April 21, 2024 • 52 mins
Don't throw me in the briar patch. Winning on merit. Trump jurors. Andy McCarthy with legal analysis.
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 (00:01):
This is twenty four, a weekly highlight reel from the Clay,
Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Buck this.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Morning, Buck, I was listening and reading about that argument.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I don't think this is going to be close.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I think it's going to be at least six '
three that they cannot use these statutes, and it may
go all the way out to potentially some of the
liberal justices as well, who have evinced a great deal
of skepticism.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Also, we'll get Julie Kelly's read Have you seen this?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I mean, I think if they were to go seven
to or something in that magnitude to strike this down,
it would be a huge blow to Jack Smith and
all of the Democrats that have tried to use this
January sixth statute.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Well, I also think that it goes into a larger framework,
a bigger it's evidence in a bigger trial if you will.
That how many times can they try to use the
law against Trump and they have to get slapped down?
You know what I mean? You look at all the
(01:11):
different prosecutors, all the different efforts to destroy Trump that
we are finding the system itself is saying is outrageous,
meaning they've tried to abuse the system to destroy Trump,
and then people have had to step in at the
Supreme Court level, for example, and say, guys, what are
you doing. That's not constitutional, that's not lawful.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
And the best.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Example is the nine to zero of what Colorado was
trying to do. And then Maine dabbled in for a
second of removing Trump from the ballot. To be very clear,
the most left wing justices I think in the history
of the Supreme Court, okay, and certainly the most among
the most anti Trump judges you'll find anywhere, went along
(01:54):
with the majority and that they said, guys, you can't
just say we think he did a thing, but it
hasn't been proven in court, and we're going to remove
him from the ballot and he can't be president. He
can't do that, right, I mean, you're effectively overriding federal elections. Clay.
If this happens now, to your point about the Supreme
Court argument this morning, if that gets struck down, they
will have abused another statute to pile up against not
(02:18):
just Trump but his supporters. Their abuse isn't just a
matter of opinion. Their abuse of the law is becoming
increasingly a matter of fact over and over again.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
And this is also important. They are trying now. This
has just happened. The prosecutors have filed emotion to hold
Trump in contempt for violating the gag order that was
put on place in place for him in the Manhattan
criminal trial. Trump has already weighed in this morning, and
(02:51):
I listened and I was like, wow, this is what
he said outside of the courtroom as we were as
he entered this morning.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
So this is a couple of hours ago. I think. Now, listen,
we have a judge who shouldn't be on this case.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
He's totally conflicted. But this is a trial that should
never happened or should have been thrown out a long
time ago.
Speaker 6 (03:11):
If you look at Jonathan Terry, Andy McCarthy, all great
legal scholars, there's not one that we've been able to
find that said this should be a trial I should
be right now in Pennsylvania and far in many other states.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
North Camp lad judge campaigning.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
This is all coming from the bit White House. Because
the guy can't put two sentences together, you can't campaign.
We neede to using this in order to try and
win an election, and it's not working that way. It's
working the opposite way.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Okay, so that is Trump this morning. He also posted
on truth right before he went into the courtroom buck
this conflicted Trump hating judge won't let me respond to
people that are on TV lying and spewing hate all
day long. He's running roughshod over my lawyers and legal team.
The New York system of quotation marks justice is being
(04:08):
decimated by critics.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
From all over the world.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
I want to speak, or at least be able to respond.
Election interference, rigged, unconstitutional trial. Take off the gag order now.
But here's my question for you. Are they gonna put
him in jail over this? Because I think that's where
this is headed. I think this judge wants Trump in
jail for viat for contempt, and I don't think it's
(04:34):
crazy to think it's gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I think Trump may want it to happen.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Well, this is there are some parts of this that
are legal analysis and parts of this that become very
obviously political analysis, and I know they're intertwined as well.
I know we get this question all the time, and
it's funny because I don't know anybody who has an
answer to it. How do you incarcerate somebody who has
lifetime twenty four to seven secret service protect.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
We start to ask, get this years ago.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Yeah, we've been looking at this for a long time now.
There is precedent for you know, taking a taking a
person and putting them in I think they call it
administrative administrative segregation where you know, for example, if if
a cop gets put in like state prison, they sometimes
will move because you know, maybe.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
The protective custody basically the other members of the of
the jail.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
Yeah, and and you could do something like that, but
you would have to have secret Service, like I think
Trump might. This is I understand, this is crazy. Can
I just preface this. I know what we're saying here
is crazy, but we're in a crazy time everyone. I
think there's a situation where maybe they would because if
they hold them in contempt, what it's going to be
(05:47):
forty eight hours or something, right.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
I thinet him in cuffs and they walk, they purple walk.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
That's the question.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
They want to break, the seal they want to establish
just like remember the rag trial was the first one
to bring an indictment, which I always thought was significant
because yeah, it was flimsy, but they knew that there
was no process by which it would likely be overturned
or stopped in New York, so they wanted to set
the precedent, and all the omens came in. Clay, I
(06:16):
think they could put him. I think they think, I'll
put it that way. They think they could end up
putting him in an administrative sec By the way, if
we have somebody from like Bureau of Prisons or you know,
New York State Bureau of Prisons, or just in general,
let us know if you think there is some precedent.
My sense is they would have to shut down like
(06:37):
a wing of a holding facility, and then there have
to be Secret Service there to protect him. But he'd
have to be inside of a cell for a couple
of days. And that's what they would, That's what they would.
They can't I don't think that. I mean that the
New York State can't say you no longer have Secret
Service protection. They can't do that, Okay, So that leads
to that, which is crazy. There aren't a lot of
(06:59):
precedents for this this. Okay, there's no president, there's no
I mean, there are precedents for famous people being held
in contempt of court, never someone with Secret Service protection.
Never a former and likely future president of the United States. Though,
so here is my question for you.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Then, as a part of that, is this Trump as
I've used this analogy because I remember growing up watching it.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Do you know Braer Rabbit at all? Buck? Do you
remember the Braer Rabbit stories? No?
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Ok, I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
I don't know what percentage of people out there will
remember this. I'm in Georgia, by the way, which is
where I think that Joel Chandler Harris Braer Rabbit stories originated.
They were later made into cartoons, all this stuff Breer Rabbit.
And before they decided that Splash Mountain was racist at
Disney World, Breer Rabbit was the star.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Of Splash Mountain. If any of you have been on
the Splash Mountain.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Ride at Disney, okay, Breer Rabbit would all say, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Whatever you do, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Is Donald Trump daring
march hand this judge as well as the larger Democrat
Party apparatus to put him in jail because in the
(08:18):
same way that the mugshot was a huge benefit to Trump,
is him getting put in jail for contempt of court
a huge political win for him, Leave aside the legal
for right now.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
I do think so, especially especially on this, because even
people who are casual observers of the news, which is
most people, because most people are you know, we have
a hyper attuned and informed audience most of America. As
much as I love America, people have other things that
don't watch the news, even if you or watch much
(08:51):
of the news, and they get their news from bad
places in a lot in a lot of context too.
I think that the that Donald Trump in a cell,
the reason being he was held in contempt by a judge,
the reason being he's speaking out against a trial that
has to do with a business administrative accounting error. That's
(09:15):
all this is. That is what we're talking about here.
I think that any normal person who has not been
just steeped in trumped arrangement syndrome would say to that
is this. We can't have this in our country. And
I think that's why the polls are all showing what
they're showing right now. Clay, that's that's the truth.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Yeah, and this is why I mean, look you things
cut through. I think what you said is a good
a good point. What percentage of people do you think
have seen the Trump mugshot photo? What percentage of American voters?
One hundred percent. I think it's almost impossible that you
would not have seen the Trump mugshot picture, even if
you're not paying attention to the.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
News on a day to day basis.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
I mean, I think if you can name the current
vice president, you've seen the mugshot photo, you.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (09:59):
Like, I think if you have.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Photo, then they can be the vice president. I think
it's almost one hundred percent of voters would have seen
that photo. My point is almost one hundred percent of voters.
I'm saying voters because you know forty percent of people
are not voting. I think almost one hundred percent of
voters will see if Trump is arrested. They may not
pay attention to the results of the trial, they may
not be following on a day to day basis like
(10:23):
we are. And to me, I think it's highly likely
that it would work to his favor. And I wonder
how much political calculus in the same way we've talked
for a long time now, ever since the raid on
mar Lago in what August of twenty two, we have
said there's a two tier story here, the legal and
the political, and they're intertwined in a way that we've
(10:43):
never seen before. Something can be smart legally and really
poor decision of politically and vice versa.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
And also I think something to remember about where the
Democrats are and the anti Trump machinery. They thought all
along that these trials, that these prosecutions would destroy Donald Trump.
They have no choice but to see all of this through,
to withdraw all of it at this point, or to
withdraw all the efforts to say, all right, you know
the elections coming up, we're going to defer. Delay would
(11:12):
be essentially to admit that they had made some political
calcula calculation error. So they have to go all the
way with this. And I think that in New York,
what you're seeing is if they brought this trial and
I'm going to say, I mean, they did this to
Trump's Trump Incorporate, you know, corporation accountant Alan Weiselberg, who's
(11:34):
gone to prison, and they just sent to Peter Navarro
to prison. He's serving a sentence right now for not
testifying to Congress because he's associated with Trump. If they
did this to anyone Clay, it would be an outrage.
