April 25, 2024 • 36 mins
Fertility rate in America hits all-time low. SCOTUS hears oral arguments in Trump presidential immunity case. Trump says he can win New York. Harvey Weinstein's New York conviction overturned in New York. Arizona indicts Trump allies in 2020 election case. Campus protest put down at Emory University in Georgia.
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 (00:05):
Welcome in Thursday edition Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. I
feel like we say this a lot. There are a
lot of different news stories that are breaking out there
as the chaos continues to build as we move towards
election day on November fifth. We are what six weeks
a week, six months and a week away from official
(00:28):
election day on November fifth, and Trump is in court
in New York City. He had a incredible reception from
construction workers early this morning in New York City before
he went into court. We will discuss that, including Trump
saying that he thinks he can actually win New York
and that he's going to have a big rally at
(00:50):
Madison Square Garden. I will say, the reception that he
got from construction crew workers and the reception that he
got in Harlem, it's credible how well he's being received
in New York City. We will discuss that. But the
biggest story, by the way, there's several other things that
I'm fired up about this. I don't know that anybody
else cares. There's an all time low for babies being
(01:14):
born in the United States. I don't know, Buck, if
you pay attention to this, I know you would carry
or married. And we're working. We're working on number one.
And you know, one thing we talk about is that
we wish that we had met each other sooner. People
used to ask me, like, why didn't I get married
till last forty I was just waiting to meet the
right person. I met the right person. You know, you know,
(01:34):
and you know, and you're good to go. But we
both agree. I mean, I think it would have been
really nice to have met younger and started a family sooner.
I mean, I think you getting three kids doing, and
your in late twenties, early thirties. I was twenty eight
when my first was born. And people, so I say
(01:55):
all that just because I understand I don't want to
ever be a do as I say, not as I
do thing. But I think a lot of you listening
who have families. Some of you are not just parents
but grandparents. You already know this, Clay. We need a
whole societal rethink about the way it goes. And I
know we've got the big Supreme Court argument all morning,
and we're gonna spend a lot of time on that,
but just I think this is critically important. Elon Musk
(02:17):
is a very a outspoken voice on this as well.
Now he has like nine kids with a few different women.
I'm not I'm not you know him a past we
should have, but we should have a fun conversation about this.
I'm gonna give him a pass because he's a genius,
and I think geniuses should have as many kids as
possible because their kids could save the world. So I'm
(02:38):
giving him a pass. In general, I think people should
be married to one person. I want. I think it's
good that we say that. I think we're both giving
Elon a pass for a number of reasons on this,
and one is I think he's doing more to keep
freedom and Western civilization alive than you know it would be.
I mean, you could argue him and Trump. I mean,
you know that you start to look at who's at
the top of that list. Anyway, you should we should
(02:59):
be having more kids. There needs to be a rethink
of the paradigm that has been out that I grew
up with. I'll just tell you, especially in cities, it's different. Obviously,
you have three kids, you got married younger, Clay. If
you grow up in New York, in LA in Chicago
and any number of these cities or you move to
them when you're a young adult. It's yet as far
as you can in your career and don't even think
(03:20):
about getting married until you're thirty five or forty. I'm yeah,
very common, and the numbers show this. It's not the
way to do it. We should have families younger, and
that would be one thing that I would do differently
if I could. But I have to meet Carrie ten
years ago. Hey, yeah, well the headline. I give credit
to the Wall Street Journal for actually covering this, and
we will circle back and have a discussion. But the
total fertility rate in the United States fell to one
(03:42):
point six two berths per women in twenty twenty three.
That's a two percent decline. That is the lowest fertility
rate on record since the United States began tracking this
in the nineteen thirties. Children are ultimately a vote on
a positive belief for the future. That is what kids represent,
(04:03):
babies in particular represent, and so the fact that fertility
is at a one hundred year low, We've never had
it this low since the United States began to track
it is I think a really bad sign, but will.
I think this is a huge topic. I think it
creates a lot of also societal dysfunctions. I think that
(04:23):
people and look, some people can't be parents. Some people
choose not to be parents, you know, and there's a
whole range of and as we're all fine, people get
to choose their life path. But as a society we
should be fruitful and multiplied. Like, as a society, we
should be having more children. And it doesn't get talked
about enough. I think it also goes into you know,
(04:44):
we we're very quick to point out China's one child
policy is horrific and inhumane, and it absolutely is. I
mean you add up that, I think something like sixty
million babies have been aborted since since Roe v. Wade.
We actually needed more people, we actually need I mean,
put aside the morality of the lives, and I mean
that's obviously critical, but I'm just saying demographically and as
a society, America needs more Americans. This is a real thing, yes,
(05:08):
And if you have the luxury to be able to
take care of kids, I mean, I wish I had more,
but I'm happy to have three, but I wish I
had more. But all time low for babies. All right,
let's go into the Supreme Court case on presidential immunity.
I think is it still ongoing or are they still
asking questions right now? I think it's close. Basically, it's
been going on for the last couple of hours, and Buck,
(05:29):
I thought it went well for Trump, better than I expected.
My now prediction for what's going to happen in this
case is and maybe I should take a step back
and explain exactly what's going on. Essentially, the Supreme Court
is considering kind of a two front question. One, can
a president be prosecuted for actions that took place while
(05:53):
he was in office? Second part of that, if he can,
what is the extension of presidential powers? In other words,
let me give you an example that I think everybody Republican, Democrat,
independent would agree with. If a president orders a missile
strike on a terrorist organization in the Middle East, and
(06:16):
the missile strike misses and hit someone else, the International
Court of Human Rights law cannot charge the president of
the United States with murder and try to drag him
in to the Hague and put him in prison for that.
That would be within the scope of his powers. Similarly,
if let's say, the Waco raid, which I think was
(06:37):
totally botched. President orders the raid to take place at Waco,
Department of Justice, FBI, everybody bungles it. The intent there
is not to commit a murder. The President, I don't
believe could be prosecuted for murder based on the way
that that act took place, right, I think in general
that would be an example. I try to use one international,
(06:59):
one national, because this has to do with particular national
action as opposed to international behavior. But you would agree,
I think, in general with that. That's what the scope
of powers if we look at we kind of build
up from the foundation of what both sides agree on,
and then you can narrow it down to where the
dispute is right both sides. Sour and Dreaven Sour was
(07:21):
Trump's lawyer. Dreaban was a special council, sorry, counsel to
the city. So he's like a super special counsel. He
is council to the Special Council. He's basically a ringer
for the argument. Right, So so Sour and Dreaming they
made the argument. So Sour's Trump's gude. By the way,
I thought he was very sharp and very good. Yea,
he did not seem flustered or to stumble to me
(07:41):
one time listening this morning. But the the thing they
agree on, Clay, right, is that there are private acts
for which a president absolutely is criminally liable and has
no immunity. So to what we had discussed, if you
bludge in your secretary with a candlestick in the oval office, correct,
and she's on the ground, you don't get to say, well,
I'm the president, like, no, you are criminally liable, and
(08:04):
there's no there's no question about that. So then it's okay.
There are official acts. And then I said this, this
is a little bit like with police have qualified immunity, right,
they have a specific immunity while they're acting as police
officers as long as they don't break the law and
they're acting in good faith. You can't just like sue
a prosecutor or a police officer. I mean you might,
(08:24):
but it'll get thrown out right away. You have no
grounds unless they've done something that violates their earth. You
can't say I'm suing this prosecutor because they're prosecuting me, right,
that's not because I disagree with their judgment. So we
get into the private versus public Act distinction. And that's
where they started to get really interesting, because fascinating. It
(08:44):
seemed to me that the anti Trump side, dreamin side
the DOJ side under Biden, was saying that even if
you're doing something that could be construed as an official act,
but you're doing it for illicit purpose, a wrongful purpose,
and no reasons, as they would say on The Bachelor,
(09:05):
you're here for the wrong reason. You're here for the
wrong reasons. That's right. You know you are not getting
a rose for this one. Yes, if that is the case,
you can still be held criminally liable for it. What
I thought was really interesting was immediately Sour was kind
of countering this by saying, well, hold on a second.
