April 28, 2024 • 54 mins
A precedent setting Supreme Court case. Investigative reporter Julie Kelly with analysis. Kash Patel, former Trump DoD Chief of Staff. And why Mark Simone thinks Trump will win NY.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is twenty four a weekly highlight reel from the
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things the
election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Buck. Trump remains
on trial in New York City. Lots of construction workers,
big Trump fans, a lot of positivity there. But I
want to play for you the big story here. And
I went and read the New York Times coverage just
(00:33):
to confirm that, Yeah, the hearing went about like Buck and.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I told you that it did.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Because if even the Supreme Court headline on the New
York Times is conservative majority seems ready to limit election
case against Trump, such a ruling would probably send it
back to a lower court and delay any trial until
after the November election. So if the New York Times
(01:04):
is telling you a couple of hours later what Buck
and I told you at the top of the show
was likely to be the case, I'm even more convinced
that our analysis of this is on point, because this
is not what the New York Times wants to write.
This is not what the New York Times wants to report.
(01:25):
And Buck, I pulled one line that I thought was
interesting from the New York Times article here, and I
do think it's significant.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We're writing a rule for the ages.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Justice Gore Sutch said, a lot of focus on Trump,
deservedly so, but whatever precedent is put in place here,
the principle of that precedent will apply for years and
years to come. And we've got some audio that I
think goes a long way towards establishing exactly what I
(01:58):
am talking about. From Justice Gorsuch himself, I want to
start this is earlier today. What exact presidential immunity might
Trump have as it pertains to the charges brought by
Jack Smith?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
How do you draw that line? Where should the line be?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Gorsuch talks about the history here and says, I want
to think about how this will apply going forward.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Listen to Cut twenty four.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
The same thing in Nixon, we said, Gosh, Nixon versus Fitzgerald,
that's something court shouldn't get engaged in because presidents have
all manner of motives. And again, I'm not concerned about
this case, but I am concerned about future uses of
the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations
about their motives, whether it's reelection or who knows what
(02:46):
corrupt means in fifteen twelve. Right, we don't know what
that means. Maybe we'll find out sometime soon. But the
dangerousness of accusing you're a political opponent, of having bad motives,
and if that's enough to overcome your core powers or
any other limits.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Fabulously well said Buck. I mean, that's gorsiic. I've got
a couple more I want to play. But this goes
to we're not just deciding Trump. We're deciding what the
precedent should be for presidents that will serve hopefully long
into the future after anyone listening to this right now
is gone.
Speaker 5 (03:23):
Who's your favorite justice on the Court right now?
Speaker 3 (03:27):
It's a great question.
Speaker 5 (03:30):
I'll just for me, it's Alito or Thomas, but occasionally
Gorsich gets to me kind of excited.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
But Alito or Thomas.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I think it's Gorsich because my and this is me
talking as a lawyer, and maybe it's a little bit
of a romantic thought, but what I like about Supreme
Court cases is not deciding challenging issues of today. It's
when they're so incredibly well crafted that two hundred years
(03:58):
from now you could read them and you could say
this principle still applies as a clarion call for liberty
along end of the future. And I think a lot
of justices get captured by the emotional wins of the moment.
For instance, when we had Soda Mayor asking questions about
(04:19):
the mandate on the COVID shot and she couldn't even
get the facts right. Remember she said, there's like one
hundred thousand kids currently hospitalized with COVID and she they were.
Speaker 5 (04:28):
So wrong, probably wearing two masks during the oral arguments.
So that tells well, I mean, and I think that
factors in here. It takes a particular type of intellect
to be contemplating not only what you're deciding today, but
how that principle will apply years in the future. And that,
to me is what the job of a Supreme Court
should be. And that ties in with this cut here Alito,
(04:51):
who you just cited, well one sec before we get
to Aledo, I just to follow up on the on
the Gorsage point, there's a difference between what you want
and what is just right. What you want is in emotion,
it's at any moment in time, and that has to
do with outcome to your point about not just this
but future cases. It has to be able to stand
so that there is an understanding of where the guidelines,
(05:15):
where the rules, the UH guardrails are for a future president.
Because if presidential conduct that is clearly presidential conduct that
you know does not involve some external breaking of law,
can be criminalized based on corrupt desire within the conduct,
(05:36):
then you could have somebody prosecuted for any act this
president that you don't like as as soon as you know,
you decide to do so, right, I mean that, yeah,
this is the this is the real challenge. If you're
just going to read the mind of a president. You know, oh, well,
he he didn't pardon that person because he thought that,
you know, he should. Now pardons are interesting, aren't they?
Because pardons are because it gets a little bit of
(05:57):
a you know, what is the quid pro quo? But
you have to look at whether or not it's presidential conduct,
whether it goes to what the president's duties are supposed
to be. I think that Gorsich understands that this is
because it's the first time they're looking at it, because
the implications. They have to get this right, which is
why I think they'll take a very narrow and minimal
act on action on it. Now you have Aledo, my
(06:18):
favorite probably.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Jeddie Thomas Cut twenty three. Here this is important for
those of you who are not students of history. One
of the I think most indefensible decisions of the World
War II era. Everybody wants to debate now, should we
have dropped the bomb? That's been turned into a big discussion.
My answer is yes, it was a right decision to
drop the bomb on Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but
(06:41):
we had containment camps in the United States for Japanese
Americans and it took years for the court to come
out and say, actually, sorry, we shouldn't have done that.
I believe this is the lawyer. It's been a while
since the bast of bar Koramatsu is the case that
said this was wrong. And Alito says, okay, let's look
(07:02):
at the scope of history. Could FDR have been prosecuted
for putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps?
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Listen to Cut three twenty three.
Speaker 6 (07:11):
Mister Sauer and others have identified events in the past
where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been
charged as a federal crime. And you say, well, no,
that's not really true. This is page forty two of
your brief. So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision
to in turn Japanese Americans during World War Two? Couldn't
(07:34):
that have been charged under eighteen USC. Two forty one
conspiracy against civil rights?
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Today?
Speaker 7 (07:40):
Yes, given this court's decision in Trump versus United States,
in which you know Trump versus Hawaiian excuse me, where
the court said Coramatsu is overruled and President Roosevelt made
that decision with the advice of his Attorney general.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
I mean, the point is a really good one.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
FDR obviously died in Powder Springs, Georgia. Correct me if
I'm wrong, crew in nineteen forty four, right after basically
his re election.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
I think I'm a.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
Pretty good memory. Poll there, Powder Springs, Georgia.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Look at you.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Well, I'm making sure that I'm right. But so, he
couldn't have been prosecuted because he died. But let's pretend
that in another world FDR lives until nineteen sixty four.
What if a prosecutor had decided after he left the
presidency as we now recognize coramats who was the poor decision?
(08:33):
Another good example I read in the Wall Street Journal
this morning. A lot of people forget Abraham Lincoln did
away with the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
He defied his Supreme Court and he said I can
put anybody in prison for any reason under my war
powers while the Civil War is going on.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
That said, it's actually illegal.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
You know, I think it's actually illegal. I mean, you know,
as much as we all like Lincoln.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
A lot, that's the point here is is that even
though it's an illegal act, and we later find out
the Supreme Court says that FDR shouldn't have been able
to do the concentration camps, where do you draw the line?
Speaker 8 (09:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
They tried to say, well, his Attorney General said this
was all right. I think we call them internment camps,
not concentration camps, I think generally.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Right, although I know it's a similar kind, just to differentiate, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Well, they weren't killing.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Uh that's a good question. What is the difference between
a concentration camp and internment camp. But regardless, they weren't
trying to put the Japanese Americans to death. They were
just trying to restrict them from aiding Japan during World
War Two. And also there were restrictions given to different
a German population was so much larger it was not
conceivable to have done that. But there were a lot
of investigations into German American groups to see whether they
(09:49):
were loyal to Germany or the United States. The reason
why I bring this all up is where do you
draw the line?
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Now?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
She tried to say, the Attorney General told FDR he
could do it, so well, that's an interesting argument then, too,
because then the argument is, well, if the conspiracy is
big enough, then you're telling me that there is no
criminal culpability.
Speaker 8 (10:12):
So if the.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Attorney General agrees that the president's misbehaving, well what about
the president found advisors to give him advice that he
wanted to hear, because you could, you know, buck, you
brief the president when you're the president of the United States,
if you ask enough people if you can do something
sooner or later, somebody will say, yeah, you can.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Do it, sir.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
It's even worse than that because in the government bureaucracy,
and I can tell you from the CIA to DNI
office you name it, DA, NSA, NNGA will name all
the different agencies. You figure out a lot of times
this is what people do. What the president wants to hear,
and that's what you tell him, because you're the one
that gets invited back, You're the one that has access,
(10:50):
and you're the one that gets promoted.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Yes, men get promoted. Yes men get promoted. This is
why we're positions of power. Is difficult to make good
decisions because eventually you get so powerful that everybody tells
you're a genius. And this is how the emperor has
no clothes. He's walking around everybody lies to him. Okay,
My point on this is, if you really study history,
Trump will not be the last president that the opposing
(11:14):
political party will try to put in prison. And this
is why I'll give us ring the bell here a
little bit of praise. You and I from the moment
they raided mar A Lago in August of twenty twenty two,
and Alan Dershowitz, there's very few people who actually are
staying committed to principle, said, this is an awful precedent
because once you set a new principle, once you set
(11:38):
a new president, others will follow it. So as soon
as the FBI showed up and rated mar A Lago
and as soon as these charges started my belief is
the only way to really snuff this idea in the bud.
One is the Supreme Court. I should say, there's a
couple Supreme Court has been decent on this so far.
The other one is there need to be political consequences.