That they're doing it to the person who is leading
in the presidential nomination contest right now according to every
single polling company in the United States is It's outrageous
(11:56):
beyond words. But they have what are they going to do?
They won't stop, so they're going to see this all
the way through. I don't see a way around it.
I mean, I think that and locking Trump up. If
you're from you, if you've worked in prisons and you
have some idea of how they could do this, I
don't even know what would they do. How would this go?
(12:18):
Let us know, because I'd be very curious to hear it.
I think the only answer is that they would have
to have the Secret Service come in, clear a wing,
shut down the wing, and it would almost be like
you remember when Pablo Escobar got to build his own prison,
kind of be a little bit like that, because like
your guys would be running the thing, and uh, nobody
would really be. And I don't know.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Also, Buck he has to be in court, So I
don't even know how they can jail him, because the
judges already said that he has to be present in court,
even if it means that he misses his son's graduation potentially,
So if he gets put in court, it further delays
the process of the troth. I mean, it's put in jail.
It further delays the process of the trial. I just
(13:01):
I don't even know. I this is fascinating. I don't
even know how this plays out. But yeah, to your
point eight hundred two A two two eight eight two.
If you have some theory, based on your knowledge of
the New York court system, what this would be like
or how it would work, I would actually be be
fascinated to hear.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
Yeah, I'm we're gonna, we're gonna dive into this, and
I think, uh, I mean, it's gonna The thing is,
I just want to prepare all of you.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
It's gonna get crazier. It's gonna get crazier.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
You have not seen peak crazy.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
We're just touching the tip of the iceberg right now
of the crazy that's coming.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
That is correct.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yes, you're listening to twenty four the Year of Impact
with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I think Trump is gonna win Georgia by eight points.
I don't think it's gonna be close. I think it's
gonna be like.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
I'm putting it on the I'm putting it on the
prediction put.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
It on the projection screen eight points. I think seven
or eight points. I think it's going to be a
very comfortable win in Georgia. Of all the states, if
you had to ask me which state is most likely
to flip from twenty twenty, either in favor of Democrats
or in favor of Republicans, I think Georgia is going
to be back in red camp. And I actually think
(14:17):
you're going to start to see Biden spending less time
and money in Georgia because the numbers out there are
really bad for them.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
In Georgia. The most recent poll has Trump up ten.
In Georgia.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
There is no Senate race, there is no governor's race.
There's nothing to motivate in state voters for Democrats in
any kind of substantial way. And you'll recall in twenty
twenty two, basically every statewide candidate except herschel Walker won
by seven or eight points. So it wasn't just that
(14:52):
they won. It was despite the fact that Stacy Abrams.
I believe outspent Brian Kemp and they had a close
race in twenty eighteen. He trounced her in twenty twenty two.
So I appreciate the atl for taking care of me.
I'm gonna be down here again in June to watch
the Atlanta Braves with my kids.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I can't wait it. We wait for it.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
We got a great affiliate again, News Talk Extra one
oh six point three FM. We appreciate all of you
out there listening in Atlanta. And then Buck, I'm headed
to Seattle, which is crazy town. I'm gonna be speaking
at a Hillsdale College event that they are doing in Seattle.
So I'm gonna get on I don't know, a midnight
(15:31):
flight basically and fly all the way to the West
coast and I'll be doing the show Wednesday and Thursday
from there. So anyway, we'll see how how I do
in crazy town. I haven't been to Seattle since everything
fell apart with Chaz. Remember that, like the Autonomous Region
and everything. I mean, even for twenty twenty standards of crazy.
(15:55):
People looked at Seattle, Portland and San Francisco and said,
you guys are crazy.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
The standard for crazy was high.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Seattle Portland and San Francisco all exceeded it by massive amounts,
So we'll see what it looks like. I haven't been
to the city since, Like I said, I think I
was like twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen that I was in Seattle,
beautiful place, filled with a lot of crazy leftists. So
we'll see how I do there. But two major legal
issues that are unfolding. You just heard us talk with
(16:23):
Julie Kelly, the analysis of whether the Jan six political persecutions,
because I do think persecution and prosecution are intertwined in
many ways here are permissible or not under the Sarbines
Oxley obstruction of an official preceding standard. It seems likely
that many of those convictions are going to get struck down.
(16:45):
Maybe it'll be five to four, maybe it'll be six
to three, maybe even get a liberal to come on.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
But that would come out in June.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Would be a huge story because it implicates half of
Jack Smith's case in Washington, DC. It would also be
a huge story, as you just heard us talk, because
for years leftists have been saying, oh, these Jan six
insurrection cases, they're one hundred percent legally permissible, they're necessary.
We have to hold everybody accountable. What you're probably likely
(17:15):
to hear is that there was major prosecutorial overreach. Simultaneously,
they are trying to hold Trump in contempt of court
in New York City, where day two of his criminal
trial in the Alvin Bragg cases underway. And what we
have been talking about, I think fairly on this show
Buck since August of twenty two, when the mar A
(17:36):
Lago RAI basically kicked into high gear, the way that
Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice were going to
all come after Donald Trump. How is this playing in
the larger political arena? What would happen if Trump got arrested?
How would they even handle it? These are things that
are truly unprecedented that we are continuing to break down.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Yeah, I think anybody who tells you they know where
all this is going is making that up. It's not possible.
Did you want to get to the stephen A.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Smith Clay, Yeah, I want to play this because I
would argue that Stephen A. Smith very middle of the
road guy. He's not a politically for me ESPN. He's
gonna come on the show. We're gonna get him on
somewhat soon. He's being more outspoken on a variety of
different areas. I've done his podcast a couple of times.
We had interesting conversations, but he had this to say yesterday.
(18:28):
We've talked a lot about black men and the possibility
that if you look at the polling from Wall Street Journal,
maybe thirty percent of black men are willing to support Trump.
Here is here's what Stephen A. Smith had to say
about the cases in his hometown of New York City.
Speaker 7 (18:43):
Some my liberal friends out there, all you're doing is
showing that you're scared you can't beat them on the
issues and the merits. That's why he keeps saying it's
a political campaign against me. That's why he keeps saying
they can't beat me at the elect at the polls.
This is the only way they could do it. And
(19:04):
if you don't put him in jail, and he still
goes from being the presumptive GOP nominee to the official
GOP nominee, and he goes to the polls even though
he was gonna whine about winning and being rigged again,
you have given more fodder to that argument, which means
we'll never have peace in this country because tens of
(19:24):
millions of people. See what extent the other side is
willing to go through just to keep him out of
office because they can't beat him on their own merits.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
I do think this is a fundamental point. I mean,
this is a central point of everything that we're talking
about here. If what Trump did is so bad, and
if it's so clear he's so awful, why is he
ahead in the polls? And why are they so scared
of what's going to happen in the fall. And they
don't have an answer for that, and they won't process it,
(19:56):
they won't think it through. But I think stephen A
hits right into the center it. It's something we've discussed
here many times. The best way for there to be
a referendum on Trump's behavior, whether just talking about his
four years as president or what you think about whether
that should change because of January sixth. This is ultimately
the most clear political question right This is about who
(20:19):
should lead the nation according to the vote of the
American people. Let the people have their say. All these
efforts that they have are meant to either stop Trump
entirely now, and look, he's clearly the nominal. It's not
about just having him win the primary anymore, if it
ever was, it's to stop him from being able to
(20:41):
run entirely or now. I think this is what they've
shifted gears toward, just make it so it's really hard
for him to win as he's running, but not based
upon what people want, based upon the fact that they
are rigging the system. I mean, this is they're rigging
the election. Even if Trump wins, it be an election
that is rigged against him, just based upon these legal challenges.
(21:04):
And they can't come up with an answer. If Trump
is so bad, why are you terrified that the American
people are going to vote for him over Joe Biden? Like,
what is the response to that? After four years of
Trump and four years of Biden? Americans of voting age
are likely to say, based on what we see right now, yeah,
I want Trump to be president again.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
It's not even just that, too, Buck, It's that they're
only even willing by and large to bring charges in
juries that are rigged in their favor. That is political
locales that overwhelmingly favored Democrats. So that's why I think
one of the most difficult and I think Stephen a
hit on it.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
We've been hitting on this quite a lot.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
That's why I think one of the most difficult questions
to answer is not only why are you trying to
keep him from running? Why are you trying to put
him in prison? It's also why are you doing these charges?
Why are you bringing them entirely in a jury rig
to a large extent process, Because I'm not we said
(22:06):
this earlier. If you told me, hey, it's a fifty
to fifty America, which I think it's fair to say
that roughly, it is like everybody out there listening would
have to agree. If you told me that they were
going to try to bring charges against Trump to put
him in prison for the rest of his life, I
would still think it's an awful precedent to set in
the United States, because sooner or later, somebody else will
(22:28):
also have the same result that Trump has. Now somebody
else is going to get charged as a method of lawfare.