First of all, if a president can even be forced
(09:27):
to go into a court and defend against these things,
meaning if it's even possible to indict a president for
official acts because of corrupt purpose in the official act,
not anything that is done that is illegal explicitly, but
because you don't like his reasons for doing it, then
you can just constantly throw a president. You know, you
can have prosecutors throwing presidents into the courthouse over and
(09:49):
over again. The whole thing is a mess. So then
we get into the narrowed position, Clay, you know, correct
me or add in here anything if I'm missing it?
Of well, what about a situation where the president knows
that what he's doing is wrong. We can prove he
knew what he was doing was wrong, but the act
itself doesn't violate or the act itself rather would fall
(10:11):
under a presidential power. That's where it's like, ooh, interesting,
am I missing anything here? No, I think this is
one of the most fascinating, difficult, and important Supreme Court
cases maybe on presidential powers that we've ever seen. It
may be the most important and regally no Supreme Court
(10:32):
president on this specific issue. Right, they are forming our
constitutional understanding with this decision. And really, what I think
they're going to say, Buck, is so the easy way
to describe this is they're trying to figure out where
the line is between permissible and impermissible acts as it
goes to a president. We gave two examples to your example.
If the president picks up a paperweight and murders his secretary,
(10:55):
that's not a presidential act, right, But if a president
here with Trump says, peacefully go up to the Capitol
and it turns into January sixth, and he makes telephone
calls to try to figure out whether or not the
election was or was not on the up and up.
Where is the line where he could be prosecuted? I
(11:18):
think what they're going to say, and and by the way,
let me let me I'm kind of tiptoeing up to
this a little bit because I'm hedging. I guess I
think it's possible they're going to say this was not
criminal and five to four they say he can't be
prosecuted for this, and they're not even going to say
where the exact line is. But I think it's possible
they look at this and say it's possible the president
(11:40):
can be prosecuted. This doesn't rise to that level. This
is protected act within the p number of basic Okay,
so you're going with just to be clear, you're going
with grand slam home run for Trump upper deck because
that's the best possible binary or they could make that decision.
I think what they're going to do is say, we're
not sure the president does have some powers, We're not
(12:04):
sure whether this violates it. We're gonna throw it back
to the trial court, and we need the trial court
to analyze whether or not this is within the bounds
of president is what I feel very confident they are
going to do. I think that after hearing the arguments today,
I think that I think door number two there or
possibility number two is what they're going to do. But
(12:27):
they will establish. What is clear from the argument is
presidents can't do anything. So that was a little bit
of a People are saying, well, the president is not,
in fact just above the law as a general concept. Now,
yes that terminality is bought that I don't even know, yes,
but I'm just saying that that the president a president
can be prosecuted. So president can't go out and just
(12:48):
like murder a bunch of people in DC because he's
having a bad day and then say well, I'm the president,
you can't do anything about it. That's actually not what
this and neither side holds that, to be clear. It's
just when the president is doing president stuff, and we
have to be able to turn presently in office. This
is important too, because it doesn't carry on after he's
out of office, right, But if he's doing president's stuff
(13:12):
while he is in office, unless he commits an illegal act,
which would then fall under private this is where they
get into bribery, right. Bribery to appoint a ambassador was
one of the areas they really dug into. So if
somebody says, hey, I want to be ambassador to what
would be your favorite country to be ambassador too? That's
(13:33):
a fantastic question. You know, I think Italy would be
really cool. I mean, England would obviously be awesome. That'd
be easy Italy England, and maybe if you just really want,
like the Bahamas is probably not a bad place to
be an ambassador. I feel don't have any real power
you want to be, Australia would be pretty great. So
so if my friend Klay Travis decides, you know what,
I don't like doing this huge radio show. I just
(13:54):
want to go and chill. I'm going to give a
bag of ten million dollars to future President so and
so to become the ambassador to Turks and Caicos. If
you were to do this, I'd be in prison quickly.
They are probably with the definitely you get a long
prison sentence there. But if you were to do this,
clearly the bribery is a criminal act, even though it
has to do with a presidential prerogative. So This is
(14:17):
how they're trying to separate it out. The problem that
they run into with the Trump situation is there's no
him saying you know, and we're getting into the details
of the whole electors uh and and you know, election challenge,
the elector's election challenge, just because they don't like it,
and they don't like the judgment Trump exercised in it.
(14:38):
If it falls under a presidential power, they're saying he
can't be prosecuted for. It's sort of like, you know,
if the president lies to the American people and gets
us into a war, for example, not prosecutable. Yeah, because
the lie is not the lie is not a crime.
If the president's like, you know, I think these guys
are going to attack us tomorrow and he said, all right,
we're running. We're running. Important. But also factor in here
(15:00):
is if the president really does something so egregious, that's
what impeachment exists for. So the idea that the president
is not accountable is I think the impeachment power exists
for that exact reason. But this is I mean, an
unbelievably important and incredibly fascinating and significant case to be
resolved regardless of Trump, because it'll apply for every president
(15:24):
for the rest of time. AI based companies. My friends,
they're getting a lot of attention. Look what's happened over
the last twelve months or so with some of those
big AI stocks. They've gone to the moon. Few writers
and editors like Mark shake and cover these companies so closely.
And Wall Street knows that there are big moves down
the line, but which direction? Well, you know, Mark worked
(15:44):
on Wall Street for fifty years before he focused full
time on becoming a writer. To bring you the most incisive,
straight through the noise information possible about market shifts, including
AI stocks and all the hype around it. You gotta
know what to do to get in on this. Mark
says most Americans are about to miss out on a
critical turning point in this AI frenzy. He says this
(16:07):
is a new dawn for US stocks and predicts dozens
of specific companies will be impacted in just the next
ninety days time. Go to twenty twenty four aistock dot
com Right now, Mark has agreed to share one of
his favorite AI stocks to bay Now with our listeners.
You can watch for free. Twenty twenty four aistock dot
Com paid for by Shakin Analytics.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
The Voices of Sanity in an Insane World. Claye Travis
Sad buck Sexton.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
All right, welcome back, Clay and Buck here. Supreme Court
arguments still going. We'll bring you the latest on that.
More deep diving into whether Trump's immunity claims will be
upheld or what does this mean for the prosecution the
DOJJ six trial. A lot of stuff, but just take
a moment here, Trump saying that he thinks he is
putting New York, the state of in play for this election.
(16:58):
Listen to this play nine.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Very close in New York. I understand that we're leading
in the country by a lot. Pole just came out
a little while ago, as you saw yesterday that we
were up in every swing state and up by a
lot in every swing state. So I think we're gonna
do very well, and we're gonna make a play for
New York. It's they said, I just heard. There was
a very good poll came out. Normally a Democrat will
win New York. Biden is the worst president in history,
(17:22):
and we have some very bad people here, but we
have the greatest people and they're right behind me, and
they all want us to run and we're gonna we're
gonna run very hard in New York, New York. We
have a good chance of winning New York in my opinion,
but we're gonna give it a shot.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
That's a that's a bold statement. But you know what, Clay,
we should have our friend Mark Simone, mister New York
on seven to ten wor we'll have him on to
ask him about this one, because I think he thinks
Trump is serious. They're gonna actually maybe spend some time
and money in New York. Well, he's got to spend
a lot of time and money in New York because
they're prosecuting him. It would be crazy if that managed
to actually put New York in play in some way.
(17:55):
For years now, Pure Talks offered their cell phone service
for just twenty bucks a month. For twenty bucks, you
get a month of unlimited talk, text, plenty of five
G data, same quality of service as AT and T, Verizon,
or T Mobile, but for half the cost. When you
switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk, you're saving
fifty or sixty dollars a month or more. Average sized family,
you'll save almost one thousand dollars a year, all with
(18:16):
no contracts or activation fees, and when you switch to
Pure Talk, you keep your phone number and your phone
Their US based customer service team will make the switchover
process easy. Make the switch today, in fact, and you
can save an additional fifty percent off your first month.
