Daily Review with Clay and Buck - May 2 2025 - The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show, Friday edition
of the program. Appreciate all of you hanging out with us.
Twelve hours up, three more to go here on the weekend.
We hope to send you into the weekend and a
good mood. Lots to dive into Donald Trump at Alabama
commencement address. Heck of an introduction from Nick Saban. We
will discuss NPR funding pulled. We're going to dive into that.

(00:25):
And kilmar Abrao Garcia, democrats favorite Maryland dad turns out
his wife is on audio begging for help because he
has been beating her, and he is on video engaged
in human trafficking being pulled over in my home state

(00:46):
of Tennessee. This guy is maybe, as we have said
for some time, but I think even Democrats are like
oh man, even for Democrats, stupidity choosing an El Salvadoran
gang beating wife beating, human trafficking illegal immigrant to be
the front facing opposition to Trump's deportation policies in America

(01:09):
is next level in competence. We will discuss all that
and more, But Buck, I wanted to start. I got
to give President Trump a tremendous amount of credit because
he is actually doing what has been discussed for decades
as long as I can remember, you correct me if

(01:30):
I'm wrong. You've been in the conservative side of media
for longer than I have. But as long as I've
been doing media, Republicans have been teeing off at NPR
and saying, why do our tax dollars go to support
left wing propaganda in any way? And nothing ever happens. Well,
last night Trump decided to finally sign a executive order

(01:54):
that will end all of the money that NPR gets.
And I think this is pretty substantial, and I want
to play several different aspects of this, but I think
you'll sign off off the top here on this buck.
Everyone should have to compete in the marketplace. Our show
competes directly within PR, probably in hundreds of markets across

(02:17):
the country.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
For sure.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
The federal government is not giving us millions of dollars
to aid in our business in any way. We've got
to go out and our company has to sell ads.
We have to compete for ratings in five hundred I
think it's fifty five different markets in all fifty states
across the country, and we don't get any built in advantage,
and that's how it should be. Everyone in media should compete,

(02:42):
and the shows that are the most popular should have
the most success. I've never understood why the government should
be giving money to NPR for any reason, regardless of
what their politics were, But given how left wing their
politics are, the idea that publicans basically should be funding
opposition research with taxpayer dollars is crazy and I wanted

(03:07):
to play several different cuts of the crazy leader of NPR.
The crew did a good job pulling all of this. First,
she says the number one challenge that she faces buck
this is Catherine Mayer says the number one challenge she
faces is the First Amendment. This is not an ideal

(03:28):
thing for someone in media to be saying. This is
the head of NPR, cut eleven back in twenty twenty one.

Speaker 3 (03:34):
The number one challenge here that we see is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights. And that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites,
but it also means that it is a little bit

(03:54):
tricky to really address some of the real challenges of
where does bad information come from and sort of the
influenced peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
Okay, so the first amendment is quote the number one
challenge that she faces. Here is another cut. This is
from June twenty second, twenty twenty one as well. At
this time she was the CEO of basically Wikipedia, I
believe correct, all of the different Wikipedia related entities. And
have I told you this, Buck, I don't know if

(04:25):
you've ever gone into your Wikipedia page. Lara, my wife
went into my Wikipedia page and tried to edit it
because she was upset at there being a bunch of
things that she knew to be inaccurate having been married
to me for twenty one years. She tried to make
edits to my Wikipedia page and they were rejected because
they said that she did not have adequate knowledge to

(04:46):
be able to change the Wikipedia page. And I think,
did there really erase that you are universally considered the
handsomest sports talk radio host out there?

Speaker 2 (04:56):
Did they really get rid of that claim?