But at least if you allowed the jury to be
in a jurisdiction that's fifty to fifty, I would say, okay, like,
let's see how it actually plays out, Which is why
South Florida. I'm not that nervous about South Florida. I
(22:48):
don't think that there will be a jury that is
overwhelmingly made up of Trump haters. I think there's going
to be a jury in New York City that, just
based on the numbers, is likely to be made up
of Trump hay And I think I don't think it's
crazy to think that there are going to be people
that want to see Trump put in prison for the
rest of his life that are a part of this
(23:09):
jury pool. Now, maybe some of them will say, hey,
you know what, I can't fairly and impartially render justice.
We already saw that happen a little bit, they'll step out.
I think there's other people that will be happy to
be on this jury because they want to hold Trump responsible.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
They want to be the deciders.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
And I just I look at this and I say, fundamentally,
we can have one hundred and fifty million people render
a verdict on Trump's behavior, on Trump's whether or not
he's able to be president, or we can have twelve
in a incredibly biased jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
And to me, the one hundred and fifty million is
the answer.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
No matter how much you trust juries, do you want
twelve people trying to decide who can be president? Or
do you want one hundred and fifty million.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
It does go to the ultimate point. I think about
the mental instability of many of the Democrats that are
pushing for this, or the the emotional and ideological surrender
that they've had. Right, they just whatever the anti trump
Ism demands they will go for. And the fact that
Alvin Bragg has turned that one preposterous charge it's worth.
(24:17):
It's worth everybody knowing you or keeping this in mind.
I think it's thirty four right, it's a thirty four
felony count indictment. It was one thing we're talking about,
and he's charging it thirty four times, which is specifically
against prosecutorial guidelines. You're not supposed to you know, if
someone hands you drugs and then you say, hold on
time my shoe, and you hand it back to them,
(24:38):
and then they hand the drugs back to you. You know,
you don't charge these as separate drug possession crimes.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Right.
Speaker 4 (24:43):
They're not supposed to do that because it's obviously unjust.
That's exactly what Alvin Bragg is doing. He's saying, oh, well,
they like Xerox did or they emailed it or whatever
that every time we're going to charge that as an
additional felony. And you have to wonder that any Democrat
who supports the prosecution going on in New York City
is also so telling you that in America today, it
(25:03):
would be more just not preferable for you know what
you think the politics of the country should be. It
would be more just for Donald Trump to be in
prison for years and not be able to run, although
I think he would still run from prison. That's a
whole other conversation. That's insane. But it'd be more just
for Donald Trump to sit in a prison cell over
a clerical error, over a Stormy Daniel's payoff or whatever
(25:27):
hush money or whatever they're calling it. Then it would
just allow the American people to say, do I or
do I not want Donald Trump to be president for
four more years? That's it. That's insane. I mean, this
is this is the decision that we're being faced with
as a country, or rather the decision they want to
deny us as a country based upon what exactly and
(25:47):
the moment you dig into a clay. It's all just
so flimsy and underhanded.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
It's one hundred percent what it is.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
And I wonder how many people that are in general
not paying that much attention, ultimately coming to that same conclusion.
If the guy's so bad, how come they can't just
let everybody go vote. Let the American people decide whether
Trump is able to or not able to be the
next president of the United States. That's how democracy works.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tier in
Politics with Clay Travis and Bock Sexton.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Yesterday, when we finished the show, there had been two
jurors removed from the Trump jury, and I said that
it felt like things were spiraling out of control there.
Then after we got off the air, they had a
rapid level of success and they managed the seat.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
All of the new jur jury here.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
So we now have I believe the number is twelve
jurors seated one alternate in the Trump criminal trial. They
are on track, they say, to start this trial on Monday.
Court is taking place today. They are trying to get
more alternate seated, up to six total alternates. But those
(27:11):
alternate jurors would be in the courtroom and they would
be watching, but they would only have a say in
the outcome.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Of the case. If other jurors.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
That is the twelve initially seated jurors were forced out,
and we now have pretty good biographical descriptions of all
of the jurors in this case, and I wanted to
walk through them with you, as Buck and Eye did
when there were seven seeded. A big part of how
a case is going to go, particularly one like this
(27:42):
where we know there is a rigged jury that is
likely to be very much in favor of Alvin Bragg,
the state of New York and opposed to Donald Trump.
I want to run through what we know about the
twelve jurors that have been seated at this point in time.
And I'm reading from the New York Times. Jur Number
one works in sales, lives in West Harlem. This is
(28:07):
our Irish buddy, uh.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
He said.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
He enjoys outdoor activities, gets his news from the New
York Times, watches Fox News and MSNBC, which I'm sorry
sounds like you're lying to me if you say you
watch Fox News and MSNBC, unless you're me or Buck
and your job is to analyze the media. I don't
(28:30):
think there are actually very many people who watch both
of those. He said He's heard about some of former
President Donald Trump's other criminal cases, but didn't have an
opinion about him. Juror one's going to vote to convict. Okay,
just based on this biographical sketch. Irish guy who lives
in Harlem claims that he gets his news from Fox
(28:52):
News and MSNBC. I'm sorry, this guy hates Trump. He's
going to vote convict. This is my analysis. By the way,
people out there goes say Blake Travis told you exactly
what all the juries are gonna GERM members are gonna do.
He's jury tampering again. Put him in handcuffs, put him
(29:13):
in prison. So far, I've not been arrested. Trust me,
you'll know if I am arrested. This is my opinion,
analyzing based on the biographical information provided by the New
York Times, which is where I'm reading this from. Jur
two works in finance, lives in Hell's kitchen. He said
he likes hiking, music concerts and enjoying New York City.
(29:36):
He said he follows mister Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen
on social media, but he also said he follows figures
like Kelly Ann Conway. He said he believed mister Trump
had done some good for the country, adding it goes
both ways. I'm sorry if you follow Michael Cohen on
(30:00):
Twitter you hate Trump. This guy is not voting that
Trump is not guilty. I'm sorry you follow Michael Cohen.
That should be a strike to me. This feels like
the first two guys here are definitely likely to vote
(30:22):
that Trump is guilty. Jur three, works in the legal field,
lives in Chelsea, said he doesn't follow the news, but
when he does, he reads the New York Times, the
Wall Street Journal, and finds articles using Google. He said
he was not very familiar with mister Trump's other criminal cases. Again,
(30:44):
this is a guilty verdict. I think we got three
bad jurors for Trump so far. Jur four, engineer from
the Upper West Side, asked how he was during jury selection.
He responded, I'm freezing. When when you're asked if he
had strong feelings about mister Trump, he responded, no, not really.
(31:06):
Now evidently the courtroom has really been cold. So that's
kind of a funny answer as you kind of break
down here. But I don't buy into the idea that
anybody sitting in a jury pool in Manhattan doesn't have
strong feelings about Trump. When you say no, not really,
(31:26):
it feels to me like you're covering things up. Juror
five works in education and is from Harlem. She said
she tries to avoid political conversations, doesn't care for news.
She said she appreciates mister Trump's candor. President Trump speaks
his mind. I would rather that in a person than
(31:49):
someone who's in office and you don't know what they're
doing behind the scenes. Black woman in education from Harlem.
She is not voting. Not guilty, I'm sorry. Juror six
works in technology, lives in Chelsea. Gets her news from
The New York Times, Google, Facebook, and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Oh God.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
She said she probably has different beliefs than mister Trump,
but quote, this is a free country. I you know,
young woman gets her information from TikTok, disagrees with Trump,
but believes it's a free country. Lives in Chelsea. I
think we're oh for six guys, first six jurors. I
(32:33):
think we are zero for six. Now let me bring
in producer Alli, who didn't know I was going to
pull her up here. But you live in New York City,
You've lived in New York City for a long time.
Is there anything in these first six jurors biographical details
that you think I'm missing or as they are being
(32:54):
described and as I am reading them to you from
the New York Times, are you with me that this
does not sound like a very favorable jury pool to Trump.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Absolutely not, And having just done jury duty myself like
two months ago, I don't have a good feeling about
this at all.
Speaker 8 (33:12):
No.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
And there's nothing that is from these first six jurors
that is someone living in New York City would make
you think for a moment, just based on the neighborhoods
or any of these descriptions, oh that could be favorable.
Speaker 8 (33:24):
No, absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Okay, this is not good. All right, So that's the
first six. I'm going to hit you the next six
in a minute here, But I want to tell you
a story too. Ali just said she had done jury
duty recently. I do think there's a significant factor here
that I'm going to discuss in a little bit. It
is there are two lawyers that have been seated on
(33:46):
this jury pool and they weren't stricken. You have the ability,
as the defense or the prosecution to just strike jurors
that you think are going to be uniquely disfavorable to you.
And I have been on jury duty only once in
my life, I've only been called once and it was
(34:06):
a mall Santa dispute. Guy was a mall Santa and
somehow he had gotten into a contract dispute. I mean,
he legitimately looked like Santa Claus sitting at the plainiff
table he was suing. I think it was a mall
over a contract dispute when he was playing Santa Claus
(34:27):
in the mall. Sorry, when he was This was not
the real Santa Claus. For the kids out there that
are in the car, Santa Claus was not on trial,
not the real Santa Claus. This was a pretend Santa Claus.