Choose a wireless company who shares our values and who
creates American jobs. Dial pound two fifty, say the keywords
(18:40):
Clay and Buck and make the switch today. That's pound
two five zeros. Say the keywords Clay and Buck one
more time from your phones. Dial pound two five zero
say Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Slay, Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of true.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Okay, let's dive back in to the Supreme Court case
right now on presidential powers that is currently being heard.
This is really important and I don't know that you
will hear it enough as it pertains the discussion surrounding this.
I understand that all the bright lights are flashing Trump, Trump, Trump,
and everybody is focused on the particular aspects of this
(19:21):
case as it pertains to Donald Trump. But here is
what I would tell you. I guarantee is a huge
consideration of the Supreme Court. The precedent that is being
set here. I've used this aphorism before on the show,
because I think it applies so well, particularly in this
point in time where everything it feels is so monumental
(19:45):
and massive in stake. We have this sort of Goldfish
era of view of history where everything is the biggest
thing that's ever happened, and you have to take a
step back and contemplate where it actually stands in history.
And let me give you an example that came out today.
Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York City got tossed. A
(20:08):
lot of you may not have seen this, the me
too case against Harvey Weinstein that everybody focused on in
New York, the rape sexual assault conviction of Harvey Weinstein
tossed does not exist anymore. It's going to have to
go back to trial now. He was convicted in Los
Angeles too, so he will remain in prison based on
(20:29):
the conviction in Los Angeles. But if they hadn't convicted
him in Los Angeles, buck he would walk free. Harvey Weinstein,
who everybody decided was the worst human being who had
ever existed. The New York Court of Criminal Appeals looked
at the evidence and said, this was the trial judge
handled this inappropriately. There was evidence introduced, and again I'm
(20:50):
summarizing evidence introduced that should not have been and his
conviction is tossed. Egregiously wrong, I believe, was what the
judge found on the appeals court found on this. And
I would just note, and this is by no means
a you know, I don't even I can't even remember.
All I know is Harvey Weinstein. It's interesting, isn't it.
(21:12):
What do I remember? Harvey Weinstein bad, you know, abusing women.
I can't remember the specifics of what he did. It
was years ago, right, or what he allegedly did, but
I do know that it was absolutely peak me too moment.
And even if you have somebody who is guilty, and
you know whether Harvey Weinstein's really you know, he's been
(21:33):
found guilty a couple of times. I think he probably
is guilty of some very bad things. But even when
you have somebody who's guilty, you're not supposed to stack
the deck. And even me, as a non lawyer knows.
Hold on a second. They let other women testify at
his rape trial that had nothing to do with the
rape that he was being tried for. Like, you know,
(21:54):
you can just be somebody who watches Law and Order
and be like, I don't think that's how this goes.
You can't introduce other testimony for completely, you know, irrelevant
incidents to the incident that you're on trial for like that,
And at that point, true, there's an exception if the
act is so specific in nature that it is, it's
(22:16):
an evidentiary issue. They blew it, okay, So on that case,
I don't even know that they needed the additional testimony.
It's a huge deal for the appeals court to say
we're overturning a jury verdict in another case and saying
he needs a new trial. So they didn't blow this
by a little bit, is my point. They blew this
one big time. And what's also important about this, did
(22:36):
you hear anybody predict that they were going to overturn
this case? Nobody would even defend hardly Harvey Weinstein because
they were afraid that they would get tainted with the
me too assertion. So if you even said, hey, regardless
of what you think about Harvey Weinstein, we need a
precedent and procedure that is applied evenly to all criminal
(22:58):
defendants and if they are accused of heinous ax and
I go back to John Adams defended the Boston Tea
Party massacre. Guys, that is a historical precedent that everybody,
even people accused of hanous acts, deserve the protections of
the court. So the reason why I bring this up
is the Supreme Court is, yes, Trump matters, but the
(23:20):
Supreme Court is looking far beyond Trump and they are saying,
whatever law we craft here is going to be used
against every president for the rest of our lives. And
so if we say Trump can be prosecuted for these
acts which occurred while he was in office that he
(23:40):
claims are directly related to the powers of the presidency,
other prosecutors are going to use this case to prosecute
future presidents for acts that occurred while they were in office.
And so I think what's going on here is I
think the Supreme Court remember the Thomas Jefferson saucer cooling
(24:03):
the idea was the Senate when it's a FAMOUSAI out. Yeah, sure,
I think the Supreme Court is going to try to
chill this out. And I think what they're going to
say is they're going to say president clearly has powers
to avoid criminal prosecution. We are going to say something
like five to four, although it may be six to
three that that we're going to toss this back without
(24:24):
making specific factual evidentiary findings here back to Chutkin to
guarantee basically that this case does not get decided before
voters go out and are able to make choices in
November for Trump. So based on the hearing this morning,
and I think it's still going on. So again, we're
(24:45):
alive on the air, so there could be questions that
change my perceptions on this, but based on what I
listened to this morning, I think that there is increasingly
a highly unlikely chance that any other case is even
close to going to a jury for a verdict other
than New York before this and buck looking at the
(25:07):
Harvey Weinstein case, I'll reiterate, I think, whatever verdict, if
Trump is found guilty in New York, I think in
two years or three years, I think it's going to
get tossed in New York City as well. I'm cautiously
optimistic based on the Supreme Court of Appeals in New
York being willing to weigh in here and even defend
(25:30):
Harvey Weinstein's procedural safeguards. I'm more convinced that this is
going to get tossed on appeal regardless of what happens here.
So I think this is a very good day for Trump.
But I think it's important to remember that while everybody's
focused right now, the bright shiny lights are Trump, there
are presidents for the next one hundred years, two hundred years,
(25:51):
hopefully a thousand years of American life that will be
held accountable based on the decision that the Supreme Court
makes on this. Also the case that you could have
if this were to be let's just say, wrongly decided,
and this was part of the discussions the Court was
having this morning. If it was wrongly decided, which I
(26:11):
don't think is going to happen, but it would result
in a situation where the political opposition could effectively nullify
any presidency they want to. I mean, they could, like
the Liliputians against Gulliver, just tie you down with endless
petty prosecutions because of state of mind corruption for even
(26:33):
official acts. Right. So this is where you get to
the people who would say things like Bush should be
tried for war crimes. If Bush could be tried for
war crimes, meaning you know, pushing for war in iroc
or whatever. The presidency is effectively over. And the people
that shout those things don't really think that through. But
that's the reality. If you could try somebody for I
don't like the decision they made, and I think they
(26:55):
made it for the wrong reasons, but what they did
was was in the scope of presidential decision making, the
presidency is over. I mean those are the you know,
the stakes, not just for Trump, but your point about
the precedent. So that's why you're I think you're right.
They're gonna try to cool things down, and I think
they're going to try to, you know, take minimal steps here,
narrowly tailored things from the Supreme Court on down, because
(27:18):
you go too far in one direction. What is off
the table? Now from the Democrat point of view, they've
already got four prosecutions against Trump. We haven't even mentioned that.
Arizona just released another version of like the the you know,
fake Electors prosecution, and they've named Mark Meadows the chief
of staff under the Trump White House. The whole cast.
I can't remember all their names, like a dozen of them. Yes,
(27:40):
I think someone from Turning Point is mentioned in this.
Even like they got all these people yeah, that are
being prosecuted by the State ag of Arizona. They left
Trump out, but he's an unindicted co conspiracor they talk
about undedded conspirators. Clayton. Now that's the fifth This is
a fifth criminal trial going on about twenty twenty, and
a fifth criminal trial timed and delayed for the timing
(28:03):
to happen in an election year in a swing state,
in a swing state, exactly in a swing state. So
what what is off the table for them now? I
think the other thing about this that we should mention
on the Supreme Court. And by the way it just ended,
Julie Kelly is going to join us. She listened to
the whole thing. She's been fantastic covering a lot of
these cases. She's going to join us at one thirty Eastern.
