January 14, 2025 • 57 mins
Women in the military. Politics of personal destruction. Luxury beliefs. OH Rep. Jim Jordan.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I was looking buck because my good friend polymarket. I
haven't talked about the gambling odds in some time, and
during this commercial break we were on they actually have
odds on whether or not you can you expect somebody
to be confirmed, And everybody right now, with millions and
(00:22):
millions of dollars bet is expected to be confirmed. Up
to eighty percent chances for everybody. So the point on
this is not that this is one hundred percent accurate,
but if you believe somebody's gonna get shot down as
a nominee, you can basically get four to one odds
(00:46):
that that's going to happen. In other words, you get
four times your money. And I want to just kind
of hammer this home because I haven't heard anybody else
talk about it yet. Watch as Democrats, recognizing that Republicans
are willing to stay strong, decide to also cast their
lot for some of these nominees. In particular, think about
(01:10):
the states that Trump won. There are a lot of
Democrat senators in those states. Fetterman, Michigan has two Democrat senators,
Wisconsin has one, and Georgia has two, which is crazy.
Arizona has two. Now Nevada has two that's a lot
(01:32):
of targets out there in states that Trump won where
there are Democrat senators that I think as soon as
one of them says, hey, I'm voting, there will be
others jump on board. So what I would say to
anybody out there in the Republican Senate team is they're
looking for one of you to break. But if you
(01:52):
actually all stand strong and vote uniformly for the Trump nominees,
I think every one of them will have at least
one Democrat senator that comes on board and votes as well,
so that they can claim they're bipartisan, and also to
be fair, so they can set the president, which is
what I think the president should be. That, by and large,
when you win an election, particularly when you win the
(02:13):
popular vote and all fifty states move in your direction,
has happened with Donald Trump, you should get the right
to pick the guys and gals you want in your cabinet.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, Clay Elizabeth Warren, whose integrity has been a laugh
line for a long time, formerly known as Pocahontas by
Donald Trump himself. Remember when Trump was president, he actually
called their Pocahontas.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
That's the best nickname he's ever given. And there are
some good ones. Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren is the best ever.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
But Elizabeth Warren had a little exchange here just now
during the hearing with Pete Hexat. This is twenty eight.
I want you to hear this one. Play it now.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Mister Hackstath, you've written that after they retire, general should
be banned from working for the defense industry for ten years.
You put your money where your mouth is and agree
that when you leave this job, you will not work
for the defense industry for ten years.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Senator, It's not even a question I've thought about, because
it's not all right now.
Speaker 5 (03:11):
It's not one my motivation for this job.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
I understand that time is short.
Speaker 5 (03:18):
I just need a yes or no. I would consult
with the President about what the policy.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
In other words, you're quite sure that every general who
serves should not go directly into the defense industry for
ten years. You're not willing to make that same pledge.
Speaker 6 (03:33):
I'm not a general, Senator, You'll.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Be the one. Let us just be clear in charge
of the generals. So you're saying sauce for the goose,
but certainly not sauce for the gander.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
I would want to see what the policy that.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
It reminds me of pow Wow Chow, where she got
into sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander
by stealing Native American recipes and putting it in a
cook book if you recall, called pow Wow Chow, Yes,
which is a that's you're not even making a joke
for people who don't realize the Native American cookbook was
called pow Wow Chow. And I mean it is the
(04:14):
Senator not only that buck, she got her entire career
because she claimed that she was Native American, and when
people criticized her, she said, have you seen my high cheekbones?
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Like, I mean, this chick is crazy in many ways,
somewhat smart, but on that on that front, I actually
think Pete doesn't need to do that. Right. Pete gave
up and he probably won't say it because I think
it pointing out how much money he was making in
his mind might not be a way to endear himself
(04:51):
to people. But let me just tell you this, it's
public now. Pete was making over two million dollars a
year to do television for Fox News two point three million.
I think he's leaving a two point three million dollar
a year job to take one that pays I don't know,
two hundred and fifty two hundred and eighty thousand dollars.
So he's losing ninety percent of his salary to go
(05:15):
take this job. In theory, that means he's giving up
if he does this job for four years, around eight
nine million dollars in family income. He's got six seven kids,
I think. So my point on that is, I think
Pete's responds to Elizabeth Warren. Actually, she's trying to accuse
him of enriching himself. That's the line of attack that
(05:37):
she's using. He's trying to accuse him of enriching himself
based on the job that he's taking. He's actually taking
a ninety percent pay cut. And so if I were him,
that was a funny response. I'm not a general or whatever.
But the one thing you can't accuse him of is
doing this to make more money, because he's directly giving
up millions of dollars potentially ten million dollars to over
(06:00):
four years to take a job that pays a fraction
of that nine million dollars less. I don't know how
many people out there that are listening to us right now.
You may love America. A lot of people wouldn't give
up ninety percent of their salary to go serve for
the United States. So it's not only that Elizabeth Warren
is not being honest in her attack, it's that she's
(06:21):
accusing him of doing the exact opposite of what he's
actually doing.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
She also got feisty with him over the women in
the military issue. We'll bring you that clip here momentarily,
but this question.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
For you, Buck on the women in the military thing.
How is it controversial to say that if you're going
to be in combat, you should have to pass the
exact same physical standards as everyone else who's in combat.
Like that doesn't seem remotely controversial to me.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
It's the same cognitive dissonance that exists when you talk
about DEI and affirmative action and college admissions, which is,
we're going to have everybody hit the same standards while
we're changing the standards for certain people to come in
like they say it and then they change it. It
is absolutely the case that when they've looked at infantry
(07:17):
combat readiness in mixed meaning you know, multiple gender or
two gender, sorry, multiple gender two gender units versus all
male units, that it absolutely hurts combat readiness overall for
the unit, and that it also that women can't compete
at the same level of doing things that guys who
(07:37):
are in the Marines and the army rangers and these things.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
That doesn't seem remotely controversy, Like, I don't even understand
how this is controversial.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
It's controversial because people live in a fantasy land and
they watch a lot of these you know, these like
CSI shows or something where some one hundred and thirty
pounds you know, former lingerie model is like flipping guys
over her shoulder and throwing karate chops at five guys
in a time. I'm you know, we're like big, burly
guys and they're getting thorn around. That's not how it
goes in the real world. I'm amazed at how many
(08:06):
people are like, but she studied jiu jitsu. I'm like, yeah,
if she studied jiu jitsu and she weighs one hundred
and thirty pounds, a two hundred pound guy is going
to maul this person, Okay, they have no chance. And
the reality is that this is something you see playing
out in physically demanding combat roles as well. I mean
(08:26):
people will say, oh, well, what about pilots. Okay, pilots
are different. Okay, you know, vehicle driving, it is a
different skill set. But if you're talking about being able
to carry heavy pack, move quickly, take in coming fire,
return in coming fire, women are not able to compete at.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
The same By the way, this isn't just my theory.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
The Pentagon has done huge studies on it in the
Obama administration and it was disastrous in terms of the
change in readiness that having mixed gender combat units resulted in.
I mean, this is this is just where I come
from the world of sports. Women can't compete at the
highest level of any men's sport. That's not because I'm sexist.
(09:06):
That's because biology is real. So if the standards are set,
and they should be high. To me, if you're going
to be in a combat role, because it's not only
your ability to defend yourself, it's also somebody else has
to have you have to have their back. I can't
believe that this is the line of attack that we
need that Pete Hegseth saying, hey, we need high standards
(09:28):
for physical combat and everybody should have to meet them
is in some way seen as an attack on women.
I mean, men have the ability to kick ass at
a level that women don't. That doesn't mean that some
tiny percentage of women might not be able to kick
the ass of some tiny percentage of men.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
That certainly can occur, but the standard has to be
really high, that doesn't That seems crazy to me to
argue otherwise.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Well, what ends up happening is that the people who
want this because they believe in a radical gender equality,
which is part of a whole broader philosophy of the
left Democrats. But what they always say is, oh, no,
we'll keep the standard the same, And then the standard
is immediately when they start having women in these world
they change the standard. And then they say, how dare
(10:12):
you say that we shouldn't have different standards, Like it's
just the same gas lighting, the same routine every time
they go through this, and people are just sick of it,
so they go, no, like, we don't trust that you're
not going to change the standards. You know, there's a
reason why you know, a woman has never become a
Navy seal despite it to me more movie, you know,
twenty years ago, whatever, there are reasons for this stuff.
(10:35):
I would just also point out how many of these
quote unquote liberal women take it outside of the world
of military right now, But what's going on? Producer Alley
just pointed out with firefighters in LA, if your house
is burning and your kids are trapped inside, how many
liberal women want one hundred and twenty pound women showing
up to try to rescue their family as firefighters versus
(10:57):
two hundred and twenty pound jacked bad as dudes.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
That doesn't seem like a tough call to me.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Look, a lot of a lot of cops will tell you,
and that you know, this gets very testy with some people,
and some people listening might a little testy. But I
worked with a lot of cops, as you all know.
In the NYPD. I worked with the most seasoned detectives
in the entire NYPD and the Intel Division. And when
you got to wrestle a you know, cartel member to
the ground who's got a few bodies in his body count,
(11:26):
you know it was a really dangerous individual. Not a
lot of women get that job done for law enforcement
as well as the you know guys you have in
US marshals, et cetera. It's just this is just reality.
But people don't like reality, which is why they also clay.
Do you remember it wasn't long ago, noted scientists Neil
deGrasse Tyson, noted astrophysicist refuse to admit that men have
(11:50):
a physical and strength and speed advantage over women.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
On the Bill, Marshaw would not say it, would not
say it. Of the only sports site in America that
will say men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women
is OutKick. I mean again, I'm not trying to insult
female athletes. Ever when I say this, they're in the
top one percent. The top one percent of female athletes
(12:14):
are nowhere near the top one percent of male athletes.
It doesn't overlap. Some women are better at basketball than
some men. Some of you listening right now could beat
your husband's one on one in basketball. That doesn't mean
that the best women are able to compete against the
best men. It's just it's crazy, and you know, one
of the things that's gone to most megaviral. I think
(12:36):
this is one reason why eighteen to twenty nine year
old boys, I say boys, young men are voting so
overwhelmingly towards towards Trump. Is they see the BS. You know,
one of the things that went most viral that I've
done in the last couple of years, Buck was when
I offered a million dollars to the WNBA champion team
to compete against the high school boys team state champion
(12:57):
team of my choice million dollar channel, and straight up
they wouldn't do it. Six million people watch that on
TikTok because a lot of boys are out there, young kids,
like this is crazy. They're being sold bs things that
they know are not true. It's a difference between Hey,
we're going to treat men and women equally and men
(13:18):
and women are equal talent in all facets of life.
That just isn't true. You know, investing in gold this
past year would have been a smart decision. It was
up about thirty percent in value. People invest in gold
for a variety of reasons, but the leading one being
that gold is a way to hold the value of
your savings and four to one K accounts over the
long term. When those accounts are all cash, they lose
(13:40):
value as the dollar goes down due to inflation. Amy
and our audience benefited from the rising value of gold
investing last year with the help of Birch Gold Group.
She wrote to us saying her experience with Birch Gold
was fantastic. Amy had been considering buying precious metals with
uninvested funds sitting in an account with an old four
oh one k rollover, but she didn't know how. She
(14:00):
heard us talking about Birch Gold Group and texted the
number that we provide here on the show ninety eight,
using my name Buck as your promo code. Text Buck
Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Amy got a call from James who listened to her questions,
consider her goals, and she was impressed with his knowledge
and ability to explain it all to a layperson with
no investing experience to date. So go check out what
they can do for you at the Birch Gold Group.
Text my name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety
eight to get your free info hit, or go online
to Birch Gold dot com slash buck that's Birch Gold
(14:36):
dot com slash buck.