(12:00):
Trump needs to kick Joe Biden's ass to such an
extent that people out there say, oh wow, this wouldn't
have happened but for Biden trying to put Trump in
prison for the rest of his life, he was very
going to be the lesson in six months.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
It is very hard to see at least what is
trending right now in all of the polls and not
think that at this point a majority of the American
people are rejecting. Wait you look, you look.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
I just got a text. I want to apologize to America.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
I thought it was power. Are we sure?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
It's not powder springs too? It's warm springs And it
was not take history nerd card for the rest of
the time. This is this is a shot across springs.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
How dare you, sir?
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I think that powder springs and warm springs are the
same thing. It's like Antietam and UH and the UH
and the UH and the sharps Place next to it. Well,
it's like one. It's a river. And you know that's
how they named Civil War battlefields. The North went with
the UH went with the river closest or the stream closest,
and the South went with the city. So you get
(13:08):
like Manassas versus bull Run, and you get Sharpsburg versus Antietam.
Sometimes they agreed because there wasn't water really close. It's
just Gettysburg.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
I need to do it.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I'm gonna go to the I'm gonna go to the
instant replay here.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
But I apologize. I did get the year wrong for sure.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
If you're listening to twenty four The Year of Impact
with Clay.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
And Buck.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
Our guest, you all know her, Julie Kelly with us
now check out Declassified. You can subscribe to that on
sub stack. That is Julie's publication there. It is excellent.
I read it, Clay reads it. Julie, 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 Herd going right to the heart of presidential immunity,
(13:57):
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, I
feel like I'm surprised that I'm gonna have to say this,
but from the New York Times lips to Trump's ear,
(14:20):
I mean, sorry, to God's here's uh, what do you think?
Speaker 6 (14:25):
Well?
Speaker 9 (14:25):
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
(14:46):
a whole slippery slope which several of the justices, at
least Kavanagh or Sachilido 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,
(15:10):
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
(15:32):
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 prosecution for.
So in the indictment, there are certainly elements that are
(15:55):
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.
Even John Sower, who is representing Donald Trump, admitted that okay,
(16:16):
calling 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
(16:37):
could 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 niging immunity,
and then she has to figure out official versus personal
hold some sort of evidentiary hearing to determine what falls
under official what falls under personal a private.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
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 (17:17):
That is a jury.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
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 10 (17:35):
I do?
Speaker 9 (17:36):
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 In and says
you need to hold these hearings to figure out what
(17:57):
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 Chuckkin's ruling. So if
they kick that back, Clay, let's say they do wait
(18:20):
until the end of June or even the end of May.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Sorry to cut you off.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
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 it's the
last case they're basically hearing. That could be a possibility
if they wanted to hold it as long as possible.
Speaker 8 (18:44):
True that the.
Speaker 9 (18:45):
Under 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 enough entrary hearing two three
weeks after that, you have to file your emotions response,
et cetera. You know, they really start to run out
(19:07):
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 acts are official, these aren't.
(19:29):
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 apps, and 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, that's another nightmare
(19:52):
scenario that could be created by but.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
He would be able to pardon himself.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Then in that case, if he won, even if he
putent actually 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 twentieth or whatever the date is
when the officials. Yeah, I mean, that's a long time
(20:19):
for a defeated president to remain in office. Historically it
used to not be till March, but that was because
you had to travel long distances.
Speaker 5 (20:26):
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 indictments against
one of the candidates to be apart.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
But I mean, I think it did that that like
kind of a bayance area, there is is kind of
a mess, is.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Julun to ask you about? You know, this is another
one of these things. It's kind of buried today. It's
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
(21:08):
video today Chris mays, what do you make of this? Like,
they didn't indict Trump, they indicted Mark Meadows, And you know,
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 (21:25):
What do you make of all this?
Speaker 9 (21:27):
I mean, look, I tweetd 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,
(21:49):
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 a unindicted co conspirator, it
is to bolster what's happening here in this j sixth
(22:11):
federal case. And it's also a signal. And we heard
a little bit about this today, Emy Conibert 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
(22:35):
get fake electoral or manufactured, 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
(22:57):
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
(23:17):
pretending that you're, you know, sending an alternative electoral certificate.
Just ridiculous. But so again, such dangerous descent where we
are headed using this lawfair not just federally but state
power too.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Julie, last question for you. You mentioned South Florida. You've
been covering that case. 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 9 (23:54):
We should know And I want to give kudos again
to Judge Cannon. I know we've talked a lot about her,
but it has it reveals and this is why Jacksmith
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
(24:15):
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, DOJ, FBI,
(24:36):
the Archives, the intelligence community. This is like getting the
Russia Gate fy the gate bound back together. So kudos
to her. There's going to be more unfeelings today. I
will be posting later juliannderscore Kelly two, which is the
grand jury transcript of the of Walteene, Nada, Trump's close
personal aid. Also who has been charged in that case
(24:58):
as well.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
J we should mention, by the way, Buck that took
place in Washington, d C. Before they then flipped to
the proceeding all the way down to South Florida, so
that Judge Cannon wasn't in charge of this.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
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 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 9 (25:29):
I mean, right now, I have to think what's happening
in New York.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
Unfortunately, I thought you might say that because Clay and
I were just talking about that. This Actually 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's substack. Everybody declassified.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Julie.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Always appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 9 (25:50):
Thanks, guys, have a good day.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
You know that I like to look and Julie's phenomenal.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I'd encourage all of you to go follow everything that
Julie Kelly's been saying, she has been in turn terms
of analysis and trying to look in the direction that
we are going better than almost anybody out there. Everybody
was ridiculing the 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
(26:17):
for sarbains Oxley being used on jan six cases.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
She was right, they're going to strike it down. I
think she's right that there is.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Only going to be now one case completed before we
get to November, which makes me wonder 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. They thought we're going to have Donald Trump
(26:49):
in court March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November,
all the way up to election day. We're going to
hit him with federal charges. There's going to 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.
(27:09):
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 a conviction. But I think what you're
gonna see as a result is, and we've been hinting
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
(27:31):
Trump as they become aware, uh oh, this is the
only bite at the apple we're gonna get.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
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
(27:58):
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
(28:20):
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 were sitting there charged with doing
(28:40):
what Trump is doing, and I were on that jury,
I would not convict him.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
It's wrong.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
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 in excusable, and
now it's looking more and more like that's their great
hope to defeat Donald Trump. That's how they're going to
(29:08):
get four more years for Joe Biden the business records
charge in New York.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
You're listening to twenty four the most Important Tier in
politics with Clay, Travis and box Sexton.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
Cash Puttel is joining US former DoD chief of staff,
former federal prosecutor, and public defender. He has selected sixty
juries for trial service. Cash been a bit my friend.
Speaker 10 (29:42):
How you doing, Hey, great to be with you guys.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (29:46):
Yeah, man, absolutely, So let's start the two big news
items today. A lot of campus anti Israel stuff, but
also the Trump trial that is going on, which is
in some ways it's hard to believe even though it's happening.
This is where we are as a country. This is
what's happening, this is what's underway. What's your sense of ben,
(30:07):
I'd start with this. Do you feel like there's any
chance that anyone on this jury might be fairly disposed
toward the truth of this case and Donald Trump in general.
Speaker 10 (30:20):
Look, there's always a chance, but there's a reason I
live in Las Vegas and don't gamble as often as
I used to, and people are gambling on this trial.
Speaker 8 (30:28):
Will probably lose.
Speaker 10 (30:29):
The reality is what is happening. The tragedy is the
destruction of due process. And for some reason, these prosecutors
and judges have teamed up to think that the system
of due process under the Constitution no longer applies to
Donald Trump, or that they can selectively apply to him
in pieces. And what I mean by that is just
look at the opening statement today. The lead prosecutor, who
(30:53):
used to be the number three prosecutor at the Department
of Justice, he gave the opening statement. This guy Colangelo,
and he said he told the jury donald Trump is
here because of a criminal conspiracy related to election Trump. Now,
the Constitution forbids specifically any mention of crimes, not charging
the indictment to be presented to the jury. But this judge,
of course lapped it up and allowed it. There is
(31:15):
no charge of conspiracy anywhere in the indictment. And all
they continue to do is shred the do process, rites
of Donald Trump and that of the Constitution in the process,
and weaken our system of justice.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I think that's a really important point you just made.
Who exactly is involved in this trial. The Biden administration,
Joe Biden himself, many of their allies in the media.
They regularly I was reading The Times this morning, laying
out and Sunday laying out all their analysis and reading
all their articles saying, oh, there is no grand conspiracy
against Donald Trump. This is just happens to be Alvin Bragg,
(31:49):
It just happens to be Fanny Willis. Jack Smith is
totally independent. Merrick Garland's not involved in these cases. What
did you just say? I think this is so important.
The former number three position at the Department of Justice
is now prosecuting a state court case.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Now you have a little bit of a background in this.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
In general, wouldn't this be akin to being a major
leaguer and going back to a ball? In other words,
you would want to be as high as you could
be in the Department of Justice number three. Overall in
the DOJ, it's a big friggin deal when it comes
to trial prosecution a state court in Manhattan? Is that
(32:31):
not a crazy decent analogy and a sports perspective, it'd
be like if you made the major leagues deciding to
go back to single A or double A ball to
prosecute a state city court crime like this.
Speaker 10 (32:45):
Yeah, as a sportsman, I love the analogy, and look,
you're absolutely right. What it shows is the two tier
system of justice. And just to highlight the importance of this,
the number three. There's the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General,
and then this guy who's who used Colangelo, who used
to sit at the head of the civil writs the
vision as the p DAG and now he has left
that job gone on to join Bragg's team, and not
(33:09):
just quietly joined the team. He delivered the opening statement.