So in the next hour we'll get her read having
(28:26):
heard every minute of this, because you and I have
been on the air for the last forty five minutes
of the argument. Also mention this this would end the
Atlanta case, even though the Atlanta case is a state prosecution.
In addition to Jack Smith's charges that he brought in DC,
what they are considering in today's hearing would also basically
(28:49):
knock out Atlanta in the state of Georgia, and it
would knock out to a large extent, although Trump's not
indicted himself, I think it would knock out to a
large extent what's going on in air Arizona. Now those
are state cases. So what you would have is New
York City pre exists. I think again, I think it's garbage.
I think it'll get tossed on appeal. New York City
(29:10):
is pre exists. The crime there and the crime in
South Florida allegation is a post presidential crime. Now I
don't think that that one's going to go either. But again,
I think the biggest takeaway here, and we'll hear from Julie,
is I don't think there's any way that the federal
charges cases are going to happen before we all go
(29:33):
vote November fifth. So I was interested while we were
in the break, I just wanted to note that the
back to the Harvey Weinstein thing, cause that can we
just say if we didn't have Trump Supreme Court going
on Trump on trial in New York City going on
Arizona State ag prosecuting Trump associates for the Harvey Weinstein
(29:54):
reversed a huge story, would be a huge story on
any other day. But I look this up as to
the point you're making. I was just saying, if you're
just a law and order watcher, you would kind of
know they're very They call them a malyna like Malyna
exceptions yea, or rather the maln no precedent and the
exceptions of it. It would be you can introduce evidence
(30:14):
for a crime not charged to establish motive intent, the
absence of mistake, a common scheme or plan embracing the commission.
I think this as you were getting to of two
or more crimes related to each other. Yeah, so it's
a weird it's a weird attempt you're trying. It's generally
would be hearsay, right, it would be not permissible to
(30:36):
introduce this evidence. The point is even reading these exceptions, No,
they just this guy was like the pinnacle of me too,
and he's a disgusting, horrible human being, and the judges
were like, you know, baring him under the prison basically,
And I think I'm correct. I haven't. Let's be honest,
I have not paid a ton of attention to the
Harvey Weinstein cases ever, but certainly not in years. I
(30:57):
believe that also is an example of them changing the
statute of limitations in New York because I think a
lot of the charges they brought they were able to
bring back. This is in the decision they redissssed. Right,
this Supreme State Supreme Court decision is actually I did
a rapid scan. How fast can you read one of
these things? I tried it in about three minutes. But
they did get into English common law and the difference
(31:19):
between the French system and the English system. For anybody
wants to know, and the French system, all of you
is on trial. So anything you know you were a bad,
bad person twenty years ago, you do something today that
can be introduced because it goes to what kind of
a person you are? English common law says no, only
the offense that you are charged for. But then we
get into Molly no and these exceptions. Right, the time
(31:40):
barring issue. They addressed that specifically, and they've decided that
he was outside the state for long enough periods of
time during that period of time. Oh, that's such a garbage.
I knew you weren't gonna like that one that I
don't agree with the general idea of a of a
statute of limitations is people memory gets way worse over time,
(32:02):
and also so you can't defend yourself over a period
of time, and the older really is murder. And then
there are a bunch of other like high federal crimes.
But honestly, even a lot of those high federal crimes,
if you looked at them, like, very hard to defend
yourself with against an espionage charge from you know, thirty years. Yeah,
I mean the Egen Carol is a great example. They
don't know when the year was, They don't know, Like,
how do you defend yourself from an allegation that has
(32:24):
no rooting in particular time and place. If you say, hey,
whoever you are listening out there right now, you sexually
assaulted me at some point in the last twenty years.
And you're like, well, where, Well we're not sure what year,
We're not sure. Well, how about witnesses? There are none?
What are you talking about? Like, the idea that you
(32:45):
could do this and just toss the statute of limitations
is crazy to me. This is the Kavanaugh. The Kavanaugh
move and even though it wasn't successful, but at least
he wasn't prosecuted in that case. It's still garbage, but
they try to ruin his life. Yeah, you prosecuted the
guys over this anyway. Eight hundred two A two two
eight A two will take your calls. A lot of
(33:06):
interesting stuff going on today. You know Mother's Day is
coming after everybody at Clay It's May twelve, right, I
got that. I don't know you got merus. Come on,
I'm pulling out the calendar. You're the veteran in this game, man,
twenty years of Marria twelve May twelfth. It is Sunday,
May twelve. Yes, okay, good Mother's Day, May twelve? What
(33:26):
can you do for Mother's Day? I'm gonna take all
the stress off your shoulders. Legacy Box. Legacy Box takes
all your stored videotapes, photos, film, and other media and
digitize it on a brand to brand new digital files.
Is a great gift for any mom, any grandma in
your life. You want to get them Legacy Box as
a gift this Mother's Day. They're gonna make it easy
for you sixty percent off their regular prices. And if
(33:49):
you haven't done this yet, I'm telling you it's it's
You're good to go. Well, what are you doing for
Mother's Day? Oh, I'm doing Legacy Box from Mother's Day.
Good to go. Maybe you want to also throw some
flowers in there. That's up to you, but Legacy Box
has got you covered. Legacy Box dot Com slash buck
sixty percent off their regular prices. I know you're thinking,
huh is this a good Mother's Day gift? It's an
amazing Mother's Day gift. But get the box now, you
fill it up when you want, you send it back.
(34:11):
And they are so precise, and they're so good in
this whole process about telling you at each step of
the way, and you get your originals back and they
actually wrap them really nicely. It's kind of a fun surprise.
A million and a half families have already trusted Legacy Box.
Play's family, my family, do this for Mother's Day. Do
it now, though, because they'll send it to you. You
can actually get stuff back in time for Mother's Day
(34:31):
if you act fast. Go to Legacy box dot com
slash buck for sixty percent off Legacy box dot com
slash buck for the best Mother's Day sale ever.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
You don't know what's you don't know right, but you
should on the Sunday Hang with Clay and Buck podcast.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck Uh coming up. I'm
gonna have some updates for you on you had another
campus in disarray? Cops. They're not messing around in Georgia
swooping in on Emy University as the anti Israel protests
(35:09):
so interesting is what what what the pro I would
I would want to ask them this too. They don't
like it when they're called anti Semitic for obvious reasons.
They don't like even being called I think anti Israel.
What do they think they are protesting? Because really they
just object to everything Israel is doing in Gaza and
to defend itself. But I wonder how they would self describe.
(35:31):
Are they they're pro Palestinian? That's what these protests I
guess would be, because then the distinction comes in with
well are you pro Hamas? But anyway, yes, I'd want
to ask them, and I want to say if you're
if you're pro Palestinian, are you anti Hamas? Because if
you're anti Hamas, I'm not hearing anything about that. But
so if you're just pro across the board, aren't you
kind of supportive of Hamas? Then too there are some
(35:52):
I would have many questions Clay, but they have a
campus cracked down underway for sure. And oh, I can't
believe with the music we long I was gonna all right,
let me gear up with some crocketcoffee Crocketcoffee dot com.
How many of you have subscribed? A lot? We need
a lot more to subscribe though, because I'm drinking it
right now. It's absolutely delicious. Clay is wearing a Crocket teeth,
That's true. That is how we stand up for our
(36:14):
VIP viewers a little bit. They can see that. Look
at that. Look at that amazing logo. Look at the
Clay's been working out everybody, look at that. I don't
I don't know. I'm trying to lose weight. I need
to get back down to my playing weight. Try to
get back down to one seventy five. A seven have
like an eight pack at one seventy five, you can
I do not have an eight pack at one seventy five.
(36:36):
And that's where I'm trying to get back down to
one seventy five is the goal. I've meant one eighty three.