Speaker 7 (14:40):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton them find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
We just had.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Senator Caine, Remember him, He was going to be Hillary's
vice president? Remember that that didn't go over so well.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Who is going to have a more distinguished career after
Walls who would have been Kamala's VP, Or Tim Kaine,
who would have been Hillary's VP. Like, people just completely
have forgotten about Tim Kane. But at least he had
the Senate seat to go back to. Walls is in
his second term as Minnesota governor. Does he have any
(15:23):
political future at all? No, but he can pursue his
lifelong dream of Broadway and I think that, you know,
spirit fingers dancing man. Maybe he can be a rocket
he liked to kick the legs up. Maybe he can
get in the rockets in the Christmas Spectacular, which I'm
told is told is a fantastic show.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I mean, I haven't ever been Tim Kaine. No, Tim
thinks he's got the legs for it, So why not,
you know what I mean? He could be up there
with the rockets.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
You never know. So we have Tim Kaine.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I suppose to Tim Walls, who I think was a
actually ended up being a pretty serious drag on the
Kamala ticket. But Tim Walls, Tim Kaine, Tim Kaine went
after Pete Hegseth just now. And this is a reminder
that even though I think there's no chance, I shouldn't
(16:19):
say no chance, there's a very low chance they're gonna
be they're gonna block Pete's nomination because they need a
Republican to go along. I think it's very unlikely, but
they like to get their sound bites, and this is well,
let's hear what it turned into and how Pete handled this.
But Tim Kaine getting a little a little nasty up
(16:40):
there on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Listen to this.
Speaker 8 (16:42):
You had sex, well, you were married to wife two
after you just had fathered a child.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
By wife's three.
Speaker 8 (16:47):
You've admitted that now if it had been a sexual assault,
that would be disqualifying to be Secretary Defense, wouldn't it.
Speaker 6 (16:53):
I it's a false claim.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Then, in a false claim, now.
Speaker 8 (16:55):
If it had been a sexual assault, that would be
disqualified to be a Secretary of Defense, wouldn't it?
Speaker 5 (17:02):
That was a false claim. So you talking about a hypothetical.
Speaker 8 (17:05):
I assume that in each of your weddings you've pledged
to be faithful to your wife.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
You've taken an oath to do that, haven't.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
You, Senator As I've acknowledged to everyone in this committee
not a perfect person, not claiming to.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
But you No.
Speaker 6 (17:17):
I just asked a simple question.
Speaker 8 (17:18):
You've taken an oath like you would take an oath
to be Secregary Defense and all of your weddings to
be faithful to your wife.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Is that correct?
Speaker 4 (17:24):
I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully
I'm redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
And did you ever engage in any acts of physical
violence against any of your wives?
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Senator? Absolutely not?
Speaker 8 (17:35):
So you would agree with me that if someone had
committed physical violence against the spouse, that would be disqualifying
to serve as Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
Correct, Senator? Absolutely not? Have I ever done that?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Wow? I mean so, I said to politics of personal destruction.
This was prior to Tim Kaine, Senator from Virginia, going
in on Pete Hesath over his past marital issues. And
the question about hitting a wife is so specific, you know,
(18:09):
I I. I just it's it's an odd angle to
go after when there has been no suggestion that it's occurred.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
It's the classic thing though, it's the when did you
stop beating your wife?
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Question? In essence, I mean it's the it's.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
To bring up the notion of somebody being a wife
abuser or physically a wife beater, and and then just
just bring it up so that you've tainted the person
that you're having the conversation with.
Speaker 9 (18:35):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I wouldn't have guessed that Tim Kaine would go this route,
but I suppose he thinks that this is his opportunity
to show that he is just protesting against all things
Trump and Trump's nominees in some ways. Uh, you know,
the things that that are brought up here. I think
it's interesting Democrats, So now now are Democrats of the
mind that marital issues, marital problems put aside the violence,
(19:01):
which was a total that was a total kind of
backhanded smear effort. The party of Bill Clinton, I would think,
is generally not going to be the party that is
pointing fingers about how things go during one's marriage.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
But right now they got nothing, and so they're going
to go out about even leave aside Clinton. Buck What
about what we just saw of Kamala Harris's husband, No
questions by and large from the media at all. I mean,
her husband, Doug Imhoff, in his mid forties, was accused
(19:37):
of pretty clearly slapping the crap out of a girlfriend
outside of a fancy party, and there were witnesses and
all these different aspects of it. To my knowledge, Doug
Imhoff was never even asked about it in any interview,
and Tim Kaine went out on the road and campaigned
with m Hoff. So what is his stand, wondered for
(20:01):
what sort of job you can have based on past behavior?
Not to mention, Doug Imhoff got his nanny pregnant kind
of a big no no, just kind of tossing it
out there. Hey, don't get the nanny pregnant is kind
of a big, big deal for most of.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
An employee who lives or at least partially lives in
your home and is dependent on you for a paycheck
and is around your wife and your family regularly. I mean, look,
I don't think that Schwarzenegger honestly ever really recovered from
that whole thing either in the public eye. There's something
(20:39):
particularly uh yucky about his marriage pregnant nanny. He got
his nanny pregnant, and then Kamala Harris married him, and
he also, according to credible sources, slapped the crap out
of a woman in his mid forties and people say, Okay,
why are you talking about mid forties. We're not talking
about the first time the guy got a beer when
(21:00):
he was eighteen and did something stupid. When you're in
your mid forties, like you're a grown man, Like you're
not slapp And I would say this, you're not slapping
a woman for the first time in your mid forties.
I don't think that happens very often. So my point
on this is Tim Kaine campaigned with Doug Immahoff in
(21:22):
this most recent presidential election, and now he's out on
the in the Senate deciding that this is an unacceptable
past behavior when he's had no issue with it in
the past. Mark Wayne Mullen now steps in Republican Mark
Wayne Ullen, this is cut thirty two. He is not
(21:43):
having it. When it comes to the way the Democrats
are going after Pete on this one play it.
Speaker 10 (21:47):
The senator for for Genius starts bringing up the fact
that what if you showed up drunk to your job?
How many Senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?
Have any of you guys asked him to step down
and resign for their job? And don't tell me you
haven't seen it because I know you have. And then
how many senators do you know have got a divorce
before cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to
(22:09):
step down?
Speaker 4 (22:10):
No?
Speaker 6 (22:10):
But it's for show, you guys.
Speaker 10 (22:12):
Make sure you make a big show and point out
the hypocrisy because the man's made a mistake and you
want to sit there and say that he's not qualified.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Give me a joke.
Speaker 10 (22:22):
It is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself as
this higher standard. You forget you got a big plank
in your on.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Congress being the arbiter of marital fidelity is that's a
tough one for a lot of people.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
A lot of people are laughing about that. Also alcohol,
I mean, are we really going to pretend that a
lot of senators and a lot of congressmen and women
don't engage in drinking a lot while they are serving
in the Capitol? I mean buck Back in the day,
(23:02):
and maybe it's changed, it was not uncommon for congressional
offices to roll in kegs and have parties in the
congressional office with alcohol there. Maybe they have stopped that.
I can only speak to it because I worked on
Capitol Hill for multiple years and that was a standard
(23:23):
thing you would invite other offices over. You would have
a couple of kegs. Everybody would have drinks on a Friday.
Maybe they don't allow that anymore, but I knew that
heg Seth was likely to be confirmed. When they went
they stopped the attacks over woman related issues and instead
moved it entirely to oh, he drinks too much, and
(23:45):
that in and of itself. I was like, well, the
first attack didn't land. When suddenly you're pivoting and saying
and now they've got alcohol. There are a lot of senators.
Remember Ted Kennedy, didn't Ted Kennedy drink like a fish?
I bet there are a bunch of senators Kennedy let.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
A woman drown that back of his car and created
some fake alibi.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Yeah, of course, But I mean.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
And the lion of the Senate, you know, Ted Kennedy.
This is they the Democrats playing the moral card. Really,
like ever with anyone, is too much for those of
us with with a knowledge of a basic knowledge of
recent history to to bear. I think, and and I
think that the going after Pete on this stuff, you know,
(24:35):
going after Pete on this stuff, I think is also
indicative of the fact that they know that on sort
of skill set background, uh, he's going to do well
under questioning. So they're just trying to get him, you know,
hot under the collar. They're trying to just get him
a little a little fired up and maybe be intemperate
or something. But I still feel strongly that he's he's
(24:56):
going to get through.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
I also, again, these hearings, it's all for show. But
Mark way Mullen is making a really good point on
the If you're gonna say that Hegseth is unqualified because
of marital issues and alcohol, seventy five percent of all
congressmen and women would have to step down as well.
(25:22):
So what is the standard that they're trying to bring
to bear here as it pertains to what in your
past justifies or doesn't justify your ability to be a
Secretary of Defense or someone else in the cabinet. And
we just elected Trump who's on his third wife, I believe,
so the whole argument of morality doesn't really seem And
(25:46):
you're right about Bill Clinton, but also Bill Clinton's overall
approval ratings went up during the impeachment issues associated with
Monica Lewinsky. So the general public has been voting I
think pretty consistently for a quarter century now that they
really just care about the competence of the individuals and
(26:07):
maybe sadly just assume that all politicians morally are full
of it and have moved on from the idea being, oh,
politicians are sort of these moral arbiters or sort in
role models for the general public.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Look, do do we want someone to do the job
or are we picking somebody who is a a you know,
role model for people to try to aspire to be like.
I think we've moved away. And maybe people don't like
this and disagree with that, but I think that we've
we've very clearly moved away from a world of anybody
(26:50):
who has a public job is supposed to be a
personal role model. Yeah, there are limits, right, you don't
want somebody who's like a heinous criminal. But I think
that we've seen people decide that this is not it's
just not what it used to be or what. But
I also think that before to the point you were making,
didn't didn't JFK. JFK had an affair with an intern
(27:13):
who was like.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
H slept with everybody with a pulse in the White House.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
I mean, so the actual president and even you know,
like a college freshman or something he was. You know,
that's correct, you know, like go back in time look
at all these guys and the stuff that they were doing.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
And that's what I'm saying. At the history Camelot, you
can mispronounce that. That may make more sense if you
actually go and uh and and and look at history.
I'm not kidding when I say for people out there
who will remember this, everything changed with Gary Hart. I
think it was like nineteen eighty four in that in
(27:52):
that Gary Hart catch, suddenly everything that you had done
in your personal life became a version of what kind
of leader you were going to be. And it wasn't
the case for all of American history until like nineteen
eighty four, and then from nineteen eighty four to I
would argue up through me too, that is a totally
(28:14):
different stand I remember this at all. By the way,
Gary Hart, you don't remember this monkey business story got up.
I bet some of our audience will remember it. But
that to me was a clear line of demarcation where
things changed in terms of, hey, your private life is
fair game.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Because it was generally a lot of demarcation. How many
people even remember this. I think very few people remember this,
this Gary Hart moment. Oh, putting phone lines. Buck has
just stepped in it. I think almost everybody out there
listening to us, who is old, now, I'll be fair,
who is older than fifty knows very well this Gary
(28:51):
Hart story. Gary Hart, by the way, I don't know it,
but I don't think it was some sea change moment
in America.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Oh, I think it was. He was the front runner
for the eighty eight eight Democrat nomination, so not eighty
four eighty eight. Then they went into his background, found
out that he was cheating and having like all that
monkey business. He was on a boat called monkey business.
And since that, which is very funny, since that time,
he also basically dared the reporters, hey, I've never done anything,
(29:18):
and they caught him take phone call. See if anybody
else remembers this. You're never too.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Old to continue learning. Hillsdale College's free online video courses
let you do just that. Hillsdale's on demand video courses
are well produced and engaging. The most watched series is
called Constitution. One on one, Hillsdale professors take you through
interesting historical conversations on how our constitution came to be
and how impactful this document is in ensuring our freedoms.
(29:43):
Think about it, This handwritten document has kept us as
the land of the free for more than two hundred
and thirty years, through the birth of a nation, a
civil war, the modernization of media, you name it. You'll
see and feel the passion of these professors as they
share what they've learned themselves, and that passion makes it
so much more fun. Watch Hillsdale Colleges Constitution one on
one series and relearn all about this document. It's just
(30:05):
one of forty three online courses available from Hillsdale. Go
to clayndbuckfour Hillsdale dot com. There's no cost and it's
easy to get started. That's Clay and Buck f o
R four clayndbuckfour Hillsdale dot com to register.