And so pretend Santa Claus is there. And I actually
got seated in the jury in the jury seating area,
(34:48):
I was going to be on this jury. And then
by mutual agreement, the plaintiff and defense lawyer recognized me
because at the time I was doing sports talker radio
and they both said they liked listening to the radio show.
So by mutual agreement, they were going to allow me
(35:09):
to not have to serve on the jury so they
could listen to me talk about sports. This is all
one hundred percent tury. That's the only time I've ever
been called and actually been into a courtroom. I thought
I would get knocked and taken off because I am
a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
They didn't do that. They took me off because I
happened to do radio.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
It's very strange, I would say, incredibly rare. When I
come back, I'm going to go through the other six jurors.
This almost never happens that you would have two lawyers
sitting on a trial. Usually they get knocked off. This
trial super fascinating, big gamble, I would say, from both sides,
(35:55):
to allow this guy to continue. And so I think
this is very very interesting to contemplate rolling through the
jury that the first six, I said is not good.
I'm struggling to find any positivity here. Juror seven works
in the legal field, lives on the Upper East Side.
He said he's aware of mister Trump's other cases, doesn't
(36:18):
have an opinion about his character. Said he had political
views on the Trump presidency, agreeing with some policies and
disagreeing with others. Again, not a big not a big
fan of Jury number seven either. And I think to
the extent that I'm talking about the fact that there
are two lawyers on this case, if you're a lawyer
(36:41):
in New York City, I think the political pressure on
you to vote to convict is going to be off
the charts because there are very few lawyers who work
in law firms that would even represent Trump. His defense
attorney had to leave a big law firm because they
were so angry at the fact that he was willing
(37:02):
to represent Trump. This is a big issue in the
law that doesn't get a lot of attention. How woke
law firms have become is off the charts. Their diversity
quotas in terms of the warriors who represent companies. Now
you don't hear a lot of discussion about this. A
(37:24):
lot of law firms require diverse representation now and or
the clients require it. They don't require the best lawyer anymore.
They want there to be twenty percent minority, thirty five
percent female representation.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
It's crazy.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
As somebody who worked in a law firm and as
someone who employs lawyers, I don't care about anything other
than are you the best of the legal representation that
I can afford.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
It's crazy.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
J're eight Upper East Side, worked in finance, said he
reads The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and watches
CNBC and the BBC. He enjoys fly fishing, skiing, and yoga.
During jury selection, he said he had no opinions or
beliefs that would prevent him from being impartial.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
Ali, you're the yogay.
Speaker 3 (38:15):
Do you think that anybody that you work out with
in doing yoga in Manhattan other than you would be
willing to vote not guilty for Trump on a criminal trial?
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Ooh, that's a tough one, Clay. Is it hot yoga?
Does the yoga matter?
Speaker 3 (38:31):
Is you think hot yoga or is cold yoga is
more likely to be favorable than Trump? I don't think
it's looking good yoga. Like, there are a few hobbies
that I see and I say, you are not going
to be a Trump person.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
Yoga is one of them.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
And I know I'm gonna get deluge from all the
yoga people who are big Trump people. Now you're in
a substantial minority, especially if you're in New York City.
Speaker 5 (38:54):
Okay, Yeah, there's New York yoga, and then there's yoga
and other.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
Places that I wouldn't say the same.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
Yeah, like Birmingham, Alabama yoga might be different than New
York City yoga. But we're talking about New York City
yoga right now.
Speaker 8 (39:06):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
Jurre nine works in education from the Upper East Side.
She said of Trump, he was our president. Everybody knows
who he is, adding that when he was in office,
everyone was kind of talking about politics. Yeah, that's a guilty.
I mean, this is not a good jury. Jur Ten
(39:29):
businessman who lives in Murray Hill. Ali, where's murray Hill?
What does that tell us?
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Actually, that's not far from me in the East village.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Okay said he doesn't follow the news, adding, if anything,
it's the New York Times. Said he likes listening to
podcasts on behavioral psychology, adding it's my hobby. Said he
does not have a strong opinion on Trump. All right,
those are the first ten. I'm not feeling good about
any of them. I felt good yesterday a little bit,
(40:00):
not anywhere near very optimistic right now. I would love
to hear from Trump's defense attorney if he's optimistic about
any of these guys.
Speaker 2 (40:08):
Honestly or gals.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tear in
Politics with Clay Travis d.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
Buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (40:22):
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 8 (40:41):
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 try 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 true I live against the first
(41:02):
former president 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 you
(41:22):
get a jury because of the glacial pace of Monday.
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 4 (41:39):
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
(42:00):
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 contention are obviously anti Trump, Like, how
do we get is that just baked in at this point?
Speaker 8 (42:22):
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 in Manhattan too. A
thing to remember about all this is that the people
the movement progressives who vote in elections like the one
(42:48):
where Bragg was elected, that's a vanishingly small number of
the 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 federal, so we
(43:10):
were drawn from the Bronx in Westchester too, but we
had a lot of Manhattan jurors. I thought they were
good jurors. The process is supposed to lend itself to
a pretty searching examination of these jurors, so you can
make it discriminating choice about them. There's a lot of
latitude to move to remove people by choice. I have
(43:33):
a bite for cause. Rather, I haven't heard too much
complaining that they wanted people removed from cause. 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 in one big fell swoop.
But also remember, in terms of balance, even though if
(43:56):
you even if you accept as a premise that Manhattan
is cut against Trump, which it clearly is, Trump only
needs one, you know to win here. Yeah, Bragg needs twelve,
and that's a big difference when you have a case
like like Bragg has, which is a kind of a
dog's breakfast of a case.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
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 8 (44:25):
Yeah, of course, great.
Speaker 4 (44:26):
Yeah, let's get to that 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? Welcome back in Clay and Buck. All right, Andy,
let's dive right, and we're speaking to Andy McCarthy of
National Review and Fox News twenty plus years Southern District
of New York prosecutor. Andy, if they find Trump guilty,
(44:50):
what do you think happens? I mean, give us the
timeline and the possible punishments, well.
Speaker 8 (44:56):
Allowing the things of 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 convicted of one or more selonies in
(45:19):
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 a conviction.
(45:41):
This is a nonviolent crime. He's a first sender in
New York. He should not get a sentence of incarceration.
But you know, if you would ask me about Alan Weiselberg,
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 for I think second
five months stint at Rikers. So there'll be a lot
(46:03):
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. And my understanding is
the way New York appellate law works is that once
he appeals, the sentence can be you know, any sentence
(46:27):
imposed can be frozen. Until the appeal's done, and.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
The appeal would take well after the election.
Speaker 8 (46:34):
Oh yeah, be into next year for sure.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
And honestly, Andy, this is a crazy question. But given
it to 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
(46:58):
was a conviction that occurred prior to his election.
Speaker 8 (47:03):
As you say, Clay, 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 supremacy clause that any
sentence ought to be postponed until after his term is over. That,
(47:25):
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 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, but I don't know.
Speaker 4 (47:47):
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've or ludicrous speed. They've moved faster in the
j six trial than all my friends or federal defense
attorneys and federal prosecutors say.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Like ever happens.
Speaker 4 (48:03):
Could they do the sentencing much sooner than three months
after if he's found guilty?
Speaker 8 (48:09):
You know they could try. I think his lawyers could
you know, tie that up for a while. But I
don't really see the big point of doing that, Buck,
because again, the appeal would mean 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 with me beside the point, And
(48:30):
it could be scandalous if you put Trump in jail
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 3 (48:46):
Andy, you heard about the left is fired up at
me for my jury tweets and comments that I've made
on this show.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
Do you think that.
Speaker 3 (48:57):
I will be arrested for jury tampering, as Eric Swallwell
has requested, as Joy Read and CNN have requested, Well,
I would.
Speaker 8 (49:07):
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 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 I would say. But
(49:29):
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 You still.
Speaker 4 (49:43):
Have some faith in 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, the best
thing we got, I get it.
Speaker 8 (49:51):
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 enstro
in front of and geron right. And I think the
only reason for making that point is because it's more
fair to have a jury trial, And implicit in that
is that we think that, you know, twelve sensible people
(50:12):
are more likely to come to a correct result than
one movement progressive. So you know that's I'm still banking
on that.
Speaker 3 (50:18):
If 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 8 (50:32):
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 Comb, which doesn't get better over time. But the
(50:54):
other thing, just to be totally practical about it, is
Trump's dance cards going to be filled up with uh,
you know, classified information proceedings down in the Florida case
and all of the pre trial stuff in the Washington case.
The the the j sixth case is going to start
up again once the Supreme Court rules on immunity because
(51:14):
when they rule on immunity, Assuming they rule against Trump,
which I do, then the case is good. The jurisdiction
off of 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 medal.
Speaker 4 (51:26):
Well, the good news. 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 8 (51:37):
Let's let's let's pray for that outcome. I agree with that.
Speaker 2 (51:41):
Pray for it to be television shows.
Speaker 4 (51:45):
And 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
did say that, I would, I would, I would, I
would hire You might make some money off this before
all of a sudden, Yeah.
Speaker 8 (51:57):
I might come out of retirement for that.