I got eight pounds to go. Appreciate all of you.
What do you got for us in the top of
the next hour. Camp has craziness. Let's talk about it.
Perfect
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in Thursday edition Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. I
feel like we say this a lot. There are a
lot of different news stories that are breaking out there
as the chaos continues to build as we move towards
election day on November fifth. We are what six weeks
a week, six months and a week away from official
(00:28):
election day on November fifth, and Trump is in court
in New York City. He had a incredible reception from
construction workers early this morning in New York City before
he went into court. We will discuss that, including Trump
saying that he thinks he can actually win New York
and that he's going to have a big rally at
(00:50):
Madison Square Garden. I will say, the reception that he
got from construction crew workers and the reception that he
got in Harlem, it's credible how well he's being received
in New York City. We will discuss that. But the
biggest story, by the way, there's several other things that
I'm fired up about this. I don't know that anybody
else cares. There's an all time low for babies being
(01:14):
born in the United States. I don't know, Buck, if
you pay attention to this, I know you would carry
or married. And we're working. We're working on number one.
And you know, one thing we talk about is that
we wish that we had met each other sooner. People
used to ask me, like, why didn't I get married
till last forty I was just waiting to meet the
right person. I met the right person. You know, you know,
(01:34):
and you know, and you're good to go. But we
both agree. I mean, I think it would have been
really nice to have met younger and started a family sooner.
I mean, I think you getting three kids doing, and
your in late twenties, early thirties. I was twenty eight
when my first was born. And people, so I say
(01:55):
all that just because I understand I don't want to
ever be a do as I say, not as I
do thing. But I think a lot of you listening
who have families. Some of you are not just parents
but grandparents. You already know this, Clay. We need a
whole societal rethink about the way it goes. And I
know we've got the big Supreme Court argument all morning,
and we're gonna spend a lot of time on that,
but just I think this is critically important. Elon Musk
(02:17):
is a very a outspoken voice on this as well.
Now he has like nine kids with a few different women.
I'm not I'm not you know him a past we
should have, but we should have a fun conversation about this.
I'm gonna give him a pass because he's a genius,
and I think geniuses should have as many kids as
possible because their kids could save the world. So I'm
(02:38):
giving him a pass. In general, I think people should
be married to one person. I want. I think it's
good that we say that. I think we're both giving
Elon a pass for a number of reasons on this,
and one is I think he's doing more to keep
freedom and Western civilization alive than you know it would be.
I mean, you could argue him and Trump. I mean,
you know that you start to look at who's at
the top of that list. Anyway, you should we should
(02:59):
be having more kids. There needs to be a rethink
of the paradigm that has been out that I grew
up with. I'll just tell you, especially in cities, it's different. Obviously,
you have three kids, you got married younger, Clay. If
you grow up in New York, in LA in Chicago
and any number of these cities or you move to
them when you're a young adult. It's yet as far
as you can in your career and don't even think
(03:20):
about getting married until you're thirty five or forty. I'm yeah,
very common, and the numbers show this. It's not the
way to do it. We should have families younger, and
that would be one thing that I would do differently
if I could. But I have to meet Carrie ten
years ago. Hey, yeah, well the headline. I give credit
to the Wall Street Journal for actually covering this, and
we will circle back and have a discussion. But the
total fertility rate in the United States fell to one
(03:42):
point six two berths per women in twenty twenty three.
That's a two percent decline. That is the lowest fertility
rate on record since the United States began tracking this
in the nineteen thirties. Children are ultimately a vote on
a positive belief for the future. That is what kids represent,
(04:03):
babies in particular represent, and so the fact that fertility
is at a one hundred year low, We've never had
it this low since the United States began to track
it is I think a really bad sign, but will.
I think this is a huge topic. I think it
creates a lot of also societal dysfunctions. I think that
(04:23):
people and look, some people can't be parents. Some people
choose not to be parents, you know, and there's a
whole range of and as we're all fine, people get
to choose their life path. But as a society we
should be fruitful and multiplied. Like, as a society, we
should be having more children. And it doesn't get talked
about enough. I think it also goes into you know,
(04:44):
we we're very quick to point out China's one child
policy is horrific and inhumane, and it absolutely is. I
mean you add up that, I think something like sixty
million babies have been aborted since since Roe v. Wade.
We actually needed more people, we actually need I mean,
put aside the morality of the lives, and I mean
that's obviously critical, but I'm just saying demographically and as
a society, America needs more Americans. This is a real thing, yes,
(05:08):
And if you have the luxury to be able to
take care of kids, I mean, I wish I had more,
but I'm happy to have three, but I wish I
had more. But all time low for babies. All right,
let's go into the Supreme Court case on presidential immunity.
I think is it still ongoing or are they still
asking questions right now? I think it's close. Basically, it's
been going on for the last couple of hours, and Buck,
(05:29):
I thought it went well for Trump, better than I expected.
My now prediction for what's going to happen in this
case is and maybe I should take a step back
and explain exactly what's going on. Essentially, the Supreme Court
is considering kind of a two front question. One, can
a president be prosecuted for actions that took place while
(05:53):
he was in office? Second part of that, if he can,
what is the extension of presidential powers? In other words,
let me give you an example that I think everybody Republican, Democrat,
independent would agree with. If a president orders a missile
strike on a terrorist organization in the Middle East, and
(06:16):
the missile strike misses and hit someone else, the International
Court of Human Rights law cannot charge the president of
the United States with murder and try to drag him
in to the Hague and put him in prison for that.
That would be within the scope of his powers. Similarly,
if let's say, the Waco raid, which I think was
(06:37):
totally botched. President orders the raid to take place at Waco,
Department of Justice, FBI, everybody bungles it. The intent there
is not to commit a murder. The President, I don't
believe could be prosecuted for murder based on the way
that that act took place, right, I think in general
that would be an example. I try to use one international,
(06:59):
one national, because this has to do with particular national
action as opposed to international behavior. But you would agree,
I think, in general with that. That's what the scope
of powers if we look at we kind of build
up from the foundation of what both sides agree on,
and then you can narrow it down to where the
dispute is right both sides. Sour and Dreaven Sour was
(07:21):
Trump's lawyer. Dreaban was a special council, sorry, counsel to
the city. So he's like a super special counsel. He
is council to the Special Council. He's basically a ringer
for the argument. Right, So so Sour and Dreaming they
made the argument. So Sour's Trump's gude. By the way,
I thought he was very sharp and very good. Yea,
he did not seem flustered or to stumble to me
(07:41):
one time listening this morning. But the the thing they
agree on, Clay, right, is that there are private acts
for which a president absolutely is criminally liable and has
no immunity. So to what we had discussed, if you
bludge in your secretary with a candlestick in the oval office, correct,
and she's on the ground, you don't get to say, well,
I'm the president, like, no, you are criminally liable, and
(08:04):
there's no there's no question about that. So then it's okay.
There are official acts. And then I said this, this
is a little bit like with police have qualified immunity, right,
they have a specific immunity while they're acting as police
officers as long as they don't break the law and
they're acting in good faith. You can't just like sue
a prosecutor or a police officer. I mean you might,
(08:24):
but it'll get thrown out right away. You have no
grounds unless they've done something that violates their earth. You
can't say I'm suing this prosecutor because they're prosecuting me, right,
that's not because I disagree with their judgment. So we
get into the private versus public Act distinction. And that's
where they started to get really interesting, because fascinating. It
(08:44):
seemed to me that the anti Trump side, dreamin side
the DOJ side under Biden, was saying that even if
you're doing something that could be construed as an official act,
but you're doing it for illicit purpose, a wrongful purpose,
and no reasons, as they would say on The Bachelor,
(09:05):
you're here for the wrong reason. You're here for the
wrong reasons. That's right. You know you are not getting
a rose for this one. Yes, if that is the case,
you can still be held criminally liable for it. What
I thought was really interesting was immediately Sour was kind
of countering this by saying, well, hold on a second.