And this guy who's been a career prosecutor who knows
you cannot tell a jury about any uncharged crimes opened
with just that. And that shows you the level of
connective connectivity between the DOJ, the Biden administration, and Bragg's office.
(33:30):
And so when people say, oh, no, there's no conspiracy here, well,
there's no such thing as coincidences in the United States government,
certainly not at Joe Biden and Merrick Garland DOJ. And
now we're seeing it front and center, and this judge
is allowing it all to happen.
Speaker 5 (33:46):
Speaking of Cash but Cash matel formerly of Trump's DoD
he was chief of staff at the Pentagon Cash and
also former federal prosecutor ysh. If they find Trump guilty,
and we know that's an if we who knows where
the jury's going to go with this? What do you
think will happen and how quickly do you see it happening.
Speaker 10 (34:06):
Well, what's supposed to happen, especially in a case like this,
is that there would be an appellate process and the
defendant would remain out of custody because this is a
nonviolent crime and you're talking about an individual who has
literally zero criminal history, and we're talking about an instance
where there are allegedly, excuse me, there are no victims
(34:26):
of violent crimes. But what will happen here is this
judge will probably take matters into his own hands, continue
to create a new system of justice and try to
probably imprison Donald Trump and deny him his appellate rights
that the constitution allows. So it's going to be a
very very unfortunate series of events if Donald Trump is convicted,
(34:47):
because it would be unlawful and unconstitutional. But then what
this judge could do to him is completely remove him
from the campaign trail, which that is a clear impetus.
If you've ever watched even just one day of this trial,
this judge has made up his mind like Judging Gorn
did in the civil case that just happened before this one.
These guys have convicted Trump in the court of public
opinion and are going to convict them in their own courtrooms.
(35:08):
They're just waiting for the process to play out.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Cash, how do you break down the other cases you've
been involved in the criminal court system before on as
for as crazy as this New York City case is, Thursday,
we have the presidential immunity case that's being argued the
oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Presumably sometime
in June, we'll get that decision as well as the
Fisher case having to do with whether or not you
(35:33):
can prosecute for effectively impeding official proceedings, as has been
occurring with many of the January sixth related charges. How
does the timeline work to you for this? Do you
think that the New York City case is the only
one that would go all the way through and get
a jury verdict or do you think there will be
a possibility of another case as well between now and
(35:56):
November fifth.
Speaker 10 (35:58):
Well, again, if we were on the normal timeline of justice,
these cases would not even be charged this year. They
would be charged later, and the timeline for average prosecution
is two to four years. But they took the ho
v lane because it's Donald Trump. Now we'll see what
the Supreme Court decides, but it's unequivocally, in my opinion,
executive privilege for the president who have acted in the
(36:18):
way he did, and that should apply here. It's also
another indication that Joe Biden, who personally had to dissolve
executive privilege for the DOJ to bring that prosecution in
DC and Florida. He had to personally get involved. So
when he says I'm not involved, that's another charade. But
once the Supreme Court decides on that case and also
(36:38):
the obstructioning case, which is a very important point you
bring up, the Supreme Court, I believe, is going to
deny the use of the substruction statute which is from
the Enron financial crimes fiasco, and they're going to throw
out three hundred plus convictions related to January sixth, and
that should upend the entire timeline of any of the
trials sportscoming. But we don't know what these district court
(37:00):
judges who are going to do, like Chutkin, who have
already basically stated that Donald Trump is a threat to
democracy and they want him removed from the electoral process.
Speaker 5 (37:09):
Speaking to Cash Patel, former federal prosecutor, Cash, Trump is
facing all this stuff. How is he able to hold
up under under all of it? You know, with multiple
criminal prosecutions. I mean, I know you and the President
are in contact, and he knows you well, and you
(37:32):
may well be a senior figure in his next administration.
Not to get too far ahead of things, but that's
very possible here. How is he able to do this
run for president with four absolutely insane federal or sorry
felony criminal indictments three well sorry too, federal and two
state against him right now.
Speaker 10 (37:51):
Yeah, you know, I was just with the President the
other week and it's a you know, it's it's a conversation.
Many of my conversations I don't reveal that this one
I'm happy to you know. I asked him, as a president,
how do you deal to this is exact question. You know,
you're being falsely prosecuted, they're taking away your money, they're
coming after your family, they're defaming you constantly. And his
answer is really simple. He goes cash. The future of
(38:13):
this country is at stake and he will not let
it fail on his watch. And I think that drives
him every single day that he wakes up and he
says when the other side says, oh, Donald Trump's just
in it for the money and fame, well the reality
shows it's the opposite. He's fighting for everybody else's right
to have fame, to have money, to have the right
to be an American citizen. And that energizes it more
(38:36):
than anything I've ever seen. And I don't think you're
going to see Donald Trump, slow down. Every time they
throw an arrow at this guy, he ingested, and he
becomes the juggernaut of justice and rolls down the street,
whether it's in New York, d C. Florida, or elsewhere,
and convinces more and more Americans that this two tier
system of justice has been weaponized for political purposes. And
he's asking Americans not only to recognize that, but to
(38:57):
go to the polls in November and elect him so
we can fix our constitutional republic.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Last question for you, and I think you kind of
hinted at this at the beginning. This is obviously a
rigged jury that eighty seven percent of people voted against
Donald Trump in this jurisdiction. Based on analyzing the twelve jurors,
the six alternates, everything else, what do you think the
chances are, first of all, of a not guilty verdict?
Buck and I both put that at zero. Do you
(39:23):
think there is and I'm curious if you would agree
with that. Do you think there is potentially a juror
on this trial that might be willing to refuse to
vote to convict and essentially give what would be a
win I think through a hung jury based on what
you've seen based on your analysis of this case, how
would you assess that probability?
Speaker 10 (39:46):
Yeah, Look, going back to my public defender days and
my federal public defender days, where I defended scores of
criminals in front of scores of different juries in different
court rooms, we always used to say the following, you
just need one. You don't need all twelve, You just
need one. And that's what you guys are talking about
to get to a hung jury.
Speaker 8 (40:02):
Now.
Speaker 10 (40:03):
I think the chance is that one of those twelve
jurors agrees with Donald Trump's presentation of the evidence is strong.
But the chance that that same juror withstands the scrutiny
that is going to come at his way from the
media and the rest of the jury and the world,
because this is the most important criminal prosecution in literally
US if history. It's not the world that may fold
(40:23):
that juror, that may succumb him to the pressures of
the outside. But if the jurors actually stuck to the
facts and the law, there's no way any of the
twelve would convict Donald Trump because there is no crime here.
It's not a hush money case. It has to do
with ledgers and payments made to a lawyer, all of
which is above board. But I think Donald Trump's attorneys
are looking for that one attorney, and there's a chance
(40:44):
that they find them cash.
Speaker 5 (40:46):
But tell everybody cash. Appreciate you being with us, man,
Thanks so much.
Speaker 10 (40:50):
Thanks guys, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
You're listening to twenty more The Year of Impact with
Clay and Box.
Speaker 5 (41:00):
We are looking at some interesting stuff happening in New
York these days. That's probably always true, but in a
political sense, particularly interesting stuff happening right now.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
I'm just gonna put this too so we can dive
into it.
Speaker 5 (41:13):
Back in two thousand and eight, Barack Obama won New
York that year by a twenty six point nine percent
margin of victory. Okay, so am I we'll call it
twenty seven points, which is you know that is a
beat down for sure. I'm looking right now, Mark at
(41:33):
the latest Siena College polling, which was just from a
week ago, and the polls all compiled here on five
thirty eight dot com. They've got in New York Trump v. Biden,
Biden up seven points, Biden up eight points. You think
(41:54):
something big is perhaps in the mix. What's going on here?
Is this going to be competitive?
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Oh?
Speaker 8 (41:59):
No, I think Donald Trump's going to win New York.
I don't think it's going to be competitive. I think
he'll win it. You got to remember about two thousand
and eight, McCain was whatever reason he wasn't a strong candidate,
turnout for him was extremely low. So that's not the
best test. And now remember Ronald Reagan won New York
twice twice, so it can be done. I know that's
a long time ago. But Trump is different from anybody else.
(42:23):
He's beloved in New York by a lot of people.
I know in New York City is the problem, but
half the voters are outside of New York City. He's
got them, and normally he'd have trouble in New York City,
but a lot of that Democratic base is secretly quietly
moving over to Trump. People that just don't like the
crime anymore. They don't like it out of control. He
(42:45):
goes to Harlem where that bodega is, or as Biden
would say, that Bogada, and he pier's at that bodega
and watch the video. Everybody in the street is cheering him.
There's no booze anywhere. He goes to the construction site
Park Avenue, but Remember it's working class guys, construction workers
who live in New York, and they're all cheering him
(43:06):
and chanting for him. I think he wins. I think
he wins New York. All right.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
I want to dive into this because this is a
bold prediction. I love bold predictions, as Buckwell knows, although
I've lost on several of my bold predictions. Here, I
want to hit you with a couple of fact patterns.
Close race just happened to be fair. Twenty twenty two
governor's race, Kathy Hokel not very popular, Lee Zelden loses
(43:31):
fifty three to forty seven. So let me ask you
this question. If Kathy Hokel and Lee Zelden ran in
twenty twenty four, in other words, if we didn't have
a mid term twenty twenty two election, if they were
on the ballot, I presume you think Lee Zelden would
win head to head against Kathy Hokel as well, and
that there's been a further shift right word since he
(43:53):
would have lost by six points two years ago.
Speaker 8 (43:56):
Yeah, I love Leezeldon. Great guy. He'd be an excellent
govern not exactly the most dynamic candidate in the world,
and Hokel had all that democratic momentum behind her, but
people have now seen her in office for a few years,
and she thinks she's absolutely awful. Between the congestion pricing,
doing nothing about this anti semitism all over the campuses,
(44:18):
doing nothing about inflation, and the state congestion pricing is ridiculous.
