April 25, 2024 • 36 mins
Anti-Semitic contagion spreads across college campuses. Who's funding these protests? Appeals court upholds $88M civil defamation verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll. Investigative reporter Julie Kelly joins Clay and Buck to discuss the SCOTUS hearing on presidential immunity, and its impact on the other Trump cases. The Bragg case could be the only chance Democrats have to get Trump.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All Right, second hour play in Buck gets going now,
and we told you give you a little update here
on the latest on the campuses. Gaza solidarity in camping
play that's what the cool kids are calling you, a
gaza solidarity in camp Who knew? Now we know that's
what they're saying. Solidarity, you know, like the Communists used
(00:28):
to talk about a lot just saying, uh, the internets,
you know, the Communist Internationale right, a lot of solidarity talk.
We have Emory University chaos at Emory Georgia police officers
taking a bunch of screaming kicking protesters into custody.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
They all start that's also amazing too, they all.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Start like shrieking on these videos when the cops are,
you know, putting them in the handcuffs or whatever, completely
freaking out. What did they think was gonna happen? I
always they act so surprised. The office is like, I'm
gonna arrest you. I'm gonna arrest you. You're not leaving,
I'm gonna arrestue. And then eventually they got arrest it
and they throw some they really throw a tantrument. They
look like a bunch of you know, four year olds
who are about to get spanked or something like. They're
(01:12):
really out of line, losing their minds on this stuff.
And Clay, We've got Columbia, Harvard, NYU, University of Southern California,
U T, Austin, UC, Berkeley, Brown, Yale. I mean that's
not exhaustive. University of Minnesota. I think all those schools, though,
have had this going on. It's remarkable what a really
(01:37):
like a contagious hysteria this is for these kids. I
think a lot of it comes from the professors too.
And what's so troubling to me are a lot of
things troubling to me the anti Semitism, the ignorance behind
all of this. But also I think it goes with
how absolutely soaked top to bottom these campuses are in
race politics yea, and how and because otherwise, why do
(02:02):
people in Minnesota or Texas, and I say, you know,
college campus kids and also professors, why do they care
so much of all the wars that have happened, Clay,
of all the violence that has gone on in this world,
let's say, over the last few years, they care so
much more about this one. Where were the solidarity protests,
(02:24):
you know, against the Russian invasion? You know what I'm saying,
I don't remember any kids screaming and crying on the
campus floors about this one. It's because they think of this,
as we've always said, and it's true, as a racial
domination issue of the Israelis over the Palestinians, a racist invasion.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Yeah, and I think this is also important to kind
of characterize. You can believe that these people have the
right to advocate for whatever position they want, but you
can simultaneously believe that you shouldn't be able to take
over quads and start to camp there. That is a
violation of property rights, that's a violation of codes relating
(03:07):
to speech at universities. So I see some people saying, oh,
I don't want to cheer on the idea that you
can't say whatever you want on campus, but you have
to do it in a way and the school should,
in my opinion, apply content neutral policies. And so an
easy way to think about think through this is what
(03:27):
would happen if the KKK decided that they wanted to
take over the quad at Columbia and they wanted to
argue that black people are subhuman and not deserving of equal.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Rights in the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Immediately Colombia would clear them off of the quad and
they would expel any student that made that argument. Similarly,
I think if you said, okay, we believe that trans
people should be sterilized to the extent that trans people
can even have kids because they're making awful decisions with
their bodies, and also that gay people shouldn't have the
(04:03):
right to get married, and you wanted to take over
Columbia or NYU's campus quad, they would immediately clear you out.
So my position on this is we need content neutral
policies that are applied, and no one should be able
to take over the central part of any university, put
up tents and reside there.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
And also this is important.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
I think a lot of these people are not students,
and I think what they're discovering when they're arresting people
is wait a minute, this is some twenty seven year
old professional protester, and I am truly intrigued with where
is the money coming for this suddenly to emerge. There
is certainly a virality associated with it where some kids
(04:46):
sees the Columbia protest and they decide, Oh, we're going
to try to do this at the University of Texas
at Austin, or we're going to try to do this
at University of Michigan and in arbor right. Like, you
can see how that would spread. There's some viral contagion element,
but also there's somebody writing the checks to allow this
to have officially gotten underway in the same way BLM did.
(05:07):
So where is sort of the puppetteer here deciding that
they want to create this sort of unrest.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
That's the kind of investigation that if the media was
about giving the public facts, you would have a team
of people at the New York Times looking into any
funding sources. It has been pointed out a lot of
tents that are the same appearing simultaneously at these events
(05:35):
seems a little suspect to me. So yeah, but they
won't do that, as we know, because they don't want
people to know if there is any funding. And usually
if someone were to ask me to guess where I
think the funding's coming from, it would come from some
NGO and you'd have to dig a little more and
you'd find, well, where's that ngo getting its money from?
A bigger NGO, and where is that getting its money from.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I don't know. The Amidis Sorrows, you know, there are a.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Couple of ones that I could guess might be funding
this NGO, but we're never gonna know because they don't
want us to know. They want to pretend that this
is just college kids, you know, standing up for truth
and justice. And to the point about they're playing a
lot of games with euphemism and a lot of games
with the language choices that they use here. As I've
(06:22):
said there, as some of them are talking about Zionists,
It's like, well, you're not just talking about Zionis. Anybody
who lives in Israel I guess they think as a Zionist.
But there's a photo up right now, it's an AP
photo worth one of these protesters in Emery with a
victory to the Palestinian resistance sign. And I would just
(06:42):
say that for anyone who tries to claim they're not
pro Hamas, Hamas is the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
There's no other form.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Of Palestinian resistance other than the terrorist entity Hamas in Gaza.
No one else is resisting the Israeli military there. They
are in fact pro Hamas and and are rooting for Hamas,
many of them, whether they recognize it in those terms
or not, they are They are the useful idiots of
a Jihattish terror entity that would and does and is
(07:13):
open about how it seeks the destruction of the Israeli
state and the murder of all Israeli men, women and
children if they could achieve it. And they think these
are people, that's who they want to go and cry
literally cry about on the quadrangle. That's who they're shrieking
and screaming about. These are their great heroes.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yeah, and I don't know.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
I think many of these universities we talked about this
a little bit earlier in the week, are hoping that
with the end of the semester, the spring semester and graduation,
maybe this will die down. And it is funny, as
you pointed out, that they did waited until weather's good
enough in many parts of the country to actually be
able to camp. They care desperately about this issue, but
(07:56):
not desperately enough to actually get cold. So now the
weather's good, how does it end and does this linger?
I think this one hundred percent is going to be
a major issue for Joe Biden in Chicago in the
Democrat convention in August. I think these crazy people are
going to show up. I think they're going to protest.
(08:17):
I think that they are going to make it almost
impossible not to be covering the external noise that is
surrounding Democrats in August. And will they be back on
campus because the weather's still good in August and September
leading into the election for twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
I think the Israeli again a hand down.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
They're going to finish their operation in Rafa and before
any of that happens, and so then it would just
be they're protesting what has happened, and that doesn't you know,
had previously occurred. I don't see that being enough for them.
