April 20, 2024 • 36 mins
NPR suspends editor who criticized network. NPR names new radical leftist CEO. Author and journalist Julie Kelly talks to Clay and Buck about today's SCOTUS hearing on the J6 charges that represent half of Jack Smith's case against Trump. If SCOTUS strikes down the J6 prosecutions, will it have any impact on Democrats?
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All right, hour two Clay and Buck kicks off now, everybody,
thank you for being with us. Talking about the Trump
trial in the first hour. We'll get back to the
latest with that for sure. Also some drama up on
Capitol Hill. Marjor Taylor Green and a couple of others
now are thinking about replacing Speaker Johnson. Meet the new
(00:29):
speaker same as the old speaker. I don't want to
say we told you so, but I kind of told you.
A lot of you agreed, some of you disagreed. But
now we see changing out the speaker when you have
a razor thin majority in the House to begin with,
isn't going to give you all the things you want.
We'll talk about it, though, and there's some interesting ideas
and options out there, to be sure. It's I think
(00:50):
it's an interesting debate. Nothing else allows people to vent
some of their irritation with the Rhinocaucus, such as it is.
But we mentioned this story to you. Wanted to return
to this one for a second. NPR, which is best
known for being I think the radio station you hear
(01:12):
in the background that is intended to help make you
fall asleep. It's really good.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
You know.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
They all kind of talk like this, and they have
this very sort of, you know, mellow way of speaking,
and they just got and you know, you kind of
get dazed into it. I haven't listened to a lot
of NPR. Occasion'm in a car. Somebody has it on.
NPR has suspended that editor we mentioned who claimed left
wing bias at the outlet and said that they had
(01:37):
lost America's trust. NPR suspension here of this guy after
he had a scathing online essay embracing a because MPR
has embraced a progressive worldview, prompting quote this from CNN
Clay's favorite favorite place last twenty four hours. Yes, they
want they want him suspended. They want Clay locked up.
(01:58):
That's what we know about CNN. I'm doing fierce right
wing backlash calling for the defunding of Public, the public
radio network. And yeah, they got into some of this.
I have to say they they're I'm not surprised they
did this at all. I didn't really process at first
(02:18):
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
for a propaganda entity that does the work of the
left of the Democrat Party. They know that, and they
(02:38):
expect their employees to know that, And the whole game
is everybody knows, but nobody's allowed to talk about it.
This is true, by the way, at CNN, this is
true at ABC News, this is true at all of
these plays New York Times. So did you really think
he was going to get away with it? What do
you make of this? So I look at this in
(02:59):
the context.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
His name, by the way, is Uri Berlinner, I think,
which sounds like a made up name. But Uri Berlinner
found that there were seventy six registered Democrats in the
Washington DC NPR office and there were no Republicans. And
he raised that as an issue because they claim that
they care about the overall fairness of their doctrine. So
(03:23):
my first thought is, we have to legitimately get to
the case buck, We're not one single dollar of taxpayer
money direct or indirect goes to fund NPR. If they
can work in the marketplace and if they can make
a living, as all businesses do more power to them.
The government doesn't fund Clay and Buck. We stand alone
(03:47):
as a capitalistic venture based on you guys listening and
sponsorship dollars and everything else. So this to me is
number one. Number two. The new woman that they hired.
I don't know if you've seen some of her some
of her tweets, but even by NPR standards, this woman
is crazy. This woman's name is this is the person
(04:09):
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
get it, But as someone with SIS white mobility privilege,
I'm thinking I'm staying and investing in ridding ourselves of
(04:32):
this specter of tyranny. Uh So, I didn't even know
that SIS white mobility privilege existed. I guess that means
if you're white and you can walk.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I was going to ask you this is it? 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, do we know? I, oh, that's a great question.
You may be right.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I didn't even think about it as an economic way
of analyzing things. I thought it because I tied this
in with you know, they did away with the use
of the disabled list in Major League Baseball. 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
(05:25):
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 2 (05:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Maybe maybe some of our woke translators out there know
the answer to that. Here's a couple of her other tweets.
Buck I do wish Hillary wouldn't use the language of
boy and girl. It's erasing language for non binary people.
She tweeted. These are her tweets. This is the person
who's in charge of NPR. I'm an unalloyed progressive and
(05:56):
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. These
are things that she's tweeted. So this woman is far
(06:18):
left wing. I saw this communist is running NPR. 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.
(06:41):
We just no American taxpayer dollars. Yesterday was tax Day.
I cut checks. I was not happy to cut I
bet you did too. I know a lot of you
out there listening did too. The idea that any dollars
that I send in would go to support NPR in
any way direct or indirect is fundamentally unacceptable. It's time
to truly cut them off.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's fascinating too that they the people that are so
obsessed with diversity and inclusion just as words. We all
know what that means. It's really just uh, you know,
race based mark cosmetic diversity. It's cosmetic diversity, right, But
put that aside for a second. The people that are
obsessed with diversity and inclusion. Think it's okay that NPR,
(07:22):
which does get some public funding, those it's not a lot. Okay,
But what's not a lot? Why do you get any?
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Right?
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, you know, how about we get you know,
oh well the Clay and Buck show. The government Just
kick us like, you know, five ten mil. You know,
it's no big deal. Just kick us five or ten mil.
It's not a lot, right, I mean, why not eighty
seven registered Democrats, zero Republicans working at NPR. How can
anyone think that a news organization that does not even
(07:49):
feel the need to have a a token Republican right?
Speaker 4 (07:52):
Does it?
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Does it even feel the need to have Hey, like
we you know, we hate Bob who sits or Bill
who sits in the corner and is are 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
purity in that newsroom. They want it to be only
(08:15):
people that all agree and see the country the same way,
knowing that half the country things. I don't think people
that work at NPR are like I have like difference
of opinion. I think that there are a lot of
times delusional and mentally ill like I think there's something
wrong with them. I think they have anxiety disorders that
they actually think are political positions, and that's where we
(08:35):
are as a country. So I just think we need
to be honest.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
About it and think about how much self selecting is
going on. If an organization that has as many employees
as NPR is one hundred percent has Democrats, And this
is why the diversity and inclusion people to me are
full of it. The only diversity that matters is diversity
(09:01):
of thought, and what they're doing is using cosmetic diversity
as a cover to have a lot of people who
look different and think the exact same. How does that
benefit any organization well?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
And the way the way diversity and inclusion actually functions
at institutions that are considered elite, at least in terms
of you know, it's hard to get 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.