Speaker 7 (30:21):
Saving America one thought at a time Clay, Travis and
Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
So the wildfires in Los Angeles continue on and they
pose an ongoing threat to the communities there. The damage,
the devastation, it is just stunning.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
It is horrific death toll.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Last I saw it was at twenty four, although officials
think it's going to go higher. They're looking for bodies
in some neighborhoods. There's been some progress with some of
the blazes, but there's still the possibility that there could
be more spread. To me, Clay, you know, I remember
the first time I really spent any real time in
(31:11):
LA back in the early two thousands, and I drove
down the Pacific Coast Highway and I remember just thinking
that Malibu and that area was just the most just
one of the most incredible parts of the entire country.
It's one of the reasons why it's among the most
expensive real estate in the whole country. To see just
the charred wreckage of those beach houses, I mean, these
(31:35):
are beach houses. These are ten million dollar homes, a
lot of them. So I'm a lot more And that's
just one visual that I have. I mean, I've been
I'm sure you have to have been along that corridor
and seen these houses that are right on the ocean there,
and it's crazy to see what's gone on there is now.
(31:55):
I think no question that the response has been completely unacceptable,
meaning the ability to contain this it's not anywhere near
what it should have been. The La Times owner, doctor
Patrick Soon Shong has come out and said that it
was a mistake for his paper to endorse mayor Karen bass.
(32:19):
I want to talk about this play cut nine.
Speaker 11 (32:21):
We'll accept Tom Blaine, right, so at the LA Times
we endorse Karen Bass. I think right now in front,
that's a mistake and we admit that. So I thought
it was very early important, early on for me to
come out, and I think we were one of the
few to say competence matters and goodlie. But maybe twenty
twenty three million views to show how that was really
(32:45):
due to the heart of most people, whether you right
or left. And it's the interesting thing is that maybe
we should think about how we elect people on the
basis of did they actually run a job, did they
actually make a payroll? Do they understand what it is
other than having professional politicians whose only job is ready
to run for office.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Clay everything he said, yeah, seems seems very suddenly, very
very reasonable on this. But I would I would just
remind everyone that when you're talking about a job like
a mayor, it's true of a lot of public leadership jobs,
it's not a big deal until it is. It's not
(33:27):
a challenge until something comes up. Right, you can show
up as the mayor of name a major city and
on most days your staff is telling you what to do,
and you know you're signing things. I mean, you know
the actual mechanics of the job. You're not out there
in the bearing straight trying to get you know, trying
to stay on the ship and make sure you're gonna
(33:47):
get blown over by a wave or something like. It's
not that hard of a job, is my point. In
the crisis, though you see one's ability or lack thereof,
it's when you're tested, and this mayor of Los Angeles,
Karen Bass, has been tested and found insufficient in her skills. Well,
I think what it really brings home is DEI is
(34:09):
a luxury that doesn't matter at all when it comes
to actual competence. And to your point that a lot
of these jobs take care of themselves and so you
can have a figurehead leader who makes people feel good.
Oh look, it's the first gay trans mayor, Hey, yay,
But none of that matters when push comes to shove
(34:31):
and there's actual, real competence required.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
And I saw I don't know if you saw this.
Julia Roberts who is a super left winger, was at
the Joe Biden La fundraiser where people said Biden was
basically comatose, like unable to do the job. And she said,
now FU to looters out there. Interesting suddenly now looting,
(34:57):
as I saw Matt Walsh tweet, I think it's a
good point, Matt Walsh Daily Wire. For a long time
we heard looting was the voice of the dispossessed, right,
that was how they defend unheard. I think the voice
of the unheard, the voice of the unheard, that's what
looting was. That's what they told this all as BLM
protests took place all over the country. So are the
(35:17):
voices now not worthy of being heard? It's interesting when
you actually deal with it, how your perspective changed. And
I saw this from David Spade, the comedian. I believe
we have this audio. David Spade said, Hey, he's putting
a bounty out if you catch somebody trying to set fires,
he'll give you five thousand dollars. This is video. Did
(35:39):
you see this? This is David Spade. Hollywood comedian Julia
Roberts is saying fu. Big time donor and fundraiser for
Joe Biden, Democrat to looters, and now David Spade is saying, hey,
if you catch somebody trying to set fires, I'll give
you five k Listen.
Speaker 12 (35:56):
Hey, I'm out in California and people are saying, there's
guys lighting fire out there.
Speaker 6 (36:00):
Make this course.
Speaker 12 (36:02):
They just caught somebody. We're pretty sure it was lighting
fires walking on the blowtorch.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
They let them go.
Speaker 12 (36:08):
So if you can find someone lighting a fire, and
you catch somebody and you can get the cops to
bust him and throw them in jail, give you five
thousand bucks. So keep your eyes peeled and do what
you can out there. Don't fake it though, no staging.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Let me know, I buck this is a red pilled
moment for a lot of Los Angelinos. I think now
David Spade has been I think a more moderate guy
that politician gen x Era is less likely to be
as a crazy left wing But I do think it's interesting. Well,
you know, I'll tell you this.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
In New York you have had a few things that
have always made it feel like public safety was a
little bit more of a it affects everybody thing than
you do in a place like Los Angeles. What I
mean is if you take the subway, you take the
subway right, it doesn't matter where you live, and if
(37:01):
the subway is unsafe, people pay attention. There is certainly
a perception and my friends, my Los Angeles based friends,
have spoken me about this many times in the past,
where if you live in Brentwood, if you live in
Beverly Hills, you're living in a rarefied existence that allows
you to separate yourself from the realities of more interior
(37:24):
Los Angeles. God, I think that's right wherever the and
so you can have these luxury beliefs and you're just
getting into your Mercedes or your poorche or whatever, and
you're going to friends' houses in Malibu the boo. You know,
you're not dealing with the degeneracy that maybe is on
the streets of Hollywood Boulevard the same way. This now
(37:48):
is a moment where the crappy leadership of Los Angeles
as a city in Los Angeles County is affecting the
people that live in the the some cases truly gated communities,
but the proverbial gated community, right, I mean, they always
felt safe behind their high walls and their fancy neighborhoods. Well,
maybe they're relatively safe from crime. Still, they weren't safe
(38:10):
from these fires. So it has been made real for
them in a way that I think is pushing the
recognition of politics now.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
I think that's a really good point for people who
have spent time in New York City and in La La.
You have the ability to have a multi acre estate
with a gated community in West LA to a large extent,
or in the beachside communities, and you can really isolate
yourself from actual danger to a large extent in La.
(38:39):
I was in West LA, have spent probably years of
my life almost now in West LA. I've never felt
remotely endangered in West LA. To your point, Buck, New York,
everybody is right on top of everybody else, and it
feels much more like a place where danger could erupt
in a way that La does not, if that makes sense.
(38:59):
And what now is happening is all of these people,
legitimately from their gated mansions and their exclusive, wealthy enclaves,
are suddenly dealing with a level of crime that they've
never anticipated before. People, by and large, we're not engaging
in violent behavior in Pacific palisades, ever, and so you
could look back and you could say, oh, well, that's
(39:20):
not really the part of LA that I'm concerned about.
The rubber doesn't have to meet the road of your
political opinions. And suddenly Julia Roberts, when she was I
bet raising money to bail out people during BLM, is saying, wait,
f you to all these looters out there.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
And LA is much less a city than a lot
of other cities are, meaning it's actually a collection. Los
Angeles is a collection of different cities, all connected via
you know, highways, really, and you can even see that
with things like Beverly Hills has its own police department,
(39:57):
you know what I mean. You look at some of
these communities, they have their own police force, they have
their own you know, set up with that's some of
the local you know, local politicians and sort of local
commissions and people who are in charge of stuff. So
it's a place where I think you're able to create.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
Your own little universe.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
You know, if you live in a mansion in Beverly Hills,
you don't really care what's happening in downtown LA very much,
or you know, you don't have to deal with it.
It's quite far actually to get there. So this though,
is a moment where the people who have lived in
very fa you know, specific Palisades is considered a very desirable,
very high end area. It's largely gone burned to the ground.
(40:37):
I mean huge parts of it are gone, and people
have to turn around and say, hold on a second,
why weren't the proper preparations made. Why are people bleating
like imbeciles about climate change right now, as if that
is helpful or has anything to do with anything. So
this is maybe a moment that there'll be some people
(40:59):
who's lines change. I also wonder how many of them
will just decide that this is the last straw that
they They'll decide that they want to sell the land'll
probably you know, clear the land if they've had a
home that's burned down, take whatever the insurance money is
and go elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
Some of them will rebuild, I'm sure, but some of
them won't. I think huge percentages of people will leave
and take their insurance money and go honestly to red
states because they're fed up over this. And this to
your point on the climate change yesterday while you were
sitting in traffic, that was what I really wanted to
kind of hammer home because that great editorial laying out
LA's always had wildfires. We actually managed, thanks to human ingenuity,
(41:38):
to get to the point where there were almost no
acres being burned compared to historic norms. And now all
we've done is basically recreate the same scenarios in situations
that existed before human ingenuity had driven down the number
of homes that were going to be destroyed. And because
of that human ingenuity, I bet a lot of these
(41:59):
communities are relatively new because they probably didn't want to
build there historically because they were dangerous relative to the
wildfire and wildlife surrounding them. There was more danger of
those areas being burned.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
Did you see the analysis as well that they The
state of California does not allow risk pricing for insurance
for fire insurance, which means that there's no disincentive to
build and to build very extravagantly in these and fire
prone areas. It also means that there's no insurance pool
(42:37):
to cover these losses. So then California provides an insurance
of last resort, and that insurance also does not have
enough capital to actually cover these losses. So all the
regulations that they have in place have done is made
the whole situation worse and also requires the raising of
(42:59):
rates forever who doesn't actually live in as dangerous of
a place because the insurance company has to get the
capital to be able to cover the risk, even if
you limit how much they can actually take in risk.
So it's a broken system as much of California systems
now are. Look, do you have old videotapes, film reels,
photos laying around at home. If you're holding on to
(43:20):
then they must mean something, so take the extra step
get them digitized to keep them preserved forever.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
That's what Legacy Box does. They're located in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
my mom's hometown where one half of my family lived
and I spent a lot of time over the years.
They now have the largest collection of VCRs probably anywhere
in the country, and that's because they're constantly digitizing VHS
tapes and more, whether it was an old kid's first steps, birthdays, weddings, reunions, ballgames,
(43:49):
just hearing the voices, maybe a family members you've lost.
Legacy Box will digitally transfer all of that and then
they give you back all the old tapes, photos, and
films along with brand new digital files that live on
in the cloud forever. And that way you can go
online and see them anytime on any digital device, phone, computer,
smart TV. You can share these photos and videos with
(44:10):
your friends and family. Get hooked up right now at
legacybox dot com slash clay for fifty percent off when
you preserve your past with legacy Box. That's legacybox dot
com slash Clay one more time. Legacybox dot com slash
Clay News. You can count on as some laughs too.
Speaker 7 (44:29):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Welcome back in and Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Going
to be joined by our friend, Congressman Jim Jordan here shortly,
but I wanted to hit you with a couple of things.
One reports that Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos
are going to attend the Trump inauguration. That's the head
of obviously a lot of companies. Elon Meta Facebook, for
(44:58):
Zuckerberg and Bezos founded and run ran for a long
time Amazon. I think that's significant. I'm not sure that
Trio has ever been to any political event together. Certainly
they haven't set together that I'm aware of, so that's interesting.
But I wanted to play as we wait for Congressman
Jim Jordan. Here's something for all of you to enjoy.
This is the newly elected Senator from Montana, Tim Shehe
(45:20):
has been on this program several different times with a
line up questioning that I think you will enjoy. For
Pete hag Seth earlier, listen.
Speaker 6 (45:28):
How many genders are they tough one?
Speaker 5 (45:30):
Senator? There are two genders.