So I think the Democrats may get a bit of
a pass by the time.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
So here's the other question on that.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
You could be right, what happens if Iran or any
other Middle State act, Middle East actor, whether it's Hamas,
whether it's the Hutis, whoever it is, decide that they
want to have an October terror attack against Israel. Now
it could happen in the United States and that would
certainly be an awful October surprise here. But it feels
to me very much like the Biden administration and whether
(09:19):
this becomes an issue is in many ways out of
their hands because they could dictate, to a large degree
potentially what the response is going to be.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
And I think the same thing.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I don't want, you know, they don't want to go
up against Trump. They'd much rather have four more years
of Biden. Look at how he's trying to play both.
Trump wouldn't be sitting here like you know, Hamas Palestinians,
beautiful love the Resistance, like he would be slamming this
stuff if he were president, right, he wouldn't play them.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
If you're if you're Middle Eastern terror actors, you wait
and withhold your terror attacks till after the November election.
And then if if you were anyone, and I truly
mean this, if you are any actor on the world stage,
terror group, opposition state like China, Russia, anybody, you would
rather have Joe Biden for four more years than Donald
(10:10):
Trump as president because you can run circles around.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
I think that's true. He's weak, he's feckless.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
That would be rational terror leadership to say, hey, we
don't want to do anything that could help Trump in
some ways. If they're rational actors, that would be a
rat I think. I think on issues like that they
are rational actors. And why haven't they Why aren't they
firing more and more missiles play that they could have
done something I think far more devastating even than what
they did with firing at Israel. Now there was an
(10:37):
impressive response. I'm talking about the Iranians down impressive response
to shoot down all those drones and rockets in the air.
But I mean the Iranians have cells. They have hesbals
cells all over the world.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I mean they could conduct a terror attack at any
moment in time. The reason they don't do this all
the time is because they're constantly calculating commy is thinking
about and can I just the Trump Remember the question
Trump can kieling Sulimani was, in foreign policy terms, for
Iran the ultimate brushback pitch because free and I remember this.
(11:09):
I remember in my years at the CIA, being in
the conference room hearing about what's going on in Iraq
and always knowing that at the White House there was
this concern, oh, we can't do too much even though
Iranian militias or Iranian backed militias. Iraqis with Iranian training and
money and weapons are killing Americans. We can't get too Oh,
we can't kill too many of them, but we can't
(11:29):
go across the border.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
We're scared of Iran.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Trump was like, you know what, if you're the guy
doing it, we're going to take you out. That was
a huge change. Sorry you have a question, but that
was a huge change when he killed Sulimani. I'm gonna
leave a tease here because I'm curious what your response
is on this. We just gave sixty billion more dollars
to Ukraine and now they're trying to desperately hold on
to the line and avoid collapse. And there's now reports
(11:53):
out there that Ukraine's issue is not necessarily armament, it's
just that they don't have enough men men. Yeah, what
happens in Ukraine between now an election day?
Speaker 4 (12:04):
Because you got war in the Middle East? You think
that'll be resolved in some way? What about Ukraine? What
if Russia breaks through the lines? How does that play?
And or is there basically an agreed stalemate there with
the understanding that if Trump wins, they're just going to
have a negotiated settlement and Russia is going to take
(12:24):
whatever percentage of the land they have.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Will tell you what I am confident will happen with
Ukraine and Russia between now and the election and thereafter.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
We'll talk about that when we come back. And just
a reminder, Julie Kelly joining us at the bottom of
the hour to talk about one of the most significant
Supreme Court cases that we have heard for sure in
the twenty first century. What will the result be? What
does she think is likely based on how the questioning
at the oral arguments went today as it pertains to
presidential powers. Number one fantasy sports app in America right now,
(12:58):
Prize Picks easiest, most exciting way to play daily fantasy sports,
and if you haven't.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Downloaded it yet, do it.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Unlike other apps, on Prize Picks, you against the number players,
not the teams. Look for the sports you know best.
NHL playoffs underway, NBA playoffs underway, Major League Baseball. Pretty
much every single night, just pick more or less on
any individual players on your favorite team. Every time you
play two to six players. You can win up to
(13:26):
one hundred times your money on Prize Picks with as
little as four picks. More player action, MLB, NBA, and
NHL all in action every night. As I just mentioned
right now, thirty states, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, California. You can
get hooked up right now. You can play all over
the country. Best way to get action download the prize
(13:47):
Picks app, open your account. Use my name right now, Clay,
that's Clay. You get up to one hundred dollars first deposit.
Match that as you put in one hundred dollars, they'll
give you one hundred dollars. They'll double your money if
you go to this website right now, prizepicks dot com
and use my name Clay, pick more.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
Pick less. It's that easy. Prizepicks dot Com. My name Clay.
From the front lines of freedom and Truth, Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Welcome back in Clay Travis, Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. While Trump may get
good news and we'll talk about this with Julie Kelly
here in a moment based on the Supreme Court oral
arguments that took place in the last couple of hours
relating to presidential powers.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
There is a negative news. Buck.
Speaker 4 (14:39):
You were just grabbing the Egene Carol appeal. I believe
it's what eighty eight million dollars total in damages that
she got on that case again that they tossed out
the statute of limitations on This is a civil verdict
where a jury determined that there was no rape, but
(14:59):
there was sexual assault, and then a subsequent case alleging
defamation based on that, which I still think is nonsensical
when you actually apply to law here. But the first
level of appeal in the in the New York case
has said this can stand basically buck is which has
(15:20):
come down, and so that verdict of that that was
eighty eight million dollars is still standing.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
An eighty eight.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Million dollars defamation verdict is insane. Hey, sometimes I think
you just have to take a step back from this.
I mean, why not a billion dollars? Why not a
trillion dollars? I mean eighty eight million dollars? And in
what way how could they even begin to calculate that
that figure other than just malice against Trump. It's just they,
(15:49):
the judge and the and the and the jury that
heard this civil case despises Donald Trump and they want to,
if not bankrupt him, substantially by the way, Truth Social
unfortunately not worth what it was when they started.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
So to be fair, truth Social is actually bounced back.
It's almost back to forty dollars a share. I would
not touch truth Social because to the same way, it's
people behaving to a large extent in an irrational fashion
that if you hate Trump, they're trying to short sell it.
If you love Trump, you're willing to buy it. But
it's down fifty I mean, isn't it down fifty percent?
(16:24):
It got all the way to eighty. Yeah, but it
was if you bought it, like it's basically the same
price that it was in January. So the stock went
up to eighty, it came back down to like twenty five.
Now it's back up to almost forty. I would not
touch truth Social stock personally because it is a roller
coaster and people are just betting on it based on politics.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
But he's still got a couple of billion dollars there.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
In theory, there's yeah, well if the stock maintains, If
the stock collapses, then he won't be able to get
the money out of it that he that he would
need to pay, or that he is going to be
able to pay these judgments with So that's a part
of it too. But Clay, just I've just scanned again,
we're scanning these decisions.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Is an eighteen page decision as fast as possible.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
All these different things that you would say, yeah, that
seems reasonable, eighty eight million dollars is crazy, and the
judge to jury instructions seem one sided, and the judge
is just like, nope, denied, shot down eighty eight million dollars.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
You owe her, go for it.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
The part that doesn't make any sense to me is
how are you guilty of defamation if you say I
didn't rape someone.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
I don't know about you.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
But like the jury didn't determine that that he raped
her first of all in the first case, but also otherwise,
you're forced to admit that you committed a crime which
is not true under the criminal context. Right sore legal
for you in any crime against a person. It would
therefore be illegal for you to maintain your innocence after
the fact after a jury verdict, and you could be
(18:00):
bankrupted because you say you're still innocent. That's right a bit.