The truth of an NPR is they think that there
(09:35):
is more more to be gained from the perspective that
you get of having a white you know, let's say
a white guy whose h you know, parents, you know,
went to Cornell or something, and we're we're doctors sitting
next to a black guy whose parents went to uh,
(09:57):
you know, went to Dartmouth and or they think that that, okay, well,
there's diversity there. But they don't think that there's diversity
if you have somebody who grew up you know, in
rural eastern Kentucky really poor. Yeah, they don't think of
that as diversity. They don't think of that as expanding perspective. So,
you know, two people that would have lived very similar
lives and often share very similar perspectives, but are different
(10:21):
ethnicities that somehow to them brings different perspective 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 rich. Like, they don't view that as necessary at all.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And this guy, Yuri Berliner, is a Democrat, so he's
just not leftist enough for the Demons. 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
and honest liberal who looks around and says, we don't
really have a marketplace of ideas here, and we're failing
(10:56):
as a result.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
You know, I think of idelogies in this way, you know.
And this is this has been true of honestly, of
communists all along. Is they want to infiltrate an organization,
a country, an entity, and then they need uniformity. They
need to control the entire thing because their ideas stink
and their results are horrible, and so if there is
(11:18):
any other approach that could be at hand, they will
not have power. So this is why they need absolutism.
They need uniformity. And I've said it reminds me, you know,
I went and uh, I went and took my little
nephew and my family to that. We had amazing alligator tour.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
You know.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
One of the big problems in the Everglades is they
have these there's a bunch of different invasive species, but
a big one is the boa constrictors.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
They've got or like pythons, Bermese pythons, boa constrictors, and
they eat a lot of the native wildlife. And the
thing is they're not trying to establish a balance in
the ecosystem. They're gonna they're gonna like kill all the
native species, birds and different things, and because they will
take over. That's why they're invasive species. Lionfish, the same
(12:01):
thing on the reefs here. That's why they go out
they hunt these lines. You ever see those things are
crazy looking whitefish.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Or the carp up in the Midwest that have gotten
into so many of the lakes and rivers all over
the Midwest to take over and dominate this invasive species
from Asia.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Communists, ideologically aren't invasive species. They do not seek This
is why it's so fascinate. They talk about like diversity
and inclusion, 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
(12:38):
newsroom after newsroom over the last twenty years. Somehow it
never is the case that they go, oh my gosh,
I woke up one day in the Washington Post was
so right wing and only far right, maga hat wearing.
We don't think that way. They the communist Democrat think
in terms of it can only be my way and
(13:01):
the existence of other ideas is a threat to the
existence of my ideas. It's all or nothing with them.
And that's what you see at NPR, and that's what
you see at a campus after campus, news organization after
news organization, and now unfortunately, company after company, and it
ain't getting better.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
And it's interesting that when someone speaks out and a
lot of people say, you know what, he's right, they
immediately try to silence him. And that's happening lots of places,
probably in your employment offices out there. You've seen things
like this happen.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
And they don't even they don't even feel the need
to address the underlying critique, which is obviously a problem.
You have a news organization that only has Democrats and
that's getting public funding. That should be an embarrassment. No,
the problem is that he talked about it, not a
lot to talk about it. You shut your mouth, you
do the work of the Communist Party, you call yourself
(13:52):
a good, loyal, progressive Democrat, and you go forward.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
All right.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Look, if you're a firearms enthusiast like i am, where
you have one in your life. I want to tell
you about this incredible firearms manufacturer, Bear Creek Arsenal. This
should be your new firearms manufacture of choice. Veteran owned
and operated base right here in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear
Creek Arsenal makes high quality firearms at an incredible value.
(14:16):
I mean, I know some of you out there probably
have ars that you paid I don't know, one thousand bucks,
maybe fifteen hundred four. You can get a Bear Creek
Arsenal rifle that is every bit as good. 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
(14:37):
a firearm, and it's a fraction of the price. I'm
telling you, when you see the value, the craftsmanship, the
precision of Bear Creek Arsenal, you're gonna love it. Amazing pistols,
gear rifles. Go check it out for yourself. Bear Creekarsenal
dot com, slash buck that's the website. Go to Bear
Creekarsenal dot com slash buck. Use my name buck as
(14:59):
your promo code. Get ten percent off your first order.
That's Bearcreekarsenal dot com slash buck and use promo code
buck for ten percent off. We're going to be joined
by Julie Kelly from Washington, d C. She's been in
the Supreme Court this morning listening to arguments surrounding a
(15:24):
huge portion of the jan six charges and whether or
not the application of that statute to January sixth is
or is not permissible under the law, and spoiler alert,
it sounds like those charges are going to get struck
down by the Supreme Court. That's significant not only for
(15:45):
everyone out there who is charged with Jan six related
violations relating to these statutes, but also because it is
half of the four charges that have been brought by
Jack Smith against Donald Trump. So it's possible that Jack
Smith is going to lose half of his case on
(16:07):
the jan sixth federal prosecution, which may never go to
trial anyway. But it sounded buck and we'll talk to
Julie se if she agrees like this was going to
flip and get struck down by a six ' to
three margin at least. And some of the liberal justices
sounded like they were open to the idea that this
had been misapplied against Jan six defendants as well. Prosecutors
(16:31):
shouldn't think of their job as highly creative, right. The
law should be straightforward. It shouldn't be, Hey, I don't
like this person, so let me find a way to
interpret in bad faith the words on this page so
that I can put someone in prison and pretend that
(16:52):
this is somehow justice. That is what they're clearly doing.