First of all, if a president can even be forced
(09:27):
to go into a court and defend against these things,
meaning if it's even possible to indict a president for
official acts because of corrupt purpose in the official act,
not anything that is done that is illegal explicitly, but
because you don't like his reasons for doing it, then
you can just constantly throw a president. You know, you
can have prosecutors throwing presidents into the courthouse over and
(09:49):
over again. The whole thing is a mess. So then
we get into the narrowed position, Clay, you know, correct
me or add in here anything if I'm missing it?
Of well, what about a situation where the president knows
that what he's doing is wrong. We can prove he
knew what he was doing was wrong, but the act
itself doesn't violate or the act itself rather would fall
(10:11):
under a presidential power. That's where it's like, ooh, interesting,
am I missing anything here? No, I think this is
one of the most fascinating, difficult, and important Supreme Court
cases maybe on presidential powers that we've ever seen. It
may be the most important and regally no Supreme Court
(10:32):
president on this specific issue. Right, they are forming our
constitutional understanding with this decision. And really, what I think
they're going to say, Buck, is so the easy way
to describe this is they're trying to figure out where
the line is between permissible and impermissible acts as it
goes to a president. We gave two examples to your example.
If the president picks up a paperweight and murders his secretary,
(10:55):
that's not a presidential act, right, But if a president
here with Trump says, peacefully go up to the Capitol
and it turns into January sixth, and he makes telephone
calls to try to figure out whether or not the
election was or was not on the up and up.
Where is the line where he could be prosecuted? I
(11:18):
think what they're going to say, and and by the way,
let me let me I'm kind of tiptoeing up to
this a little bit because I'm hedging. I guess I
think it's possible they're going to say this was not
criminal and five to four they say he can't be
prosecuted for this, and they're not even going to say
where the exact line is. But I think it's possible
they look at this and say it's possible the president
(11:40):
can be prosecuted. This doesn't rise to that level. This
is protected act within the p number of basic Okay,
so you're going with just to be clear, you're going
with grand slam home run for Trump upper deck because
that's the best possible binary or they could make that decision.
I think what they're going to do is say, we're
not sure the president does have some powers, We're not
(12:04):
sure whether this violates it. We're gonna throw it back
to the trial court, and we need the trial court
to analyze whether or not this is within the bounds
of president is what I feel very confident they are
going to do. I think that after hearing the arguments today,
I think that I think door number two there or
possibility number two is what they're going to do. But
(12:27):
they will establish. What is clear from the argument is
presidents can't do anything. So that was a little bit
of a People are saying, well, the president is not,
in fact just above the law as a general concept. Now,
yes that terminality is bought that I don't even know, yes,
but I'm just saying that that the president a president
can be prosecuted. So president can't go out and just
(12:48):
like murder a bunch of people in DC because he's
having a bad day and then say well, I'm the president,
you can't do anything about it. That's actually not what
this and neither side holds that, to be clear. It's
just when the president is doing president stuff, and we
have to be able to turn presently in office. This
is important too, because it doesn't carry on after he's
out of office, right, But if he's doing president's stuff
(13:12):
while he is in office, unless he commits an illegal act,
which would then fall under private this is where they
get into bribery, right. Bribery to appoint a ambassador was
one of the areas they really dug into. So if
somebody says, hey, I want to be ambassador to what
would be your favorite country to be ambassador too? That's
(13:33):
a fantastic question. You know, I think Italy would be
really cool. I mean, England would obviously be awesome. That'd
be easy Italy England, and maybe if you just really want,
like the Bahamas is probably not a bad place to
be an ambassador. I feel don't have any real power
you want to be, Australia would be pretty great. So
so if my friend Klay Travis decides, you know what,
I don't like doing this huge radio show. I just
(13:54):
want to go and chill. I'm going to give a
bag of ten million dollars to future President so and
so to become the ambassador to Turks and Caicos. If
you were to do this, I'd be in prison quickly.
They are probably with the definitely you get a long
prison sentence there. But if you were to do this,
clearly the bribery is a criminal act, even though it
has to do with a presidential prerogative. So This is
(14:17):
how they're trying to separate it out. The problem that
they run into with the Trump situation is there's no
him saying you know, and we're getting into the details
of the whole electors uh and and you know, election challenge,
the elector's election challenge, just because they don't like it,
and they don't like the judgment Trump exercised in it.
(14:38):
If it falls under a presidential power, they're saying he
can't be prosecuted for. It's sort of like, you know,
if the president lies to the American people and gets
us into a war, for example, not prosecutable. Yeah, because
the lie is not the lie is not a crime.
If the president's like, you know, I think these guys
are going to attack us tomorrow and he said, all right,
we're running. We're running. Important. But also factor in here
(15:00):
is if the president really does something so egregious, that's
what impeachment exists for. So the idea that the president
is not accountable is I think the impeachment power exists
for that exact reason. But this is I mean, an
unbelievably important and incredibly fascinating and significant case to be
resolved regardless of Trump, because it'll apply for every president
(15:24):
for the rest of time. AI based companies. My friends,
they're getting a lot of attention. Look what's happened over
the last twelve months or so with some of those
big AI stocks. They've gone to the moon. Few writers
and editors like Mark shake and cover these companies so closely.
And Wall Street knows that there are big moves down
the line, but which direction? Well, you know, Mark worked
(15:44):
on Wall Street for fifty years before he focused full
time on becoming a writer. To bring you the most incisive,
straight through the noise information possible about market shifts, including
AI stocks and all the hype around it. You gotta
know what to do to get in on this. Mark
says most Americans are about to miss out on a
critical turning point in this AI frenzy. He says this
(16:07):
is a new dawn for US stocks and predicts dozens
of specific companies will be impacted in just the next
ninety days time. Go to twenty twenty four aistock dot
com Right now, Mark has agreed to share one of
his favorite AI stocks to bay Now with our listeners.
You can watch for free. Twenty twenty four aistock dot
Com paid for by Shakin Analytics.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
The Voices of Sanity in an Insane World. Claye Travis
Sad buck Sexton.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
All right, welcome back, Clay and Buck here. Supreme Court
arguments still going. We'll bring you the latest on that.
More deep diving into whether Trump's immunity claims will be
upheld or what does this mean for the prosecution the
DOJJ six trial. A lot of stuff, but just take
a moment here, Trump saying that he thinks he is
putting New York, the state of in play for this election.
(16:58):
Listen to this play nine.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Very close in New York. I understand that we're leading
in the country by a lot. Pole just came out
a little while ago, as you saw yesterday that we
were up in every swing state and up by a
lot in every swing state. So I think we're gonna
do very well, and we're gonna make a play for
New York. It's they said, I just heard. There was
a very good poll came out. Normally a Democrat will
win New York. Biden is the worst president in history,
(17:22):
and we have some very bad people here, but we
have the greatest people and they're right behind me, and
they all want us to run and we're gonna we're
gonna run very hard in New York, New York. We
have a good chance of winning New York in my opinion,
but we're gonna give it a shot.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
That's a that's a bold statement. But you know what, Clay,
we should have our friend Mark Simone, mister New York
on seven to ten wor we'll have him on to
ask him about this one, because I think he thinks
Trump is serious. They're gonna actually maybe spend some time
and money in New York. Well, he's got to spend
a lot of time and money in New York because
they're prosecuting him. It would be crazy if that managed
to actually put New York in play in some way.
(17:55):
For years now, Pure Talks offered their cell phone service
for just twenty bucks a month. For twenty bucks, you
get a month of unlimited talk, text, plenty of five
G data, same quality of service as AT and T, Verizon,
or T Mobile, but for half the cost. When you
switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk, you're saving
fifty or sixty dollars a month or more. Average sized family,
you'll save almost one thousand dollars a year, all with
(18:16):
no contracts or activation fees, and when you switch to
Pure Talk, you keep your phone number and your phone
Their US based customer service team will make the switchover
process easy. Make the switch today, in fact, and you
can save an additional fifty percent off your first month.