That's the essence of why this case makes no sense
to me. My Pillows twenty five dollars extravaganza sale continues.
First time My Pillow has put that twenty five dollars
price tag on dozens of their best selling items. If
you've been waiting to buy one or more of My
Pillow products, now's the time. Find the new line of
(18:21):
My Pillows made with Giza Cotton or Summer Sandals, both
now just twenty five bucks a pair. So are the
Giza Dream Sheets. Also the sheets out there. They're amazing
sets of towels, so many other items all twenty five bucks.
They can provide pricing this low because they've eliminated the
middleman retailer and are passing the savings direct onto. You
(18:43):
find your way tompillow dot com. Use our names Clay
and Buck as the promo code. That's MyPillow dot com
Radio listener special square free shipping on orders over seventy
five bucks.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
Use the promo code Clay and Buck. All right, welcome
back in our guest.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
You all know her, Juliet Kelly with us Now check
out declassified. You could subscribe to that on sub stack.
That is Julie's publication there. It is excellent. I read it,
Clay reads it.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Julie.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Thanks for being here with us. I wanted to just
jump into this. A lot of legal action going on today.
Big Supreme Court case heard going right to the heart
of presidential immunity, the j six case against Trump. Here
is the headline from the New York Times. Wanted to
have your reaction to it. After hearing oral arguments this morning,
conservative majority seems ready to limit election case against Trump. Julie,
(19:37):
I feel like I'm surprised that I'm gonna have to
say this, but from the New York Times lips to
Trump's year, I mean, sorry to God's here's what do
you think?
Speaker 5 (19:47):
Well, I think that they are probably right. And here's why.
Because the big debate centered around official acts as president
versus personal or even private acts. And there was a
lot of discussion back and forth as to what represents
an official act what doesn't, and of course that creates
(20:08):
a whole slippery slope which several of the justices, at
least Kavanagh or Sacilido had indicated serious concerns about you
know who then becomes the referee as to what's official
or a core function versus political, personal, private. And so
going back to the indictment, and I really need to
underscore this claim book, we're talking about four counts. Okay,
(20:33):
they talked a lot about murder, They talked about bribery,
about initiating a coup, killing people. That is not what
this indictment is about. It's really important for people to
be reminded. We're talking about four of the most vague
statutes on the books, two of which we talked about
last week in the Supreme Court addressed fifteen twelve C
(20:55):
two obstruction of an official proceeding extremely vague, and then
two very vague conspiracy statutes. So these are not clear
cut laws crimes, murder, bribery, drug trafficking, the things that
we would expect a president to face criminal prosecutions for.
So in the indictment, there are certainly elements that are
(21:18):
completely within the president's purview, such as replacing and acting
attorney general with somebody else, which is what he considered
replacing Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark. There are other things
that fall under official acts. Things get a little murkier
an even John Sower, who is representing Donald Trump, admitted that, okay,
(21:39):
using private attorneys calling up political parties or officials to
conceive or encourage them to come up with alternative states
of electors that might fall under personal slash politicals. So
I think that that's what the New York Times and
others are hinting at, is that the indictment itself could
(22:00):
have to be narrowed down determining whether it's Jack Smithard.
This gets kicked back to Judge Chuckkin, Tommy Chuckkin, who
was the one who originated the Order to nine immunity,
and then she has to figure out official versus personal holds,
some sort of evidentiary hearing to determine what falls under official,
what falls under personal or private.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
My biggest takeaway for the particulars of the timing here, Julie,
is that there's virtually no chance now that any case
other than the case that is currently proceeding in New
York City is going to be decided before November fifth.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
That is a jury.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Ruling based on the arguments today, And there are a
lot more issues at scope than just Trump. And we'll
maybe get to that with you in a sec but
would you agree with me that it's Alvin Bragg? And
then it's to the voters in terms of law fair
and what's going to be complete.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
I do.
Speaker 5 (22:58):
I mean, we still obviously have the Southern Florida case
prodding along, but and there is a slim possibility that
could go to trial before the election. But look, Clay
to your question. If the Supreme Court kicks this back
to the District Court to Judge chuck Kins and says
you need to hold these hearings to figure out what
(23:20):
falls wear they also have some choice words for the
Circuit Court. I don't know if you guys caught that.
Chief Justice John Roberts not pleased with that three judge
panel's decision, calling it tautological, you know, basically circular reasoning
that they use to uphold Judge Chuckkins ruling. So if
they kick that back play, let's say they do wait
(23:42):
until the end of June or even the end of May.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Sorry to cut you off.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
By the way, I wouldn't be stunned if they put
this ruling come out on July third, the day before
the July fourth holiday, just to kind of bury it
into that. Just to sorry to cut you off. I
was looking at the calendar. That's kind of the life
last case they're basically hearing. That could be a possibility
if they wanted to hold it as long as possible.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
True that the end of their term is June. But
to your point, Clay, they can issue orders, I believe
after that. So let's see that they do. Kicks back
to chuck Kin. You know, after fourth of July week
is over, and she immediately orders we're going to hold
an evidentiary hearing two three weeks after that, you have
to file your emotions response, et cetera. You know, they
(24:28):
really start to run out of time. But I'm going
to posit something even more terrifying than what we've talked
about is going to trial in j six before the election.
Is putting Donald Trump on trial after the election. Just
imagine for a moment that they have the evidentiary hearings,
chuck Kin decides, Okay, this part of the indictment, these
(24:50):
xs are official, these aren't. It gets you know, runs,
it runs the gamut, and then they toss it back. Okay,
this is settled. He can go on trial for private
personal Then here are the ones that we determined. Then
can you go to trial the end of November December,
early January. Even if Trump went, especially if he wins,
(25:12):
that's another nightmare scenario that could be created by but.
Speaker 4 (25:17):
He would be able to pardon himself then in that
case if he won, even if he potentially got convicted,
You're right, I mean, this is this is honestly, and
I don't know why we still do this. I don't
know why we have such a long period what you're
hitting at, Julie, November fifth until January I'm not sure
(25:37):
twentieth or whatever the date is when the officials. Yeah,
I mean, that's a long time for a defeated president
to remain in office. Historically it used to not be
told March, but that was because you had to travel
long distances. It's also time, you know, they have a
transition that they're trying to prepare for, and you know,
I think it's meant to ease the situation, and they
didn't prepare for four now going on, really five criminal
(26:00):
indictments against one.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Of the fan has to be apartment.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
I mean, I think that like kind of a bayance area,
there is is kind of a message juliually can.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Ask you about. You know, this is another one of
these things. It's kind of buried today. This is a
big deal on any other day. But the Supreme Court
arguments about whether the president could order a coup and
effectively undo the constitutional order or not et cetera. Are
are pretty interesting, but eleven of the electors have been
indicted in Arizona. The Arizona AG put out a video
(26:32):
today Chris mays, what do you make of this? Like,
they didn't indict Trump, they indicted Mark Meadows, and you
know it's it seems to be somewhat in parallel to
or somewhat similar to the Georgia case, at least in
terms of some of the conduct.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
What do you make of all this?
Speaker 5 (26:50):
I mean, look, I treated this last night, and I
hate to say it. You have to envy how democrats
understand how to coordinate, conspire and leverage their political power.
Here's a guy who probably really didn't or woman who
really probably didn't even really win the Arizona Attorney General's race,
but it doesn't matter, because as soon as they take office,
(27:11):
they leverage and weaponize their power against their political foes.