Speaker 1 (04:57):
Let me tell you something, Buck, I'm not sure that
Laura's adjustments on my Wikipedia page would have actually even
been very positive, but they would have been accurate, because
I think she has a pretty good sense of the
last twenty years or so of my career. But I
did think that was very funny because somehow she ended
up on the page, and she was telling me this
a while back. She said, I want to you know,

(05:18):
there's lots of stuff that's totally wrong on there, and
she was like, and I went in and tried to
fix it, and they told me that the editor you know,
that my edits weren't allowed to be accepted because I
didn't have the requisite Wikipedia Street cred or whatever to
be considered an expert on this. So I did think
that was very funny. But here she is saying that
she took a very active information approach to disinformation and

(05:43):
wanted to make sure of all of her censorship moves. Again,
cut Tin, we took.

Speaker 3 (05:48):
A very active approach to disinformation and disinformation coming into
the lot, not just the last selection, but also looking
at how we supported our editing community in an unprecedented
moment where we were not only dealing with the global pandemic,
we were dealing with a novel virus which is by
definition means we knew nothing about it in real time
and we're trying to figure it out as the pandemic

(06:09):
went along. And so we really set up in response
to both the pandemic but also in response to the
upcoming US election and as a model for future elections
outside of the US, including a number that are happening
this year. The model was around, how do we create
sort of a clearing house of information that brings the
institution of the Wikimedia Foundation with the editing community in

(06:31):
order to be able to identify threats early on through
conversations with government of course, as well as other platform operators,
to understand sort of what the landscape looks like.

Speaker 1 (06:43):
Okay, so that continues, and then I want to play
one more cut just to kind of let us everybody
out there understand because a lot of people may not
pay attention to NPR. And I do think this is significant.
She says, truth is a distraction from finding consensus.

Speaker 2 (06:59):
This is nine.

Speaker 4 (07:00):
One of the most significant differences critical from moving from
polarization to productivity is that the wikipedians who write these
articles aren't actually focused on finding the truth. They're working
for something that's a little bit more attainable, which is
the best of what we can know right now, and
after seven years there, I actually believe that they're onto
something that for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth

(07:22):
and seeking to convince others of the truth isn't necessarily
the best taste to start. In fact, I think our
reverence for the truth might become might have become a
bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding
consensus and getting important things done.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
Buck, what do you think this NPR CEO is awful?
They just sent us the links of all the stories
which are clearly biased. Trump is finally doing the right
thing here, right, and it's taken decades for it to happen. Yeah,
I mean, Clay, I don't think it really is going
to change very much. I mean, one, this woman is
no longer the CEO. To the funding level that they

(08:00):
get from the government is not huge. I don't even
know what it is. But I do think it's funny
that they complain about the cut to the funding level. Right,
They'll say in the same breath, Well, most of the
funding for NPR and PBS doesn't actually come from the government. Okay, Well,
then why do you get it at all. So there's
a principle that's at stake here of why would any

(08:21):
media entity that is it's clearly ideological start with that?
But why would it get state funds or government funds.
It makes no sense. There's no argument for it to continue,
So why should it continue. The only argument is that
people on the left like it and they want to
have they want to have a rigged game or rigged system.
But yeah, this woman, these soundbites, Just to be clear,

(08:43):
these were older, and she was pretty unanimously voted off
the island of more senior media executive jobs because saying
that the First Amendment is an impediment to your information operation,
to the SIOP that you're running, is not something that
is generally going to be well received by a majority
of the American public.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
I would hope, I would think.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
But yeah, Trump says that he's pulling this, I'm not
sure that he'll be able to. This is the problem
we keep running into once again, congressionally authorized funding versus
executive branch administering of different pools of cash that have
gone to all these different agencies. So we'll see they're
challenging this play obviously, right, away and they're saying that

(09:27):
their money comes from Congress, not from the president. YadA YadA.
But it's the right move, it's the right thing to do.
I'm glad that he's doing it. It makes the libs cry,
which is always fun. That woman is the president CEO
of NPR. At the time, she was head of Wikipedia.
So Catherine Mayer that all that audio is, Oh, yes,
she's still the pro My gosh, I'm sorry. I thought