Speaker 4 (51:58):
Casere we go, all right, everybody,
This is twenty four, a weekly highlight reel from the Clay,
Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Buck this.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Morning, Buck, I was listening and reading about that argument.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I don't think this is going to be close.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I think it's going to be at least six '
three that they cannot use these statutes, and it may
go all the way out to potentially some of the
liberal justices as well, who have evinced a great deal
of skepticism.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Also, we'll get Julie Kelly's read Have you seen this?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I mean, I think if they were to go seven
to or something in that magnitude to strike this down,
it would be a huge blow to Jack Smith and
all of the Democrats that have tried to use this
January sixth statute.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Well, I also think that it goes into a larger framework,
a bigger it's evidence in a bigger trial if you will.
That how many times can they try to use the
law against Trump and they have to get slapped down?
You know what I mean? You look at all the
(01:11):
different prosecutors, all the different efforts to destroy Trump that
we are finding the system itself is saying is outrageous,
meaning they've tried to abuse the system to destroy Trump,
and then people have had to step in at the
Supreme Court level, for example, and say, guys, what are
you doing. That's not constitutional, that's not lawful.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
And the best.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Example is the nine to zero of what Colorado was
trying to do. And then Maine dabbled in for a
second of removing Trump from the ballot. To be very clear,
the most left wing justices I think in the history
of the Supreme Court, okay, and certainly the most among
the most anti Trump judges you'll find anywhere, went along
(01:54):
with the majority and that they said, guys, you can't
just say we think he did a thing, but it
hasn't been proven in court, and we're going to remove
him from the ballot and he can't be president. He
can't do that, right, I mean, you're effectively overriding federal elections. Clay.
If this happens now, to your point about the Supreme
Court argument this morning, if that gets struck down, they
will have abused another statute to pile up against not
(02:18):
just Trump but his supporters. Their abuse isn't just a
matter of opinion. Their abuse of the law is becoming
increasingly a matter of fact over and over again.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
And this is also important. They are trying now. This
has just happened. The prosecutors have filed emotion to hold
Trump in contempt for violating the gag order that was
put on place in place for him in the Manhattan
criminal trial. Trump has already weighed in this morning, and
(02:51):
I listened and I was like, wow, this is what
he said outside of the courtroom as we were as
he entered this morning.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
So this is a couple of hours ago. I think. Now, listen,
we have a judge who shouldn't be on this case.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
He's totally conflicted. But this is a trial that should
never happened or should have been thrown out a long
time ago.
Speaker 6 (03:11):
If you look at Jonathan Terry, Andy McCarthy, all great
legal scholars, there's not one that we've been able to
find that said this should be a trial I should
be right now in Pennsylvania and far in many other states.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
North Camp lad judge campaigning.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
This is all coming from the bit White House. Because
the guy can't put two sentences together, you can't campaign.
We neede to using this in order to try and
win an election, and it's not working that way. It's
working the opposite way.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
Okay, so that is Trump this morning. He also posted
on truth right before he went into the courtroom buck
this conflicted Trump hating judge won't let me respond to
people that are on TV lying and spewing hate all
day long. He's running roughshod over my lawyers and legal team.
The New York system of quotation marks justice is being
(04:08):
decimated by critics.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
From all over the world.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
I want to speak, or at least be able to respond.
Election interference, rigged, unconstitutional trial. Take off the gag order now.
But here's my question for you. Are they gonna put
him in jail over this? Because I think that's where
this is headed. I think this judge wants Trump in
jail for viat for contempt, and I don't think it's
(04:34):
crazy to think it's gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I think Trump may want it to happen.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Well, this is there are some parts of this that
are legal analysis and parts of this that become very
obviously political analysis, and I know they're intertwined as well.
I know we get this question all the time, and
it's funny because I don't know anybody who has an
answer to it. How do you incarcerate somebody who has
lifetime twenty four to seven secret service protect.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
We start to ask, get this years ago.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Yeah, we've been looking at this for a long time now.
There is precedent for you know, taking a taking a
person and putting them in I think they call it
administrative administrative segregation where you know, for example, if if
a cop gets put in like state prison, they sometimes
will move because you know, maybe.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
The protective custody basically the other members of the of
the jail.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
Yeah, and and you could do something like that, but
you would have to have secret Service, like I think
Trump might. This is I understand, this is crazy. Can
I just preface this. I know what we're saying here
is crazy, but we're in a crazy time everyone. I
think there's a situation where maybe they would because if
they hold them in contempt, what it's going to be
(05:47):
forty eight hours or something, right.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
I thinet him in cuffs and they walk, they purple walk.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
That's the question.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
They want to break, the seal they want to establish
just like remember the rag trial was the first one
to bring an indictment, which I always thought was significant
because yeah, it was flimsy, but they knew that there
was no process by which it would likely be overturned
or stopped in New York, so they wanted to set
the precedent, and all the omens came in. Clay, I
(06:16):
think they could put him. I think they think, I'll
put it that way. They think they could end up
putting him in an administrative sec By the way, if
we have somebody from like Bureau of Prisons or you know,
New York State Bureau of Prisons, or just in general,
let us know if you think there is some precedent.
My sense is they would have to shut down like
(06:37):
a wing of a holding facility, and then there have
to be Secret Service there to protect him. But he'd
have to be inside of a cell for a couple
of days. And that's what they would, That's what they would.
They can't I don't think that. I mean that the
New York State can't say you no longer have Secret
Service protection. They can't do that, Okay, So that leads
to that, which is crazy. There aren't a lot of
(06:59):
precedents for this this. Okay, there's no president, there's no
I mean, there are precedents for famous people being held
in contempt of court, never someone with Secret Service protection.
Never a former and likely future president of the United States. Though,
so here is my question for you.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Then, as a part of that, is this Trump as
I've used this analogy because I remember growing up watching it.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Do you know Braer Rabbit at all? Buck? Do you
remember the Braer Rabbit stories? No?
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Ok, I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
I don't know what percentage of people out there will
remember this. I'm in Georgia, by the way, which is
where I think that Joel Chandler Harris Braer Rabbit stories originated.
They were later made into cartoons, all this stuff Breer Rabbit.
And before they decided that Splash Mountain was racist at
Disney World, Breer Rabbit was the star.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Of Splash Mountain. If any of you have been on
the Splash Mountain.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Ride at Disney, okay, Breer Rabbit would all say, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Whatever you do, don't
throw me in the briar patch. Is Donald Trump daring
march hand this judge as well as the larger Democrat
Party apparatus to put him in jail because in the
(08:18):
same way that the mugshot was a huge benefit to Trump,
is him getting put in jail for contempt of court
a huge political win for him, Leave aside the legal
for right now.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
I do think so, especially especially on this, because even
people who are casual observers of the news, which is
most people, because most people are you know, we have
a hyper attuned and informed audience most of America. As
much as I love America, people have other things that
don't watch the news, even if you or watch much
(08:51):
of the news, and they get their news from bad
places in a lot in a lot of context too.
I think that the that Donald Trump in a cell,
the reason being he was held in contempt by a judge,
the reason being he's speaking out against a trial that
has to do with a business administrative accounting error. That's
(09:15):
all this is. That is what we're talking about here.
I think that any normal person who has not been
just steeped in trumped arrangement syndrome would say to that
is this. We can't have this in our country. And
I think that's why the polls are all showing what
they're showing right now. Clay, that's that's the truth.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Yeah, and this is why I mean, look you things
cut through. I think what you said is a good
a good point. What percentage of people do you think
have seen the Trump mugshot photo? What percentage of American voters?
One hundred percent. I think it's almost impossible that you
would not have seen the Trump mugshot picture, even if
you're not paying attention to the.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
News on a day to day basis.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
I mean, I think if you can name the current
vice president, you've seen the mugshot photo, you.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (09:59):
Like, I think if you have.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Photo, then they can be the vice president. I think
it's almost one hundred percent of voters would have seen
that photo. My point is almost one hundred percent of voters.
I'm saying voters because you know forty percent of people
are not voting. I think almost one hundred percent of
voters will see if Trump is arrested. They may not
pay attention to the results of the trial, they may
not be following on a day to day basis like
(10:23):
we are. And to me, I think it's highly likely
that it would work to his favor. And I wonder
how much political calculus in the same way we've talked
for a long time now, ever since the raid on
mar Lago in what August of twenty two, we have
said there's a two tier story here, the legal and
the political, and they're intertwined in a way that we've
(10:43):
never seen before. Something can be smart legally and really
poor decision of politically and vice versa.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
And also I think something to remember about where the
Democrats are and the anti Trump machinery. They thought all
along that these trials, that these prosecutions would destroy Donald Trump.
They have no choice but to see all of this through,
to withdraw all of it at this point, or to
withdraw all the efforts to say, all right, you know
the elections coming up, we're going to defer. Delay would
(11:12):
be essentially to admit that they had made some political
calcula calculation error. So they have to go all the
way with this. And I think that in New York,
what you're seeing is if they brought this trial and
I'm going to say, I mean, they did this to
Trump's Trump Incorporate, you know, corporation accountant Alan Weiselberg, who's
(11:34):
gone to prison, and they just sent to Peter Navarro
to prison. He's serving a sentence right now for not
testifying to Congress because he's associated with Trump. If they
did this to anyone Clay, it would be an outrage.