Speaker 6 (45:32):
I know that well. I'm a Shihi, so I'm on board.
Speaker 13 (45:36):
What is the diameter of the rifle round fired out
of an M four A one rifle?
Speaker 5 (45:40):
That's a five five six?
Speaker 6 (45:42):
How many push ups can you do?
Speaker 5 (45:44):
I did five sets of forty seven this morning.
Speaker 6 (45:47):
What do you think our most important strategic basis in
the Pacific?
Speaker 4 (45:50):
In the Pacific Guam is pretty strategically significant.
Speaker 13 (45:54):
How many rounds of five to five six can you
fit into the magazine of an M four rifle?
Speaker 5 (45:59):
Depends on the magazine, But standard issues thirty.
Speaker 13 (46:02):
And what size round is the M nine Bretta standard
issue side aren't for the military fire.
Speaker 5 (46:07):
A nine milimeter? Senator?
Speaker 13 (46:09):
What kind of batter is you put in your night
vision goggle dura cell. So right there, you're representing qualifications
that show you understand what the warfighter deals with every
single day in the battlefield.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
I thought that was really interesting, Buck.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
I mean, yeah, sure, yes, those those questions. I'm not
surprised Pe got them right. Five sets of forty seven
we talked ress strict. That's pretty good. I gotta say
forty seven right, but please don't serve it. I can
do eighty, No, you can't.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
Right, How many can you do push ups right now?
If you had to drop down in the studio? Good ones?
Speaker 3 (46:47):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (46:48):
Chest the deck? Basically definitely thirty five, maybe forty Okay,
that's solid. I think I can get fifty. I've done
tried to do this on television before. I think I
can get fifty right now. I mean, is there money?
Is there money on this?
Speaker 2 (47:03):
Like, if I'm really motivated, I think I could probably
squeeze out some. But the thing with pushups is there's
a lot of people could throw momentum in there and
they kind of drop down to the deck. You know,
it's like, are we are we talking strict? We talk
in the real deal.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
But yeah, I don't know that we've ever had a
defense secretary. What's the math on that? Almost two hundred
and fifty two thirty five? Is that the math on that?
I don't know how much of a rest he's giving
himself between the sets of forty seven. I imagine he
did forty seven in honor of President Trump, although he
didn't say it. That's my guess as to why he
did forty seven instead of fifty if I he may
(47:39):
be the best push up defense secretary that we've ever seen.
And I do think that those questions. First of all,
again how many genders there are? That is a callback
because Katanji Brown Jackson couldn't answer it, and I.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
Think Rumsfeld probably had a lot of old man's strength.
I don't know how he could have done though, Yeah,
Rummy Rummy was kind of a He was kind of
a tough old son of a gun.
Speaker 1 (48:03):
What I like about that line of questioning one is
it's super fast, But it does demonstrate the narrative that
Pete Hagseth is sharing, which is that he is an
expert on knowing what the average officer and average grunt
is going to actually be. Like we got Congressman Jim
Jordan with us now a little bit delayed because of voting. Congressman.
(48:25):
I don't know if you've seen this news yet, but
I was giving you praise earlier for being involved in
helping to fight censorship. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff
Bezos reportedly attending the inauguration and sitting together for Trump
on Monday. Have you heard that? What's your thoughts when
you hear that? Would you have ever believed it?
Speaker 9 (48:41):
No one would have believed that you got to love
this country. But you said this in an interview I
caught Lisa Selgo. By the way, I apologizes for being late,
but it was it was actually a vote to keep
men out of wind in sports on the floor, and
I did not.
Speaker 1 (48:53):
Want what was the result of that vote.
Speaker 9 (48:55):
By the way, it's going on as you seek. I
just voted. But we're going to win this thing, and
hopefully we're going to get some Democrats like we did
the Lake and Riley Act last week, who have seen
the light after November fifth, and both about the right way.
But yeah, who would have predicted, you know a few
years ago that Donald trumps RFK Junior, Elon Musk and
Telsey Gabern to be on the same team. Who would
predict that those three people you just described from the
(49:16):
big tech world would be given money to the Trump
inauguration in there? I mean, you just go on, who
would have predicted Mark Zucker but would write me a
letter saying the Biden administration pressured us the censor. We
did it, We're sorry, we won't do it again. I mean,
it's it's unbelievable, but it's because so many of us,
starting with elon President Trump. But when you testified Clay
(49:37):
a couple of years ago not to have the park
and from the committee talking about this, a bunch of
us just dug into this and said, we cannot have
this censorship because if you lose the right to debate,
you have free and fair and open debate, you lose
the First Amendment, you lose Western civilization. And so it
is great to see the turnaround that has taken place
here in the past couple of years.
Speaker 2 (49:59):
How do you think our friend and Pete Hegsath's doing
on Capitol Hill so far and his quest to get
through in the Senate, And you know, I know you're
not voting on this, but you know how your colleagues
on the other side of Congress are are probably feeling
about things these days? And what do you think about
the rest of the Trump that the top tier of
Trump nominees. Did you foresee any any real challenges to
(50:20):
get any of them through?
Speaker 9 (50:22):
Buck? I think they're all gonna make it. And I
just caught bits and pieces a piece of that meetings
and different things that was working on. But I was
clipping in every one while he seemed confident, he's seemed poised,
and I just thought, I thought he did a tremendous
job what little I was able to catch while it
was on in the office. But I think I think
Pam's gonna make it. I think Todd Blantz is gonna
(50:42):
make it. I think Cashta Telson, I mean, and I
and I think Tulsey's gonna make it. And I certainly
hope Tolsey and are Cage all of them make it
because they're with us on censorship, there with us on
the First Amendment, they're with us on the Phizon the
perform happened to the fize the law. So I'm I
feel good, frankly about all of them, not only the
(51:02):
job they're going to do, but the fact that they're
going to get confirmed by the United States Centers.
Speaker 1 (51:06):
We're talking to Congressman Jim Jordan. How optimistic are you
Ohio State it's gonna win on Monday.
Speaker 9 (51:11):
I'm pretty darn optimistic. I mean, they just look tough.
And I don't pretend to be a football expert. Although
I always wanted to play middle linebacker for the for
the for the Pittsburgh Steelers. I think we've talked about before,
but when you're my size, he had to wrestle. But yeah,
I think I think they've looked just tremendous and I
think they're gonna win. But you gotta love Freeman. You
love what he's on Notre Dame. And he's an Ohio
(51:31):
guy too, So in some ways it's it's it's going
to be a great day for Ohio. J D Vince
and be vice president.
Speaker 1 (51:36):
Do you think he's going to go to both? By
the way, have you talked to him about whether he's
going to try to do the inauguration and then hop
on a plane to go watch the game. I haven't
heard the latest details. You think he might try that,
and know he tweeted about it.
Speaker 9 (51:47):
I think it would be great he walks into this state.
I think it would be I mean, I don't know
if he will. And you know, there's a bunch of
executive orders that President's going to sign their day, a
bunch of stuff that gets done, and JD obviously is
part of all that too, But I mean, I love
for him to do it. I think it'd be great.
Speaker 2 (52:05):
Congressman Jim Jordan with us now. Congressman, Uh, do you
do you feel like the the free speech shift from
Zuckerberg and some of these others is a little opportunistic
or do you think that they really have seen the
light here to the degree that you can parse that out?
Speaker 9 (52:24):
Well, I'm you know, I always I guess I'm I
always see the glass pat full, and so I tend
to think it's more the latter. I really do. I'm
actually gonna meet with mister Zuckerberg next next week when
he's in town for the inauguration. But I feel good
about it, and it's all this really started for me.
I had a meeting with Evan Muss about two years
ago and then speak to McCarthy's office. It was the
(52:45):
three of us talking, and I still remember him. This
is right when he bought Twitter, all this stuff coming out,
and and and I could just come she for sure
definitely believes in the First Amendment. And I think, you
know Mark Andrews and and out there talk with him.
I think he understands the importance of the First Amendment.
So I'd like to think it's genuine. Now, look, I
(53:06):
get it, they see what happened on November fifth, they
see the House defendant and the White House all now
in the public opions. So either way, it's good for
the country. But I tend to uh, maybe it's hoped.
Maybe it's just the optimism that I think so many
Americans have. I tend to think it's genuine.
Speaker 1 (53:24):
Jim, do you think we're going to see one huge
I think it's being called a big, beautiful bill that
would roll the border issues as well as the tax
bill and everything else that's trying to be passed. Do
you think that's going to be one bill? Do you
have or does the House have a strong opinion on that?
So far as you can read Speaker Mike Johnson, And
(53:45):
what's the timeframe on something like that, if it's truly
one big bill? How long does it take to pass?
Speaker 9 (53:51):
Well, I mean the sooner the better, and I'm actually
sort of one or two actually posing cons to both.
What I want to do is I say this all
the time. I think we make the job to complicated.
What we tell the voters we're going to do. If
you get elected, go do what you said. So whether
that's a two bill strategy or one bill strategy, let's
just do what we said, what they elected us to do.
I think there's there's people in the House on both sides.
(54:12):
The Sendates leans more towards the two bill strategy. I
think probably slightly more House members lean toward a one
bill strategy. The presence indicated that that was his preference,
but I think he too just wants to do We
got to do with the border, we got to do
with with energy policy. We've got to make sure the
tax tax cuts don't expire and then people tax liability
doesn't go up so that we can get our economy grown.
(54:32):
So we got to do all these things. The timeline
is as quick as possible. Frankly, you know, hopefully by
by easter some of the some of the projections that
we're here in from from leadership. So let's just get
done what we said we would do. Whether it's one
or two, I don't care.
Speaker 1 (54:50):
One last question for you. You've known Trump for a
long time, you were one of his most zealous defenders.
What do you think the biggest difference between Trump one
point administration and Trump two point zero administration is going
to be.
Speaker 9 (55:05):
Well, he knows who the trust in town. You just
look at who he nominated back in seventeen sixteen and
seventeen after that election for key positions, much more establishment,
you know, type of folks versus the people he selected
for running these key agencies. Now, I think that is
a that is a huge difference, and I think he
(55:25):
understands that. You know this, look, this is now legacy,
this is now history. He's talking about things why the
day looks so much, But Peo will mention things that
no one else will mention. Who when he first ran
in sixteen, he talked about building the wall and everyone's like, oh,
can you really talk about that? Yes you can, and
it was the right move. And then last week at
that press conference when he's talking about the Panama Canal
in Greenland, people are like, well, but that is President Trump.
(55:49):
He is focused on one thing, making America great again,
doing what he told the people he was going to
do who elected him in this land flid on November fifth,
and he knows the kind of people he needs in
agencies to get that done, and that's why he's picking
good people like Peak Peg Cash to Tael, Pam Bondi,
Todd Blanch, I mean people who run these agencies the
(56:09):
way they need to be run.
Speaker 1 (56:11):
Jim, we'll do up this weekend again, thank you for
the time. Good work on Capitol Hill there. That's Jim Jordan.
We will definitely see him up. I would imagine this weekend. Buck,
you and I are both getting to DC on Friday,
and we're going to be busy and we're going to
need a lot of energy. And thankfully we're young enough
to still have good testosterone, but everybody out there could
(56:33):
use a little bit more. That's what Chalk's Male Vitality
Stack does. In just three months time, it can replenish
your testosterone by up to twenty percent and help maximize
your potential. In twenty twenty five, you can use my
name Clay as the promo code to get a massive
discount on any subscription for life. And if you haven't
checked this out, they have male and female vitality stacks
(56:54):
all natural just you can take it and it will
help to provide more energy than bigger vitality for you.
All you have to do is go to chalk dot
com that's choq dot com, my name Clay for the
best possible discount on any subscription for life. You can
cancel at any time. But why would you? More testosterone,
more energy, men and women? Why not try it out
(57:16):
as part of twenty twenty five. Make your resolution to
have more energy with chalkchoq dot com. Use my name
Clay when you make your purchase.
Speaker 7 (57:26):
Have fun with the guys on Sundays the Sunday Hang podcast.