(09:49):
she got I thought she got fired.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
No, no, no, no no.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
She got elevated to that job in March of twenty
twenty four, which was when all this audio from Wikipedia.
W I'm sorry I sent in that. I sent in
the clip of her this morning, the old clipper her.
I thought she had been I thought she had been
like reassigned out of the role. I didn't realize she is.
She is the president and CEO of NPR all that,

(10:13):
and now she was not at the time that we
played that audio. She was at Wikipedia. But she got
elevated after that too, head of INPR. That is wild
are raising And I saw your tweet about this, and
I think we should hammer this home. If it is
truly not a significant form of revenue for them taxpayer dollars.

Speaker 2 (10:33):
Why do they fight so hard to keep it? To
your points?

Speaker 1 (10:36):
I mean, if we lost two percent of the revenue
on this show because somebody was affiliated with the show
that shouldn't have been, and you and I came on
and we were beating the drums and screaming about how
we needed to keep the two percent, I think a
lot of you would say this is very strange. What's interesting, Buck,
is the way that it is crafted. Direct in PR

(11:00):
money is not very substantial, but I think they're backdoring
substantial dollars through local NPR affiliates such that their budget
would be severely constrained without this money, because otherwise, why are.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
They squealing it care so much? Right?

Speaker 1 (11:16):
And why give the right a talking point that is correct.
It's not just something we say, it's the truth, which
is that they shouldn't be getting this money because if
they are media entities that can compete in a fair marketplace,
there's no reason for this. That's stunning. That woman I
remember replying those clips a while ago. I'm actually in shock.
I don't know why. I thought that they had moved
her somewhere else, So thank you. I mean what you
would think that given that she is politically radioactive and

(11:41):
they are now in the Trump era, that maybe it
would make sense to have a new president and CEO.
But no, she is still there and she is still
taking our taxpayer dollars, and they are suing along with
Corporation of Public Broadcasting to say that they must have
all these dollars and that Trump does not have the
authority to resind them in any way.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well, I also think that they.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
There's clear I think you're right that there's more money
than they there's more ways that they get money from
the public than they let on, because otherwise, why have
this vulnerability out there that allows us to constantly bash them?
Although I think we've been bashing them for so long
without consequence that maybe they don't care at some level.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
But I think that.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
It's gonna be interesting to see how this actually goes.
They like the idea of government funding something like NPR.
They want to keep this, I think at some level
because they want the precedent to be there that this
is something the government does. The government has a role
in information operations, which is what this is. NPR is
an information operation, you know, and you can tell you

(12:46):
can take that in a very kind of bland where
you can take into the more military info ops or
psyops sense. I mean, they are running political programming to
the American people under the guise of it being a
free and form a free and fair marketplace of ideas
based entity, and it clearly is a rigged system. I mean,
and they don't want it to be called the rig

(13:07):
system anymore, then stop rigging the system.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
And they're competing directly with us, which is why I mean.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
I think on a you know, sort of larger just
standing on precedent, standing on principal perspective, it makes sense.
But also if you're listening to this program, the government's
not giving us tens of millions of dollars, and so
if that's not occurring here, we should have an open
marketplace where people compete fairly, not where you've got a

(13:34):
rig game. Look, speaking of competing fairly, they're better healthcare
plan choices than Obamacare. That's not going to surprise a
lot of you. But how affordable are they You'd be
surprised how affordable Ease for everyone is. Ease for everyone
cost as low as two hundred and sixty two dollars
per month. You get free unlimited prescriptions with ninety three
percent of all drugs covered available at no extra cost,

(13:57):
including insulin, huge sale on brand names, free unlimited virtual
primary care, urgent care. With just a thirty dollars copay,
you get generous cashback reimbursements, doctor office, visits, emergency room, visits,
ambulance transportation. If the Obama administration hadn't permanently tarnished the
term the Affordable Care Act, one could make the argument

(14:20):
this plan Ease for Everyone, actually is affordable. Replace your
overpriced plan Obamacare with Ease for Everyone, the only group
plan any adult in the US is eligible to join.
Visit Ease for Everyone dot com slash clay. That's Ease
spelled ease. E's for fo R Everyone dot com slash clay.

