15):
Yeah, I think I think number one would be ridiculous
if he wanted to try it again, because if they
don't get him on this, it's going to because it's
going to be because it's a ridiculous case, which Bragg
knew in the first place, and that's why he shut
it down in twenty twenty two. If they don't get
a conviction, it's going to be because of things like
Michael Cone, which doesn't get better over time. But the
(32:37):
other thing, just to be totally practical about it, is
Trump's dance cards going to be filled up with you know,
classified information proceedings down in the Florida case. And all
of the free trial stuff in the Washington case. The
j sixth case is going to start up again once
the Supreme Court rules on immunity. Because when they rule
(32:58):
on immunity, assuming they rule against Trump, which I do,
and then the case is good, the jurisdiction off the
case is going to go back to Judge chuck In
and she's going to start having hearings and putting the
pedal to the metal.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Well, the good news.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
It sounds like Andy, neither Trump nor Clay are going
to the big House and going to be cellmates, perhaps
having to pick who gets top bunk anytime soon.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Let's let's let's pray for that outcome.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
I agree with that. Pray for television chef, That's what
I can.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
I tell you one thing Andy, when Clay was on,
when the heat was turned up on Clay, you know
what he said, I'd love to have Andy as my
defender if I if I actually play charges.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
I would, I would, I would, I would hire You
might make some money off this before all of a sudden, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
I might come out of retirement to that case.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
There we go, all right, everybody, we won't take you
up to Capitol Hill for a moment here and the
Shenanigans involving Republican leadership in the House. Our friend Sewn
(34:02):
Davis joins us now. He is the co founder and
CEO of the Federalists. Great work being done at the
Federalist dot com day in and day out. Sean, thanks
for being here.
Speaker 4 (34:12):
With us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
So tell everybody what's going on, because there's there's this
noise about Marjorie Taylor Green wanting to replace Johnson. Wait,
did Johnson do something? There's money going overseas ninety billion?
What has happened? First?
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Before we dive too far into what the heck is next, So.
Speaker 5 (34:34):
Let's back up.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
You know, Kevin McCarthy was deposed, They had a motion
of ak removed him. They put in Mike Johnson, I
think late October, early November. Mike Johnson looked good from
the outset, said all the right things, seemed to believe
all the right things. But specifically, he made a number
of claims and promises foremost of which was he was
not going to be moving money overseas for Ukraine or
(34:57):
anyone else until our own border was secure. Those were
his words. That was an ironclad, obvious explicit commitment, and
instead we are in a position right now where he
is attempting to force through the House under threat of emotion,
to vacate from Marjorie Taylor Green, which is pending a massive,
massive overseas aid bill something like one hundred billion dollars
(35:20):
in Ukraine, a bunch of money in Israel, a bunch
of money throughout throughout Asia, and not a dime.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
For the border.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
And so what's happening is there is chaos, in disunity
and all kinds of rancor in the House right now
surrounding this. And it is all because Mike Johnson, for
reasons I simply do not understand, refuses to honor his
pledge and his promise to fix and fund border security
(35:50):
before throwing another one hundred billion dollars at a non
American problem overseas.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
So where does this all go? I mean, effectively, are
we just going to be waiting until November to see
and Sean, it's good to talk with you, Good to
see you on Friday at the Marshall Blackburn event, and
keep up the good work, as I said, then, but
where does this all go? Are we just waiting till
November to see? Who's going to have control of the
House until then? Does it matter a great deal who
(36:16):
the speaker is?
Speaker 4 (36:19):
Well, right now, we Democrats control the House. Right now,
if you look at which bills have passed over the
last six months or so, I think all but one
has been passed with the majority of Democrat votes, not
with the majority of Republican votes. So right now Democrats
are controlling the House. They're calling the shots. Democrats are
controlling the Senate. So the question we have is can
(36:42):
we get to November without completely shooting ourselves in the
foot and give Republican voters a reason to actually vote
for Republicans and take back our country Because looking at
it right now, you look what Republicans are doing in Washington.
They have the majority now, albeit it to a slim one.
They have the majority. They have the numbers they can
actually bring Biden and Schumer over in the Senate to
(37:05):
heal and yet they refuse to do so again for
reasons I simply do not understand. So from my perspective,
the challenge for November is getting there without actually losing
the majority, which we've been steadily losing for the last
six months.
Speaker 5 (37:21):
I think it's now.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
Down to two seats, but actually getting to November with
the reason for Republican voters to vote for Republicans, because
I'll tell you right now, looking at what they're doing
in Washington, I'm having a tough time coming up with
a good reason to vote for Republicans in the House
when all they do is past Democrat bills.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
Yeah, and Sean, I just have to wonder how many
times we're supposed to go through this.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
Cycle.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
And look, it's some people in both Congress and in
the media do this whole Oh we need if we
have a new leader, everything will be fine. We talked
about this when there was the push to get rid
of McCarthy. It's like, okay, but is everything going to change?
Is everything going to be fine? Or is this just now,
you know, groundhog Day for us? I mean, what do
(38:06):
you think the posture should be of Republicans in the
House between now and the elections that we don't lose
the majority, which is really about as thin as it
could possibly be already.
Speaker 4 (38:17):
I think the job of the House right now is
to block nonsense from Joe Biden and to force Democrats
to take votes they don't want to take so that
we can maybe hopefully secure our border and fix the
damage that's been done to the country. So stop the nonsense.