She sends the National Guard into the subway to protect people.
It's crime down there. They have no power in the
subway to do anything, so she decides to'll inspect packages
or bags or I don't know, any criminal to bring
his luggage with them. They don't have briefcases, they don't
(44:41):
have persons. I don't know what they're inspecting. So yeah,
Zelden could win today, and I really think Trump. You know,
he said he was seven eight points behind. That was
the case in almost every swing state, and he closed
those gaps. He's good at closing eight percent gaps. He'll
do it in New York.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Okay, So if he wins New York, that's going to
be a landslope. Do you agree with that? I mean,
because he's not going to lose Pennsylvania and win New York, right,
He's not going to lose Wisconsin. And win New York.
He's not going to win New York and lose Michigan.
I mean that would mean that he would sweep through
the Midwest. He might win Minnesota. What you're saying is
six months out, you think Trump is not only going
to win, he's gonna win comfortably. By ten o'clock Eastern
(45:19):
on election night, we would know who that he was
the winner.
Speaker 8 (45:24):
Well, yeah, I mean, who knows what the Democrats will pull.
But it's only going to get better for Donald Trump
and it's only going to get worse for Joe Biden. Mentally,
things will come out. I think these trials have had
just the opposite effect Democrats intended. People are starting to
look at these trials. I don't mean the MSNBC cret
I mean normal people, and they don't like the total
(45:46):
perversion of our justice system. They don't like any of this.
It's only going to get better for Trump in the summer.
You'll see momentum.
Speaker 5 (45:53):
Just do you think Biden's going to debate Mark I'm
sure you saw today he said on another radio show,
Oh yeah, I'll debate Trump. Trump's response to it was, no,
one really believes that, right, What do you think I.
Speaker 8 (46:05):
Don't believe it. I mean, what was the exact words.
I'd be happy to that that thing, I'll do it.
I'd be happy to. But the staff whoever, will come
up with a million excuses not to do it. Hey,
you notice Biden won't talk to the New York Times,
won't give them an interview, won't give any real news
organization the interview, but he's happy to do Seth Meyers
and Howard Stern. What does that tell you about his confidence? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (46:27):
No, there's clearly a coddling of him in the media
that goes beyond even what we normally would expect. We're
speaking of Mark Simon and mister New York of seven
to ten wor in NYC. So you mentioned the trials
Mark and Clay and I have tried to do a
little bit of jury pool analysis, but also looking back
or taking a step back and looking at the overall
(46:47):
system in New York City. Do you have any faith
that there might be somebody on that jury who's just
going to say this is too crazy, I can't go
along with this, or do you think that it's kind
of a done deal and they might get a multi
verdict on this.
Speaker 8 (47:02):
Uh, you know, I don't have a lot of confidence.
It's a New York jury, it's a totally over the
top biased judge. The only good news is the Harvey
Weinstein reversal was based on all these things the judge did,
and this judge in the Trump trial has done exactly
the same thing, so that almost guarantees the reversal. Hopefully
the judges looking at this and will ease up a little.
(47:24):
But there's so far there's no crime alleged. The catch
and kill perfectly legal. Biden did the biggest catch and
kill in history when he had Facebook, Twitter, the biggest
publishers cover up the Hunter laptop scandal. So, but you're right,
you can never tell what a jury'll do.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
You mentioned that again, you think Trump's gonna win New York,
which would be amazing and would be a lot of
fun to watch. Can you imagine the panic that would
ensue an MSNBC and CNN if because New York comes
in early, and if you start seeing those numbers and
buy and is only up a couple of points or
Trump is within a couple of points, what does the
(48:04):
tally look like?
Speaker 3 (48:06):
You know, at forty seven percent?
Speaker 2 (48:07):
If I'm looking at this overall you know, in terms
of turnout in twenty twenty two, do you think there's
going to be a massive turnout in the New York
election or do you think Biden's just not getting out
his base Black voters are moving on Asian Hispanic voters.
What does the coalition look like for Trump if that
were to happen.
Speaker 8 (48:28):
Yeah, I think that's a good point. But I think
low turnout for Biden. And you don't usually get the
high Republican turnout in New York, but you'll get it
this time because again, crime is a huge factor. Also,
this anti semitism, the stuff on the college campists, it's
frightening a lot of people, not just Jews, but Christians
Gentiles as well, because this kind of bigotry being tolerated
(48:51):
is frightening a lot of people. And who just watch
the perversion of the justice system, the total disintegration of
our universities, the streets every time, thing is just awful,
the migrants everywhere. I think you're going to see enormous
Republican turnout this time. Also look at Long Island, Nasau County,
which is a good barometer. The county executive, the attorney general,
(49:14):
the Republicans swept in Nasau County. It's a good indicative
of what's coming.
Speaker 5 (49:20):
Mark, Simo and everybody. Mark appreciate you being with us.
Thanks for calling in from seven to ten. Wor great
to have you as always.
Speaker 8 (49:27):
Thanks love listening to you every day.
Speaker 5 (49:29):
Thanks Man, Thanks so much. You know, Clay, I just
want to say, you know you said it. You're a
bold prediction guy. But Trump, If Trump wins New York,
this is up there with you. Remember when some of
you do remember this and Colter was on Bill mahershow
at the very beginning of the twenty sixteen cycle primary
(49:49):
and they said who do you think is going to win?
And she said, right on camera, She started, right in
the camera, this is before like the polls showed him ahead.
She said, Donald Trump. And they had to have her
on later. That was a heck whatever you think, that
was a heck of a call. If Mark is right
and Trump wins New York, the first time a Republican
will have won it since Ronald Reagan, We're going to
have to have him on for a little victory dance.
(50:10):
I think Trump will. You know, it's funny, he's so
ready to go that Trump will win. That me pointing
out that he's only behind even by Democrat pollsters six
seven points. I mean, that's a contested state. If you
really look at it, right, six or seven points looks
like that's up for grabs, So it's not as crazy.
(50:30):
That's why I said Barack Obama won by almost thirty
very different times.
Speaker 8 (50:34):
Now.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
Yeah, and I think this is a good question because
you guys out there listening can help us with this.
Is that the boldest prediction in three years of us
being on the air, in terms of guests. I know
you and I have made bold predictions, but I don't
even think I've gone that far in making a bold
prediction about New York because it's not just.
Speaker 3 (50:54):
If he's right.
Speaker 2 (50:56):
Think about it. I've made some bold predictions, many of
them are wrong. But uh, but if you think about it,
if New York flipped, that's why I asked him. I mean, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Wisconsin are going to go Trump, and then I
think Minnesota probably would, and I think you would flip
Virginia potentially.
Speaker 3 (51:15):
Like you're right about New York. Trump.
Speaker 5 (51:17):
It's style, It's it's a total butt kicking. There's no
question about it. Because you're not gonna win New York
and not win Pennsylvania. You're you're not going to win
New York and then fail to win Pennsylvania and some
of these other these other key states. But I think
that look, I mean, you've talked about predictions. I thought
Leez Eldon was going to win and maybe that for governor,
and that would have been at least one repudiation of
(51:40):
a COVID lockdown lunatic governor. Unfortunately, it didn't end up happening,
but he made it close. And you know, New York,
right after California is the biggest Democrat stronghold state that
there is, so the fact that it would even be
a place where you're gonna, I think you're gonna see
Republican members of Congress that are doing well in New York.
We would not have the very thin and some of
(52:03):
that is self inflicted wounds by the Republicans in Congress, unfortunately,
but we would not have a Republican majority if it
were not for New York Republicans and California Republicans coming
out and winning in some key congressional races and the
GOP base turning out for them there.
Speaker 2 (52:20):
Particularly in New York Long Island, Nasau and Suffolk Counties.
I mean, turning out big for Republicans. I do think
that's big Trump territory. We talked about this last year
when I was up in Cooperstown. How blown away my
kids were Trump flags everywhere everywhere we went in upstate
New York. When we were in Cooperstown, New York, my
kids couldn't get over it we were driving around. I mean,
(52:41):
that is major Trump territory. And what some Marx Simone
just hit on is it's really you win in Manhattan.
I remember we had Lee Zeldon on and you went
in Manhattan by limiting the amount that Democrats can run
up the score. And I do think that Manhattan and
in the New York City area, I don't think that
Biden's going to run up the score. I think again,
(53:02):
it comes down to these suburban moms, these suburban women,
and maybe they're not threatened in New York over the
abortion argument because it's easier to get an abortion now,
I think in New York than it was before Roe v.
Speaker 3 (53:14):
Wade was overturned. Well, this is why I think that.
Speaker 5 (53:16):
You know, we had that caller before and he said
he's so worried about how abortion's going to play into this.
It worked really well in twenty twenty two because they
were able to lie to people and say, even you know,
in all kinds of states, they're going to stop you
from getting abortions in places like New York, and I
think this is a tragedy. But in places like New York,
it's still just as easy to get an abortion, and
(53:38):
so it's a lot harder, I think, to drive turnout
because that is the law.
Speaker 3 (53:43):
People can understand it.
Speaker 8 (53:44):
There.
Speaker 3 (53:45):
We'll take some of your calls.
Speaker 5 (53:46):
I'm wondering if anybody else, Let's see if anybody else
Clay in New York wants to back Mark up on
this one among the boldest, for sure predictions we have
heard on this show. And you know Mark is very
tied into the political scene in New York York City
and up in Albany for New York State, so you
know he would. I talked to him a little bit before,
I said, are you sure do you want to say?
Speaker 3 (54:07):
Do you want to say that publicly on the ass,
like you really want to let it rip? You said?