(14:45):
You can also find the info at the Clayanbuck dot
com sponsor page, paid for by Affordable Benefit Choices.

Speaker 5 (14:53):
Making America great again isn't just one man, It's many.
The team forty seven five asked Sunday's at noon Eastern
in the Clay and Buck podcast feed. Find it on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
We are joined by Deputy White House Chief of Staff,
Steven Miller, one of the sharpest minds in this White House,
the policy Maestro extraordinaire, Steven. Great to have you back
on the program.

Speaker 6 (15:21):
Thank you appreciate that very generous introduction. I promise I'm
not paying him anything for those kind words.

Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well, we know that a man who loves the movie
Blood Sport as much as you do, has fantastic taste
and is a wise fellow.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
So let's start with this, Stei.

Speaker 6 (15:36):
The Bloodspard is a metaphor for life. If you want
to understand how to succeed in life, just watch that
movie and you'll get it.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
I totally agree. Van Dam's fine, It's no question about that.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
There's some reporting out there, Stephen, that you may also
be taking on wearing another hat, so to speak with
National Security Advisor. Can you give us any preview of
that or is it still TBD?

Speaker 6 (15:59):
Right now, we're all just focused on supporting the Secretary
of State Rubio, who is a very good and close
friend of mine in his role right now, Dual hadded
as Secretary of State and is the head of the
National Security Council, and so all of our energy here
in this building and across the administration is focused on
supporting Secretary of Rubio, again, someone who not only haven't

(16:21):
become very close friends with, but I've had a chance
to see him working up close and personal these last
one hundred days and also even before then, and he's
really phenomenal. And the President made absolute the right choice
by giving him this responsibility.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
He is Secretary Rubio as well as I believe interm
National Security Advisor and also Acting Administrator of USAID I
think at this point, right, so he's taken on a bunch.

Speaker 6 (16:46):
Don't forget he's in charge of the National Archives too.

Speaker 2 (16:49):
Oh that's right, yeah, yes, that is a why.

Speaker 6 (16:53):
It's a testament to the fact that Marco deeply understand
and believes in the President's agenda and what President Trump
is trying to accomplish. And everyone in this building, everyone
across the administration, over these last one hundred days, has

(17:14):
developed a deep admiration for Marco and what he's done
at State Department and what he's done in the other
roles he's been tapped to do. I mean, for example,
as you mentioned, the dismantlement of the communist slush fund
known as USAID, and so you know, Marco is that
rare combination of talent where he has the soft skills,

(17:36):
the diplomacy and the ability to forge deals, but also
the hard skills. And we've seen that, and I've seen
it very directly in terms of Marco's work on migration
and his ability to drive really hard negotiations with foreign
countries to bend them into submission on cooperation that we need.

(18:00):
The President has made a tremendous choice with Marco, and
it's all together. The President's team across the board is
the strongest team you've ever had in this White House.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Steven, appreciate you coming on, appreciate all the work you're doing,
and we want you to come back on the program
when you're officially named NSSA, But in the future that
might well.

Speaker 6 (18:19):
High I'm looking at right now is I want to
take over Marco's job of the National Archives. I think
I could do some great things there.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
You know, I would actually love to get a behind
the scenes tour of the Archives because I got to
do the World War Two Museum. They took me behind
the scenes, and as good as the actual things that
you get to see in the museum is the things
that they have in the archives that are not actually
publicly visible. Are some of the coolest things. I bet

(18:47):
at almost every museum because they only get to show
you a small pinprick of whatever their overall collection is,
so that would actually be super cool as well. Let's
go into the first hundred days. Buck and I have
been ecstatic with everything that we have seen. How much
of the first hundred days just flood the zone strategy?

Speaker 2 (19:10):
Do you think has worked?