I mean, when they're talking about the law at issue here,
it was not meant to be used against people like
the Jan six protesters, rioters, whatever you want. Yes, it
was not meant for that purpose. So extending it to
that purpose should be something that prosecutors are very slow
(17:14):
to do. But Man, I actually the Conrad Black thing,
I really we should dig that up a little bit, Clay.
I got to go back and read. It was a
long time ago. I mean, it was over a death.
I know the name, but I don't remember the particulars
of that case. It was one. When you read what
they did to Conrad Black, it was they basically said
that they didn't like the way he was running his
(17:36):
company and therefore he was guilty of honest services fraud.
It was one of the original take you know, put
out a political hit on a conservative media person, one
of the original instances of that. So let me let
me dig into it a bit because I think it
might illuminate some of what we're seeing right now. But
it was a sham what they did to that guy,
and I.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Don't want to read on it now that you brought
it up.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, you know, we cut through the noise and the
nonsen sense coming from the mainstream media and spend as
much time sharing the truths as we can, especially truths
that no one else is gonna tell you. And when
it comes to the stock market, which can feel very opaque,
that's what Mark Chakin does. He cuts through the noise
and the nonsense. Mark worked on Wall Street for fifty years.
(18:17):
God's got a lot of experience and he even invented
three new indices for the NASDAC and he's predicted some
of the biggest market shifts of the past decade, including
the recent focus on AI stocks. Mark says many Americans
are about to miss out on a critical turning point
in this AI frenzy. He's calling it a new dawn
for US stocks and predicts dozens of specific companies will
(18:40):
be impacted in just the next ninety days, which is
why Mark has agreed to share one of his favorite
AI stocks to buy now with our listeners. He put
everything you need to know in a new presentation you
can watch for free at twenty twenty four aistock dot Com.
That's twenty twenty four aistock dot Com paid for by
Shakin Analytics, Play and Buck. Here we're joined by our
(19:08):
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. Fisher v. 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
(19:30):
and why it's such a big deal, not just for
Trump but for a lot of j six defendants.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
Right. So, this relates to the government's use DOJ's use
of fifteen twelve C two obstruction of an official preceding statute.
This was passed in the wake aftermath of the en
Run Arthur Anderson scandal. It has to do with evidence
tampering or document shredding as we saw in that case.
What the DOJ has done for the first time ever
(19:57):
is weaponize that statute criminalized 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.
(20:18):
The District Court Judge Carl Nichols is the only one
who dismissed this count against him, and the DOJ appealed that,
which is how now we got to the Supreme Court
oral arguments today.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
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
(20:52):
six ' to three at worst win that would strike
down the use of these statutes. Do you agree or
disagree you with that? How would you assess your read
of the justices questions and where their opinions may lie
as a result. So just to.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Clarify, I wasn't in the courtroom today. I know that's okay. Fortunately,
you can cover all of these proceedings on the Supreme
Court website and also c SPAN, and it's just easier
to do it that way. I will tell you I
was a little worried, I think, and disappointed at first
with Fisher's attorney's presentation. I didn't think it was as
(21:30):
strong as it needed to be, and the questions were
tough as to the two different parts of the statute
that are now in question. But I sort of agree
it could be six 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
(21:53):
idea that you can take an entire code of the
of the US Criminal Code fifteen twelve, which only has
to do with campering 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
(22:14):
which is used throughout fifteen twelve, meaning a judicial proceeding
not a function of Congress to 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
(22:34):
discussion today.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Actually, Julie, can we jump in here real quick because
we want to play for everybody hear Supreme Court Justice Gorsic,
this is cut twenty eight dealing with exactly what you're
talking about, which is, oh so only in this congressional instance.
Is obstruction a problem play.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
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 State of the Union address,
would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify? For
twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
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 the 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 4 (23:28):
Most SUSS have disrupted roadtests that actually obstructs and impedes,
and an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not
be covered.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Not necessarily. We would just have to have the evidence
of intent, and that's a.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
They intend to do it, all right.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Yeah, I just think he knuked their whole argument here.
I don't know how they get around this. There's absolutely
no legal basis that he's saying, Oh, well, corrupt men's
ray or something. Yeah, they're obstructing, they want obstruct and
they're obstructing. Really, it seems to me, July what she's
saying is, well, if you know it's climate change protesters,
we like them, so we're not going to throw them
in prison for twenty years.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
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 JAY 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
(24:26):
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, that all of these cases are
being handled by the local DC prosecutor, which means they
(24:46):
will be local offenses. So I was a little surprised
that Elizabeth Preligor was not better prepared to answer the
selective prosecution angle of fifteen twelve c. Two and the
potential slippery which is a justice that seems concerned about
that if you carved this out and turn this into
a felony punishable by twenty years up to prison for
(25:10):
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. That's okay, satisfy the inquiring minds of
the justices.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
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
(25:53):
are correct about that, and in June the Supreme Court
issues an opinion you said maybe five four six three.
I think you would have read that it's likely that
they are going to strike it down. What is the
impact then? Where do we go from there?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
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 obstruction 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
(26:30):
Matthew Graves, the DCUs attorney, and seventeen judges on the
DC District and Circuit courts who ouse held discount even
when they knew understood how vague it was, how broad
it was, how selectively it has been applied, and the
slippery slope that it creates these defendants now will get
long awaited exoneration and hopefully they you know, they will
(26:54):
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
create a set of political prisoners who only have been
(27:16):
subjected to the sellingies when no one else has and
is Elizabeth Piliguar said today, no one else will be
just j sixers.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Julie, how does it apply to Trump? So we know
that they're trying to still rush through this case. I
believe this would knock in theory two of the four
charges that Jack Smith is trying to bring against Trump
out of the contemplation, Right, what would that mean as
you see it for that trial in the event that
(27:48):
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 all are these aspects that
are being examined.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
You're exactly right, So this has great jeopardy to jectsimass
criminal indictment in Washington against Donald Trump, which of course
is now and definitely postponed until the Supreme Court renders
an opinion on presidential immunity. Those hearings are next Thursday,
by the way, for people who want to tune in.