I haven't had a time to go through the whole indictment,
just getting ready for today, but you know, this is Georgia,
this is Michigan. This is all to bolster the idea.
But even though Trump is unindicted co conspirator. It is
to bolster what's happening here in this JA sixth federal case.
(27:35):
And it's also a signal. And we heard a little
bit about this today Emmy Coneybert really is disappointing. But
to continue to raise the idea that asking for or
having others create alternative electoral certificates is a crime, which
it hasn't. The National Archive is told Congress we get
(27:58):
fake electoral or MANUFAC exture made up alternative electoral certificates
every presidential election. This is not new. So to criminalize
it is also to warn people if you protest in
any way the twenty twenty four election, whatever happens, whatever
stunts you want to pull, whatever you want to do
(28:20):
to demonstrate against let's say Joe Biden gets re elected,
we are going to use our law fair against you,
and there's nothing to stop them. So this is really
to i think, add more optics ulster the political and
public view that there's something really criminal about concocting or
pretending that you're sending in an alternative electoral certificate. Just ridiculous.
(28:46):
But so again, such dangerous dissent where we are headed
using this law fair, not just federally, but state power too.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Julie, last question for you. You mentioned South Florida. You've
been covering that Judge Eileen Cannon has allowed a large
amount of previously censored materials to be allowed to be
displayed publicly. What should we know that is significant about
what that has uncovered?
Speaker 5 (29:16):
We should know And I want to give kudos again
to Judge Cannon. I know we've talked a lot about her,
but it reveals, and this is why Jack Smith wanted
all of this concealed. It reveals Joe Biden's White House,
including some of his top attorneys in his General Counsel's office,
working collaboratively with the DATE, DOJ and Archives to manufacture
(29:37):
a records slash documents case against Donald Trump. This completely
flies in the face of what Smith Jacksmith has alleged
in his indictment there, but also what we've been told
that Joe Biden and his White House is completely hands
off from this prosecution, so they were deeply involved, same players,
dj FBI, the Archives, the intelligence community. This is like
(30:02):
getting the Russia Gate by the gate bound back together.
So kudos to her. There's going to be more on
feelings today. I will be posting later. Juli underscore Kelly two,
which is the grand jury transcript of that up while
team not a Trump's close personal aid also who has
been charged in that case as.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Well, Julie Grand Jury.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
We should mention, by the way, buck that took place
in Washington, d C. Before they then flipped the proceeding
all the way down to South Florida, So the judge
Cannon wasn't in charge of this.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Julie Kelly Substack. You can all subscribe Julie real quick
before I let you go. I know Clay said last question,
but I'm throwing in a last question because I'm really curious.
What do you think the biggest legal risk for Trump
is now? Of all of the cases and scenarios.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
I mean, right now, I have to think what's happening
in New York.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Unfortunately, I thought you might say that because Clay and
I were just talking about that. This actual I think
what we see happening puts more pressure on them to
get even crazier in New York City where they just
have full control and there's really no oversight. Go check out,
Julie Substack. Everybody declassified. Julie always appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
Thanks, guys, have good days.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Look, despite everything the Fed has been trying, we are
still feeling the effects of inflation. Whether you're filling up
your car, grocery shopping, making home repairs, everything is more
expensive and most of the time we use a credit
card to pay these bills. Credit card debt is at
an all time high. If you're a homeowner, there's a
way out. Call our friends at American Financing. They can
put together a plan to pay off that high interest
(31:37):
credit card debt and create meaningful savings for you.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Every month.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
They're saving people just like you an average of eight
hundred and fifty four dollars a month and closing in
as fast as ten days. Call their salary based mortgage consultants.
Today costs nothing to get started, and if you start today,
you couldn't delay two mortgage payments, giving you greater savings upfront.
Dial American Finance Dancing at eight hundred seven seven seven
(32:01):
eight one zero nine. That's eight hundred seven seven seven
eight one zero nine, or visit American Financing dot net.
That's American Financing dot net. NMLS one eight two three
three four Animals Consumer Access dot Org.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Need a break from follozis a little comedy to counter
the craziness. So do we The Sunday Hang, a weekend
podcast to lighten things up a bit. Fight it in
the Clay and Buck podcast feed on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (32:30):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton show. You know
that I like to look in Julie's phenomenal. I'd encourage
all of you to go follow everything that Julie Kelly's
been saying. She has been in terms of analysis and
trying to look in the direction that we are going
better than almost anybody out there. Everybody was ridiculing the
(32:51):
idea that the Supreme Court was going to take up
this obstruction case as to whether or not it could
be applied from a business perspective passed for sar Urbain's
ox League being used on jan six cases. She was right,
they're going to strike it down. I think she's right
that there is only going to be now one case
completed before we get to November, which makes me wonder
(33:16):
Buck and I do think that everybody needs to prepare
for this as the realization starts to set in that
all of this legal wrangling.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
They thought, we're.
Speaker 4 (33:30):
Gonna have Donald Trump in court March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November,
all the way up to election day.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
We're gonna hit him with federal charges.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
There's gonna be major convictions, and Joe Biden's going to
ride into the sunset and win. Now, they're probably not
gonna get Trump in court at all. I don't think
in terms of daily until I mean, let's say this
case ends buck mid June. Something like that may end
up sooner than that. They may or may not get
(34:02):
a conviction. But I think what you're going to see
as a result is, and we've been hitting at this,
but I think you need to prepare for it. They're
going to dial up the crazy in terms of the
punishment that they're going to try to get on Trump
as they become aware, h oh, this is the only
bite at the apple we're going to get.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
They are, they would be doing so much. I agree
with that assessment. You and I talked about it, you
brought it up. I agree. Julie comes on. She says
it without knowing that we had just agreed on this one,
which makes me feel like this is what the trend
certainly is right now, or this is where the momentum is.
New York, which was the first one to go, the
(34:40):
easiest for them to bring in terms of they were
basically guaranteed full control over the process because of the
jurisdiction and because of the far left progressive prosecutor Alvin Bragg,
who is calling the shots there. But the damage that
they will do to any faith that we could have
(35:02):
in our legal system if they're able to use New
York as this weapon. The charges in New York are
a joke, an unfunny joke, but they're preposterous. I wouldn't
put anyone in prison, nor convict anyone, any human being.
If Alvin Bragg himself we're sitting there charged with doing
(35:22):
what Trump is doing, and I were on that jury,
I would not convict it.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
It's wrong.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
It's wrong what they are doing. The charges are wrong.
The stacking them the way they've done it is wrong.
The delaying it's so that it comes in the election
year is wrong, clay top to bottom, inexcusable. And now
it's looking more and more like that's their great hope
to defeat Donald Trump. That's how they're gonna get four
(35:50):
more years for Joe Biden the business records charge in
New York.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
We're gonna play some audio from this Supreme Court case
that we've got for you, and we come back. I
also want to point out, and I know I'm the optimist,
they are gambling odds today. There are gambling odds that
make me very nervous. If you right now want to
bet on who will win Wisconsin, who will win Michigan,
who will win Pennsylvania. Right now they've got Biden favored,
(36:23):
which is why I need some caffeine and I need
to hit Crocket Coffee if America, Yes, if you love America,
you need to go to Crocket Coffee dot com. Feedback
has been amazing. We want you to sign up for
subscriptions and roll with us. Start off your morning and
maybe your lunch break with us with Crocketcoffee dot Com. Seriously,
(36:44):
go check it out. It's fantastic. We're adding a new
light roast soon as well, because so many of you
have been asking for it
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
All Right, second hour play in Buck gets going now,
and we told you give you a little update here
on the latest on the campuses. Gaza solidarity in camping
play that's what the cool kids are calling you, a
gaza solidarity in camp Who knew? Now we know that's
what they're saying. Solidarity, you know, like the Communists used
(00:28):
to talk about a lot just saying, uh, the internets,
you know, the Communist Internationale right, a lot of solidarity talk.