Speaker 1 (19:12):
And how do you keep that pace up as we
move into the next hundred days and everybody is trying
to run as fast as they possibly can.

Speaker 6 (19:21):
Yes, well, the flood the zone strategy has worked exactly
as President Trump intended it to, which is shock and
awe against the forces of corruption that have been bleeded
in this country of its wealth. That's security, it's prestige.
You know. The worst mistake you can make when you

(19:44):
are fighting the deep state, the radical left and they're
outside supporters, the communists, the NGOs, the crazy judges, is
to spend a year debating and deliberate and discussing a
decision that everyone knows needs to get made, that everyone

(20:04):
understands has to happen. Because all you're doing is given
the opposition time to develop a resistance battle plan in
time to engage in asymmetric bureaucratic warfare through leaks, through manipulation,
feeding information to the ACLU, feeding information to crazy judges,
feeding information to radical democrats on Capitol Hill. This is

(20:27):
an unfortunate situation that our country has found itself in.
To put it in mild terms, that over the years,
over the decades, that we have developed this deep state
that is so committed to the destruction of America as
we know it. You know, one of the ways illustrate,
by the way to you know, to newer hires, how

(20:47):
the deep state works is I give this example. If
you had good news and you emailed it to one
thousand federal career bureaucrats, the odds of it speaking are
zero percent, Like you would never go out anywhere total
operational security and secrecy. If you send an email that

(21:09):
contained one thread that could be used to say, get
an injunction against the policy by the ACLU, it would
leak in literally one second. So in other words, you
are running in operation of federal bureaucrats that in many
cases are trying to do everything they can to slow
you down and halt your progress and all the things

(21:30):
that bureaucracy has been working on are all the things
that President Trump ran against. Censorship, radical gender ideology, critical
race theory, the weaponization of the justice system, the weaponization
of the intelligence system. Of course, most notably the policy
of open borders and master settlement and mass migration, all

(21:50):
of which was made possible by the full complicit participation
of vast swaws of the Feller bureaucracy that was implementing
those policies, that was advancing those policies, that was defending
those policies, and not to mention the worst thing and
the push to constantly try to perpetuate conflict around the world,
it's a solving conflict around the world. So President Trump

(22:13):
inherited a historic mandate, a battleground landslide the likes of
which we have never seen before, to implement all these
programs that he campaigned on. And that is why he
has moved with such force, intention and speed to fulfill
his mandate and his obligation and his promise to the
American people.

Speaker 1 (22:34):
We're speaking to Steven Miller, Deputy White House Chief of Staff,
and Stephen we know that because of his status as
a special government employee. The plan all along has been
for Elon Musk to phase out of the sort of
day to day of DOGE, and I believe that's coming
up late later this month. There's been a lot that
DOGE has on earthed uncovered in terms of just crazy stuff.

(22:56):
I mean, you mentioned the communist slush fund known as USAID.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Can we borrow that? By the way? Can I use that?

Speaker 1 (23:01):
Can I use that we're attributed to get to Stephen Miller?
But I want to say going forward, because it is
a communist slush fund. But there's also been this question
about recision from Congress, meaning that does Congress also now
have to do a lot or else none of the
spending cuts actually happen. Can you just give us some
visibility into what happens next with DOGE? And is Congress

(23:25):
in a place where, because it's budgetary, they can actually
do some of the things that DOGE recommends. And you know,
with irrespective of how some of these judges have inflicted
themselves on this too.

Speaker 6 (23:37):
Well, like so many things, the answer is all the above,
in the sense that the a lot of these savings
are self executing automatic. So for example, when Thuberal employees
resign or retire and take the payout, you know, the
so called fork in the Road email that went out.