Speaker 5 (54:10):
He is confident, he is fired up, and he says
he sees it
This is twenty four a weekly highlight reel from the
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things the
election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Buck. Trump remains
on trial in New York City. Lots of construction workers,
big Trump fans, a lot of positivity there. But I
want to play for you the big story here. And
I went and read the New York Times coverage just
(00:33):
to confirm that, Yeah, the hearing went about like Buck and.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I told you that it did.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Because if even the Supreme Court headline on the New
York Times is conservative majority seems ready to limit election
case against Trump, such a ruling would probably send it
back to a lower court and delay any trial until
after the November election. So if the New York Times
(01:04):
is telling you a couple of hours later what Buck
and I told you at the top of the show
was likely to be the case, I'm even more convinced
that our analysis of this is on point, because this
is not what the New York Times wants to write.
This is not what the New York Times wants to report.
(01:25):
And Buck, I pulled one line that I thought was
interesting from the New York Times article here, and I
do think it's significant.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We're writing a rule for the ages.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Justice Gore Sutch said, a lot of focus on Trump,
deservedly so, but whatever precedent is put in place here,
the principle of that precedent will apply for years and
years to come. And we've got some audio that I
think goes a long way towards establishing exactly what I
(01:58):
am talking about. From Justice Gorsuch himself, I want to
start this is earlier today. What exact presidential immunity might
Trump have as it pertains to the charges brought by
Jack Smith?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
How do you draw that line? Where should the line be?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Gorsuch talks about the history here and says, I want
to think about how this will apply going forward.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Listen to Cut twenty four.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
The same thing in Nixon, we said, Gosh, Nixon versus Fitzgerald,
that's something court shouldn't get engaged in because presidents have
all manner of motives. And again, I'm not concerned about
this case, but I am concerned about future uses of
the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations
about their motives, whether it's reelection or who knows what
(02:46):
corrupt means in fifteen twelve. Right, we don't know what
that means. Maybe we'll find out sometime soon. But the
dangerousness of accusing you're a political opponent, of having bad motives,
and if that's enough to overcome your core powers or
any other limits.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Fabulously well said Buck. I mean, that's gorsiic. I've got
a couple more I want to play. But this goes
to we're not just deciding Trump. We're deciding what the
precedent should be for presidents that will serve hopefully long
into the future after anyone listening to this right now
is gone.
Speaker 5 (03:23):
Who's your favorite justice on the Court right now?
Speaker 3 (03:27):
It's a great question.
Speaker 5 (03:30):
I'll just for me, it's Alito or Thomas, but occasionally
Gorsich gets to me kind of excited.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
But Alito or Thomas.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
I think it's Gorsich because my and this is me
talking as a lawyer, and maybe it's a little bit
of a romantic thought, but what I like about Supreme
Court cases is not deciding challenging issues of today. It's
when they're so incredibly well crafted that two hundred years
(03:58):
from now you could read them and you could say
this principle still applies as a clarion call for liberty
along end of the future. And I think a lot
of justices get captured by the emotional wins of the moment.
For instance, when we had Soda Mayor asking questions about
(04:19):
the mandate on the COVID shot and she couldn't even
get the facts right. Remember she said, there's like one
hundred thousand kids currently hospitalized with COVID and she they were.
Speaker 5 (04:28):
So wrong, probably wearing two masks during the oral arguments.
So that tells well, I mean, and I think that
factors in here. It takes a particular type of intellect
to be contemplating not only what you're deciding today, but
how that principle will apply years in the future. And that,
to me is what the job of a Supreme Court
should be. And that ties in with this cut here Alito,
(04:51):
who you just cited, well one sec before we get
to Aledo, I just to follow up on the on
the Gorsage point, there's a difference between what you want
and what is just right. What you want is in emotion,
it's at any moment in time, and that has to
do with outcome to your point about not just this
but future cases. It has to be able to stand
so that there is an understanding of where the guidelines,
(05:15):
where the rules, the UH guardrails are for a future president.
Because if presidential conduct that is clearly presidential conduct that
you know does not involve some external breaking of law,
can be criminalized based on corrupt desire within the conduct,
(05:36):
then you could have somebody prosecuted for any act this
president that you don't like as as soon as you know,
you decide to do so, right, I mean that, yeah,
this is the this is the real challenge. If you're
just going to read the mind of a president. You know, oh, well,
he he didn't pardon that person because he thought that,
you know, he should. Now pardons are interesting, aren't they?
Because pardons are because it gets a little bit of
(05:57):
a you know, what is the quid pro quo? But
you have to look at whether or not it's presidential conduct,
whether it goes to what the president's duties are supposed
to be. I think that Gorsich understands that this is
because it's the first time they're looking at it, because
the implications. They have to get this right, which is
why I think they'll take a very narrow and minimal
act on action on it. Now you have Aledo, my
(06:18):
favorite probably.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Jeddie Thomas Cut twenty three. Here this is important for
those of you who are not students of history. One
of the I think most indefensible decisions of the World
War II era. Everybody wants to debate now, should we
have dropped the bomb? That's been turned into a big discussion.
My answer is yes, it was a right decision to
drop the bomb on Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but
(06:41):
we had containment camps in the United States for Japanese
Americans and it took years for the court to come
out and say, actually, sorry, we shouldn't have done that.
I believe this is the lawyer. It's been a while
since the bast of bar Koramatsu is the case that
said this was wrong. And Alito says, okay, let's look
(07:02):
at the scope of history. Could FDR have been prosecuted
for putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps?
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Listen to Cut three twenty three.
Speaker 6 (07:11):
Mister Sauer and others have identified events in the past
where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been
charged as a federal crime. And you say, well, no,
that's not really true. This is page forty two of
your brief. So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision
to in turn Japanese Americans during World War Two? Couldn't
(07:34):
that have been charged under eighteen USC. Two forty one
conspiracy against civil rights?
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Today?
Speaker 7 (07:40):
Yes, given this court's decision in Trump versus United States,
in which you know Trump versus Hawaiian excuse me, where
the court said Coramatsu is overruled and President Roosevelt made
that decision with the advice of his Attorney general.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
I mean, the point is a really good one.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
FDR obviously died in Powder Springs, Georgia. Correct me if
I'm wrong, crew in nineteen forty four, right after basically
his re election.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
I think I'm a.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
Pretty good memory. Poll there, Powder Springs, Georgia.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Look at you.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Well, I'm making sure that I'm right. But so, he
couldn't have been prosecuted because he died. But let's pretend
that in another world FDR lives until nineteen sixty four.
What if a prosecutor had decided after he left the
presidency as we now recognize coramats who was the poor decision?
(08:33):
Another good example I read in the Wall Street Journal
this morning. A lot of people forget Abraham Lincoln did
away with the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
He defied his Supreme Court and he said I can
put anybody in prison for any reason under my war
powers while the Civil War is going on.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
That said, it's actually illegal.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
You know, I think it's actually illegal. I mean, you know,
as much as we all like Lincoln.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
A lot, that's the point here is is that even
though it's an illegal act, and we later find out
the Supreme Court says that FDR shouldn't have been able
to do the concentration camps, where do you draw the line?
Speaker 8 (09:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
They tried to say, well, his Attorney General said this
was all right. I think we call them internment camps,
not concentration camps, I think generally.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
Right, although I know it's a similar kind, just to differentiate, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Well, they weren't killing.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Uh that's a good question. What is the difference between
a concentration camp and internment camp. But regardless, they weren't
trying to put the Japanese Americans to death. They were
just trying to restrict them from aiding Japan during World
War Two. And also there were restrictions given to different
a German population was so much larger it was not
conceivable to have done that. But there were a lot
of investigations into German American groups to see whether they
(09:49):
were loyal to Germany or the United States. The reason
why I bring this all up is where do you
draw the line?
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Now?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
She tried to say, the Attorney General told FDR he
could do it, so well, that's an interesting argument then, too,
because then the argument is, well, if the conspiracy is
big enough, then you're telling me that there is no
criminal culpability.
Speaker 8 (10:12):
So if the.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Attorney General agrees that the president's misbehaving, well what about
the president found advisors to give him advice that he
wanted to hear, because you could, you know, buck, you
brief the president when you're the president of the United States,
if you ask enough people if you can do something
sooner or later, somebody will say, yeah, you can.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Do it, sir.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
It's even worse than that because in the government bureaucracy,
and I can tell you from the CIA to DNI
office you name it, DA, NSA, NNGA will name all
the different agencies. You figure out a lot of times
this is what people do. What the president wants to hear,
and that's what you tell him, because you're the one
that gets invited back, You're the one that has access,
(10:50):
and you're the one that gets promoted.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Yes, men get promoted. Yes men get promoted. This is
why we're positions of power. Is difficult to make good
decisions because eventually you get so powerful that everybody tells
you're a genius. And this is how the emperor has
no clothes. He's walking around everybody lies to him. Okay,
My point on this is, if you really study history,
Trump will not be the last president that the opposing
(11:14):
political party will try to put in prison. And this
is why I'll give us ring the bell here a
little bit of praise. You and I from the moment
they raided mar A Lago in August of twenty twenty two,
and Alan Dershowitz, there's very few people who actually are
staying committed to principle, said, this is an awful precedent
because once you set a new principle, once you set
(11:38):
a new president, others will follow it. So as soon
as the FBI showed up and rated mar A Lago
and as soon as these charges started my belief is
the only way to really snuff this idea in the bud.
One is the Supreme Court. I should say, there's a
couple Supreme Court has been decent on this so far.
The other one is there need to be political consequences.
(12:00):
Trump needs to kick Joe Biden's ass to such an
extent that people out there say, oh wow, this wouldn't
have happened but for Biden trying to put Trump in
prison for the rest of his life, he was very
going to be the lesson in six months.