It's Silly, It's goofy, It's good times. Fight it in
the Clay and Fuck podcast feed on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get your podcasts
I was looking buck because my good friend polymarket. I
haven't talked about the gambling odds in some time, and
during this commercial break we were on they actually have
odds on whether or not you can you expect somebody
to be confirmed, And everybody right now, with millions and
(00:22):
millions of dollars bet is expected to be confirmed. Up
to eighty percent chances for everybody. So the point on
this is not that this is one hundred percent accurate,
but if you believe somebody's gonna get shot down as
a nominee, you can basically get four to one odds
(00:46):
that that's going to happen. In other words, you get
four times your money. And I want to just kind
of hammer this home because I haven't heard anybody else
talk about it yet. Watch as Democrats, recognizing that Republicans
are willing to stay strong, decide to also cast their
lot for some of these nominees. In particular, think about
(01:10):
the states that Trump won. There are a lot of
Democrat senators in those states. Fetterman, Michigan has two Democrat senators,
Wisconsin has one, and Georgia has two, which is crazy.
Arizona has two. Now Nevada has two that's a lot
(01:32):
of targets out there in states that Trump won where
there are Democrat senators that I think as soon as
one of them says, hey, I'm voting, there will be
others jump on board. So what I would say to
anybody out there in the Republican Senate team is they're
looking for one of you to break. But if you
(01:52):
actually all stand strong and vote uniformly for the Trump nominees,
I think every one of them will have at least
one Democrat senator that comes on board and votes as well,
so that they can claim they're bipartisan, and also to
be fair, so they can set the president, which is
what I think the president should be. That, by and large,
when you win an election, particularly when you win the
(02:13):
popular vote and all fifty states move in your direction,
has happened with Donald Trump, you should get the right
to pick the guys and gals you want in your cabinet.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, Clay Elizabeth Warren, whose integrity has been a laugh
line for a long time, formerly known as Pocahontas by
Donald Trump himself. Remember when Trump was president, he actually
called their Pocahontas.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
That's the best nickname he's ever given. And there are
some good ones. Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren is the best ever.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
But Elizabeth Warren had a little exchange here just now
during the hearing with Pete Hexat. This is twenty eight.
I want you to hear this one. Play it now.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Mister Hackstath, you've written that after they retire, general should
be banned from working for the defense industry for ten years.
You put your money where your mouth is and agree
that when you leave this job, you will not work
for the defense industry for ten years.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Senator, It's not even a question I've thought about, because
it's not all right now.
Speaker 5 (03:11):
It's not one my motivation for this job.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
I understand that time is short.
Speaker 5 (03:18):
I just need a yes or no. I would consult
with the President about what the policy.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
In other words, you're quite sure that every general who
serves should not go directly into the defense industry for
ten years. You're not willing to make that same pledge.
Speaker 6 (03:33):
I'm not a general, Senator, You'll.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Be the one. Let us just be clear in charge
of the generals. So you're saying sauce for the goose,
but certainly not sauce for the gander.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
I would want to see what the policy that.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
It reminds me of pow Wow Chow, where she got
into sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander
by stealing Native American recipes and putting it in a
cook book if you recall, called pow Wow Chow, Yes,
which is a that's you're not even making a joke
for people who don't realize the Native American cookbook was
called pow Wow Chow. And I mean it is the
(04:14):
Senator not only that buck, she got her entire career
because she claimed that she was Native American, and when
people criticized her, she said, have you seen my high cheekbones?
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Like, I mean, this chick is crazy in many ways,
somewhat smart, but on that on that front, I actually
think Pete doesn't need to do that. Right. Pete gave
up and he probably won't say it because I think
it pointing out how much money he was making in
his mind might not be a way to endear himself
(04:51):
to people. But let me just tell you this, it's
public now. Pete was making over two million dollars a
year to do television for Fox News two point three million.
I think he's leaving a two point three million dollar
a year job to take one that pays I don't know,
two hundred and fifty two hundred and eighty thousand dollars.
So he's losing ninety percent of his salary to go
(05:15):
take this job. In theory, that means he's giving up
if he does this job for four years, around eight
nine million dollars in family income. He's got six seven kids,
I think. So my point on that is, I think
Pete's responds to Elizabeth Warren. Actually, she's trying to accuse
him of enriching himself. That's the line of attack that
(05:37):
she's using. He's trying to accuse him of enriching himself
based on the job that he's taking. He's actually taking
a ninety percent pay cut. And so if I were him,
that was a funny response. I'm not a general or whatever.
But the one thing you can't accuse him of is
doing this to make more money, because he's directly giving
up millions of dollars potentially ten million dollars to over
(06:00):
four years to take a job that pays a fraction
of that nine million dollars less. I don't know how
many people out there that are listening to us right now.
You may love America. A lot of people wouldn't give
up ninety percent of their salary to go serve for
the United States. So it's not only that Elizabeth Warren
is not being honest in her attack, it's that she's
(06:21):
accusing him of doing the exact opposite of what he's
actually doing.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
She also got feisty with him over the women in
the military issue. We'll bring you that clip here momentarily,
but this question.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
For you, Buck on the women in the military thing.
How is it controversial to say that if you're going
to be in combat, you should have to pass the
exact same physical standards as everyone else who's in combat.
Like that doesn't seem remotely controversial to me.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
It's the same cognitive dissonance that exists when you talk
about DEI and affirmative action and college admissions, which is,
we're going to have everybody hit the same standards while
we're changing the standards for certain people to come in
like they say it and then they change it. It
is absolutely the case that when they've looked at infantry
(07:17):
combat readiness in mixed meaning you know, multiple gender or
two gender, sorry, multiple gender two gender units versus all
male units, that it absolutely hurts combat readiness overall for
the unit, and that it also that women can't compete
at the same level of doing things that guys who
(07:37):
are in the Marines and the army rangers and these things.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
That doesn't seem remotely controversy, Like, I don't even understand
how this is controversial.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
It's controversial because people live in a fantasy land and
they watch a lot of these you know, these like
CSI shows or something where some one hundred and thirty
pounds you know, former lingerie model is like flipping guys
over her shoulder and throwing karate chops at five guys
in a time. I'm you know, we're like big, burly
guys and they're getting thorn around. That's not how it
goes in the real world. I'm amazed at how many
(08:06):
people are like, but she studied jiu jitsu. I'm like, yeah,
if she studied jiu jitsu and she weighs one hundred
and thirty pounds, a two hundred pound guy is going
to maul this person, Okay, they have no chance. And
the reality is that this is something you see playing
out in physically demanding combat roles as well. I mean
(08:26):
people will say, oh, well, what about pilots. Okay, pilots
are different. Okay, you know, vehicle driving, it is a
different skill set. But if you're talking about being able
to carry heavy pack, move quickly, take in coming fire,
return in coming fire, women are not able to compete at.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
The same By the way, this isn't just my theory.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
The Pentagon has done huge studies on it in the
Obama administration and it was disastrous in terms of the
change in readiness that having mixed gender combat units resulted in.
I mean, this is this is just where I come
from the world of sports. Women can't compete at the
highest level of any men's sport. That's not because I'm sexist.
(09:06):
That's because biology is real. So if the standards are set,
and they should be high. To me, if you're going
to be in a combat role, because it's not only
your ability to defend yourself, it's also somebody else has
to have you have to have their back. I can't
believe that this is the line of attack that we
need that Pete Hegseth saying, hey, we need high standards
(09:28):
for physical combat and everybody should have to meet them
is in some way seen as an attack on women.
I mean, men have the ability to kick ass at
a level that women don't. That doesn't mean that some
tiny percentage of women might not be able to kick
the ass of some tiny percentage of men.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
That certainly can occur, but the standard has to be
really high, that doesn't That seems crazy to me to
argue otherwise.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Well, what ends up happening is that the people who
want this because they believe in a radical gender equality,
which is part of a whole broader philosophy of the
left Democrats. But what they always say is, oh, no,
we'll keep the standard the same, And then the standard
is immediately when they start having women in these world
they change the standard. And then they say, how dare
(10:12):
you say that we shouldn't have different standards, Like it's
just the same gas lighting, the same routine every time
they go through this, and people are just sick of it,
so they go, no, like, we don't trust that you're
not going to change the standards. You know, there's a
reason why you know, a woman has never become a
Navy seal despite it to me more movie, you know,
twenty years ago, whatever, there are reasons for this stuff.
(10:35):
I would just also point out how many of these
quote unquote liberal women take it outside of the world
of military right now, But what's going on? Producer Alley
just pointed out with firefighters in LA, if your house
is burning and your kids are trapped inside, how many
liberal women want one hundred and twenty pound women showing
up to try to rescue their family as firefighters versus
(10:57):
two hundred and twenty pound jacked bad as dudes.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
That doesn't seem like a tough call to me.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Look, a lot of a lot of cops will tell you,
and that you know, this gets very testy with some people,
and some people listening might a little testy. But I
worked with a lot of cops, as you all know.
In the NYPD. I worked with the most seasoned detectives
in the entire NYPD and the Intel Division. And when
you got to wrestle a you know, cartel member to
the ground who's got a few bodies in his body count,
(11:26):
you know it was a really dangerous individual. Not a
lot of women get that job done for law enforcement
as well as the you know guys you have in
US marshals, et cetera. It's just this is just reality.
But people don't like reality, which is why they also clay.
Do you remember it wasn't long ago, noted scientists Neil
deGrasse Tyson, noted astrophysicist refuse to admit that men have
(11:50):
a physical and strength and speed advantage over women.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
On the Bill, Marshaw would not say it, would not
say it. Of the only sports site in America that
will say men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women
is OutKick. I mean again, I'm not trying to insult
female athletes. Ever when I say this, they're in the
top one percent. The top one percent of female athletes
(12:14):
are nowhere near the top one percent of male athletes.
It doesn't overlap. Some women are better at basketball than
some men. Some of you listening right now could beat
your husband's one on one in basketball. That doesn't mean
that the best women are able to compete against the
best men. It's just it's crazy, and you know, one
of the things that's gone to most megaviral. I think
(12:36):
this is one reason why eighteen to twenty nine year
old boys, I say boys, young men are voting so
overwhelmingly towards towards Trump. Is they see the BS. You know,
one of the things that went most viral that I've
done in the last couple of years, Buck was when
I offered a million dollars to the WNBA champion team
to compete against the high school boys team state champion
(12:57):
team of my choice million dollar channel, and straight up
they wouldn't do it. Six million people watch that on
TikTok because a lot of boys are out there, young kids,
like this is crazy. They're being sold bs things that
they know are not true. It's a difference between Hey,
we're going to treat men and women equally and men
(13:18):
and women are equal talent in all facets of life.
That just isn't true. You know, investing in gold this
past year would have been a smart decision. It was
up about thirty percent in value. People invest in gold
for a variety of reasons, but the leading one being
that gold is a way to hold the value of
your savings and four to one K accounts over the
long term. When those accounts are all cash, they lose
(13:40):
value as the dollar goes down due to inflation. Amy
and our audience benefited from the rising value of gold
investing last year with the help of Birch Gold Group.
She wrote to us saying her experience with Birch Gold
was fantastic. Amy had been considering buying precious metals with
uninvested funds sitting in an account with an old four
oh one k rollover, but she didn't know how. She
(14:00):
heard us talking about Birch Gold Group and texted the
number that we provide here on the show ninety eight,
using my name Buck as your promo code. Text Buck
Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Amy got a call from James who listened to her questions,
consider her goals, and she was impressed with his knowledge
and ability to explain it all to a layperson with
no investing experience to date. So go check out what
they can do for you at the Birch Gold Group.
Text my name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety
eight to get your free info hit, or go online
to Birch Gold dot com slash buck that's Birch Gold
(14:36):
dot com slash buck.