(23:58):
All of those savings are accrued automatically. You don't need
to go to Congress. That all happens automatically. You fire
federal workers or federal workers are it's called a reduction
in force. The accronm for that is RIFF. All of
those reforms deliver both immediate and long term savings to
the American people. Congress have never established a floor of
federal employees. It just grew and grew and grew and

(24:21):
grew on its own, and so those are going to
be enormous and immense savings for the American people. When
you have agencies or functions of government that were created
through executive action and that can therefore be terminated by
executive action, again, those are all savings that are going
to be immediate, that are going to be automatic, they're
going to be long lasting. A lot of the discretionary

(24:45):
grant spending to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, for example,
Congress never authorized any of that spending in the first place.
So you can save an enormous amount of money just
through administrative and executive action that there are additional programs
that were or that we're created through previous bills that

(25:06):
are going to be rescinded, both in the reconciliation bills. So,
for example, the Reconciliation Bill is going to cut a
lot of the wastele byt and spending, and so you're
going to see a lot of permanent savings as a
result of that. And then there's also opportunities you mentioned
recisionist packages, and that's someone that the Omb's actively looking
at in terms of what are the packages of cups
that you can send to Congress that would get privileged considerations,

(25:30):
they wouldn't be subject to the filibuster, and could get
cut with a Republican vote. So we're looking at everything
to walk in these savings and make them permanent.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Stephen, are you even you surprised sometimes at the moronic
positions that Democrats take? And I just want to give
two to you that I can't even believe are still real.
Abrao Garcia, now is we're going to play the audio
we haven't yet. Wife is on audio begging for a
Mariland judge to protect her from him, and there is

(26:01):
a report out there in the courts that she said
he could kill her and get away with it. The
video from the Tennessee Highway Patrol just went public of
him being a human trafficker. That was up on Fox
News last night. You have Democrats going down to El
Salvador to visit him. The last time I think I

(26:23):
saw you in person, Stephen, was at the University of
Alabama where Trump spoke and the where he was going
to the Georgia game. And then absolutely everybody goes insane
last night when he says, hey, as long as I'm president,
there aren't going to be men competing in women's sports.
It's not only they're wrong on issues. Are you astounded
by the ways that they choose to fight on issues?

(26:46):
I still can't get over it.

Speaker 6 (26:49):
Well, the Democrat Party is so deep in the throes
of Trump derangement syndrome that even if Asident Trump he
talked about this in his State of the Union address
or is addressed to Congress, you have he came out
with a cure for cancer, the Democrats would say, we
are in favor of cancer and oppose your cure. So

(27:11):
they're so disconnected from the needs of the American people.
They're so disconnected from the oaths they took upon assuming office,
or their obligations to serve the American people, that when
President Trump deports an illegal alien gang banger in MS
thirteen who is a wife beater human trafficker, they leap

(27:32):
to the defense of that alien and demand his return
and freedom in the United States as though. This is
the highest parody for the Democrat Party is the freedom
of foreign terrorists on American soil. Again, Men and women's
forces another great example where they are they are fighting
tooth and nail all over the country, in our schools
and our courtrooms, in Congress to protect the so called

(27:56):
right of men to compete against women in a f athletics,
to use women's locker rooms, to use women's restrooms. The
civil rights cause of our time, Accorn's Democrats, is the
right of all biological males in this country to use
every single facility that has historically been reserved for women
and to enter every single woman's sporting league. So this

(28:17):
is what the Democratic Party is today. I mean, it's
a ship of lunatics.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
Yes, absolutely, and they can't walk away from this, which
is even more remarkable. Stephen, we've only got about a
minute before we're going to be running into a break.
I just wanted you to lay out to the degree
you can deportations. We've seen a lot of great The
border is secure, and I don't we should never be
ungrateful for what an amazing job this administration has done.
It just happened so fast. I feel like people can't
even believe it. Ninety five percent production, that's amazing, but

(28:44):
getting the bide in millions and millions beginning to turn
that around and deport them en mass. Is there a
plan for this? Is this going to happen?