Speaker 5 (12:14):
It is very hard to see at least what is
trending right now in all of the polls and not
think that at this point a majority of the American
people are rejecting. Wait you look, you look.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
I just got a text. I want to apologize to America.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
I thought it was power. Are we sure?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
It's not powder springs too? It's warm springs And it
was not take history nerd card for the rest of
the time. This is this is a shot across springs.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
How dare you, sir?
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I think that powder springs and warm springs are the
same thing. It's like Antietam and UH and the UH
and the UH and the sharps Place next to it. Well,
it's like one. It's a river. And you know that's
how they named Civil War battlefields. The North went with
the UH went with the river closest or the stream closest,
and the South went with the city. So you get
(13:08):
like Manassas versus bull Run, and you get Sharpsburg versus Antietam.
Sometimes they agreed because there wasn't water really close. It's
just Gettysburg.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
I need to do it.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I'm gonna go to the I'm gonna go to the
instant replay here.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
But I apologize. I did get the year wrong for sure.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
If you're listening to twenty four The Year of Impact
with Clay.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
And Buck.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
Our guest, you all know her, Julie Kelly with us
now check out Declassified. You can subscribe to that on
sub stack. That is Julie's publication there. It is excellent.
I read it, Clay reads it. Julie, 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 Herd going right to the heart of presidential immunity,
(13:57):
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, I
feel like I'm surprised that I'm gonna have to say this,
but from the New York Times lips to Trump's ear,
(14:20):
I mean, sorry, to God's here's uh, what do you think?
Speaker 6 (14:25):
Well?
Speaker 9 (14:25):
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
(14:46):
a whole slippery slope which several of the justices, at
least Kavanagh or Sachilido 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,
(15:10):
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
(15:32):
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 prosecution for.
So in the indictment, there are certainly elements that are
(15:55):
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.
Even John Sower, who is representing Donald Trump, admitted that okay,
(16:16):
calling 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
(16:37):
could 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 niging immunity,
and then she has to figure out official versus personal
hold some sort of evidentiary hearing to determine what falls
under official what falls under personal a private.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
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 (17:17):
That is a jury.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
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 10 (17:35):
I do?
Speaker 9 (17:36):
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 In and says
you need to hold these hearings to figure out what
(17:57):
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 Chuckkin's ruling. So if
they kick that back, Clay, let's say they do wait
(18:20):
until the end of June or even the end of May.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Sorry to cut you off.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
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 it's the
last case they're basically hearing. That could be a possibility
if they wanted to hold it as long as possible.
Speaker 8 (18:44):
True that the.
Speaker 9 (18:45):
Under 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 enough entrary hearing two three
weeks after that, you have to file your emotions response,
et cetera. You know, they really start to run out
(19:07):
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 acts are official, these aren't.
(19:29):
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 apps, and 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, that's another nightmare
(19:52):
scenario that could be created by but.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
He would be able to pardon himself.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Then in that case, if he won, even if he
putent actually 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 twentieth or whatever the date is
when the officials. Yeah, I mean, that's a long time
(20:19):
for a defeated president to remain in office. Historically it
used to not be till March, but that was because
you had to travel long distances.
Speaker 5 (20:26):
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 indictments against
one of the candidates to be apart.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
But I mean, I think it did that that like
kind of a bayance area, there is is kind of
a mess, is.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
Julun to ask you about? You know, this is another
one of these things. It's kind of buried today. It's
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
(21:08):
video today Chris mays, what do you make of this? Like,
they didn't indict Trump, they indicted Mark Meadows, And you know,
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 (21:25):
What do you make of all this?
Speaker 9 (21:27):
I mean, look, I tweetd 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,
(21:49):
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 a unindicted co conspirator, it
is to bolster what's happening here in this j sixth
(22:11):
federal case. And it's also a signal. And we heard
a little bit about this today, Emy Conibert 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
(22:35):
get fake electoral or manufactured, 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
(22:57):
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
(23:17):
pretending that you're, you know, sending an alternative electoral certificate.
Just ridiculous. But so again, such dangerous descent where we
are headed using this lawfair not just federally but state
power too.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Julie, last question for you. You mentioned South Florida. You've
been covering that case. 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 9 (23:54):
We should know And I want to give kudos again
to Judge Cannon. I know we've talked a lot about her,
but it has it reveals and this is why Jacksmith
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
(24:15):
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, DOJ, FBI,
(24:36):
the Archives, the intelligence community. This is like getting the
Russia Gate fy the gate bound back together. So kudos
to her. There's going to be more unfeelings today. I
will be posting later juliannderscore Kelly two, which is the
grand jury transcript of the of Walteene, Nada, Trump's close
personal aid. Also who has been charged in that case
(24:58):
as well.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
J we should mention, by the way, Buck that took
place in Washington, d C. Before they then flipped to
the proceeding all the way down to South Florida, so
that Judge Cannon wasn't in charge of this.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
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 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 9 (25:29):
I mean, right now, I have to think what's happening
in New York.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
Unfortunately, I thought you might say that because Clay and
I were just talking about that. This Actually 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's substack. Everybody declassified.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
Julie.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Always appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 9 (25:50):
Thanks, guys, have a good day.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
You know that I like to look and Julie's phenomenal.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I'd encourage all of you to go follow everything that
Julie Kelly's been saying, she has been in turn terms
of analysis and trying to look in the direction that
we are going better than almost anybody out there. Everybody
was ridiculing the 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
(26:17):
for sarbains Oxley being used on jan six cases.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
She was right, they're going to strike it down. I
think she's right that there is.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Only going to be now one case completed before we
get to November, which makes me wonder 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. They thought we're going to have Donald Trump
(26:49):
in court March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November,
all the way up to election day. We're going to
hit him with federal charges. There's going to 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.
(27:09):
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 a conviction. But I think what you're
gonna see as a result is, and we've been hinting
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
(27:31):
Trump as they become aware, uh oh, this is the
only bite at the apple we're gonna get.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
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
(27:58):
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
(28:20):
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 were sitting there charged with doing
(28:40):
what Trump is doing, and I were on that jury,
I would not convict him.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
It's wrong.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
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 in excusable, and
now it's looking more and more like that's their great
hope to defeat Donald Trump. That's how they're going to
(29:08):
get four more years for Joe Biden the business records
charge in New York.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
You're listening to twenty four the most Important Tier in
politics with Clay, Travis and box Sexton.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
Cash Puttel is joining US former DoD chief of staff,
former federal prosecutor, and public defender. He has selected sixty
juries for trial service. Cash been a bit my friend.
Speaker 10 (29:42):
How you doing, Hey, great to be with you guys.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (29:46):
Yeah, man, absolutely, So let's start the two big news
items today. A lot of campus anti Israel stuff, but
also the Trump trial that is going on, which is
in some ways it's hard to believe even though it's happening.
This is where we are as a country. This is
what's happening, this is what's underway. What's your sense of ben,
(30:07):
I'd start with this. Do you feel like there's any
chance that anyone on this jury might be fairly disposed
toward the truth of this case and Donald Trump in general.
Speaker 10 (30:20):
Look, there's always a chance, but there's a reason I
live in Las Vegas and don't gamble as often as
I used to, and people are gambling on this trial.
Speaker 8 (30:28):
Will probably lose.
Speaker 10 (30:29):
The reality is what is happening. The tragedy is the
destruction of due process. And for some reason, these prosecutors
and judges have teamed up to think that the system
of due process under the Constitution no longer applies to
Donald Trump, or that they can selectively apply to him
in pieces. And what I mean by that is just
look at the opening statement today. The lead prosecutor, who
(30:53):
used to be the number three prosecutor at the Department
of Justice, he gave the opening statement. This guy Colangelo,
and he said he told the jury donald Trump is
here because of a criminal conspiracy related to election Trump. Now,
the Constitution forbids specifically any mention of crimes, not charging
the indictment to be presented to the jury. But this judge,
of course lapped it up and allowed it. There is
(31:15):
no charge of conspiracy anywhere in the indictment. And all
they continue to do is shred the do process, rites
of Donald Trump and that of the Constitution in the process,
and weaken our system of justice.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I think that's a really important point you just made.
Who exactly is involved in this trial. The Biden administration,
Joe Biden himself, many of their allies in the media.
They regularly I was reading The Times this morning, laying
out and Sunday laying out all their analysis and reading
all their articles saying, oh, there is no grand conspiracy
against Donald Trump. This is just happens to be Alvin Bragg,
(31:49):
It just happens to be Fanny Willis. Jack Smith is
totally independent. Merrick Garland's not involved in these cases. What
did you just say? I think this is so important.
The former number three position at the Department of Justice
is now prosecuting a state court case.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Now you have a little bit of a background in this.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
In general, wouldn't this be akin to being a major
leaguer and going back to a ball? In other words,
you would want to be as high as you could
be in the Department of Justice number three. Overall in
the DOJ, it's a big friggin deal when it comes
to trial prosecution a state court in Manhattan? Is that
(32:31):
not a crazy decent analogy and a sports perspective, it'd
be like if you made the major leagues deciding to
go back to single A or double A ball to
prosecute a state city court crime like this.
Speaker 10 (32:45):
Yeah, as a sportsman, I love the analogy, and look,
you're absolutely right. What it shows is the two tier
system of justice. And just to highlight the importance of this,
the number three. There's the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General,
and then this guy who's who used Colangelo, who used
to sit at the head of the civil writs the
vision as the p DAG and now he has left
that job gone on to join Bragg's team, and not
(33:09):
just quietly joined the team. He delivered the opening statement.
And this guy who's been a career prosecutor who knows
you cannot tell a jury about any uncharged crimes opened
with just that. And that shows you the level of
connective connectivity between the DOJ, the Biden administration, and Bragg's office.