Speaker 7 (14:40):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton them find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
We just had.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Senator Caine, Remember him, He was going to be Hillary's
vice president? Remember that that didn't go over so well.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Who is going to have a more distinguished career after
Walls who would have been Kamala's VP, Or Tim Kaine,
who would have been Hillary's VP. Like, people just completely
have forgotten about Tim Kane. But at least he had
the Senate seat to go back to. Walls is in
his second term as Minnesota governor. Does he have any
(15:23):
political future at all? No, but he can pursue his
lifelong dream of Broadway and I think that, you know,
spirit fingers dancing man. Maybe he can be a rocket
he liked to kick the legs up. Maybe he can
get in the rockets in the Christmas Spectacular, which I'm
told is told is a fantastic show.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I mean, I haven't ever been Tim Kaine. No, Tim
thinks he's got the legs for it, So why not,
you know what I mean? He could be up there
with the rockets.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
You never know. So we have Tim Kaine.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I suppose to Tim Walls, who I think was a
actually ended up being a pretty serious drag on the
Kamala ticket. But Tim Walls, Tim Kaine, Tim Kaine went
after Pete Hegseth just now. And this is a reminder
that even though I think there's no chance, I shouldn't
(16:19):
say no chance, there's a very low chance they're gonna
be they're gonna block Pete's nomination because they need a
Republican to go along. I think it's very unlikely, but
they like to get their sound bites, and this is well,
let's hear what it turned into and how Pete handled this.
But Tim Kaine getting a little a little nasty up
(16:40):
there on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Listen to this.
Speaker 8 (16:42):
You had sex, well, you were married to wife two
after you just had fathered a child.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
By wife's three.
Speaker 8 (16:47):
You've admitted that now if it had been a sexual assault,
that would be disqualifying to be Secretary Defense, wouldn't it.
Speaker 6 (16:53):
I it's a false claim.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Then, in a false claim, now.
Speaker 8 (16:55):
If it had been a sexual assault, that would be
disqualified to be a Secretary of Defense, wouldn't it?
Speaker 5 (17:02):
That was a false claim. So you talking about a hypothetical.
Speaker 8 (17:05):
I assume that in each of your weddings you've pledged
to be faithful to your wife.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
You've taken an oath to do that, haven't.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
You, Senator As I've acknowledged to everyone in this committee
not a perfect person, not claiming to.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
But you No.
Speaker 6 (17:17):
I just asked a simple question.
Speaker 8 (17:18):
You've taken an oath like you would take an oath
to be Secregary Defense and all of your weddings to
be faithful to your wife.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Is that correct?
Speaker 4 (17:24):
I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully
I'm redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
And did you ever engage in any acts of physical
violence against any of your wives?
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Senator? Absolutely not?
Speaker 8 (17:35):
So you would agree with me that if someone had
committed physical violence against the spouse, that would be disqualifying
to serve as Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
Correct, Senator? Absolutely not? Have I ever done that?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Wow? I mean so, I said to politics of personal destruction.
This was prior to Tim Kaine, Senator from Virginia, going
in on Pete Hesath over his past marital issues. And
the question about hitting a wife is so specific, you know,
(18:09):
I I. I just it's it's an odd angle to
go after when there has been no suggestion that it's occurred.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
It's the classic thing though, it's the when did you
stop beating your wife?
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Question? In essence, I mean it's the it's.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
To bring up the notion of somebody being a wife
abuser or physically a wife beater, and and then just
just bring it up so that you've tainted the person
that you're having the conversation with.
Speaker 9 (18:35):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I wouldn't have guessed that Tim Kaine would go this route,
but I suppose he thinks that this is his opportunity
to show that he is just protesting against all things
Trump and Trump's nominees in some ways. Uh, you know,
the things that that are brought up here. I think
it's interesting Democrats, So now now are Democrats of the
mind that marital issues, marital problems put aside the violence,
(19:01):
which was a total that was a total kind of
backhanded smear effort. The party of Bill Clinton, I would think,
is generally not going to be the party that is
pointing fingers about how things go during one's marriage.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
But right now they got nothing, and so they're going
to go out about even leave aside Clinton. Buck What
about what we just saw of Kamala Harris's husband, No
questions by and large from the media at all. I mean,
her husband, Doug Imhoff, in his mid forties, was accused
(19:37):
of pretty clearly slapping the crap out of a girlfriend
outside of a fancy party, and there were witnesses and
all these different aspects of it. To my knowledge, Doug
Imhoff was never even asked about it in any interview,
and Tim Kaine went out on the road and campaigned
with m Hoff. So what is his stand, wondered for
(20:01):
what sort of job you can have based on past behavior?
Not to mention, Doug Imhoff got his nanny pregnant kind
of a big no no, just kind of tossing it
out there. Hey, don't get the nanny pregnant is kind
of a big, big deal for most of.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
An employee who lives or at least partially lives in
your home and is dependent on you for a paycheck
and is around your wife and your family regularly. I mean, look,
I don't think that Schwarzenegger honestly ever really recovered from
that whole thing either in the public eye. There's something
(20:39):
particularly uh yucky about his marriage pregnant nanny. He got
his nanny pregnant, and then Kamala Harris married him, and
he also, according to credible sources, slapped the crap out
of a woman in his mid forties and people say, Okay,
why are you talking about mid forties. We're not talking
about the first time the guy got a beer when
(21:00):
he was eighteen and did something stupid. When you're in
your mid forties, like you're a grown man, Like you're
not slapp And I would say this, you're not slapping
a woman for the first time in your mid forties.
I don't think that happens very often. So my point
on this is Tim Kaine campaigned with Doug Immahoff in
(21:22):
this most recent presidential election, and now he's out on
the in the Senate deciding that this is an unacceptable
past behavior when he's had no issue with it in
the past. Mark Wayne Mullen now steps in Republican Mark
Wayne Ullen, this is cut thirty two. He is not
(21:43):
having it. When it comes to the way the Democrats
are going after Pete on this one play it.
Speaker 10 (21:47):
The senator for for Genius starts bringing up the fact
that what if you showed up drunk to your job?
How many Senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?
Have any of you guys asked him to step down
and resign for their job? And don't tell me you
haven't seen it because I know you have. And then
how many senators do you know have got a divorce
before cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to
(22:09):
step down?
Speaker 4 (22:10):
No?
Speaker 6 (22:10):
But it's for show, you guys.
Speaker 10 (22:12):
Make sure you make a big show and point out
the hypocrisy because the man's made a mistake and you
want to sit there and say that he's not qualified.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Give me a joke.
Speaker 10 (22:22):
It is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself as
this higher standard. You forget you got a big plank
in your on.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Congress being the arbiter of marital fidelity is that's a
tough one for a lot of people.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
A lot of people are laughing about that. Also alcohol,
I mean, are we really going to pretend that a
lot of senators and a lot of congressmen and women
don't engage in drinking a lot while they are serving
in the Capitol? I mean buck Back in the day,
(23:02):
and maybe it's changed, it was not uncommon for congressional
offices to roll in kegs and have parties in the
congressional office with alcohol there. Maybe they have stopped that.
I can only speak to it because I worked on
Capitol Hill for multiple years and that was a standard
(23:23):
thing you would invite other offices over. You would have
a couple of kegs. Everybody would have drinks on a Friday.
Maybe they don't allow that anymore, but I knew that
heg Seth was likely to be confirmed. When they went
they stopped the attacks over woman related issues and instead
moved it entirely to oh, he drinks too much, and
(23:45):
that in and of itself. I was like, well, the
first attack didn't land. When suddenly you're pivoting and saying
and now they've got alcohol. There are a lot of senators.
Remember Ted Kennedy, didn't Ted Kennedy drink like a fish?
I bet there are a bunch of senators Kennedy let.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
A woman drown that back of his car and created
some fake alibi.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Yeah, of course, But I mean.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
And the lion of the Senate, you know, Ted Kennedy.
This is they the Democrats playing the moral card. Really,
like ever with anyone, is too much for those of
us with with a knowledge of a basic knowledge of
recent history to to bear. I think, and and I
think that the going after Pete on this stuff, you know,
(24:35):
going after Pete on this stuff, I think is also
indicative of the fact that they know that on sort
of skill set background, uh, he's going to do well
under questioning. So they're just trying to get him, you know,
hot under the collar. They're trying to just get him
a little a little fired up and maybe be intemperate
or something. But I still feel strongly that he's he's
(24:56):
going to get through.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
I also, again, these hearings, it's all for show. But
Mark way Mullen is making a really good point on
the If you're gonna say that Hegseth is unqualified because
of marital issues and alcohol, seventy five percent of all
congressmen and women would have to step down as well.
(25:22):
So what is the standard that they're trying to bring
to bear here as it pertains to what in your
past justifies or doesn't justify your ability to be a
Secretary of Defense or someone else in the cabinet. And
we just elected Trump who's on his third wife, I believe,
so the whole argument of morality doesn't really seem And
(25:46):
you're right about Bill Clinton, but also Bill Clinton's overall
approval ratings went up during the impeachment issues associated with
Monica Lewinsky. So the general public has been voting I
think pretty consistently for a quarter century now that they
really just care about the competence of the individuals and
(26:07):
maybe sadly just assume that all politicians morally are full
of it and have moved on from the idea being, oh,
politicians are sort of these moral arbiters or sort in
role models for the general public.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Look, do do we want someone to do the job
or are we picking somebody who is a a you know,
role model for people to try to aspire to be like.
I think we've moved away. And maybe people don't like
this and disagree with that, but I think that we've
we've very clearly moved away from a world of anybody
(26:50):
who has a public job is supposed to be a
personal role model. Yeah, there are limits, right, you don't
want somebody who's like a heinous criminal. But I think
that we've seen people decide that this is not it's
just not what it used to be or what. But
I also think that before to the point you were making,
didn't didn't JFK. JFK had an affair with an intern
(27:13):
who was like.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
H slept with everybody with a pulse in the White House.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
I mean, so the actual president and even you know,
like a college freshman or something he was. You know,
that's correct, you know, like go back in time look
at all these guys and the stuff that they were doing.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
And that's what I'm saying. At the history Camelot, you
can mispronounce that. That may make more sense if you
actually go and uh and and and look at history.
I'm not kidding when I say for people out there
who will remember this, everything changed with Gary Hart. I
think it was like nineteen eighty four in that in
(27:52):
that Gary Hart catch, suddenly everything that you had done
in your personal life became a version of what kind
of leader you were going to be. And it wasn't
the case for all of American history until like nineteen
eighty four, and then from nineteen eighty four to I
would argue up through me too, that is a totally
(28:14):
different stand I remember this at all. By the way,
Gary Hart, you don't remember this monkey business story got up.
I bet some of our audience will remember it. But
that to me was a clear line of demarcation where
things changed in terms of, hey, your private life is
fair game.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Because it was generally a lot of demarcation. How many
people even remember this. I think very few people remember this,
this Gary Hart moment. Oh, putting phone lines. Buck has
just stepped in it. I think almost everybody out there
listening to us, who is old, now, I'll be fair,
who is older than fifty knows very well this Gary
(28:51):
Hart story. Gary Hart, by the way, I don't know it,
but I don't think it was some sea change moment
in America.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Oh, I think it was. He was the front runner
for the eighty eight eight Democrat nomination, so not eighty
four eighty eight. Then they went into his background, found
out that he was cheating and having like all that
monkey business. He was on a boat called monkey business.
And since that, which is very funny, since that time,
he also basically dared the reporters, hey, I've never done anything,
(29:18):
and they caught him take phone call. See if anybody
else remembers this. You're never too.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Old to continue learning. Hillsdale College's free online video courses
let you do just that. Hillsdale's on demand video courses
are well produced and engaging. The most watched series is
called Constitution. One on one, Hillsdale professors take you through
interesting historical conversations on how our constitution came to be
and how impactful this document is in ensuring our freedoms.
(29:43):
Think about it, This handwritten document has kept us as
the land of the free for more than two hundred
and thirty years, through the birth of a nation, a
civil war, the modernization of media, you name it. You'll
see and feel the passion of these professors as they
share what they've learned themselves, and that passion makes it
so much more fun. Watch Hillsdale Colleges Constitution one on
one series and relearn all about this document. It's just
(30:05):
one of forty three online courses available from Hillsdale. Go
to clayndbuckfour Hillsdale dot com. There's no cost and it's
easy to get started. That's Clay and Buck f o
R four clayndbuckfour Hillsdale dot com to register.