But this does jeopardize his indictment, and it should if
(28:25):
the Supreme Court comes back, and they need to very
clearly say, any congressional proceeding, including the events of January sixth,
does not apply to the meaning of official proceeding in
the entirety of fifteen twelve, including fifteen twelve C one
and C two. And this has to do with destruction
(28:48):
of evidence, evidence, impairment, document threading, et cetera. So if
they come back and they say the January sixth is
not an official proceeding as it leads to fifteen twelve,
then I don't see how x Smith continues to keep
those two counts in his four account indictment. There are
other ways that Supreme Court could hedge and protect within
(29:10):
Jacksmith's indictment. You heard a little bit of Amy Cony
Barrett which made me nervous, sort of reiterating jack Smith
talking points that the electoral certificates represent a document or
record in an official proceeding, so hopefully the court will
come back with a strong resolution to that as well.
(29:31):
But this will be also I should have added Special
Council Jacksmith and his team of the Black Eye to
him as well for bringing such a vague, untested statute
and a presidential unprecedented criminal indictment against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
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 3 (29:53):
Thanks, guys really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
She really is doing fabulous work.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
Book.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
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 MyPillow 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
(30:21):
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'll want to try the
sandals with the summer coming again, just twenty five dollars.
Dozens of items at the price point. Use our name's
Clay and Buck as the promo code. It's the MyPillow
Extravaganza sale. Just go to my pillow dot Com click
(30:41):
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 MyPillow dot Com promo code Clay
and Buck. I don't in the same way, Buck, I'm
(31:05):
curious how you would analyze this when the Supreme Court
came out nine to oh and said, hey, you can't,
you can't take Trump off the ballot Colorado, and that
obviously killed the attempts to take him off the ballot
in Maine and anywhere else in the country. I think
they tried to do it in Illinois as well, and
(31:25):
there were a lot of left wingers out there that
had been telling their audiences, Oh, this is very legitimate, man,
this is a really strong opinion, then you get slapped
down nine. Oh, if, as I think is likely, Buck,
the Supreme Court comes out and says, hey, these January
sixth political prosecutions have been impermissible, you could say even
(31:49):
illegal under the law. How are all those people going
to respond who'd been saying that anybody who argued these
jan six cases were illegitimate and that the people were
being unfairly prosper acut going to be able to sit
down and talk to their audiences again. I guess they'll
probably just say the Supreme Court is corrupt. But there
are a lot of l's getting stacked here for left
(32:10):
wing liberal interpretations of what the Court is gonna do.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
I see two things with this. One is, unfortunately, the
anti Trump audience in America will forgive any any lie,
any transgression, any amount of bull crap, as long as
it was intended to hurt Trump.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
So it doesn't matter if you say, oh my, look
look at Rachel Madaw with the taxes. Right, if you
say we are thirty days from me exposing that Donald
Trump is actually a lizard person, I'm gonna pull his
mask off. You're gonna see he's actually a lizard. He's
got the little fork tongue, the whole thing. And thirty
days passes, and sure enough you don't have the goods.
(32:51):
They don't get mad. They just say, okay, well, you're
trying to take down Trump, right, it's part of the mania,
it's part of I think the the disorder that people
have of anti Trump isn't that it becomes something that
is always self justifying. So that's that's one piece of it. Right,
as long as you're trying to hurt Trump, they'll forgive
you for anything. If they what he forgive is even
the right word, that's fine. Just as long as anti Trump,
(33:13):
they're on board, even if you over promise and underdelivered,
because look at Russia collusion. For four years, everybody who
was involved as a Democrat in Russia collusion, even your
buddy Eric Swowall, they all got, you know, elevated effectively
by the Democrat Party. That's part one, and then just
part two real quick. I mentioned this in the first hour.
If what Trump did was so bad and so clearly illegal,
(33:35):
they wouldn't have to keep coming concocting novel and illegitimate
legal theories to get him. You know, it'd be pretty straightforward,
he did X, we prove why Z is the result? Instead,
it's always, well, if you look at this and you
talk about that, and you know, presto, it's always a
magic trick to prove Trump guilty of something when it
(33:57):
should be ironclad, and it's the opposite of that.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
We come back at the top of the third hour.
I'm going to play a clip Stephen A. Smith basically
addressed this, and I thought it was somewhat interesting because
I don't see him as a particularly partisan guy. But
one of the questions we've been asking from the get
go is how is this going to this case in
New York City in particular, going to be received in
(34:22):
a general sense, And we talked about and will reinforce.
Most people are not actually going to be following this
minute by minute trial as many of you are going to.
You're super plugged in, you're engaged politically. Most people don't
do that. They just kind of have a generalized sense
(34:43):
about Trump and what is being attempted to do, what
they're trying to do to him. I think what you
just hit on, Buck, and what I think we're going
to play for you at the top of the third
hour is a lot of people just see this as
a panic because if Trump was really so bad, why
can't you just beat them in an election? If Trump
is such a uniquely hitlarian figure, why can't you just
(35:09):
line up, go head to head against him and beat him.
And there are more pulls out of the swing states,
and Trump is up in six of them, and I
think there is an increasing panic. Democrats never thought that
we would be here. They didn't think we'd be here
in mid April, before the November election, with Trump leading
in many of the swing states. They never thought they
(35:31):
would be here, and that's going to lead them, I think,
to start to make more irrational decisions. You know how
when a panic sets in a lot of times, you
don't make the best decision for your side because you're
allowing emotion and fear to govern the choices that you make.