(33:30):
And so when people say, oh, no, there's no conspiracy here, well,
there's no such thing as coincidences in the United States government,
certainly not at Joe Biden and Merrick Garland DOJ. And
now we're seeing it front and center, and this judge
is allowing it all to happen.
Speaker 5 (33:46):
Speaking of Cash but Cash matel formerly of Trump's DoD
he was chief of staff at the Pentagon Cash and
also former federal prosecutor ysh. If they find Trump guilty,
and we know that's an if we who knows where
the jury's going to go with this? What do you
think will happen and how quickly do you see it happening.
Speaker 10 (34:06):
Well, what's supposed to happen, especially in a case like this,
is that there would be an appellate process and the
defendant would remain out of custody because this is a
nonviolent crime and you're talking about an individual who has
literally zero criminal history, and we're talking about an instance
where there are allegedly, excuse me, there are no victims
(34:26):
of violent crimes. But what will happen here is this
judge will probably take matters into his own hands, continue
to create a new system of justice and try to
probably imprison Donald Trump and deny him his appellate rights
that the constitution allows. So it's going to be a
very very unfortunate series of events if Donald Trump is convicted,
(34:47):
because it would be unlawful and unconstitutional. But then what
this judge could do to him is completely remove him
from the campaign trail, which that is a clear impetus.
If you've ever watched even just one day of this trial,
this judge has made up his mind like Judging Gorn
did in the civil case that just happened before this one.
These guys have convicted Trump in the court of public
opinion and are going to convict them in their own courtrooms.
(35:08):
They're just waiting for the process to play out.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Cash, how do you break down the other cases you've
been involved in the criminal court system before on as
for as crazy as this New York City case is, Thursday,
we have the presidential immunity case that's being argued the
oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Presumably sometime
in June, we'll get that decision as well as the
Fisher case having to do with whether or not you
(35:33):
can prosecute for effectively impeding official proceedings, as has been
occurring with many of the January sixth related charges. How
does the timeline work to you for this? Do you
think that the New York City case is the only
one that would go all the way through and get
a jury verdict or do you think there will be
a possibility of another case as well between now and
(35:56):
November fifth.
Speaker 10 (35:58):
Well, again, if we were on the normal timeline of justice,
these cases would not even be charged this year. They
would be charged later, and the timeline for average prosecution
is two to four years. But they took the ho
v lane because it's Donald Trump. Now we'll see what
the Supreme Court decides, but it's unequivocally, in my opinion,
executive privilege for the president who have acted in the
(36:18):
way he did, and that should apply here. It's also
another indication that Joe Biden, who personally had to dissolve
executive privilege for the DOJ to bring that prosecution in
DC and Florida. He had to personally get involved. So
when he says I'm not involved, that's another charade. But
once the Supreme Court decides on that case and also
(36:38):
the obstructioning case, which is a very important point you
bring up, the Supreme Court, I believe, is going to
deny the use of the substruction statute which is from
the Enron financial crimes fiasco, and they're going to throw
out three hundred plus convictions related to January sixth, and
that should upend the entire timeline of any of the
trials sportscoming. But we don't know what these district court
(37:00):
judges who are going to do, like Chutkin, who have
already basically stated that Donald Trump is a threat to
democracy and they want him removed from the electoral process.
Speaker 5 (37:09):
Speaking to Cash Patel, former federal prosecutor, Cash, Trump is
facing all this stuff. How is he able to hold
up under under all of it? You know, with multiple
criminal prosecutions. I mean, I know you and the President
are in contact, and he knows you well, and you
(37:32):
may well be a senior figure in his next administration.
Not to get too far ahead of things, but that's
very possible here. How is he able to do this
run for president with four absolutely insane federal or sorry
felony criminal indictments three well sorry too, federal and two
state against him right now.
Speaker 10 (37:51):
Yeah, you know, I was just with the President the
other week and it's a you know, it's it's a conversation.
Many of my conversations I don't reveal that this one
I'm happy to you know. I asked him, as a president,
how do you deal to this is exact question. You know,
you're being falsely prosecuted, they're taking away your money, they're
coming after your family, they're defaming you constantly. And his
answer is really simple. He goes cash. The future of
(38:13):
this country is at stake and he will not let
it fail on his watch. And I think that drives
him every single day that he wakes up and he
says when the other side says, oh, Donald Trump's just
in it for the money and fame, well the reality
shows it's the opposite. He's fighting for everybody else's right
to have fame, to have money, to have the right
to be an American citizen. And that energizes it more
(38:36):
than anything I've ever seen. And I don't think you're
going to see Donald Trump, slow down. Every time they
throw an arrow at this guy, he ingested, and he
becomes the juggernaut of justice and rolls down the street,
whether it's in New York, d C. Florida, or elsewhere,
and convinces more and more Americans that this two tier
system of justice has been weaponized for political purposes. And
he's asking Americans not only to recognize that, but to
(38:57):
go to the polls in November and elect him so
we can fix our constitutional republic.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Last question for you, and I think you kind of
hinted at this at the beginning. This is obviously a
rigged jury that eighty seven percent of people voted against
Donald Trump in this jurisdiction. Based on analyzing the twelve jurors,
the six alternates, everything else, what do you think the
chances are, first of all, of a not guilty verdict?
Buck and I both put that at zero. Do you
(39:23):
think there is and I'm curious if you would agree
with that. Do you think there is potentially a juror
on this trial that might be willing to refuse to
vote to convict and essentially give what would be a
win I think through a hung jury based on what
you've seen based on your analysis of this case, how
would you assess that probability?
Speaker 10 (39:46):
Yeah, Look, going back to my public defender days and
my federal public defender days, where I defended scores of
criminals in front of scores of different juries in different
court rooms, we always used to say the following, you
just need one. You don't need all twelve, You just
need one. And that's what you guys are talking about
to get to a hung jury.
Speaker 8 (40:02):
Now.
Speaker 10 (40:03):
I think the chance is that one of those twelve
jurors agrees with Donald Trump's presentation of the evidence is strong.
But the chance that that same juror withstands the scrutiny
that is going to come at his way from the
media and the rest of the jury and the world,
because this is the most important criminal prosecution in literally
US if history. It's not the world that may fold
(40:23):
that juror, that may succumb him to the pressures of
the outside. But if the jurors actually stuck to the
facts and the law, there's no way any of the
twelve would convict Donald Trump because there is no crime here.
It's not a hush money case. It has to do
with ledgers and payments made to a lawyer, all of
which is above board. But I think Donald Trump's attorneys
are looking for that one attorney, and there's a chance
(40:44):
that they find them cash.
Speaker 5 (40:46):
But tell everybody cash. Appreciate you being with us, man,
Thanks so much.
Speaker 10 (40:50):
Thanks guys, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
You're listening to twenty more The Year of Impact with
Clay and Box.
Speaker 5 (41:00):
We are looking at some interesting stuff happening in New
York these days. That's probably always true, but in a
political sense, particularly interesting stuff happening right now.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
I'm just gonna put this too so we can dive
into it.
Speaker 5 (41:13):
Back in two thousand and eight, Barack Obama won New
York that year by a twenty six point nine percent
margin of victory. Okay, so am I we'll call it
twenty seven points, which is you know that is a
beat down for sure. I'm looking right now, Mark at
(41:33):
the latest Siena College polling, which was just from a
week ago, and the polls all compiled here on five
thirty eight dot com. They've got in New York Trump v. Biden,
Biden up seven points, Biden up eight points. You think
(41:54):
something big is perhaps in the mix. What's going on here?
Is this going to be competitive?
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Oh?
Speaker 8 (41:59):
No, I think Donald Trump's going to win New York.
I don't think it's going to be competitive. I think
he'll win it. You got to remember about two thousand
and eight, McCain was whatever reason he wasn't a strong candidate,
turnout for him was extremely low. So that's not the
best test. And now remember Ronald Reagan won New York
twice twice, so it can be done. I know that's
a long time ago. But Trump is different from anybody else.
(42:23):
He's beloved in New York by a lot of people.
I know in New York City is the problem, but
half the voters are outside of New York City. He's
got them, and normally he'd have trouble in New York City,
but a lot of that Democratic base is secretly quietly
moving over to Trump. People that just don't like the
crime anymore. They don't like it out of control. He
(42:45):
goes to Harlem where that bodega is, or as Biden
would say, that Bogada, and he pier's at that bodega
and watch the video. Everybody in the street is cheering him.
There's no booze anywhere. He goes to the construction site
Park Avenue, but Remember it's working class guys, construction workers
who live in New York, and they're all cheering him
(43:06):
and chanting for him. I think he wins. I think
he wins New York. All right.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
I want to dive into this because this is a
bold prediction. I love bold predictions, as Buckwell knows, although
I've lost on several of my bold predictions. Here, I
want to hit you with a couple of fact patterns.
Close race just happened to be fair. Twenty twenty two
governor's race, Kathy Hokel not very popular, Lee Zelden loses
(43:31):
fifty three to forty seven. So let me ask you
this question. If Kathy Hokel and Lee Zelden ran in
twenty twenty four, in other words, if we didn't have
a mid term twenty twenty two election, if they were
on the ballot, I presume you think Lee Zelden would
win head to head against Kathy Hokel as well, and
that there's been a further shift right word since he
(43:53):
would have lost by six points two years ago.
Speaker 8 (43:56):
Yeah, I love Leezeldon. Great guy. He'd be an excellent
govern not exactly the most dynamic candidate in the world,
and Hokel had all that democratic momentum behind her, but
people have now seen her in office for a few years,
and she thinks she's absolutely awful. Between the congestion pricing,
doing nothing about this anti semitism all over the campuses,
(44:18):
doing nothing about inflation, and the state congestion pricing is ridiculous.