Speaker 7 (30:21):
Saving America one thought at a time Clay, Travis and
Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
So the wildfires in Los Angeles continue on and they
pose an ongoing threat to the communities there. The damage,
the devastation, it is just stunning.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
It is horrific death toll.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Last I saw it was at twenty four, although officials
think it's going to go higher. They're looking for bodies
in some neighborhoods. There's been some progress with some of
the blazes, but there's still the possibility that there could
be more spread. To me, Clay, you know, I remember
the first time I really spent any real time in
(31:11):
LA back in the early two thousands, and I drove
down the Pacific Coast Highway and I remember just thinking
that Malibu and that area was just the most just
one of the most incredible parts of the entire country.
It's one of the reasons why it's among the most
expensive real estate in the whole country. To see just
the charred wreckage of those beach houses, I mean, these
(31:35):
are beach houses. These are ten million dollar homes, a
lot of them. So I'm a lot more And that's
just one visual that I have. I mean, I've been
I'm sure you have to have been along that corridor
and seen these houses that are right on the ocean there,
and it's crazy to see what's gone on there is now.
(31:55):
I think no question that the response has been completely unacceptable,
meaning the ability to contain this it's not anywhere near
what it should have been. The La Times owner, doctor
Patrick Soon Shong has come out and said that it
was a mistake for his paper to endorse mayor Karen bass.
(32:19):
I want to talk about this play cut nine.
Speaker 11 (32:21):
We'll accept Tom Blaine, right, so at the LA Times
we endorse Karen Bass. I think right now in front,
that's a mistake and we admit that. So I thought
it was very early important, early on for me to
come out, and I think we were one of the
few to say competence matters and goodlie. But maybe twenty
twenty three million views to show how that was really
(32:45):
due to the heart of most people, whether you right
or left. And it's the interesting thing is that maybe
we should think about how we elect people on the
basis of did they actually run a job, did they
actually make a payroll? Do they understand what it is
other than having professional politicians whose only job is ready
to run for office.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Clay everything he said, yeah, seems seems very suddenly, very
very reasonable on this. But I would I would just
remind everyone that when you're talking about a job like
a mayor, it's true of a lot of public leadership jobs,
it's not a big deal until it is. It's not
(33:27):
a challenge until something comes up. Right, you can show
up as the mayor of name a major city and
on most days your staff is telling you what to do,
and you know you're signing things. I mean, you know
the actual mechanics of the job. You're not out there
in the bearing straight trying to get you know, trying
to stay on the ship and make sure you're gonna
(33:47):
get blown over by a wave or something like. It's
not that hard of a job, is my point. In
the crisis, though you see one's ability or lack thereof,
it's when you're tested, and this mayor of Los Angeles,
Karen Bass, has been tested and found insufficient in her skills. Well,
I think what it really brings home is DEI is
(34:09):
a luxury that doesn't matter at all when it comes
to actual competence. And to your point that a lot
of these jobs take care of themselves and so you
can have a figurehead leader who makes people feel good.
Oh look, it's the first gay trans mayor, Hey, yay,
But none of that matters when push comes to shove
(34:31):
and there's actual, real competence required.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
And I saw I don't know if you saw this.
Julia Roberts who is a super left winger, was at
the Joe Biden La fundraiser where people said Biden was
basically comatose, like unable to do the job. And she said,
now FU to looters out there. Interesting suddenly now looting,
(34:57):
as I saw Matt Walsh tweet, I think it's a
good point, Matt Walsh Daily Wire. For a long time
we heard looting was the voice of the dispossessed, right,
that was how they defend unheard. I think the voice
of the unheard, the voice of the unheard, that's what
looting was. That's what they told this all as BLM
protests took place all over the country. So are the
(35:17):
voices now not worthy of being heard? It's interesting when
you actually deal with it, how your perspective changed. And
I saw this from David Spade, the comedian. I believe
we have this audio. David Spade said, Hey, he's putting
a bounty out if you catch somebody trying to set fires,
he'll give you five thousand dollars. This is video. Did
(35:39):
you see this? This is David Spade. Hollywood comedian Julia
Roberts is saying fu. Big time donor and fundraiser for
Joe Biden, Democrat to looters, and now David Spade is saying, hey,
if you catch somebody trying to set fires, I'll give
you five k Listen.
Speaker 12 (35:56):
Hey, I'm out in California and people are saying, there's
guys lighting fire out there.
Speaker 6 (36:00):
Make this course.
Speaker 12 (36:02):
They just caught somebody. We're pretty sure it was lighting
fires walking on the blowtorch.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
They let them go.
Speaker 12 (36:08):
So if you can find someone lighting a fire, and
you catch somebody and you can get the cops to
bust him and throw them in jail, give you five
thousand bucks. So keep your eyes peeled and do what
you can out there. Don't fake it though, no staging.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Let me know, I buck this is a red pilled
moment for a lot of Los Angelinos. I think now
David Spade has been I think a more moderate guy
that politician gen x Era is less likely to be
as a crazy left wing But I do think it's interesting. Well,
you know, I'll tell you this.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
In New York you have had a few things that
have always made it feel like public safety was a
little bit more of a it affects everybody thing than
you do in a place like Los Angeles. What I
mean is if you take the subway, you take the
subway right, it doesn't matter where you live, and if
(37:01):
the subway is unsafe, people pay attention. There is certainly
a perception and my friends, my Los Angeles based friends,
have spoken me about this many times in the past,
where if you live in Brentwood, if you live in
Beverly Hills, you're living in a rarefied existence that allows
you to separate yourself from the realities of more interior
(37:24):
Los Angeles. God, I think that's right wherever the and
so you can have these luxury beliefs and you're just
getting into your Mercedes or your poorche or whatever, and
you're going to friends' houses in Malibu the boo. You know,
you're not dealing with the degeneracy that maybe is on
the streets of Hollywood Boulevard the same way. This now
(37:48):
is a moment where the crappy leadership of Los Angeles
as a city in Los Angeles County is affecting the
people that live in the the some cases truly gated communities,
but the proverbial gated community, right, I mean, they always
felt safe behind their high walls and their fancy neighborhoods. Well,
maybe they're relatively safe from crime. Still, they weren't safe
(38:10):
from these fires. So it has been made real for
them in a way that I think is pushing the
recognition of politics now.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
I think that's a really good point for people who
have spent time in New York City and in La La.
You have the ability to have a multi acre estate
with a gated community in West LA to a large extent,
or in the beachside communities, and you can really isolate
yourself from actual danger to a large extent in La.
(38:39):
I was in West LA, have spent probably years of
my life almost now in West LA. I've never felt
remotely endangered in West LA. To your point, Buck, New York,
everybody is right on top of everybody else, and it
feels much more like a place where danger could erupt
in a way that La does not, if that makes sense.
(38:59):
And what now is happening is all of these people,
legitimately from their gated mansions and their exclusive, wealthy enclaves,
are suddenly dealing with a level of crime that they've
never anticipated before. People, by and large, we're not engaging
in violent behavior in Pacific palisades, ever, and so you
could look back and you could say, oh, well, that's
(39:20):
not really the part of LA that I'm concerned about.
The rubber doesn't have to meet the road of your
political opinions. And suddenly Julia Roberts, when she was I
bet raising money to bail out people during BLM, is saying, wait,
f you to all these looters out there.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
And LA is much less a city than a lot
of other cities are, meaning it's actually a collection. Los
Angeles is a collection of different cities, all connected via
you know, highways, really, and you can even see that
with things like Beverly Hills has its own police department,
(39:57):
you know what I mean. You look at some of
these communities, they have their own police force, they have
their own you know, set up with that's some of
the local you know, local politicians and sort of local
commissions and people who are in charge of stuff. So
it's a place where I think you're able to create.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
Your own little universe.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
You know, if you live in a mansion in Beverly Hills,
you don't really care what's happening in downtown LA very much,
or you know, you don't have to deal with it.
It's quite far actually to get there. So this though,
is a moment where the people who have lived in
very fa you know, specific Palisades is considered a very desirable,
very high end area. It's largely gone burned to the ground.
(40:37):
I mean huge parts of it are gone, and people
have to turn around and say, hold on a second,
why weren't the proper preparations made. Why are people bleating
like imbeciles about climate change right now, as if that
is helpful or has anything to do with anything. So
this is maybe a moment that there'll be some people
(40:59):
who's lines change. I also wonder how many of them
will just decide that this is the last straw that
they They'll decide that they want to sell the land'll
probably you know, clear the land if they've had a
home that's burned down, take whatever the insurance money is
and go elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
Some of them will rebuild, I'm sure, but some of
them won't. I think huge percentages of people will leave
and take their insurance money and go honestly to red
states because they're fed up over this. And this to
your point on the climate change yesterday while you were
sitting in traffic, that was what I really wanted to
kind of hammer home because that great editorial laying out
LA's always had wildfires. We actually managed, thanks to human ingenuity,
(41:38):
to get to the point where there were almost no
acres being burned compared to historic norms. And now all
we've done is basically recreate the same scenarios in situations
that existed before human ingenuity had driven down the number
of homes that were going to be destroyed. And because
of that human ingenuity, I bet a lot of these
(41:59):
communities are relatively new because they probably didn't want to
build there historically because they were dangerous relative to the
wildfire and wildlife surrounding them. There was more danger of
those areas being burned.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
Did you see the analysis as well that they The
state of California does not allow risk pricing for insurance
for fire insurance, which means that there's no disincentive to
build and to build very extravagantly in these and fire
prone areas. It also means that there's no insurance pool
(42:37):
to cover these losses. So then California provides an insurance
of last resort, and that insurance also does not have
enough capital to actually cover these losses. So all the
regulations that they have in place have done is made
the whole situation worse and also requires the raising of
(42:59):
rates forever who doesn't actually live in as dangerous of
a place because the insurance company has to get the
capital to be able to cover the risk, even if
you limit how much they can actually take in risk.
So it's a broken system as much of California systems
now are. Look, do you have old videotapes, film reels,
photos laying around at home. If you're holding on to
(43:20):
then they must mean something, so take the extra step
get them digitized to keep them preserved forever.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
That's what Legacy Box does. They're located in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
my mom's hometown where one half of my family lived
and I spent a lot of time over the years.
They now have the largest collection of VCRs probably anywhere
in the country, and that's because they're constantly digitizing VHS
tapes and more, whether it was an old kid's first steps, birthdays, weddings, reunions, ballgames,
(43:49):
just hearing the voices, maybe a family members you've lost.
Legacy Box will digitally transfer all of that and then
they give you back all the old tapes, photos, and
films along with brand new digital files that live on
in the cloud forever. And that way you can go
online and see them anytime on any digital device, phone, computer,
smart TV. You can share these photos and videos with
(44:10):
your friends and family. Get hooked up right now at
legacybox dot com slash clay for fifty percent off when
you preserve your past with legacy Box. That's legacybox dot
com slash Clay one more time. Legacybox dot com slash
Clay News. You can count on as some laughs too.
Speaker 7 (44:29):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Welcome back in and Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Going
to be joined by our friend, Congressman Jim Jordan here shortly,
but I wanted to hit you with a couple of things.
One reports that Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos
are going to attend the Trump inauguration. That's the head
of obviously a lot of companies. Elon Meta Facebook, for
(44:58):
Zuckerberg and Bezos founded and run ran for a long
time Amazon. I think that's significant. I'm not sure that
Trio has ever been to any political event together. Certainly
they haven't set together that I'm aware of, so that's interesting.
But I wanted to play as we wait for Congressman
Jim Jordan. Here's something for all of you to enjoy.
This is the newly elected Senator from Montana, Tim Shehe
(45:20):
has been on this program several different times with a
line up questioning that I think you will enjoy. For
Pete hag Seth earlier, listen.
Speaker 6 (45:28):
How many genders are they tough one?
Speaker 5 (45:30):
Senator? There are two genders.
Speaker 6 (45:32):
I know that well. I'm a Shihi, so I'm on board.