That they're doing it to the person who is leading
in the presidential nomination contest right now according to every
single polling company in the United States is It's outrageous
(11:56):
beyond words. But they have what are they going to do?
They won't stop, so they're going to see this all
the way through. I don't see a way around it.
I mean, I think that and locking Trump up. If
you're from you, if you've worked in prisons and you
have some idea of how they could do this, I
don't even know what would they do. How would this go?
(12:18):
Let us know, because I'd be very curious to hear it.
I think the only answer is that they would have
to have the Secret Service come in, clear a wing,
shut down the wing, and it would almost be like
you remember when Pablo Escobar got to build his own prison,
kind of be a little bit like that, because like
your guys would be running the thing, and uh, nobody
would really be. And I don't know.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Also, Buck he has to be in court, So I
don't even know how they can jail him, because the
judges already said that he has to be present in court,
even if it means that he misses his son's graduation potentially,
So if he gets put in court, it further delays
the process of the troth. I mean, it's put in jail.
It further delays the process of the trial. I just
(13:01):
I don't even know. I this is fascinating. I don't
even know how this plays out. But yeah, to your
point eight hundred two A two two eight eight two.
If you have some theory, based on your knowledge of
the New York court system, what this would be like
or how it would work, I would actually be be
fascinated to hear.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
Yeah, I'm we're gonna, we're gonna dive into this, and
I think, uh, I mean, it's gonna The thing is,
I just want to prepare all of you.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
It's gonna get crazier. It's gonna get crazier.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
You have not seen peak crazy.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
We're just touching the tip of the iceberg right now
of the crazy that's coming.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
That is correct.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yes, you're listening to twenty four the Year of Impact
with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I think Trump is gonna win Georgia by eight points.
I don't think it's gonna be close. I think it's
gonna be like.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
I'm putting it on the I'm putting it on the
prediction put.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
It on the projection screen eight points. I think seven
or eight points. I think it's going to be a
very comfortable win in Georgia. Of all the states, if
you had to ask me which state is most likely
to flip from twenty twenty, either in favor of Democrats
or in favor of Republicans, I think Georgia is going
to be back in red camp. And I actually think
(14:17):
you're going to start to see Biden spending less time
and money in Georgia because the numbers out there are
really bad for them.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
In Georgia. The most recent poll has Trump up ten.
In Georgia.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
There is no Senate race, there is no governor's race.
There's nothing to motivate in state voters for Democrats in
any kind of substantial way. And you'll recall in twenty
twenty two, basically every statewide candidate except herschel Walker won
by seven or eight points. So it wasn't just that
(14:52):
they won. It was despite the fact that Stacy Abrams.
I believe outspent Brian Kemp and they had a close
race in twenty eighteen. He trounced her in twenty twenty two.
So I appreciate the atl for taking care of me.
I'm gonna be down here again in June to watch
the Atlanta Braves with my kids.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I can't wait it. We wait for it.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
We got a great affiliate again, News Talk Extra one
oh six point three FM. We appreciate all of you
out there listening in Atlanta. And then Buck, I'm headed
to Seattle, which is crazy town. I'm gonna be speaking
at a Hillsdale College event that they are doing in Seattle.
So I'm gonna get on I don't know, a midnight
(15:31):
flight basically and fly all the way to the West
coast and I'll be doing the show Wednesday and Thursday
from there. So anyway, we'll see how how I do
in crazy town. I haven't been to Seattle since everything
fell apart with Chaz. Remember that, like the Autonomous Region
and everything. I mean, even for twenty twenty standards of crazy.
(15:55):
People looked at Seattle, Portland and San Francisco and said,
you guys are crazy.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
The standard for crazy was high.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Seattle Portland and San Francisco all exceeded it by massive amounts,
So we'll see what it looks like. I haven't been
to the city since, Like I said, I think I
was like twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen that I was in Seattle,
beautiful place, filled with a lot of crazy leftists. So
we'll see how I do there. But two major legal
issues that are unfolding. You just heard us talk with
(16:23):
Julie Kelly, the analysis of whether the Jan six political persecutions,
because I do think persecution and prosecution are intertwined in
many ways here are permissible or not under the Sarbines
Oxley obstruction of an official preceding standard. It seems likely
that many of those convictions are going to get struck down.
(16:45):
Maybe it'll be five to four, maybe it'll be six
to three, maybe even get a liberal to come on.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
But that would come out in June.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Would be a huge story because it implicates half of
Jack Smith's case in Washington, DC. It would also be
a huge story, as you just heard us talk, because
for years leftists have been saying, oh, these Jan six
insurrection cases, they're one hundred percent legally permissible, they're necessary.
We have to hold everybody accountable. What you're probably likely
(17:15):
to hear is that there was major prosecutorial overreach. Simultaneously,
they are trying to hold Trump in contempt of court
in New York City, where day two of his criminal
trial in the Alvin Bragg cases underway. And what we
have been talking about, I think fairly on this show
Buck since August of twenty two, when the mar A
(17:36):
Lago RAI basically kicked into high gear, the way that
Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice were going to
all come after Donald Trump. How is this playing in
the larger political arena? What would happen if Trump got arrested?
How would they even handle it? These are things that
are truly unprecedented that we are continuing to break down.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Yeah, I think anybody who tells you they know where
all this is going is making that up. It's not possible.
Did you want to get to the stephen A.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Smith Clay, Yeah, I want to play this because I
would argue that Stephen A. Smith very middle of the
road guy. He's not a politically for me ESPN. He's
gonna come on the show. We're gonna get him on
somewhat soon. He's being more outspoken on a variety of
different areas. I've done his podcast a couple of times.
We had interesting conversations, but he had this to say yesterday.
(18:28):
We've talked a lot about black men and the possibility
that if you look at the polling from Wall Street Journal,
maybe thirty percent of black men are willing to support Trump.
Here is here's what Stephen A. Smith had to say
about the cases in his hometown of New York City.
Speaker 7 (18:43):
Some my liberal friends out there, all you're doing is
showing that you're scared you can't beat them on the
issues and the merits. That's why he keeps saying it's
a political campaign against me. That's why he keeps saying
they can't beat me at the elect at the polls.
This is the only way they could do it. And
(19:04):
if you don't put him in jail, and he still
goes from being the presumptive GOP nominee to the official
GOP nominee, and he goes to the polls even though
he was gonna whine about winning and being rigged again,
you have given more fodder to that argument, which means
we'll never have peace in this country because tens of
(19:24):
millions of people. See what extent the other side is
willing to go through just to keep him out of
office because they can't beat him on their own merits.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
I do think this is a fundamental point. I mean,
this is a central point of everything that we're talking
about here. If what Trump did is so bad, and
if it's so clear he's so awful, why is he
ahead in the polls? And why are they so scared
of what's going to happen in the fall. And they
don't have an answer for that, and they won't process it,
(19:56):
they won't think it through. But I think stephen A
hits right into the center it. It's something we've discussed
here many times. The best way for there to be
a referendum on Trump's behavior, whether just talking about his
four years as president or what you think about whether
that should change because of January sixth. This is ultimately
the most clear political question right This is about who
(20:19):
should lead the nation according to the vote of the
American people. Let the people have their say. All these
efforts that they have are meant to either stop Trump
entirely now, and look, he's clearly the nominal. It's not
about just having him win the primary anymore, if it
ever was, it's to stop him from being able to
(20:41):
run entirely or now. I think this is what they've
shifted gears toward, just make it so it's really hard
for him to win as he's running, but not based
upon what people want, based upon the fact that they
are rigging the system. I mean, this is they're rigging
the election. Even if Trump wins, it be an election
that is rigged against him, just based upon these legal challenges.
(21:04):
And they can't come up with an answer. If Trump
is so bad, why are you terrified that the American
people are going to vote for him over Joe Biden? Like,
what is the response to that? After four years of
Trump and four years of Biden? Americans of voting age
are likely to say, based on what we see right now, yeah,
I want Trump to be president again.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
It's not even just that, too, Buck, It's that they're
only even willing by and large to bring charges in
juries that are rigged in their favor. That is political
locales that overwhelmingly favored Democrats. So that's why I think
one of the most difficult and I think Stephen a
hit on it.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
We've been hitting on this quite a lot.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
That's why I think one of the most difficult questions
to answer is not only why are you trying to
keep him from running? Why are you trying to put
him in prison? It's also why are you doing these charges?
Why are you bringing them entirely in a jury rig
to a large extent process, Because I'm not we said
(22:06):
this earlier. If you told me, hey, it's a fifty
to fifty America, which I think it's fair to say
that roughly, it is like everybody out there listening would
have to agree. If you told me that they were
going to try to bring charges against Trump to put
him in prison for the rest of his life, I
would still think it's an awful precedent to set in
the United States, because sooner or later, somebody else will
(22:28):
also have the same result that Trump has. Now somebody
else is going to get charged as a method of lawfare.