Choose a wireless company who shares our values and who
creates American jobs. Dial pound two fifty, say the keywords
(18:40):
Clay and Buck and make the switch today. That's pound
two five zeros. Say the keywords Clay and Buck one
more time from your phones. Dial pound two five zero
say Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Slay, Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of true.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Okay, let's dive back in to the Supreme Court case
right now on presidential powers that is currently being heard.
This is really important and I don't know that you
will hear it enough as it pertains the discussion surrounding this.
I understand that all the bright lights are flashing Trump, Trump, Trump,
and everybody is focused on the particular aspects of this
(19:21):
case as it pertains to Donald Trump. But here is
what I would tell you. I guarantee is a huge
consideration of the Supreme Court. The precedent that is being
set here. I've used this aphorism before on the show,
because I think it applies so well, particularly in this
point in time where everything it feels is so monumental
(19:45):
and massive in stake. We have this sort of Goldfish
era of view of history where everything is the biggest
thing that's ever happened, and you have to take a
step back and contemplate where it actually stands in history.
And let me give you an example that came out today.
Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York City got tossed. A
(20:08):
lot of you may not have seen this, the me
too case against Harvey Weinstein that everybody focused on in
New York, the rape sexual assault conviction of Harvey Weinstein
tossed does not exist anymore. It's going to have to
go back to trial now. He was convicted in Los
Angeles too, so he will remain in prison based on
(20:29):
the conviction in Los Angeles. But if they hadn't convicted
him in Los Angeles, buck he would walk free. Harvey Weinstein,
who everybody decided was the worst human being who had
ever existed. The New York Court of Criminal Appeals looked
at the evidence and said, this was the trial judge
handled this inappropriately. There was evidence introduced, and again I'm
(20:50):
summarizing evidence introduced that should not have been and his
conviction is tossed. Egregiously wrong, I believe, was what the
judge found on the appeals court found on this. And
I would just note, and this is by no means
a you know, I don't even I can't even remember.
All I know is Harvey Weinstein. It's interesting, isn't it.
(21:12):
What do I remember? Harvey Weinstein bad, you know, abusing women.
I can't remember the specifics of what he did. It
was years ago, right, or what he allegedly did, but
I do know that it was absolutely peak me too moment.
And even if you have somebody who is guilty, and
you know whether Harvey Weinstein's really you know, he's been
(21:33):
found guilty a couple of times. I think he probably
is guilty of some very bad things. But even when
you have somebody who's guilty, you're not supposed to stack
the deck. And even me, as a non lawyer knows.
Hold on a second. They let other women testify at
his rape trial that had nothing to do with the
rape that he was being tried for. Like, you know,
(21:54):
you can just be somebody who watches Law and Order
and be like, I don't think that's how this goes.
You can't introduce other testimony for completely, you know, irrelevant
incidents to the incident that you're on trial for like that,
And at that point, true, there's an exception if the
act is so specific in nature that it is, it's
(22:16):
an evidentiary issue. They blew it, okay, So on that case,
I don't even know that they needed the additional testimony.
It's a huge deal for the appeals court to say
we're overturning a jury verdict in another case and saying
he needs a new trial. So they didn't blow this
by a little bit, is my point. They blew this
one big time. And what's also important about this, did
(22:36):
you hear anybody predict that they were going to overturn
this case? Nobody would even defend hardly Harvey Weinstein because
they were afraid that they would get tainted with the
me too assertion. So if you even said, hey, regardless
of what you think about Harvey Weinstein, we need a
precedent and procedure that is applied evenly to all criminal
(22:58):
defendants and if they are accused of heinous ax and
I go back to John Adams defended the Boston Tea
Party massacre. Guys, that is a historical precedent that everybody,
even people accused of hanous acts, deserve the protections of
the court. So the reason why I bring this up
is the Supreme Court is, yes, Trump matters, but the
(23:20):
Supreme Court is looking far beyond Trump and they are saying,
whatever law we craft here is going to be used
against every president for the rest of our lives. And
so if we say Trump can be prosecuted for these
acts which occurred while he was in office that he
(23:40):
claims are directly related to the powers of the presidency,
other prosecutors are going to use this case to prosecute
future presidents for acts that occurred while they were in office.
And so I think what's going on here is I
think the Supreme Court remember the Thomas Jefferson saucer cooling
(24:03):
the idea was the Senate when it's a FAMOUSAI out. Yeah, sure,
I think the Supreme Court is going to try to
chill this out. And I think what they're going to
say is they're going to say president clearly has powers
to avoid criminal prosecution. We are going to say something
like five to four, although it may be six to
three that that we're going to toss this back without
(24:24):
making specific factual evidentiary findings here back to Chutkin to
guarantee basically that this case does not get decided before
voters go out and are able to make choices in
November for Trump. So based on the hearing this morning,
and I think it's still going on. So again, we're
(24:45):
alive on the air, so there could be questions that
change my perceptions on this, but based on what I
listened to this morning, I think that there is increasingly
a highly unlikely chance that any other case is even
close to going to a jury for a verdict other
than New York before this and buck looking at the
(25:07):
Harvey Weinstein case, I'll reiterate, I think, whatever verdict, if
Trump is found guilty in New York, I think in
two years or three years, I think it's going to
get tossed in New York City as well. I'm cautiously
optimistic based on the Supreme Court of Appeals in New
York being willing to weigh in here and even defend
(25:30):
Harvey Weinstein's procedural safeguards. I'm more convinced that this is
going to get tossed on appeal regardless of what happens here.
So I think this is a very good day for Trump.
But I think it's important to remember that while everybody's
focused right now, the bright shiny lights are Trump, there
are presidents for the next one hundred years, two hundred years,
(25:51):
hopefully a thousand years of American life that will be
held accountable based on the decision that the Supreme Court
makes on this. Also the case that you could have
if this were to be let's just say, wrongly decided,
and this was part of the discussions the Court was
having this morning. If it was wrongly decided, which I
(26:11):
don't think is going to happen, but it would result
in a situation where the political opposition could effectively nullify
any presidency they want to. I mean, they could, like
the Liliputians against Gulliver, just tie you down with endless
petty prosecutions because of state of mind corruption for even
(26:33):
official acts. Right. So this is where you get to
the people who would say things like Bush should be
tried for war crimes. If Bush could be tried for
war crimes, meaning you know, pushing for war in iroc
or whatever. The presidency is effectively over. And the people
that shout those things don't really think that through. But
that's the reality. If you could try somebody for I
don't like the decision they made, and I think they
(26:55):
made it for the wrong reasons, but what they did
was was in the scope of presidential decision making, the
presidency is over. I mean those are the you know,
the stakes, not just for Trump, but your point about
the precedent. So that's why you're I think you're right.
They're gonna try to cool things down, and I think
they're going to try to, you know, take minimal steps here,
narrowly tailored things from the Supreme Court on down, because
(27:18):
you go too far in one direction. What is off
the table? Now from the Democrat point of view, they've
already got four prosecutions against Trump. We haven't even mentioned that.
Arizona just released another version of like the the you know,
fake Electors prosecution, and they've named Mark Meadows the chief
of staff under the Trump White House. The whole cast.
I can't remember all their names, like a dozen of them. Yes,
(27:40):
I think someone from Turning Point is mentioned in this.
Even like they got all these people yeah, that are
being prosecuted by the State ag of Arizona. They left
Trump out, but he's an unindicted co conspiracor they talk
about undedded conspirators. Clayton. Now that's the fifth This is
a fifth criminal trial going on about twenty twenty, and
a fifth criminal trial timed and delayed for the timing
(28:03):
to happen in an election year in a swing state,
in a swing state, exactly in a swing state. So
what what is off the table for them now? I
think the other thing about this that we should mention
on the Supreme Court. And by the way it just ended,
Julie Kelly is going to join us. She listened to
the whole thing. She's been fantastic covering a lot of
these cases. She's going to join us at one thirty Eastern.