Speaker 13 (45:36):
What is the diameter of the rifle round fired out
of an M four A one rifle?
Speaker 5 (45:40):
That's a five five six?
Speaker 6 (45:42):
How many push ups can you do?
Speaker 5 (45:44):
I did five sets of forty seven this morning.
Speaker 6 (45:47):
What do you think our most important strategic basis in
the Pacific?
Speaker 4 (45:50):
In the Pacific Guam is pretty strategically significant.
Speaker 13 (45:54):
How many rounds of five to five six can you
fit into the magazine of an M four rifle?
Speaker 5 (45:59):
Depends on the magazine, But standard issues thirty.
Speaker 13 (46:02):
And what size round is the M nine Bretta standard
issue side aren't for the military fire.
Speaker 5 (46:07):
A nine milimeter? Senator?
Speaker 13 (46:09):
What kind of batter is you put in your night
vision goggle dura cell. So right there, you're representing qualifications
that show you understand what the warfighter deals with every
single day in the battlefield.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
I thought that was really interesting, Buck.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
I mean, yeah, sure, yes, those those questions. I'm not
surprised Pe got them right. Five sets of forty seven
we talked ress strict. That's pretty good. I gotta say
forty seven right, but please don't serve it. I can
do eighty, No, you can't.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
Right, How many can you do push ups right now?
If you had to drop down in the studio? Good ones?
Speaker 3 (46:47):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (46:48):
Chest the deck? Basically definitely thirty five, maybe forty Okay,
that's solid. I think I can get fifty. I've done
tried to do this on television before. I think I
can get fifty right now. I mean, is there money?
Is there money on this?
Speaker 2 (47:03):
Like, if I'm really motivated, I think I could probably
squeeze out some. But the thing with pushups is there's
a lot of people could throw momentum in there and
they kind of drop down to the deck. You know,
it's like, are we are we talking strict? We talk
in the real deal.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
But yeah, I don't know that we've ever had a
defense secretary. What's the math on that? Almost two hundred
and fifty two thirty five? Is that the math on that?
I don't know how much of a rest he's giving
himself between the sets of forty seven. I imagine he
did forty seven in honor of President Trump, although he
didn't say it. That's my guess as to why he
did forty seven instead of fifty if I he may
(47:39):
be the best push up defense secretary that we've ever seen.
And I do think that those questions. First of all,
again how many genders there are? That is a callback
because Katanji Brown Jackson couldn't answer it, and I.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
Think Rumsfeld probably had a lot of old man's strength.
I don't know how he could have done though, Yeah,
Rummy Rummy was kind of a He was kind of
a tough old son of a gun.
Speaker 1 (48:03):
What I like about that line of questioning one is
it's super fast, But it does demonstrate the narrative that
Pete Hagseth is sharing, which is that he is an
expert on knowing what the average officer and average grunt
is going to actually be. Like we got Congressman Jim
Jordan with us now a little bit delayed because of voting. Congressman.
(48:25):
I don't know if you've seen this news yet, but
I was giving you praise earlier for being involved in
helping to fight censorship. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff
Bezos reportedly attending the inauguration and sitting together for Trump
on Monday. Have you heard that? What's your thoughts when
you hear that? Would you have ever believed it?
Speaker 9 (48:41):
No one would have believed that you got to love
this country. But you said this in an interview I
caught Lisa Selgo. By the way, I apologizes for being late,
but it was it was actually a vote to keep
men out of wind in sports on the floor, and
I did not.
Speaker 1 (48:53):
Want what was the result of that vote.
Speaker 9 (48:55):
By the way, it's going on as you seek. I
just voted. But we're going to win this thing, and
hopefully we're going to get some Democrats like we did
the Lake and Riley Act last week, who have seen
the light after November fifth, and both about the right way.
But yeah, who would have predicted, you know a few
years ago that Donald trumps RFK Junior, Elon Musk and
Telsey Gabern to be on the same team. Who would
predict that those three people you just described from the
(49:16):
big tech world would be given money to the Trump
inauguration in there? I mean, you just go on, who
would have predicted Mark Zucker but would write me a
letter saying the Biden administration pressured us the censor. We
did it, We're sorry, we won't do it again. I mean,
it's it's unbelievable, but it's because so many of us,
starting with elon President Trump. But when you testified Clay
(49:37):
a couple of years ago not to have the park
and from the committee talking about this, a bunch of
us just dug into this and said, we cannot have
this censorship because if you lose the right to debate,
you have free and fair and open debate, you lose
the First Amendment, you lose Western civilization. And so it
is great to see the turnaround that has taken place
here in the past couple of years.
Speaker 2 (49:59):
How do you think our friend and Pete Hegsath's doing
on Capitol Hill so far and his quest to get
through in the Senate, And you know, I know you're
not voting on this, but you know how your colleagues
on the other side of Congress are are probably feeling
about things these days? And what do you think about
the rest of the Trump that the top tier of
Trump nominees. Did you foresee any any real challenges to
(50:20):
get any of them through?
Speaker 9 (50:22):
Buck? I think they're all gonna make it. And I
just caught bits and pieces a piece of that meetings
and different things that was working on. But I was
clipping in every one while he seemed confident, he's seemed poised,
and I just thought, I thought he did a tremendous
job what little I was able to catch while it
was on in the office. But I think I think
Pam's gonna make it. I think Todd Blantz is gonna
(50:42):
make it. I think Cashta Telson, I mean, and I
and I think Tulsey's gonna make it. And I certainly
hope Tolsey and are Cage all of them make it
because they're with us on censorship, there with us on
the First Amendment, they're with us on the Phizon the
perform happened to the fize the law. So I'm I
feel good, frankly about all of them, not only the
(51:02):
job they're going to do, but the fact that they're
going to get confirmed by the United States Centers.
Speaker 1 (51:06):
We're talking to Congressman Jim Jordan. How optimistic are you
Ohio State it's gonna win on Monday.
Speaker 9 (51:11):
I'm pretty darn optimistic. I mean, they just look tough.
And I don't pretend to be a football expert. Although
I always wanted to play middle linebacker for the for
the for the Pittsburgh Steelers. I think we've talked about before,
but when you're my size, he had to wrestle. But yeah,
I think I think they've looked just tremendous and I
think they're gonna win. But you gotta love Freeman. You
love what he's on Notre Dame. And he's an Ohio
(51:31):
guy too, So in some ways it's it's it's going
to be a great day for Ohio. J D Vince
and be vice president.
Speaker 1 (51:36):
Do you think he's going to go to both? By
the way, have you talked to him about whether he's
going to try to do the inauguration and then hop
on a plane to go watch the game. I haven't
heard the latest details. You think he might try that,
and know he tweeted about it.
Speaker 9 (51:47):
I think it would be great he walks into this state.
I think it would be I mean, I don't know
if he will. And you know, there's a bunch of
executive orders that President's going to sign their day, a
bunch of stuff that gets done, and JD obviously is
part of all that too, But I mean, I love
for him to do it. I think it'd be great.
Speaker 2 (52:05):
Congressman Jim Jordan with us now. Congressman, Uh, do you
do you feel like the the free speech shift from
Zuckerberg and some of these others is a little opportunistic
or do you think that they really have seen the
light here to the degree that you can parse that out?
Speaker 9 (52:24):
Well, I'm you know, I always I guess I'm I
always see the glass pat full, and so I tend
to think it's more the latter. I really do. I'm
actually gonna meet with mister Zuckerberg next next week when
he's in town for the inauguration. But I feel good
about it, and it's all this really started for me.
I had a meeting with Evan Muss about two years
ago and then speak to McCarthy's office. It was the
(52:45):
three of us talking, and I still remember him. This
is right when he bought Twitter, all this stuff coming out,
and and and I could just come she for sure
definitely believes in the First Amendment. And I think, you
know Mark Andrews and and out there talk with him.
I think he understands the importance of the First Amendment.
So I'd like to think it's genuine. Now, look, I
(53:06):
get it, they see what happened on November fifth, they
see the House defendant and the White House all now
in the public opions. So either way, it's good for
the country. But I tend to uh, maybe it's hoped.
Maybe it's just the optimism that I think so many
Americans have. I tend to think it's genuine.
Speaker 1 (53:24):
Jim, do you think we're going to see one huge
I think it's being called a big, beautiful bill that
would roll the border issues as well as the tax
bill and everything else that's trying to be passed. Do
you think that's going to be one bill? Do you
have or does the House have a strong opinion on that?
So far as you can read Speaker Mike Johnson, And
(53:45):
what's the timeframe on something like that, if it's truly
one big bill? How long does it take to pass?
Speaker 9 (53:51):
Well, I mean the sooner the better, and I'm actually
sort of one or two actually posing cons to both.
What I want to do is I say this all
the time. I think we make the job to complicated.
What we tell the voters we're going to do. If
you get elected, go do what you said. So whether
that's a two bill strategy or one bill strategy, let's
just do what we said, what they elected us to do.
I think there's there's people in the House on both sides.
(54:12):
The Sendates leans more towards the two bill strategy. I
think probably slightly more House members lean toward a one
bill strategy. The presence indicated that that was his preference,
but I think he too just wants to do We
got to do with the border, we got to do
with with energy policy. We've got to make sure the
tax tax cuts don't expire and then people tax liability
doesn't go up so that we can get our economy grown.
(54:32):
So we got to do all these things. The timeline
is as quick as possible. Frankly, you know, hopefully by
by easter some of the some of the projections that
we're here in from from leadership. So let's just get
done what we said we would do. Whether it's one
or two, I don't care.
Speaker 1 (54:50):
One last question for you. You've known Trump for a
long time, you were one of his most zealous defenders.
What do you think the biggest difference between Trump one
point administration and Trump two point zero administration is going
to be.
Speaker 9 (55:05):
Well, he knows who the trust in town. You just
look at who he nominated back in seventeen sixteen and
seventeen after that election for key positions, much more establishment,
you know, type of folks versus the people he selected
for running these key agencies. Now, I think that is
a that is a huge difference, and I think he
(55:25):
understands that. You know this, look, this is now legacy,
this is now history. He's talking about things why the
day looks so much, But Peo will mention things that
no one else will mention. Who when he first ran
in sixteen, he talked about building the wall and everyone's like, oh,
can you really talk about that? Yes you can, and
it was the right move. And then last week at
that press conference when he's talking about the Panama Canal
in Greenland, people are like, well, but that is President Trump.
(55:49):
He is focused on one thing, making America great again,
doing what he told the people he was going to
do who elected him in this land flid on November fifth,
and he knows the kind of people he needs in
agencies to get that done, and that's why he's picking
good people like Peak Peg Cash to Tael, Pam Bondi,
Todd Blanch, I mean people who run these agencies the
(56:09):
way they need to be run.
Speaker 1 (56:11):
Jim, we'll do up this weekend again, thank you for
the time. Good work on Capitol Hill there. That's Jim Jordan.
We will definitely see him up. I would imagine this weekend. Buck,
you and I are both getting to DC on Friday,
and we're going to be busy and we're going to
need a lot of energy. And thankfully we're young enough
to still have good testosterone, but everybody out there could
(56:33):
use a little bit more. That's what Chalk's Male Vitality
Stack does. In just three months time, it can replenish
your testosterone by up to twenty percent and help maximize
your potential. In twenty twenty five, you can use my
name Clay as the promo code to get a massive
discount on any subscription for life. And if you haven't
checked this out, they have male and female vitality stacks
(56:54):
all natural just you can take it and it will
help to provide more energy than bigger vitality for you.
All you have to do is go to chalk dot
com that's choq dot com, my name Clay for the
best possible discount on any subscription for life. You can
cancel at any time. But why would you? More testosterone,
more energy, men and women? Why not try it out
(57:16):
as part of twenty twenty five. Make your resolution to
have more energy with chalkchoq dot com. Use my name
Clay when you make your purchase.
Speaker 7 (57:26):
Have fun with the guys on Sundays the Sunday Hang podcast.
It's Silly, It's goofy, It's good times. Fight it in
the Clay and Fuck podcast feed on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever you get your podcasts
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.