But at least if you allowed the jury to be
in a jurisdiction that's fifty to fifty, I would say, okay, like,
let's see how it actually plays out, Which is why
South Florida. I'm not that nervous about South Florida. I
(22:48):
don't think that there will be a jury that is
overwhelmingly made up of Trump haters. I think there's going
to be a jury in New York City that, just
based on the numbers, is likely to be made up
of Trump hay And I think I don't think it's
crazy to think that there are going to be people
that want to see Trump put in prison for the
rest of his life that are a part of this
(23:09):
jury pool. Now, maybe some of them will say, hey,
you know what, I can't fairly and impartially render justice.
We already saw that happen a little bit, they'll step out.
I think there's other people that will be happy to
be on this jury because they want to hold Trump responsible.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
They want to be the deciders.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
And I just I look at this and I say, fundamentally,
we can have one hundred and fifty million people render
a verdict on Trump's behavior, on Trump's whether or not
he's able to be president, or we can have twelve
in a incredibly biased jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
And to me, the one hundred and fifty million is
the answer.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
No matter how much you trust juries, do you want
twelve people trying to decide who can be president? Or
do you want one hundred and fifty million.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
It does go to the ultimate point. I think about
the mental instability of many of the Democrats that are
pushing for this, or the the emotional and ideological surrender
that they've had. Right, they just whatever the anti trump
Ism demands they will go for. And the fact that
Alvin Bragg has turned that one preposterous charge it's worth.
(24:17):
It's worth everybody knowing you or keeping this in mind.
I think it's thirty four right, it's a thirty four
felony count indictment. It was one thing we're talking about,
and he's charging it thirty four times, which is specifically
against prosecutorial guidelines. You're not supposed to you know, if
someone hands you drugs and then you say, hold on
time my shoe, and you hand it back to them,
(24:38):
and then they hand the drugs back to you. You know,
you don't charge these as separate drug possession crimes.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Right.
Speaker 4 (24:43):
They're not supposed to do that because it's obviously unjust.
That's exactly what Alvin Bragg is doing. He's saying, oh, well,
they like Xerox did or they emailed it or whatever
that every time we're going to charge that as an
additional felony. And you have to wonder that any Democrat
who supports the prosecution going on in New York City
is also so telling you that in America today, it
(25:03):
would be more just not preferable for you know what
you think the politics of the country should be. It
would be more just for Donald Trump to be in
prison for years and not be able to run, although
I think he would still run from prison. That's a
whole other conversation. That's insane. But it'd be more just
for Donald Trump to sit in a prison cell over
a clerical error, over a Stormy Daniel's payoff or whatever
(25:27):
hush money or whatever they're calling it. Then it would
just allow the American people to say, do I or
do I not want Donald Trump to be president for
four more years? That's it. That's insane. I mean, this
is this is the decision that we're being faced with
as a country, or rather the decision they want to
deny us as a country based upon what exactly and
(25:47):
the moment you dig into a clay. It's all just
so flimsy and underhanded.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
It's one hundred percent what it is.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
And I wonder how many people that are in general
not paying that much attention, ultimately coming to that same conclusion.
If the guy's so bad, how come they can't just
let everybody go vote. Let the American people decide whether
Trump is able to or not able to be the
next president of the United States. That's how democracy works.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tier in
Politics with Clay Travis and Bock Sexton.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Yesterday, when we finished the show, there had been two
jurors removed from the Trump jury, and I said that
it felt like things were spiraling out of control there.
Then after we got off the air, they had a
rapid level of success and they managed the seat.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
All of the new jur jury here.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
So we now have I believe the number is twelve
jurors seated one alternate in the Trump criminal trial. They
are on track, they say, to start this trial on Monday.
Court is taking place today. They are trying to get
more alternate seated, up to six total alternates. But those
(27:11):
alternate jurors would be in the courtroom and they would
be watching, but they would only have a say in
the outcome.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Of the case. If other jurors.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
That is the twelve initially seated jurors were forced out,
and we now have pretty good biographical descriptions of all
of the jurors in this case, and I wanted to
walk through them with you, as Buck and Eye did
when there were seven seeded. A big part of how
a case is going to go, particularly one like this
(27:42):
where we know there is a rigged jury that is
likely to be very much in favor of Alvin Bragg,
the state of New York and opposed to Donald Trump.
I want to run through what we know about the
twelve jurors that have been seated at this point in time.
And I'm reading from the New York Times. Jur Number
one works in sales, lives in West Harlem. This is
(28:07):
our Irish buddy, uh.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
He said.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
He enjoys outdoor activities, gets his news from the New
York Times, watches Fox News and MSNBC, which I'm sorry
sounds like you're lying to me if you say you
watch Fox News and MSNBC, unless you're me or Buck
and your job is to analyze the media. I don't
(28:30):
think there are actually very many people who watch both
of those. He said He's heard about some of former
President Donald Trump's other criminal cases, but didn't have an
opinion about him. Juror one's going to vote to convict. Okay,
just based on this biographical sketch. Irish guy who lives
in Harlem claims that he gets his news from Fox
(28:52):
News and MSNBC. I'm sorry, this guy hates Trump. He's
going to vote convict. This is my analysis. By the way,
people out there goes say Blake Travis told you exactly
what all the juries are gonna GERM members are gonna do.
He's jury tampering again. Put him in handcuffs, put him
(29:13):
in prison. So far, I've not been arrested. Trust me,
you'll know if I am arrested. This is my opinion,
analyzing based on the biographical information provided by the New
York Times, which is where I'm reading this from. Jur
two works in finance, lives in Hell's kitchen. He said
he likes hiking, music concerts and enjoying New York City.
(29:36):
He said he follows mister Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen
on social media, but he also said he follows figures
like Kelly Ann Conway. He said he believed mister Trump
had done some good for the country, adding it goes
both ways. I'm sorry if you follow Michael Cohen on
(30:00):
Twitter you hate Trump. This guy is not voting that
Trump is not guilty. I'm sorry you follow Michael Cohen.
That should be a strike to me. This feels like
the first two guys here are definitely likely to vote
(30:22):
that Trump is guilty. Jur three, works in the legal field,
lives in Chelsea, said he doesn't follow the news, but
when he does, he reads the New York Times, the
Wall Street Journal, and finds articles using Google. He said
he was not very familiar with mister Trump's other criminal cases. Again,
(30:44):
this is a guilty verdict. I think we got three
bad jurors for Trump so far. Jur four, engineer from
the Upper West Side, asked how he was during jury selection.
He responded, I'm freezing. When when you're asked if he
had strong feelings about mister Trump, he responded, no, not really.
(31:06):
Now evidently the courtroom has really been cold. So that's
kind of a funny answer as you kind of break
down here. But I don't buy into the idea that
anybody sitting in a jury pool in Manhattan doesn't have
strong feelings about Trump. When you say no, not really,
(31:26):
it feels to me like you're covering things up. Juror
five works in education and is from Harlem. She said
she tries to avoid political conversations, doesn't care for news.
She said she appreciates mister Trump's candor. President Trump speaks
his mind. I would rather that in a person than
(31:49):
someone who's in office and you don't know what they're
doing behind the scenes. Black woman in education from Harlem.
She is not voting. Not guilty, I'm sorry. Juror six
works in technology, lives in Chelsea. Gets her news from
The New York Times, Google, Facebook, and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Oh God.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
She said she probably has different beliefs than mister Trump,
but quote, this is a free country. I you know,
young woman gets her information from TikTok, disagrees with Trump,
but believes it's a free country. Lives in Chelsea. I
think we're oh for six guys, first six jurors. I
(32:33):
think we are zero for six. Now let me bring
in producer Alli, who didn't know I was going to
pull her up here. But you live in New York City,
You've lived in New York City for a long time.
Is there anything in these first six jurors biographical details
that you think I'm missing or as they are being
(32:54):
described and as I am reading them to you from
the New York Times, are you with me that this
does not sound like a very favorable jury pool to Trump.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Absolutely not, And having just done jury duty myself like
two months ago, I don't have a good feeling about
this at all.
Speaker 8 (33:12):
No.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
And there's nothing that is from these first six jurors
that is someone living in New York City would make
you think for a moment, just based on the neighborhoods
or any of these descriptions, oh that could be favorable.
Speaker 8 (33:24):
No, absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Okay, this is not good. All right, So that's the
first six. I'm going to hit you the next six
in a minute here, But I want to tell you
a story too. Ali just said she had done jury
duty recently. I do think there's a significant factor here
that I'm going to discuss in a little bit. It
is there are two lawyers that have been seated on
(33:46):
this jury pool and they weren't stricken. You have the ability,
as the defense or the prosecution to just strike jurors
that you think are going to be uniquely disfavorable to you.
And I have been on jury duty only once in
my life, I've only been called once and it was
(34:06):
a mall Santa dispute. Guy was a mall Santa and
somehow he had gotten into a contract dispute. I mean,
he legitimately looked like Santa Claus sitting at the plainiff
table he was suing. I think it was a mall
over a contract dispute when he was playing Santa Claus
(34:27):
in the mall. Sorry, when he was This was not
the real Santa Claus. For the kids out there that
are in the car, Santa Claus was not on trial,
not the real Santa Claus. This was a pretend Santa Claus.