We have Emory University chaos at Emory Georgia police officers
taking a bunch of screaming kicking protesters into custody.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
They all start that's also amazing too, they all.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Start like shrieking on these videos when the cops are,
you know, putting them in the handcuffs or whatever, completely
freaking out. What did they think was gonna happen? I
always they act so surprised. The office is like, I'm
gonna arrest you. I'm gonna arrest you. You're not leaving,
I'm gonna arrestue. And then eventually they got arrest it
and they throw some they really throw a tantrument. They
look like a bunch of you know, four year olds
who are about to get spanked or something like. They're
(01:12):
really out of line, losing their minds on this stuff.
And Clay, We've got Columbia, Harvard, NYU, University of Southern California,
U T, Austin, UC, Berkeley, Brown, Yale. I mean that's
not exhaustive. University of Minnesota. I think all those schools, though,
have had this going on. It's remarkable what a really
(01:37):
like a contagious hysteria this is for these kids. I
think a lot of it comes from the professors too.
And what's so troubling to me are a lot of
things troubling to me the anti Semitism, the ignorance behind
all of this. But also I think it goes with
how absolutely soaked top to bottom these campuses are in
race politics yea, and how and because otherwise, why do
(02:02):
people in Minnesota or Texas, and I say, you know,
college campus kids and also professors, why do they care
so much of all the wars that have happened, Clay,
of all the violence that has gone on in this world,
let's say, over the last few years, they care so
much more about this one. Where were the solidarity protests,
(02:24):
you know, against the Russian invasion? You know what I'm saying,
I don't remember any kids screaming and crying on the
campus floors about this one. It's because they think of this,
as we've always said, and it's true, as a racial
domination issue of the Israelis over the Palestinians, a racist invasion.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Yeah, and I think this is also important to kind
of characterize. You can believe that these people have the
right to advocate for whatever position they want, but you
can simultaneously believe that you shouldn't be able to take
over quads and start to camp there. That is a
violation of property rights, that's a violation of codes relating
(03:07):
to speech at universities. So I see some people saying, oh,
I don't want to cheer on the idea that you
can't say whatever you want on campus, but you have
to do it in a way and the school should,
in my opinion, apply content neutral policies. And so an
easy way to think about think through this is what
(03:27):
would happen if the KKK decided that they wanted to
take over the quad at Columbia and they wanted to
argue that black people are subhuman and not deserving of equal.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Rights in the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Immediately Colombia would clear them off of the quad and
they would expel any student that made that argument. Similarly,
I think if you said, okay, we believe that trans
people should be sterilized to the extent that trans people
can even have kids because they're making awful decisions with
their bodies, and also that gay people shouldn't have the
(04:03):
right to get married, and you wanted to take over
Columbia or NYU's campus quad, they would immediately clear you out.
So my position on this is we need content neutral
policies that are applied, and no one should be able
to take over the central part of any university, put
up tents and reside there.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
And also this is important.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
I think a lot of these people are not students,
and I think what they're discovering when they're arresting people
is wait a minute, this is some twenty seven year
old professional protester, and I am truly intrigued with where
is the money coming for this suddenly to emerge. There
is certainly a virality associated with it where some kids
(04:46):
sees the Columbia protest and they decide, Oh, we're going
to try to do this at the University of Texas
at Austin, or we're going to try to do this
at University of Michigan and in arbor right. Like, you
can see how that would spread. There's some viral contagion element,
but also there's somebody writing the checks to allow this
to have officially gotten underway in the same way BLM did.
(05:07):
So where is sort of the puppetteer here deciding that
they want to create this sort of unrest.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
That's the kind of investigation that if the media was
about giving the public facts, you would have a team
of people at the New York Times looking into any
funding sources. It has been pointed out a lot of
tents that are the same appearing simultaneously at these events
(05:35):
seems a little suspect to me. So yeah, but they
won't do that, as we know, because they don't want
people to know if there is any funding. And usually
if someone were to ask me to guess where I
think the funding's coming from, it would come from some
NGO and you'd have to dig a little more and
you'd find, well, where's that ngo getting its money from?
A bigger NGO, and where is that getting its money from.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I don't know. The Amidis Sorrows, you know, there are a.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Couple of ones that I could guess might be funding
this NGO, but we're never gonna know because they don't
want us to know. They want to pretend that this
is just college kids, you know, standing up for truth
and justice. And to the point about they're playing a
lot of games with euphemism and a lot of games
with the language choices that they use here. As I've
(06:22):
said there, as some of them are talking about Zionists,
It's like, well, you're not just talking about Zionis. Anybody
who lives in Israel I guess they think as a Zionist.
But there's a photo up right now, it's an AP
photo worth one of these protesters in Emery with a
victory to the Palestinian resistance sign. And I would just
(06:42):
say that for anyone who tries to claim they're not
pro Hamas, Hamas is the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
There's no other form.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Of Palestinian resistance other than the terrorist entity Hamas in Gaza.
No one else is resisting the Israeli military there. They
are in fact pro Hamas and and are rooting for Hamas,
many of them, whether they recognize it in those terms
or not, they are They are the useful idiots of
a Jihattish terror entity that would and does and is
(07:13):
open about how it seeks the destruction of the Israeli
state and the murder of all Israeli men, women and
children if they could achieve it. And they think these
are people, that's who they want to go and cry
literally cry about on the quadrangle. That's who they're shrieking
and screaming about. These are their great heroes.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yeah, and I don't know.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
I think many of these universities we talked about this
a little bit earlier in the week, are hoping that
with the end of the semester, the spring semester and graduation,
maybe this will die down. And it is funny, as
you pointed out, that they did waited until weather's good
enough in many parts of the country to actually be
able to camp. They care desperately about this issue, but
(07:56):
not desperately enough to actually get cold. So now the
weather's good, how does it end and does this linger?
I think this one hundred percent is going to be
a major issue for Joe Biden in Chicago in the
Democrat convention in August. I think these crazy people are
going to show up. I think they're going to protest.
(08:17):
I think that they are going to make it almost
impossible not to be covering the external noise that is
surrounding Democrats in August. And will they be back on
campus because the weather's still good in August and September
leading into the election for twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
I think the Israeli again a hand down.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
They're going to finish their operation in Rafa and before
any of that happens, and so then it would just
be they're protesting what has happened, and that doesn't you know,
had previously occurred. I don't see that being enough for them.
So I think the Democrats may get a bit of
a pass by the time.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
So here's the other question on that.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
You could be right, what happens if Iran or any
other Middle State act, Middle East actor, whether it's Hamas,
whether it's the Hutis, whoever it is, decide that they
want to have an October terror attack against Israel. Now
it could happen in the United States and that would
certainly be an awful October surprise here. But it feels
to me very much like the Biden administration and whether
(09:19):
this becomes an issue is in many ways out of
their hands because they could dictate, to a large degree
potentially what the response is going to be.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
And I think the same thing.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I don't want, you know, they don't want to go
up against Trump. They'd much rather have four more years
of Biden. Look at how he's trying to play both.