I think Democrats are starting to get there. I think
(35:51):
they know that they've hit an iceberg and they're seeing
the Titanic take on water the SS Biden and I
don't think they have a good game plan right now.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
This is my concern is that they're going to get
increasingly erratic, vicious, and desperate as this election gets closer
because I'll be honest, I'm surprised at how resoundingly their
anti Trump lawfair has backfired thus far. That could change,
It doesn't look like it will anytime sooner. If it
(36:22):
doesn't play, they're going to be beyond pull out all
the stops. What comes next? Great question, We'll talk about
it and we come back.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Final hour, two day editions
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All right, hour two Clay and Buck kicks off now, everybody,
thank you for being with us. Talking about the Trump
trial in the first hour. We'll get back to the
latest with that for sure. Also some drama up on
Capitol Hill. Marjor Taylor Green and a couple of others
now are thinking about replacing Speaker Johnson. Meet the new
(00:29):
speaker same as the old speaker. I don't want to
say we told you so, but I kind of told you.
A lot of you agreed, some of you disagreed. But
now we see changing out the speaker when you have
a razor thin majority in the House to begin with,
isn't going to give you all the things you want.
We'll talk about it, though, and there's some interesting ideas
and options out there, to be sure. It's I think
(00:50):
it's an interesting debate. Nothing else allows people to vent
some of their irritation with the Rhinocaucus, such as it is.
But we mentioned this story to you. Wanted to return
to this one for a second. NPR, which is best
known for being I think the radio station you hear
(01:12):
in the background that is intended to help make you
fall asleep. It's really good.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
You know.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
They all kind of talk like this, and they have
this very sort of, you know, mellow way of speaking,
and they just got and you know, you kind of
get dazed into it. I haven't listened to a lot
of NPR. Occasion'm in a car. Somebody has it on.
NPR has suspended that editor we mentioned who claimed left
wing bias at the outlet and said that they had
(01:37):
lost America's trust. NPR suspension here of this guy after
he had a scathing online essay embracing a because MPR
has embraced a progressive worldview, prompting quote this from CNN
Clay's favorite favorite place last twenty four hours. Yes, they
want they want him suspended. They want Clay locked up.
(01:58):
That's what we know about CNN. I'm doing fierce right
wing backlash calling for the defunding of Public, the public
radio network. And yeah, they got into some of this.
I have to say they they're I'm not surprised they
did this at all. I didn't really process at first
(02:18):
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
for a propaganda entity that does the work of the
left of the Democrat Party. They know that, and they
(02:38):
expect their employees to know that, And the whole game
is everybody knows, but nobody's allowed to talk about it.
This is true, by the way, at CNN, this is
true at ABC News, this is true at all of
these plays New York Times. So did you really think
he was going to get away with it? What do
you make of this? So I look at this in
(02:59):
the context.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
His name, by the way, is Uri Berlinner, I think,
which sounds like a made up name. But Uri Berlinner
found that there were seventy six registered Democrats in the
Washington DC NPR office and there were no Republicans. And
he raised that as an issue because they claim that
they care about the overall fairness of their doctrine. So
(03:23):
my first thought is, we have to legitimately get to
the case buck, We're not one single dollar of taxpayer
money direct or indirect goes to fund NPR. If they
can work in the marketplace and if they can make
a living, as all businesses do more power to them.
The government doesn't fund Clay and Buck. We stand alone
(03:47):
as a capitalistic venture based on you guys listening and
sponsorship dollars and everything else. So this to me is
number one. Number two. The new woman that they hired.
I don't know if you've seen some of her some
of her tweets, but even by NPR standards, this woman
is crazy. This woman's name is this is the person
(04:09):
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
get it, But as someone with SIS white mobility privilege,
I'm thinking I'm staying and investing in ridding ourselves of
(04:32):
this specter of tyranny. Uh So, I didn't even know
that SIS white mobility privilege existed. I guess that means
if you're white and you can walk.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I was going to ask you this is it? 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, do we know? I, oh, that's a great question.
You may be right.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I didn't even think about it as an economic way
of analyzing things. I thought it because I tied this
in with you know, they did away with the use
of the disabled list in Major League Baseball. 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
(05:25):
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 2 (05:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Maybe maybe some of our woke translators out there know
the answer to that. Here's a couple of her other tweets.
Buck I do wish Hillary wouldn't use the language of
boy and girl. It's erasing language for non binary people.
She tweeted. These are her tweets. This is the person
who's in charge of NPR. I'm an unalloyed progressive and
(05:56):
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. These
are things that she's tweeted. So this woman is far
(06:18):
left wing. I saw this communist is running NPR. 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.
(06:41):
We just no American taxpayer dollars. Yesterday was tax Day.
I cut checks. I was not happy to cut I
bet you did too. I know a lot of you
out there listening did too. The idea that any dollars
that I send in would go to support NPR in
any way direct or indirect is fundamentally unacceptable. It's time
to truly cut them off.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's fascinating too that they the people that are so
obsessed with diversity and inclusion just as words. We all
know what that means. It's really just uh, you know,
race based mark cosmetic diversity. It's cosmetic diversity, right, But
put that aside for a second. The people that are
obsessed with diversity and inclusion. Think it's okay that NPR,
(07:22):
which does get some public funding, those it's not a lot. Okay,
But what's not a lot? Why do you get any?
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Right?
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, you know, how about we get you know,
oh well the Clay and Buck show. The government Just
kick us like, you know, five ten mil. You know,
it's no big deal. Just kick us five or ten mil.
It's not a lot, right, I mean, why not eighty
seven registered Democrats, zero Republicans working at NPR. How can
anyone think that a news organization that does not even
(07:49):
feel the need to have a a token Republican right?
Speaker 4 (07:52):
Does it?
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Does it even feel the need to have Hey, like
we you know, we hate Bob who sits or Bill
who sits in the corner and is are 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
purity in that newsroom. They want it to be only
(08:15):
people that all agree and see the country the same way,
knowing that half the country things. I don't think people
that work at NPR are like I have like difference
of opinion. I think that there are a lot of
times delusional and mentally ill like I think there's something
wrong with them. I think they have anxiety disorders that
they actually think are political positions, and that's where we
(08:35):
are as a country. So I just think we need
to be honest.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
About it and think about how much self selecting is
going on. If an organization that has as many employees
as NPR is one hundred percent has Democrats, And this
is why the diversity and inclusion people to me are
full of it. The only diversity that matters is diversity
(09:01):
of thought, and what they're doing is using cosmetic diversity
as a cover to have a lot of people who
look different and think the exact same. How does that
benefit any organization well?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
And the way the way diversity and inclusion actually functions
at institutions that are considered elite, at least in terms
of you know, it's hard to get 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.