And so pretend Santa Claus is there. And I actually
got seated in the jury in the jury seating area,
(34:48):
I was going to be on this jury. And then
by mutual agreement, the plaintiff and defense lawyer recognized me
because at the time I was doing sports talker radio
and they both said they liked listening to the radio show.
So by mutual agreement, they were going to allow me
(35:09):
to not have to serve on the jury so they
could listen to me talk about sports. This is all
one hundred percent tury. That's the only time I've ever
been called and actually been into a courtroom. I thought
I would get knocked and taken off because I am
a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
They didn't do that. They took me off because I
happened to do radio.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
It's very strange, I would say, incredibly rare. When I
come back, I'm going to go through the other six jurors.
This almost never happens that you would have two lawyers
sitting on a trial. Usually they get knocked off. This
trial super fascinating, big gamble, I would say, from both sides,
(35:55):
to allow this guy to continue. And so I think
this is very very interesting to contemplate rolling through the
jury that the first six, I said is not good.
I'm struggling to find any positivity here. Juror seven works
in the legal field, lives on the Upper East Side.
He said he's aware of mister Trump's other cases, doesn't
(36:18):
have an opinion about his character. Said he had political
views on the Trump presidency, agreeing with some policies and
disagreeing with others. Again, not a big not a big
fan of Jury number seven either. And I think to
the extent that I'm talking about the fact that there
are two lawyers on this case, if you're a lawyer
(36:41):
in New York City, I think the political pressure on
you to vote to convict is going to be off
the charts because there are very few lawyers who work
in law firms that would even represent Trump. His defense
attorney had to leave a big law firm because they
were so angry at the fact that he was willing
(37:02):
to represent Trump. This is a big issue in the
law that doesn't get a lot of attention. How woke
law firms have become is off the charts. Their diversity
quotas in terms of the warriors who represent companies. Now
you don't hear a lot of discussion about this. A
(37:24):
lot of law firms require diverse representation now and or
the clients require it. They don't require the best lawyer anymore.
They want there to be twenty percent minority, thirty five
percent female representation.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
It's crazy.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
As somebody who worked in a law firm and as
someone who employs lawyers, I don't care about anything other
than are you the best of the legal representation that
I can afford.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
It's crazy.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
J're eight Upper East Side, worked in finance, said he
reads The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and watches
CNBC and the BBC. He enjoys fly fishing, skiing, and yoga.
During jury selection, he said he had no opinions or
beliefs that would prevent him from being impartial.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
Ali, you're the yogay.
Speaker 3 (38:15):
Do you think that anybody that you work out with
in doing yoga in Manhattan other than you would be
willing to vote not guilty for Trump on a criminal trial?
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Ooh, that's a tough one, Clay. Is it hot yoga?
Does the yoga matter?
Speaker 3 (38:31):
Is you think hot yoga or is cold yoga is
more likely to be favorable than Trump? I don't think
it's looking good yoga. Like, there are a few hobbies
that I see and I say, you are not going
to be a Trump person.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
Yoga is one of them.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
And I know I'm gonna get deluge from all the
yoga people who are big Trump people. Now you're in
a substantial minority, especially if you're in New York City.
Speaker 5 (38:54):
Okay, Yeah, there's New York yoga, and then there's yoga
and other.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
Places that I wouldn't say the same.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
Yeah, like Birmingham, Alabama yoga might be different than New
York City yoga. But we're talking about New York City
yoga right now.
Speaker 8 (39:06):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
Jurre nine works in education from the Upper East Side.
She said of Trump, he was our president. Everybody knows
who he is, adding that when he was in office,
everyone was kind of talking about politics. Yeah, that's a guilty.
I mean, this is not a good jury. Jur Ten
(39:29):
businessman who lives in Murray Hill. Ali, where's murray Hill?
What does that tell us?
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Actually, that's not far from me in the East village.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Okay said he doesn't follow the news, adding, if anything,
it's the New York Times. Said he likes listening to
podcasts on behavioral psychology, adding it's my hobby. Said he
does not have a strong opinion on Trump. All right,
those are the first ten. I'm not feeling good about
any of them. I felt good yesterday a little bit,
(40:00):
not anywhere near very optimistic right now. I would love
to hear from Trump's defense attorney if he's optimistic about
any of these guys.
Speaker 2 (40:08):
Honestly or gals.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tear in
Politics with Clay Travis d.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
Buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (40:22):
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 8 (40:41):
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 try 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 true I live against the first
(41:02):
former president 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 you
(41:22):
get a jury because of the glacial pace of Monday.
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 4 (41:39):
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
(42:00):
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 contention are obviously anti Trump, Like, how
do we get is that just baked in at this point?
Speaker 8 (42:22):
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 in Manhattan too. A
thing to remember about all this is that the people
the movement progressives who vote in elections like the one
(42:48):
where Bragg was elected, that's a vanishingly small number of
the 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 federal, so we
(43:10):
were drawn from the Bronx in Westchester too, but we
had a lot of Manhattan jurors. I thought they were
good jurors. The process is supposed to lend itself to
a pretty searching examination of these jurors, so you can
make it discriminating choice about them. There's a lot of
latitude to move to remove people by choice. I have
(43:33):
a bite for cause. Rather, I haven't heard too much
complaining that they wanted people removed from cause. 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 in one big fell swoop.
But also remember, in terms of balance, even though if
(43:56):
you even if you accept as a premise that Manhattan
is cut against Trump, which it clearly is, Trump only
needs one, you know to win here. Yeah, Bragg needs twelve,
and that's a big difference when you have a case
like like Bragg has, which is a kind of a
dog's breakfast of a case.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
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 8 (44:25):
Yeah, of course, great.
Speaker 4 (44:26):
Yeah, let's get to that 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? Welcome back in Clay and Buck. All right, Andy,
let's dive right, and we're speaking to Andy McCarthy of
National Review and Fox News twenty plus years Southern District
of New York prosecutor. Andy, if they find Trump guilty,
(44:50):
what do you think happens? I mean, give us the
timeline and the possible punishments, well.
Speaker 8 (44:56):
Allowing the things of 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 convicted of one or more selonies in
(45:19):
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 a conviction.
(45:41):
This is a nonviolent crime. He's a first sender in
New York. He should not get a sentence of incarceration.
But you know, if you would ask me about Alan Weiselberg,
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 for I think second
five months stint at Rikers. So there'll be a lot
(46:03):
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. And my understanding is
the way New York appellate law works is that once
he appeals, the sentence can be you know, any sentence
(46:27):
imposed can be frozen. Until the appeal's done, and.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
The appeal would take well after the election.
Speaker 8 (46:34):
Oh yeah, be into next year for sure.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
And honestly, Andy, this is a crazy question. But given
it to 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
(46:58):
was a conviction that occurred prior to his election.
Speaker 8 (47:03):
As you say, Clay, 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 supremacy clause that any
sentence ought to be postponed until after his term is over. That,
(47:25):
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 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, but I don't know.
Speaker 4 (47:47):
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've or ludicrous speed. They've moved faster in the
j six trial than all my friends or federal defense
attorneys and federal prosecutors say.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Like ever happens.
Speaker 4 (48:03):
Could they do the sentencing much sooner than three months
after if he's found guilty?
Speaker 8 (48:09):
You know they could try. I think his lawyers could
you know, tie that up for a while. But I
don't really see the big point of doing that, Buck,
because again, the appeal would mean 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 with me beside the point, And
(48:30):
it could be scandalous if you put Trump in jail
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 3 (48:46):
Andy, you heard about the left is fired up at
me for my jury tweets and comments that I've made
on this show.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
Do you think that.
Speaker 3 (48:57):
I will be arrested for jury tampering, as Eric Swallwell
has requested, as Joy Read and CNN have requested, Well,
I would.
Speaker 8 (49:07):
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 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 I would say. But
(49:29):
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 You still.
Speaker 4 (49:43):
Have some faith in 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, the best
thing we got, I get it.
Speaker 8 (49:51):
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 enstro
in front of and geron right. And I think the
only reason for making that point is because it's more
fair to have a jury trial, And implicit in that
is that we think that, you know, twelve sensible people
(50:12):
are more likely to come to a correct result than
one movement progressive. So you know that's I'm still banking
on that.
Speaker 3 (50:18):
If 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 8 (50:32):
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 Comb, which doesn't get better over time. But the
(50:54):
other thing, just to be totally practical about it, is
Trump's dance cards going to be filled up with uh,
you know, classified information proceedings down in the Florida case
and all of the pre trial stuff in the Washington case.
The the the j sixth case is going to start
up again once the Supreme Court rules on immunity because
(51:14):
when they rule on immunity, Assuming they rule against Trump,
which I do, then the case is good. The jurisdiction
off of 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 medal.
Speaker 4 (51:26):
Well, the good news. 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 8 (51:37):
Let's let's let's pray for that outcome. I agree with that.
Speaker 2 (51:41):
Pray for it to be television shows.
Speaker 4 (51:45):
And 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
did say that, I would, I would, I would, I
would hire You might make some money off this before
all of a sudden, Yeah.
Speaker 8 (51:57):
I might come out of retirement for that.
Speaker 4 (51:58):
Casere we go, all right, everybody,
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.