Trump wouldn't be sitting here like you know, Hamas Palestinians,
beautiful love the Resistance, like he would be slamming this
stuff if he were president, right, he wouldn't play them.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
If you're if you're Middle Eastern terror actors, you wait
and withhold your terror attacks till after the November election.
And then if if you were anyone, and I truly
mean this, if you are any actor on the world stage,
terror group, opposition state like China, Russia, anybody, you would
rather have Joe Biden for four more years than Donald
(10:10):
Trump as president because you can run circles around.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
I think that's true. He's weak, he's feckless.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
That would be rational terror leadership to say, hey, we
don't want to do anything that could help Trump in
some ways. If they're rational actors, that would be a
rat I think. I think on issues like that they
are rational actors. And why haven't they Why aren't they
firing more and more missiles play that they could have
done something I think far more devastating even than what
they did with firing at Israel. Now there was an
(10:37):
impressive response. I'm talking about the Iranians down impressive response
to shoot down all those drones and rockets in the air.
But I mean the Iranians have cells. They have hesbals
cells all over the world.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I mean they could conduct a terror attack at any
moment in time. The reason they don't do this all
the time is because they're constantly calculating commy is thinking
about and can I just the Trump Remember the question
Trump can kieling Sulimani was, in foreign policy terms, for
Iran the ultimate brushback pitch because free and I remember this.
(11:09):
I remember in my years at the CIA, being in
the conference room hearing about what's going on in Iraq
and always knowing that at the White House there was
this concern, oh, we can't do too much even though
Iranian militias or Iranian backed militias. Iraqis with Iranian training and
money and weapons are killing Americans. We can't get too Oh,
we can't kill too many of them, but we can't
(11:29):
go across the border.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
We're scared of Iran.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Trump was like, you know what, if you're the guy
doing it, we're going to take you out. That was
a huge change. Sorry you have a question, but that
was a huge change when he killed Sulimani. I'm gonna
leave a tease here because I'm curious what your response
is on this. We just gave sixty billion more dollars
to Ukraine and now they're trying to desperately hold on
to the line and avoid collapse. And there's now reports
(11:53):
out there that Ukraine's issue is not necessarily armament, it's
just that they don't have enough men men. Yeah, what
happens in Ukraine between now an election day?
Speaker 4 (12:04):
Because you got war in the Middle East? You think
that'll be resolved in some way? What about Ukraine? What
if Russia breaks through the lines? How does that play?
And or is there basically an agreed stalemate there with
the understanding that if Trump wins, they're just going to
have a negotiated settlement and Russia is going to take
(12:24):
whatever percentage of the land they have.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Will tell you what I am confident will happen with
Ukraine and Russia between now and the election and thereafter.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
We'll talk about that when we come back. And just
a reminder, Julie Kelly joining us at the bottom of
the hour to talk about one of the most significant
Supreme Court cases that we have heard for sure in
the twenty first century. What will the result be? What
does she think is likely based on how the questioning
at the oral arguments went today as it pertains to
presidential powers. Number one fantasy sports app in America right now,
(12:58):
Prize Picks easiest, most exciting way to play daily fantasy sports,
and if you haven't.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Downloaded it yet, do it.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Unlike other apps, on Prize Picks, you against the number players,
not the teams. Look for the sports you know best.
NHL playoffs underway, NBA playoffs underway, Major League Baseball. Pretty
much every single night, just pick more or less on
any individual players on your favorite team. Every time you
play two to six players. You can win up to
(13:26):
one hundred times your money on Prize Picks with as
little as four picks. More player action, MLB, NBA, and
NHL all in action every night. As I just mentioned
right now, thirty states, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, California. You can
get hooked up right now. You can play all over
the country. Best way to get action download the prize
(13:47):
Picks app, open your account. Use my name right now, Clay,
that's Clay. You get up to one hundred dollars first deposit.
Match that as you put in one hundred dollars, they'll
give you one hundred dollars. They'll double your money if
you go to this website right now, prizepicks dot com
and use my name Clay, pick more.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
Pick less. It's that easy. Prizepicks dot Com. My name Clay.
From the front lines of freedom and Truth, Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Welcome back in Clay Travis, Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. While Trump may get
good news and we'll talk about this with Julie Kelly
here in a moment based on the Supreme Court oral
arguments that took place in the last couple of hours
relating to presidential powers.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
There is a negative news. Buck.
Speaker 4 (14:39):
You were just grabbing the Egene Carol appeal. I believe
it's what eighty eight million dollars total in damages that
she got on that case again that they tossed out
the statute of limitations on This is a civil verdict
where a jury determined that there was no rape, but
(14:59):
there was sexual assault, and then a subsequent case alleging
defamation based on that, which I still think is nonsensical
when you actually apply to law here. But the first
level of appeal in the in the New York case
has said this can stand basically buck is which has
(15:20):
come down, and so that verdict of that that was
eighty eight million dollars is still standing.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
An eighty eight.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Million dollars defamation verdict is insane. Hey, sometimes I think
you just have to take a step back from this.
I mean, why not a billion dollars? Why not a
trillion dollars? I mean eighty eight million dollars? And in
what way how could they even begin to calculate that
that figure other than just malice against Trump. It's just they,
(15:49):
the judge and the and the and the jury that
heard this civil case despises Donald Trump and they want to,
if not bankrupt him, substantially by the way, Truth Social
unfortunately not worth what it was when they started.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
So to be fair, truth Social is actually bounced back.
It's almost back to forty dollars a share. I would
not touch truth Social because to the same way, it's
people behaving to a large extent in an irrational fashion
that if you hate Trump, they're trying to short sell it.
If you love Trump, you're willing to buy it. But
it's down fifty I mean, isn't it down fifty percent?
(16:24):
It got all the way to eighty. Yeah, but it
was if you bought it, like it's basically the same
price that it was in January. So the stock went
up to eighty, it came back down to like twenty five.
Now it's back up to almost forty. I would not
touch truth Social stock personally because it is a roller
coaster and people are just betting on it based on politics.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
But he's still got a couple of billion dollars there.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
In theory, there's yeah, well if the stock maintains, If
the stock collapses, then he won't be able to get
the money out of it that he that he would
need to pay, or that he is going to be
able to pay these judgments with So that's a part
of it too. But Clay, just I've just scanned again,
we're scanning these decisions.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Is an eighteen page decision as fast as possible.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
All these different things that you would say, yeah, that
seems reasonable, eighty eight million dollars is crazy, and the
judge to jury instructions seem one sided, and the judge
is just like, nope, denied, shot down eighty eight million dollars.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
You owe her, go for it.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
The part that doesn't make any sense to me is
how are you guilty of defamation if you say I
didn't rape someone.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
I don't know about you.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
But like the jury didn't determine that that he raped
her first of all in the first case, but also otherwise,
you're forced to admit that you committed a crime which
is not true under the criminal context. Right sore legal
for you in any crime against a person. It would
therefore be illegal for you to maintain your innocence after
the fact after a jury verdict, and you could be
(18:00):
bankrupted because you say you're still innocent. That's right a bit.
That's the essence of why this case makes no sense
to me. My Pillows twenty five dollars extravaganza sale continues.