The truth of an NPR is they think that there
(09:35):
is more more to be gained from the perspective that
you get of having a white you know, let's say
a white guy whose h you know, parents, you know,
went to Cornell or something, and we're we're doctors sitting
next to a black guy whose parents went to uh,
(09:57):
you know, went to Dartmouth and or they think that that, okay, well,
there's diversity there. But they don't think that there's diversity
if you have somebody who grew up you know, in
rural eastern Kentucky really poor. Yeah, they don't think of
that as diversity. They don't think of that as expanding perspective. So,
you know, two people that would have lived very similar
lives and often share very similar perspectives, but are different
(10:21):
ethnicities that somehow to them brings different perspective 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 rich. Like, they don't view that as necessary at all.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And this guy, Yuri Berliner, is a Democrat, so he's
just not leftist enough for the Demons. 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
and honest liberal who looks around and says, we don't
really have a marketplace of ideas here, and we're failing
(10:56):
as a result.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
You know, I think of idelogies in this way, you know.
And this is this has been true of honestly, of
communists all along. Is they want to infiltrate an organization,
a country, an entity, and then they need uniformity. They
need to control the entire thing because their ideas stink
and their results are horrible, and so if there is
(11:18):
any other approach that could be at hand, they will
not have power. So this is why they need absolutism.
They need uniformity. And I've said it reminds me, you know,
I went and uh, I went and took my little
nephew and my family to that. We had amazing alligator tour.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
You know.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
One of the big problems in the Everglades is they
have these there's a bunch of different invasive species, but
a big one is the boa constrictors.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
They've got or like pythons, Bermese pythons, boa constrictors, and
they eat a lot of the native wildlife. And the
thing is they're not trying to establish a balance in
the ecosystem. They're gonna they're gonna like kill all the
native species, birds and different things, and because they will
take over. That's why they're invasive species. Lionfish, the same
(12:01):
thing on the reefs here. That's why they go out
they hunt these lines. You ever see those things are
crazy looking whitefish.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Or the carp up in the Midwest that have gotten
into so many of the lakes and rivers all over
the Midwest to take over and dominate this invasive species
from Asia.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Communists, ideologically aren't invasive species. They do not seek This
is why it's so fascinate. They talk about like diversity
and inclusion, 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
(12:38):
newsroom after newsroom over the last twenty years. Somehow it
never is the case that they go, oh my gosh,
I woke up one day in the Washington Post was
so right wing and only far right, maga hat wearing.
We don't think that way. They the communist Democrat think
in terms of it can only be my way and
(13:01):
the existence of other ideas is a threat to the
existence of my ideas. It's all or nothing with them.
And that's what you see at NPR, and that's what
you see at a campus after campus, news organization after
news organization, and now unfortunately, company after company, and it
ain't getting better.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
And it's interesting that when someone speaks out and a
lot of people say, you know what, he's right, they
immediately try to silence him. And that's happening lots of places,
probably in your employment offices out there. You've seen things
like this happen.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
And they don't even they don't even feel the need
to address the underlying critique, which is obviously a problem.
You have a news organization that only has Democrats and
that's getting public funding. That should be an embarrassment. No,
the problem is that he talked about it, not a
lot to talk about it. You shut your mouth, you
do the work of the Communist Party, you call yourself
(13:52):
a good, loyal, progressive Democrat, and you go forward.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
All right.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Look, if you're a firearms enthusiast like i am, where
you have one in your life. I want to tell
you about this incredible firearms manufacturer, Bear Creek Arsenal. This
should be your new firearms manufacture of choice. Veteran owned
and operated base right here in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear
Creek Arsenal makes high quality firearms at an incredible value.
(14:16):
I mean, I know some of you out there probably
have ars that you paid I don't know, one thousand bucks,
maybe fifteen hundred four. You can get a Bear Creek
Arsenal rifle that is every bit as good. 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
(14:37):
a firearm, and it's a fraction of the price. I'm
telling you, when you see the value, the craftsmanship, the
precision of Bear Creek Arsenal, you're gonna love it. Amazing pistols,
gear rifles. Go check it out for yourself. Bear Creekarsenal
dot com, slash buck that's the website. Go to Bear
Creekarsenal dot com slash buck. Use my name buck as
(14:59):
your promo code. Get ten percent off your first order.
That's Bearcreekarsenal dot com slash buck and use promo code
buck for ten percent off. We're going to be joined
by Julie Kelly from Washington, d C. She's been in
the Supreme Court this morning listening to arguments surrounding a
(15:24):
huge portion of the jan six charges and whether or
not the application of that statute to January sixth is
or is not permissible under the law, and spoiler alert,
it sounds like those charges are going to get struck
down by the Supreme Court. That's significant not only for
(15:45):
everyone out there who is charged with Jan six related
violations relating to these statutes, but also because it is
half of the four charges that have been brought by
Jack Smith against Donald Trump. So it's possible that Jack
Smith is going to lose half of his case on
(16:07):
the jan sixth federal prosecution, which may never go to
trial anyway. But it sounded buck and we'll talk to
Julie se if she agrees like this was going to
flip and get struck down by a six ' to
three margin at least. And some of the liberal justices
sounded like they were open to the idea that this
had been misapplied against Jan six defendants as well. Prosecutors
(16:31):
shouldn't think of their job as highly creative, right. The
law should be straightforward. It shouldn't be, Hey, I don't
like this person, so let me find a way to
interpret in bad faith the words on this page so
that I can put someone in prison and pretend that
(16:52):
this is somehow justice. That is what they're clearly doing.
I mean, when they're talking about the law at issue here,
it was not meant to be used against people like
the Jan six protesters, rioters, whatever you want. Yes, it
was not meant for that purpose. So extending it to
that purpose should be something that prosecutors are very slow
(17:14):
to do. But Man, I actually the Conrad Black thing,
I really we should dig that up a little bit, Clay.