She sends the National Guard into the subway to protect people.
It's crime down there. They have no power in the
subway to do anything, so she decides to'll inspect packages
or bags or I don't know, any criminal to bring
his luggage with them. They don't have briefcases, they don't
(44:41):
have persons. I don't know what they're inspecting. So yeah,
Zelden could win today, and I really think Trump. You know,
he said he was seven eight points behind. That was
the case in almost every swing state, and he closed
those gaps. He's good at closing eight percent gaps. He'll
do it in New York.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Okay, So if he wins New York, that's going to
be a landslope. Do you agree with that? I mean,
because he's not going to lose Pennsylvania and win New York, right,
He's not going to lose Wisconsin. And win New York.
He's not going to win New York and lose Michigan.
I mean that would mean that he would sweep through
the Midwest. He might win Minnesota. What you're saying is
six months out, you think Trump is not only going
to win, he's gonna win comfortably. By ten o'clock Eastern
(45:19):
on election night, we would know who that he was
the winner.
Speaker 8 (45:24):
Well, yeah, I mean, who knows what the Democrats will pull.
But it's only going to get better for Donald Trump
and it's only going to get worse for Joe Biden. Mentally,
things will come out. I think these trials have had
just the opposite effect Democrats intended. People are starting to
look at these trials. I don't mean the MSNBC cret
I mean normal people, and they don't like the total
(45:46):
perversion of our justice system. They don't like any of this.
It's only going to get better for Trump in the summer.
You'll see momentum.
Speaker 5 (45:53):
Just do you think Biden's going to debate Mark I'm
sure you saw today he said on another radio show,
Oh yeah, I'll debate Trump. Trump's response to it was, no,
one really believes that, right, What do you think I.
Speaker 8 (46:05):
Don't believe it. I mean, what was the exact words.
I'd be happy to that that thing, I'll do it.
I'd be happy to. But the staff whoever, will come
up with a million excuses not to do it. Hey,
you notice Biden won't talk to the New York Times,
won't give them an interview, won't give any real news
organization the interview, but he's happy to do Seth Meyers
and Howard Stern. What does that tell you about his confidence? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (46:27):
No, there's clearly a coddling of him in the media
that goes beyond even what we normally would expect. We're
speaking of Mark Simon and mister New York of seven
to ten wor in NYC. So you mentioned the trials
Mark and Clay and I have tried to do a
little bit of jury pool analysis, but also looking back
or taking a step back and looking at the overall
(46:47):
system in New York City. Do you have any faith
that there might be somebody on that jury who's just
going to say this is too crazy, I can't go
along with this, or do you think that it's kind
of a done deal and they might get a multi
verdict on this.
Speaker 8 (47:02):
Uh, you know, I don't have a lot of confidence.
It's a New York jury, it's a totally over the
top biased judge. The only good news is the Harvey
Weinstein reversal was based on all these things the judge did,
and this judge in the Trump trial has done exactly
the same thing, so that almost guarantees the reversal. Hopefully
the judges looking at this and will ease up a little.
(47:24):
But there's so far there's no crime alleged. The catch
and kill perfectly legal. Biden did the biggest catch and
kill in history when he had Facebook, Twitter, the biggest
publishers cover up the Hunter laptop scandal. So, but you're right,
you can never tell what a jury'll do.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
You mentioned that again, you think Trump's gonna win New York,
which would be amazing and would be a lot of
fun to watch. Can you imagine the panic that would
ensue an MSNBC and CNN if because New York comes
in early, and if you start seeing those numbers and
buy and is only up a couple of points or
Trump is within a couple of points, what does the
(48:04):
tally look like?
Speaker 3 (48:06):
You know, at forty seven percent?
Speaker 2 (48:07):
If I'm looking at this overall you know, in terms
of turnout in twenty twenty two, do you think there's
going to be a massive turnout in the New York
election or do you think Biden's just not getting out
his base Black voters are moving on Asian Hispanic voters.
What does the coalition look like for Trump if that
were to happen.
Speaker 8 (48:28):
Yeah, I think that's a good point. But I think
low turnout for Biden. And you don't usually get the
high Republican turnout in New York, but you'll get it
this time because again, crime is a huge factor. Also,
this anti semitism, the stuff on the college campists, it's
frightening a lot of people, not just Jews, but Christians
Gentiles as well, because this kind of bigotry being tolerated
(48:51):
is frightening a lot of people. And who just watch
the perversion of the justice system, the total disintegration of
our universities, the streets every time, thing is just awful,
the migrants everywhere. I think you're going to see enormous
Republican turnout this time. Also look at Long Island, Nasau County,
which is a good barometer. The county executive, the attorney general,
(49:14):
the Republicans swept in Nasau County. It's a good indicative
of what's coming.
Speaker 5 (49:20):
Mark, Simo and everybody. Mark appreciate you being with us.
Thanks for calling in from seven to ten. Wor great
to have you as always.
Speaker 8 (49:27):
Thanks love listening to you every day.
Speaker 5 (49:29):
Thanks Man, Thanks so much. You know, Clay, I just
want to say, you know you said it. You're a
bold prediction guy. But Trump, If Trump wins New York,
this is up there with you. Remember when some of
you do remember this and Colter was on Bill mahershow
at the very beginning of the twenty sixteen cycle primary
(49:49):
and they said who do you think is going to win?
And she said, right on camera, She started, right in
the camera, this is before like the polls showed him ahead.
She said, Donald Trump. And they had to have her
on later. That was a heck whatever you think, that
was a heck of a call. If Mark is right
and Trump wins New York, the first time a Republican
will have won it since Ronald Reagan, We're going to
have to have him on for a little victory dance.
(50:10):
I think Trump will. You know, it's funny, he's so
ready to go that Trump will win. That me pointing
out that he's only behind even by Democrat pollsters six
seven points. I mean, that's a contested state. If you
really look at it, right, six or seven points looks
like that's up for grabs, So it's not as crazy.
(50:30):
That's why I said Barack Obama won by almost thirty
very different times.
Speaker 8 (50:34):
Now.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
Yeah, and I think this is a good question because
you guys out there listening can help us with this.
Is that the boldest prediction in three years of us
being on the air, in terms of guests. I know
you and I have made bold predictions, but I don't
even think I've gone that far in making a bold
prediction about New York because it's not just.
Speaker 3 (50:54):
If he's right.
Speaker 2 (50:56):
Think about it. I've made some bold predictions, many of
them are wrong. But uh, but if you think about it,
if New York flipped, that's why I asked him. I mean, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Wisconsin are going to go Trump, and then I
think Minnesota probably would, and I think you would flip
Virginia potentially.
Speaker 3 (51:15):
Like you're right about New York. Trump.
Speaker 5 (51:17):
It's style, It's it's a total butt kicking. There's no
question about it. Because you're not gonna win New York
and not win Pennsylvania. You're you're not going to win
New York and then fail to win Pennsylvania and some
of these other these other key states. But I think
that look, I mean, you've talked about predictions. I thought
Leez Eldon was going to win and maybe that for governor,
and that would have been at least one repudiation of
(51:40):
a COVID lockdown lunatic governor. Unfortunately, it didn't end up happening,
but he made it close. And you know, New York,
right after California is the biggest Democrat stronghold state that
there is, so the fact that it would even be
a place where you're gonna, I think you're gonna see
Republican members of Congress that are doing well in New York.
We would not have the very thin and some of
(52:03):
that is self inflicted wounds by the Republicans in Congress, unfortunately,
but we would not have a Republican majority if it
were not for New York Republicans and California Republicans coming
out and winning in some key congressional races and the
GOP base turning out for them there.
Speaker 2 (52:20):
Particularly in New York Long Island, Nasau and Suffolk Counties.
I mean, turning out big for Republicans. I do think
that's big Trump territory. We talked about this last year
when I was up in Cooperstown. How blown away my
kids were Trump flags everywhere everywhere we went in upstate
New York. When we were in Cooperstown, New York, my
kids couldn't get over it we were driving around. I mean,
(52:41):
that is major Trump territory. And what some Marx Simone
just hit on is it's really you win in Manhattan.
I remember we had Lee Zeldon on and you went
in Manhattan by limiting the amount that Democrats can run
up the score. And I do think that Manhattan and
in the New York City area, I don't think that
Biden's going to run up the score. I think again,
(53:02):
it comes down to these suburban moms, these suburban women,
and maybe they're not threatened in New York over the
abortion argument because it's easier to get an abortion now,
I think in New York than it was before Roe v.
Speaker 3 (53:14):
Wade was overturned. Well, this is why I think that.
Speaker 5 (53:16):
You know, we had that caller before and he said
he's so worried about how abortion's going to play into this.
It worked really well in twenty twenty two because they
were able to lie to people and say, even you know,
in all kinds of states, they're going to stop you
from getting abortions in places like New York, and I
think this is a tragedy. But in places like New York,
it's still just as easy to get an abortion, and
(53:38):
so it's a lot harder, I think, to drive turnout
because that is the law.
Speaker 3 (53:43):
People can understand it.
Speaker 8 (53:44):
There.
Speaker 3 (53:45):
We'll take some of your calls.
Speaker 5 (53:46):
I'm wondering if anybody else, Let's see if anybody else
Clay in New York wants to back Mark up on
this one among the boldest, for sure predictions we have
heard on this show. And you know Mark is very
tied into the political scene in New York York City
and up in Albany for New York State, so you
know he would. I talked to him a little bit before,
I said, are you sure do you want to say?
Speaker 3 (54:07):
Do you want to say that publicly on the ass,
like you really want to let it rip? You said?
Speaker 5 (54:10):
He is confident, he is fired up, and he says
he sees 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.