First time My Pillow has put that twenty five dollars
price tag on dozens of their best selling items. If
you've been waiting to buy one or more of My
Pillow products, now's the time. Find the new line of
(18:21):
My Pillows made with Giza Cotton or Summer Sandals, both
now just twenty five bucks a pair. So are the
Giza Dream Sheets. Also the sheets out there. They're amazing
sets of towels, so many other items all twenty five bucks.
They can provide pricing this low because they've eliminated the
middleman retailer and are passing the savings direct onto. You
(18:43):
find your way tompillow dot com. Use our names Clay
and Buck as the promo code. That's MyPillow dot com
Radio listener special square free shipping on orders over seventy
five bucks.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
Use the promo code Clay and Buck. All right, welcome
back in our guest.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
You all know her, Juliet Kelly with us Now check
out declassified. You could subscribe to that on sub stack.
That is Julie's publication there. It is excellent. I read it,
Clay reads it.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Julie.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Thanks for being here with us. I wanted to just
jump into this. A lot of legal action going on today.
Big Supreme Court case heard going right to the heart
of presidential immunity, the j six case against Trump. Here
is the headline from the New York Times. Wanted to
have your reaction to it. After hearing oral arguments this morning,
conservative majority seems ready to limit election case against Trump. Julie,
(19:37):
I feel like I'm surprised that I'm gonna have to
say this, but from the New York Times lips to
Trump's year, I mean, sorry to God's here's what do
you think?
Speaker 5 (19:47):
Well, I think that they are probably right. And here's why.
Because the big debate centered around official acts as president
versus personal or even private acts. And there was a
lot of discussion back and forth as to what represents
an official act what doesn't, and of course that creates
(20:08):
a whole slippery slope which several of the justices, at
least Kavanagh or Sacilido had indicated serious concerns about you
know who then becomes the referee as to what's official
or a core function versus political, personal, private. And so
going back to the indictment, and I really need to
underscore this claim book, we're talking about four counts. Okay,
(20:33):
they talked a lot about murder, They talked about bribery,
about initiating a coup, killing people. That is not what
this indictment is about. It's really important for people to
be reminded. We're talking about four of the most vague
statutes on the books, two of which we talked about
last week in the Supreme Court addressed fifteen twelve C
(20:55):
two obstruction of an official proceeding extremely vague, and then
two very vague conspiracy statutes. So these are not clear
cut laws crimes, murder, bribery, drug trafficking, the things that
we would expect a president to face criminal prosecutions for.
So in the indictment, there are certainly elements that are
(21:18):
completely within the president's purview, such as replacing and acting
attorney general with somebody else, which is what he considered
replacing Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark. There are other things
that fall under official acts. Things get a little murkier
an even John Sower, who is representing Donald Trump, admitted that, okay,
(21:39):
using private attorneys calling up political parties or officials to
conceive or encourage them to come up with alternative states
of electors that might fall under personal slash politicals. So
I think that that's what the New York Times and
others are hinting at, is that the indictment itself could
(22:00):
have to be narrowed down determining whether it's Jack Smithard.
This gets kicked back to Judge Chuckkin, Tommy Chuckkin, who
was the one who originated the Order to nine immunity,
and then she has to figure out official versus personal holds,
some sort of evidentiary hearing to determine what falls under official,
what falls under personal or private.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
My biggest takeaway for the particulars of the timing here, Julie,
is that there's virtually no chance now that any case
other than the case that is currently proceeding in New
York City is going to be decided before November fifth.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
That is a jury.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Ruling based on the arguments today, And there are a
lot more issues at scope than just Trump. And we'll
maybe get to that with you in a sec but
would you agree with me that it's Alvin Bragg? And
then it's to the voters in terms of law fair
and what's going to be complete.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
I do.
Speaker 5 (22:58):
I mean, we still obviously have the Southern Florida case
prodding along, but and there is a slim possibility that
could go to trial before the election. But look, Clay
to your question. If the Supreme Court kicks this back
to the District Court to Judge chuck Kins and says
you need to hold these hearings to figure out what
(23:20):
falls wear they also have some choice words for the
Circuit Court. I don't know if you guys caught that.
Chief Justice John Roberts not pleased with that three judge
panel's decision, calling it tautological, you know, basically circular reasoning
that they use to uphold Judge Chuckkins ruling. So if
they kick that back play, let's say they do wait
(23:42):
until the end of June or even the end of May.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Sorry to cut you off.
Speaker 4 (23:47):
By the way, I wouldn't be stunned if they put
this ruling come out on July third, the day before
the July fourth holiday, just to kind of bury it
into that. Just to sorry to cut you off. I
was looking at the calendar. That's kind of the life
last case they're basically hearing. That could be a possibility
if they wanted to hold it as long as possible.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
True that the end of their term is June. But
to your point, Clay, they can issue orders, I believe
after that. So let's see that they do. Kicks back
to chuck Kin. You know, after fourth of July week
is over, and she immediately orders we're going to hold
an evidentiary hearing two three weeks after that, you have
to file your emotions response, et cetera. You know, they
(24:28):
really start to run out of time. But I'm going
to posit something even more terrifying than what we've talked
about is going to trial in j six before the election.
Is putting Donald Trump on trial after the election. Just
imagine for a moment that they have the evidentiary hearings,
chuck Kin decides, Okay, this part of the indictment, these
(24:50):
xs are official, these aren't. It gets you know, runs,
it runs the gamut, and then they toss it back. Okay,
this is settled. He can go on trial for private
personal Then here are the ones that we determined. Then
can you go to trial the end of November December,
early January. Even if Trump went, especially if he wins,
(25:12):
that's another nightmare scenario that could be created by but.
Speaker 4 (25:17):
He would be able to pardon himself then in that
case if he won, even if he potentially got convicted,
You're right, I mean, this is this is honestly, and
I don't know why we still do this. I don't
know why we have such a long period what you're
hitting at, Julie, November fifth until January I'm not sure
(25:37):
twentieth or whatever the date is when the officials. Yeah,
I mean, that's a long time for a defeated president
to remain in office. Historically it used to not be
told March, but that was because you had to travel
long distances. It's also time, you know, they have a
transition that they're trying to prepare for, and you know,
I think it's meant to ease the situation, and they
didn't prepare for four now going on, really five criminal
(26:00):
indictments against one.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Of the fan has to be apartment.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
I mean, I think that like kind of a bayance area,
there is is kind of a message juliually can.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Ask you about. You know, this is another one of
these things. It's kind of buried today. This is a
big deal on any other day. But the Supreme Court
arguments about whether the president could order a coup and
effectively undo the constitutional order or not et cetera. Are
are pretty interesting, but eleven of the electors have been
indicted in Arizona. The Arizona AG put out a video
(26:32):
today Chris mays, what do you make of this? Like,
they didn't indict Trump, they indicted Mark Meadows, and you
know it's it seems to be somewhat in parallel to
or somewhat similar to the Georgia case, at least in
terms of some of the conduct.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
What do you make of all this?
Speaker 5 (26:50):
I mean, look, I treated this last night, and I
hate to say it. You have to envy how democrats
understand how to coordinate, conspire and leverage their political power.
Here's a guy who probably really didn't or woman who
really probably didn't even really win the Arizona Attorney General's race,
but it doesn't matter, because as soon as they take office,
(27:11):
they leverage and weaponize their power against their political foes.
I haven't had a time to go through the whole indictment,
just getting ready for today, but you know, this is Georgia,
this is Michigan. This is all to bolster the idea.