I got to go back and read. It was a
long time ago. I mean, it was over a death.
I know the name, but I don't remember the particulars
of that case. It was one. When you read what
they did to Conrad Black, it was they basically said
that they didn't like the way he was running his
(17:36):
company and therefore he was guilty of honest services fraud.
It was one of the original take you know, put
out a political hit on a conservative media person, one
of the original instances of that. So let me let
me dig into it a bit because I think it
might illuminate some of what we're seeing right now. But
it was a sham what they did to that guy,
and I.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Don't want to read on it now that you brought
it up.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, you know, we cut through the noise and the
nonsen sense coming from the mainstream media and spend as
much time sharing the truths as we can, especially truths
that no one else is gonna tell you. And when
it comes to the stock market, which can feel very opaque,
that's what Mark Chakin does. He cuts through the noise
and the nonsense. Mark worked on Wall Street for fifty years.
(18:17):
God's got a lot of experience and he even invented
three new indices for the NASDAC and he's predicted some
of the biggest market shifts of the past decade, including
the recent focus on AI stocks. Mark says many Americans
are about to miss out on a critical turning point
in this AI frenzy. He's calling it a new dawn
for US stocks and predicts dozens of specific companies will
(18:40):
be impacted in just the next ninety days, which is
why Mark has agreed to share one of his favorite
AI stocks to buy now with our listeners. He put
everything you need to know in a new presentation you
can watch for free at twenty twenty four aistock dot Com.
That's twenty twenty four aistock dot Com paid for by
Shakin Analytics, Play and Buck. Here we're joined by our
(19:08):
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. Fisher v. 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
(19:30):
and why it's such a big deal, not just for
Trump but for a lot of j six defendants.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
Right. So, this relates to the government's use DOJ's use
of fifteen twelve C two obstruction of an official preceding statute.
This was passed in the wake aftermath of the en
Run Arthur Anderson scandal. It has to do with evidence
tampering or document shredding as we saw in that case.
What the DOJ has done for the first time ever
(19:57):
is weaponize that statute criminalized 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.
(20:18):
The District Court Judge Carl Nichols is the only one
who dismissed this count against him, and the DOJ appealed that,
which is how now we got to the Supreme Court
oral arguments today.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
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
(20:52):
six ' to three at worst win that would strike
down the use of these statutes. Do you agree or
disagree you with that? How would you assess your read
of the justices questions and where their opinions may lie
as a result. So just to.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Clarify, I wasn't in the courtroom today. I know that's okay. Fortunately,
you can cover all of these proceedings on the Supreme
Court website and also c SPAN, and it's just easier
to do it that way. I will tell you I
was a little worried, I think, and disappointed at first
with Fisher's attorney's presentation. I didn't think it was as
(21:30):
strong as it needed to be, and the questions were
tough as to the two different parts of the statute
that are now in question. But I sort of agree
it could be six 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
(21:53):
idea that you can take an entire code of the
of the US Criminal Code fifteen twelve, which only has
to do with campering 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
(22:14):
which is used throughout fifteen twelve, meaning a judicial proceeding
not a function of Congress to 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
(22:34):
discussion today.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Actually, Julie, can we jump in here real quick because
we want to play for everybody hear Supreme Court Justice Gorsic,
this is cut twenty eight dealing with exactly what you're
talking about, which is, oh so only in this congressional instance.
Is obstruction a problem play.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
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 State of the Union address,
would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify? For
twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
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 the 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 4 (23:28):
Most SUSS have disrupted roadtests that actually obstructs and impedes,
and an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not
be covered.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Not necessarily. We would just have to have the evidence
of intent, and that's a.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
They intend to do it, all right.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Yeah, I just think he knuked their whole argument here.
I don't know how they get around this. There's absolutely
no legal basis that he's saying, Oh, well, corrupt men's
ray or something. Yeah, they're obstructing, they want obstruct and
they're obstructing. Really, it seems to me, July what she's
saying is, well, if you know it's climate change protesters,
we like them, so we're not going to throw them
in prison for twenty years.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
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 JAY 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
(24:26):
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, that all of these cases are
being handled by the local DC prosecutor, which means they
(24:46):
will be local offenses. So I was a little surprised
that Elizabeth Preligor was not better prepared to answer the
selective prosecution angle of fifteen twelve c. Two and the
potential slippery which is a justice that seems concerned about
that if you carved this out and turn this into
a felony punishable by twenty years up to prison for
(25:10):
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. That's okay, satisfy the inquiring minds of
the justices.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
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
(25:53):
are correct about that, and in June the Supreme Court
issues an opinion you said maybe five four six three.
I think you would have read that it's likely that
they are going to strike it down. What is the
impact then? Where do we go from there?
Speaker 3 (26:07):
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 obstruction 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
(26:30):
Matthew Graves, the DCUs attorney, and seventeen judges on the
DC District and Circuit courts who ouse held discount even
when they knew understood how vague it was, how broad
it was, how selectively it has been applied, and the
slippery slope that it creates these defendants now will get
long awaited exoneration and hopefully they you know, they will
(26:54):
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
create a set of political prisoners who only have been
(27:16):
subjected to the sellingies when no one else has and
is Elizabeth Piliguar said today, no one else will be
just j sixers.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Julie, how does it apply to Trump? So we know
that they're trying to still rush through this case. I
believe this would knock in theory two of the four
charges that Jack Smith is trying to bring against Trump
out of the contemplation, Right, what would that mean as
you see it for that trial in the event that
(27:48):
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 all are these aspects that
are being examined.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
You're exactly right, So this has great jeopardy to jectsimass
criminal indictment in Washington against Donald Trump, which of course
is now and definitely postponed until the Supreme Court renders
an opinion on presidential immunity. Those hearings are next Thursday,
by the way, for people who want to tune in.