So in the next hour we'll get her read having
(28:26):
heard every minute of this, because you and I have
been on the air for the last forty five minutes
of the argument. Also mention this this would end the
Atlanta case, even though the Atlanta case is a state prosecution.
In addition to Jack Smith's charges that he brought in DC,
what they are considering in today's hearing would also basically
(28:49):
knock out Atlanta in the state of Georgia, and it
would knock out to a large extent, although Trump's not
indicted himself, I think it would knock out to a
large extent what's going on in air Arizona. Now those
are state cases. So what you would have is New
York City pre exists. I think again, I think it's garbage.
I think it'll get tossed on appeal. New York City
(29:10):
is pre exists. The crime there and the crime in
South Florida allegation is a post presidential crime. Now I
don't think that that one's going to go either. But again,
I think the biggest takeaway here, and we'll hear from Julie,
is I don't think there's any way that the federal
charges cases are going to happen before we all go
(29:33):
vote November fifth. So I was interested while we were
in the break, I just wanted to note that the
back to the Harvey Weinstein thing, cause that can we
just say if we didn't have Trump Supreme Court going
on Trump on trial in New York City going on
Arizona State ag prosecuting Trump associates for the Harvey Weinstein
(29:54):
reversed a huge story, would be a huge story on
any other day. But I look this up as to
the point you're making. I was just saying, if you're
just a law and order watcher, you would kind of
know they're very They call them a malyna like Malyna
exceptions yea, or rather the maln no precedent and the
exceptions of it. It would be you can introduce evidence
(30:14):
for a crime not charged to establish motive intent, the
absence of mistake, a common scheme or plan embracing the commission.
I think this as you were getting to of two
or more crimes related to each other. Yeah, so it's
a weird it's a weird attempt you're trying. It's generally
would be hearsay, right, it would be not permissible to
(30:36):
introduce this evidence. The point is even reading these exceptions, No,
they just this guy was like the pinnacle of me too,
and he's a disgusting, horrible human being, and the judges
were like, you know, baring him under the prison basically,
And I think I'm correct. I haven't. Let's be honest,
I have not paid a ton of attention to the
Harvey Weinstein cases ever, but certainly not in years. I
(30:57):
believe that also is an example of them changing the
statute of limitations in New York because I think a
lot of the charges they brought they were able to
bring back. This is in the decision they redissssed. Right,
this Supreme State Supreme Court decision is actually I did
a rapid scan. How fast can you read one of
these things? I tried it in about three minutes. But
they did get into English common law and the difference
(31:19):
between the French system and the English system. For anybody
wants to know, and the French system, all of you
is on trial. So anything you know you were a bad,
bad person twenty years ago, you do something today that
can be introduced because it goes to what kind of
a person you are? English common law says no, only
the offense that you are charged for. But then we
get into Molly no and these exceptions. Right, the time
(31:40):
barring issue. They addressed that specifically, and they've decided that
he was outside the state for long enough periods of
time during that period of time. Oh, that's such a garbage.
I knew you weren't gonna like that one that I
don't agree with the general idea of a of a
statute of limitations is people memory gets way worse over time,
(32:02):
and also so you can't defend yourself over a period
of time, and the older really is murder. And then
there are a bunch of other like high federal crimes.
But honestly, even a lot of those high federal crimes,
if you looked at them, like, very hard to defend
yourself with against an espionage charge from you know, thirty years. Yeah,
I mean the Egen Carol is a great example. They
don't know when the year was, They don't know, Like,
how do you defend yourself from an allegation that has
(32:24):
no rooting in particular time and place. If you say, hey,
whoever you are listening out there right now, you sexually
assaulted me at some point in the last twenty years.
And you're like, well, where, Well we're not sure what year,
We're not sure. Well, how about witnesses? There are none?
What are you talking about? Like, the idea that you
(32:45):
could do this and just toss the statute of limitations
is crazy to me. This is the Kavanaugh. The Kavanaugh
move and even though it wasn't successful, but at least
he wasn't prosecuted in that case. It's still garbage, but
they try to ruin his life. Yeah, you prosecuted the
guys over this anyway. Eight hundred two A two two
eight A two will take your calls. A lot of
(33:06):
interesting stuff going on today. You know Mother's Day is
coming after everybody at Clay It's May twelve, right, I
got that. I don't know you got merus. Come on,
I'm pulling out the calendar. You're the veteran in this game, man,
twenty years of Marria twelve May twelfth. It is Sunday,
May twelve. Yes, okay, good Mother's Day, May twelve? What
(33:26):
can you do for Mother's Day? I'm gonna take all
the stress off your shoulders. Legacy Box. Legacy Box takes
all your stored videotapes, photos, film, and other media and
digitize it on a brand to brand new digital files.
Is a great gift for any mom, any grandma in
your life. You want to get them Legacy Box as
a gift this Mother's Day. They're gonna make it easy
for you sixty percent off their regular prices. And if
(33:49):
you haven't done this yet, I'm telling you it's it's
You're good to go. Well, what are you doing for
Mother's Day? Oh, I'm doing Legacy Box from Mother's Day.
Good to go. Maybe you want to also throw some
flowers in there. That's up to you, but Legacy Box
has got you covered. Legacy Box dot Com slash buck
sixty percent off their regular prices. I know you're thinking,
huh is this a good Mother's Day gift? It's an
amazing Mother's Day gift. But get the box now, you
fill it up when you want, you send it back.
(34:11):
And they are so precise, and they're so good in
this whole process about telling you at each step of
the way, and you get your originals back and they
actually wrap them really nicely. It's kind of a fun surprise.
A million and a half families have already trusted Legacy Box.
Play's family, my family, do this for Mother's Day. Do
it now, though, because they'll send it to you. You
can actually get stuff back in time for Mother's Day
(34:31):
if you act fast. Go to Legacy box dot com
slash buck for sixty percent off Legacy box dot com
slash buck for the best Mother's Day sale ever.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
You don't know what's you don't know right, but you
should on the Sunday Hang with Clay and Buck podcast.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck Uh coming up. I'm
gonna have some updates for you on you had another
campus in disarray? Cops. They're not messing around in Georgia
swooping in on Emy University as the anti Israel protests
(35:09):
so interesting is what what what the pro I would
I would want to ask them this too. They don't
like it when they're called anti Semitic for obvious reasons.
They don't like even being called I think anti Israel.
What do they think they are protesting? Because really they
just object to everything Israel is doing in Gaza and
to defend itself. But I wonder how they would self describe.
(35:31):
Are they they're pro Palestinian? That's what these protests I
guess would be, because then the distinction comes in with
well are you pro Hamas? But anyway, yes, I'd want
to ask them, and I want to say if you're
if you're pro Palestinian, are you anti Hamas? Because if
you're anti Hamas, I'm not hearing anything about that. But
so if you're just pro across the board, aren't you
kind of supportive of Hamas? Then too there are some
(35:52):
I would have many questions Clay, but they have a
campus cracked down underway for sure. And oh, I can't
believe with the music we long I was gonna all right,
let me gear up with some crocketcoffee Crocketcoffee dot com.
How many of you have subscribed? A lot? We need
a lot more to subscribe though, because I'm drinking it
right now. It's absolutely delicious. Clay is wearing a Crocket teeth,
That's true. That is how we stand up for our
(36:14):
VIP viewers a little bit. They can see that. Look
at that. Look at that amazing logo. Look at the
Clay's been working out everybody, look at that. I don't
I don't know. I'm trying to lose weight. I need
to get back down to my playing weight. Try to
get back down to one seventy five. A seven have
like an eight pack at one seventy five, you can
I do not have an eight pack at one seventy five.
(36:36):
And that's where I'm trying to get back down to
one seventy five is the goal. I've meant one eighty three.
I got eight pounds to go. Appreciate all of you.
What do you got for us in the top of
the next hour. Camp has craziness. Let's talk about it.
Perfect
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.