Biden is doing forced Democrats.
Speaker 5 (38:35):
To take bad votes.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
Congressional Republican leadership is doing the opposite. They're like running
away from trying to make Democrats take tough votes. Why
on earth do they not make Democrats just vote up
or down on Israel and secure US border. That to
me is the easiest thing in the world, and yet
Republican leaders are doing everything they can to make it
as difficult and pointless as possible. And honestly, I think
(38:58):
the big problem is we have no leadership in Washington, DC.
We actually have no representation is normal voters, people who
spend six seven months a year working just to fund
the government. We have no one in Washington who seems
to care about the things that are bothering us every day.
Gas prices, how groceries are unaffordable, how roads and bridges
(39:20):
are broken. All the things that we used to take
for granted, which are just basic kind of daily necessities
of life, are completely unaffordable. And what people in Washington,
what Republican leaders are focusing on, is not fixing those problems.
But in sending more money to Ukraine. So I personally
think we need a complete wholesale cleaning of the House
(39:40):
of Leadership, and we actually need to put people in
there who are true leaders, who care about the country
more than they care about what the established sent.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
How do they explain ninety five billion dollars in this
appropriate House Appropriations Committee going overseas and not as I
understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, not
a dollar going for the border. How can they make
that calculation and not expect people to just say, what
are you doing?
Speaker 4 (40:04):
I don't think they care. I truly don't think they can.
I don't know if it's something that's in the water.
I mean Mike Johnson, for example, This guy had a
press conference where he straight up said we're not doing
this nonsense until we fix the border, and then he's
gone and apparently forgotten he ever said that, because you'll
notice none of his lieutenants or him ever actually try
(40:26):
to explain their way around it. They just want you
to forget they ever made the bletche And I think
people in Washington, I think they just don't care. I
think they've drunk the kool aid when it comes to
Ukraine or Russia or whatever, and they have decided, again
for reasons to elude me, that a regional war between
Russia and Ukraine that doesn't involve US is the literal
(40:48):
most important thing happening in the world today. And if
you're upset about gas prices or crime, or your streets
falling apart, or the border being non existent, it's only
because you're a tool.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Of Putin joh On. I don't know if you've got
a strong take on this, but there's also talk that
somehow this border bill could also include TikTok, and we
know that the Senate moved aggressively on TikTok, and the
House has to kind of figure out what to do.
What do you think should happen with TikTok?
Speaker 4 (41:18):
I think TikTok should be banned. I'm not really down
with the whole, uh divesting thing. It looks it looks
a little too much like the intel surveillance state just
wants to make sure it's buddies, it's Facebook or Google
have control of this massive surveillance tool so that then
they can use it against their own people a lot
more than they care about blocking China. So I think
(41:41):
you know it's a tool of a communist government. Of
course it shouldn't exist here anymore than we would have
been cool with importing a bunch of radios from the
Soviet Union in nineteen sixty that we knew they were
listening in on during the midst of the Cold War.
If somebody had proposed that in you know, nineteen fifty
or nineteen sixty, they were to look at you like
you were a crazy person. Yeah, well, of course we
(42:01):
should have Soviet radios with lifting devices in their homes
in the middle of the Cold War. So I think
TikTok should be banned. But I also have pretty serious
concerns about a government picking and choosing which websites are
allowed to exist in this country. So while I think
TikTok should be banned, that bill that they were pushing
was an awful bill. It was poorly written, it was
(42:22):
poorly reasoned. It had terrible downstream effects and unintended consequences.
I think the bill was a disaster. But as far
as allowing Chinese surveillance and spy tools to be in
our pockets walking around with us, I think that's insanity.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
No doubt. Sean look forward to seeing you again sometime
soon in the great state of Tennessee. Keep up the
good work and appreciate you being flexible.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
Today y'all are crushing it.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Keep it up.
Speaker 4 (42:46):
Thank you for having me on for sure.
Speaker 1 (42:48):
That's Sean Davis, CEO, founder of the Federalists. They do
great work there, including our friend Molly Hemingway, who does
fantastic articles for them as well. When you switch your
cell phone service to pure Talk, you're getting the best
service for the least amount of money every month. In fact,
twenty bucks a month gets you unlimited talk text, plenty
of five G data from Pure Talk, same quality of
service as AT and T, Verizon or T Mobile have
(43:10):
the cost though average sized family, you'll save almost one
thousand dollars a year, no contracts or activation fees. They
make it easy. When you switch to pure Talk, you
keep your phone and your phone number, and their customer
service team is great. They're all here in the good
old USA, eager to help make the switch today. Save
an additional fifty percent off your first month. Choose a
(43:30):
wireless company who shares our values and who creates American jobs.
That's Pure Talk. My fifteen year old, well sorry, he
just turned sixteen. My sixteen year old has his own
puretalk phone. I was texting with him a little bit
earlier during the day. I use it to stay in
touch with him. Soon, my fourteen year old will get
his own cell phone. It'll be a puretalk phone. We
use it to stay in touch with our family. You
(43:51):
can do the same and you can save a bundle
in the process. Style pound two fifty say the keywords
clay and buck make the switch today that's pound two
five zero say the key words play and buck.
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.