But this does jeopardize his indictment, and it should if
(28:25):
the Supreme Court comes back, and they need to very
clearly say, any congressional proceeding, including the events of January sixth,
does not apply to the meaning of official proceeding in
the entirety of fifteen twelve, including fifteen twelve C one
and C two. And this has to do with destruction
(28:48):
of evidence, evidence, impairment, document threading, et cetera. So if
they come back and they say the January sixth is
not an official proceeding as it leads to fifteen twelve,
then I don't see how x Smith continues to keep
those two counts in his four account indictment. There are
other ways that Supreme Court could hedge and protect within
(29:10):
Jacksmith's indictment. You heard a little bit of Amy Cony
Barrett which made me nervous, sort of reiterating jack Smith
talking points that the electoral certificates represent a document or
record in an official proceeding, so hopefully the court will
come back with a strong resolution to that as well.
(29:31):
But this will be also I should have added Special
Council Jacksmith and his team of the Black Eye to
him as well for bringing such a vague, untested statute
and a presidential unprecedented criminal indictment against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
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 3 (29:53):
Thanks, guys really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
She really is doing fabulous work.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
Book.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
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 MyPillow 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
(30:21):
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'll want to try the
sandals with the summer coming again, just twenty five dollars.
Dozens of items at the price point. Use our name's
Clay and Buck as the promo code. It's the MyPillow
Extravaganza sale. Just go to my pillow dot Com click
(30:41):
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 MyPillow dot Com promo code Clay
and Buck. I don't in the same way, Buck, I'm
(31:05):
curious how you would analyze this when the Supreme Court
came out nine to oh and said, hey, you can't,
you can't take Trump off the ballot Colorado, and that
obviously killed the attempts to take him off the ballot
in Maine and anywhere else in the country. I think
they tried to do it in Illinois as well, and
(31:25):
there were a lot of left wingers out there that
had been telling their audiences, Oh, this is very legitimate, man,
this is a really strong opinion, then you get slapped
down nine. Oh, if, as I think is likely, Buck,
the Supreme Court comes out and says, hey, these January
sixth political prosecutions have been impermissible, you could say even
(31:49):
illegal under the law. How are all those people going
to respond who'd been saying that anybody who argued these
jan six cases were illegitimate and that the people were
being unfairly prosper acut going to be able to sit
down and talk to their audiences again. I guess they'll
probably just say the Supreme Court is corrupt. But there
are a lot of l's getting stacked here for left
(32:10):
wing liberal interpretations of what the Court is gonna do.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
I see two things with this. One is, unfortunately, the
anti Trump audience in America will forgive any any lie,
any transgression, any amount of bull crap, as long as
it was intended to hurt Trump.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
So it doesn't matter if you say, oh my, look
look at Rachel Madaw with the taxes. Right, if you
say we are thirty days from me exposing that Donald
Trump is actually a lizard person, I'm gonna pull his
mask off. You're gonna see he's actually a lizard. He's
got the little fork tongue, the whole thing. And thirty
days passes, and sure enough you don't have the goods.
(32:51):
They don't get mad. They just say, okay, well, you're
trying to take down Trump, right, it's part of the mania,
it's part of I think the the disorder that people
have of anti Trump isn't that it becomes something that
is always self justifying. So that's that's one piece of it. Right,
as long as you're trying to hurt Trump, they'll forgive
you for anything. If they what he forgive is even
the right word, that's fine. Just as long as anti Trump,
(33:13):
they're on board, even if you over promise and underdelivered,
because look at Russia collusion. For four years, everybody who
was involved as a Democrat in Russia collusion, even your
buddy Eric Swowall, they all got, you know, elevated effectively
by the Democrat Party. That's part one, and then just
part two real quick. I mentioned this in the first hour.
If what Trump did was so bad and so clearly illegal,
(33:35):
they wouldn't have to keep coming concocting novel and illegitimate
legal theories to get him. You know, it'd be pretty straightforward,
he did X, we prove why Z is the result? Instead,
it's always, well, if you look at this and you
talk about that, and you know, presto, it's always a
magic trick to prove Trump guilty of something when it
(33:57):
should be ironclad, and it's the opposite of that.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
We come back at the top of the third hour.
I'm going to play a clip Stephen A. Smith basically
addressed this, and I thought it was somewhat interesting because
I don't see him as a particularly partisan guy. But
one of the questions we've been asking from the get
go is how is this going to this case in
New York City in particular, going to be received in
(34:22):
a general sense, And we talked about and will reinforce.
Most people are not actually going to be following this
minute by minute trial as many of you are going to.
You're super plugged in, you're engaged politically. Most people don't
do that. They just kind of have a generalized sense
(34:43):
about Trump and what is being attempted to do, what
they're trying to do to him. I think what you
just hit on, Buck, and what I think we're going
to play for you at the top of the third
hour is a lot of people just see this as
a panic because if Trump was really so bad, why
can't you just beat them in an election? If Trump
is such a uniquely hitlarian figure, why can't you just
(35:09):
line up, go head to head against him and beat him.
And there are more pulls out of the swing states,
and Trump is up in six of them, and I
think there is an increasing panic. Democrats never thought that
we would be here. They didn't think we'd be here
in mid April, before the November election, with Trump leading
in many of the swing states. They never thought they
(35:31):
would be here, and that's going to lead them, I think,
to start to make more irrational decisions. You know how
when a panic sets in a lot of times, you
don't make the best decision for your side because you're
allowing emotion and fear to govern the choices that you make.
I think Democrats are starting to get there. I think
(35:51):
they know that they've hit an iceberg and they're seeing
the Titanic take on water the SS Biden and I
don't think they have a good game plan right now.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
This is my concern is that they're going to get
increasingly erratic, vicious, and desperate as this election gets closer
because I'll be honest, I'm surprised at how resoundingly their
anti Trump lawfair has backfired thus far. That could change,
It doesn't look like it will anytime sooner. If it
(36:22):
doesn't play, they're going to be beyond pull out all
the stops. What comes next? Great question, We'll talk about
it and we come back.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
Final hour, two day editions
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.