But even though Trump is unindicted co conspirator. It is
to bolster what's happening here in this JA sixth federal case.
(27:35):
And it's also a signal. And we heard a little
bit about this today Emmy Coneybert really is disappointing. But
to continue to raise the idea that asking for or
having others create alternative electoral certificates is a crime, which
it hasn't. The National Archive is told Congress we get
(27:58):
fake electoral or MANUFAC exture made up alternative electoral certificates
every presidential election. This is not new. So to criminalize
it is also to warn people if you protest in
any way the twenty twenty four election, whatever happens, whatever
stunts you want to pull, whatever you want to do
(28:20):
to demonstrate against let's say Joe Biden gets re elected,
we are going to use our law fair against you,
and there's nothing to stop them. So this is really
to i think, add more optics ulster the political and
public view that there's something really criminal about concocting or
pretending that you're sending in an alternative electoral certificate. Just ridiculous.
(28:46):
But so again, such dangerous dissent where we are headed
using this law fair, not just federally, but state power too.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
Julie, last question for you. You mentioned South Florida. You've
been covering that Judge Eileen Cannon has allowed a large
amount of previously censored materials to be allowed to be
displayed publicly. What should we know that is significant about
what that has uncovered?
Speaker 5 (29:16):
We should know And I want to give kudos again
to Judge Cannon. I know we've talked a lot about her,
but it reveals, and this is why Jack Smith wanted
all of this concealed. It reveals Joe Biden's White House,
including some of his top attorneys in his General Counsel's office,
working collaboratively with the DATE, DOJ and Archives to manufacture
(29:37):
a records slash documents case against Donald Trump. This completely
flies in the face of what Smith Jacksmith has alleged
in his indictment there, but also what we've been told
that Joe Biden and his White House is completely hands
off from this prosecution, so they were deeply involved, same players,
dj FBI, the Archives, the intelligence community. This is like
(30:02):
getting the Russia Gate by the gate bound back together.
So kudos to her. There's going to be more on
feelings today. I will be posting later. Juli underscore Kelly two,
which is the grand jury transcript of that up while
team not a Trump's close personal aid also who has
been charged in that case as.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Well, Julie Grand Jury.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
We should mention, by the way, buck that took place
in Washington, d C. Before they then flipped the proceeding
all the way down to South Florida, So the judge
Cannon wasn't in charge of this.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Julie Kelly Substack. You can all subscribe Julie real quick
before I let you go. I know Clay said last question,
but I'm throwing in a last question because I'm really curious.
What do you think the biggest legal risk for Trump
is now? Of all of the cases and scenarios.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
I mean, right now, I have to think what's happening
in New York.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Unfortunately, I thought you might say that because Clay and
I were just talking about that. This actual I think
what we see happening puts more pressure on them to
get even crazier in New York City where they just
have full control and there's really no oversight. Go check out,
Julie Substack. Everybody declassified. Julie always appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 5 (31:13):
Thanks, guys, have good days.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Look, despite everything the Fed has been trying, we are
still feeling the effects of inflation. Whether you're filling up
your car, grocery shopping, making home repairs, everything is more
expensive and most of the time we use a credit
card to pay these bills. Credit card debt is at
an all time high. If you're a homeowner, there's a
way out. Call our friends at American Financing. They can
put together a plan to pay off that high interest
(31:37):
credit card debt and create meaningful savings for you.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Every month.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
They're saving people just like you an average of eight
hundred and fifty four dollars a month and closing in
as fast as ten days. Call their salary based mortgage consultants.
Today costs nothing to get started, and if you start today,
you couldn't delay two mortgage payments, giving you greater savings upfront.
Dial American Finance Dancing at eight hundred seven seven seven
(32:01):
eight one zero nine. That's eight hundred seven seven seven
eight one zero nine, or visit American Financing dot net.
That's American Financing dot net. NMLS one eight two three
three four Animals Consumer Access dot Org.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Need a break from follozis a little comedy to counter
the craziness. So do we The Sunday Hang, a weekend
podcast to lighten things up a bit. Fight it in
the Clay and Buck podcast feed on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4 (32:30):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton show. You know
that I like to look in Julie's phenomenal. I'd encourage
all of you to go follow everything that Julie Kelly's
been saying. She has been in terms of analysis and
trying to look in the direction that we are going
better than almost anybody out there. Everybody was ridiculing the
(32:51):
idea that the Supreme Court was going to take up
this obstruction case as to whether or not it could
be applied from a business perspective passed for sar Urbain's
ox League being used on jan six cases. She was right,
they're going to strike it down. I think she's right
that there is only going to be now one case
completed before we get to November, which makes me wonder
(33:16):
Buck and I do think that everybody needs to prepare
for this as the realization starts to set in that
all of this legal wrangling.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
They thought, we're.
Speaker 4 (33:30):
Gonna have Donald Trump in court March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November,
all the way up to election day.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
We're gonna hit him with federal charges.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
There's gonna be major convictions, and Joe Biden's going to
ride into the sunset and win. Now, they're probably not
gonna get Trump in court at all. I don't think
in terms of daily until I mean, let's say this
case ends buck mid June. Something like that may end
up sooner than that. They may or may not get
(34:02):
a conviction. But I think what you're going to see
as a result is, and we've been hitting at this,
but I think you need to prepare for it. They're
going to dial up the crazy in terms of the
punishment that they're going to try to get on Trump
as they become aware, h oh, this is the only
bite at the apple we're going to get.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
They are, they would be doing so much. I agree
with that assessment. You and I talked about it, you
brought it up. I agree. Julie comes on. She says
it without knowing that we had just agreed on this one,
which makes me feel like this is what the trend
certainly is right now, or this is where the momentum is.
New York, which was the first one to go, the
(34:40):
easiest for them to bring in terms of they were
basically guaranteed full control over the process because of the
jurisdiction and because of the far left progressive prosecutor Alvin Bragg,
who is calling the shots there. But the damage that
they will do to any faith that we could have
(35:02):
in our legal system if they're able to use New
York as this weapon. The charges in New York are
a joke, an unfunny joke, but they're preposterous. I wouldn't
put anyone in prison, nor convict anyone, any human being.
If Alvin Bragg himself we're sitting there charged with doing
(35:22):
what Trump is doing, and I were on that jury,
I would not convict it.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
It's wrong.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
It's wrong what they are doing. The charges are wrong.
The stacking them the way they've done it is wrong.
The delaying it's so that it comes in the election
year is wrong, clay top to bottom, inexcusable. And now
it's looking more and more like that's their great hope
to defeat Donald Trump. That's how they're gonna get four
(35:50):
more years for Joe Biden the business records charge in
New York.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
We're gonna play some audio from this Supreme Court case
that we've got for you, and we come back. I
also want to point out, and I know I'm the optimist,
they are gambling odds today. There are gambling odds that
make me very nervous. If you right now want to
bet on who will win Wisconsin, who will win Michigan,
who will win Pennsylvania. Right now they've got Biden favored,
(36:23):
which is why I need some caffeine and I need
to hit Crocket Coffee if America, Yes, if you love America,
you need to go to Crocket Coffee dot com. Feedback
has been amazing. We want you to sign up for
subscriptions and roll with us. Start off your morning and
maybe your lunch break with us with Crocketcoffee dot Com. Seriously,
(36:44):
go check it out. It's fantastic. We're adding a new
light roast soon as well, because so many of you
have been asking for it
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.