Speaker 6 (28:54):
Yes? Absolutely, and I wish we had more than a minute.
So the job number one for President Trump obviously was
to end all the immigration across the southern border, and
that was achieved, of course, in record time, into an
unprecedented degree. Then the focus increasingly shifts towards mobilizing the

(29:16):
law enforcement resources that we need to expel those that
are here illegally who need to go home. The biggest
near term impediment to that goal, of course, are the
courts and these radical leftist judges that are trying to
shut down the machinery of immigration enforcement nationwide. So we
are so Department Justice is pursuing a legal strategy with

(29:36):
the hope that very soon the Supreme Court will swat
away these injunctions so that we can get to the
business of securing the American homeland in full force. If
the Supreme Court doesn't provide that relief, there are many
other options that I will not get into here and
what the president's inherent authorities and powers are. So it
isn't we're only waiting on the Supreme Court. It is

(29:58):
the Supreme Court hopefully do the right thing, or we
have many other options our disposal. At the same time,
we're ramping up many other efforts build the essential to
achieving that deportation. So that includes, for example, enrolling state
and local law enforcement nationwide in assisting in supporting the
deportation effort, and that's going to be an increasing feature
and focus of what we're doing. We're going to get

(30:19):
National Guard more engaged in putting them into immigration enforcement
roles in a domestic law enforcement setting, which is allowable
under the two pity seven G program that's user set
on local law enforcement as well. And we're going to
also be working as we are right now with Congress
to pass legislation, the Reconciliation Bill that will more than

(30:41):
double the number of deportation officers working in the federal government,
more than double the number of deportation beds avaisible to
the federal government, and increased by leaps and bounds the
number of deportation flights that are available to the federal government.
So the Reconciliation Bill is also going to be essential
in allowing Immigration and Customs enforcement to do their job.
We have a whole series of strategies as well to

(31:02):
expand self deportation. I think you've already seen a lot
of self deportation from this country based on all the
reports that we've gotten. We're going to putting that into
hyperdrive as well too, and many more strategies that we'll
talk about next time. But as all this come online
it gets put into effect, you are going to see
the removal numbers begin to explode.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
Fantastic.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Steven Miller from the White House, thanks so much. We
appreciate you being with us.

Speaker 6 (31:25):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
Protecting yourself and your family at home is job number
one for all of us. But you need the right
tools and you can get them from Saber Sabre. Saber
makes the number one pepper spray trusted by law enforcement.
Saber's peppergel projectile shape like a pistol or rifle depending
on the model, fires off a peppergel projectile that's targeted.

(31:48):
It goes a longer distance than you think, making it
very effective at deterring an intruder. This is the best
available on the market for pepper launcher. I'm telling you
these are fantastic. Clay and I have both trained with them.
But there are so many Saber non lethal safety products
for you for your home. Go to saberradio dot com
to check them out. Start with the pepper launcher. Get
yourself a pepper gel or pepper spray saberradio dot com.

(32:11):
You'll say fifteen percent when you go today sab r
e radio saberradio dot com or call eight four four
A two four safe eight four four eight two four.
Safe Stories are freedom stories of America.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
Inspirational stories that you unite us all each day.

Speaker 5 (32:29):
Spend time with Clay and find.

Speaker 1 (32:32):
Them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
We bring in now our friend from Fox News, Joe Kanca.
Who is Joe? Are you a Knicks fan? I am not.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Oh that's a shame, because Buck grew up a Knicks fan,
and I was going to give you a little bit
of praise because the Knicks finally won a playoff series
last night, and they did so in exciting fashion Jay
one Buck Brunson Crossover, draining a three, and so I
thought maybe you were a Knicks fan too.

Speaker 2 (33:01):
Well, we'll skip that.

Speaker 1 (33:02):
It is a big week for you, however, because you've
got a brand new book out and it's about Trump's
greatest political comeback ever. And I know that it's been
six months ish since the election day itself, but it's
still kind of remarkable history, I think. And you're writing
a version of history with this first kind of draft

(33:25):
of history because it's still so current. History's going to
have a hell of a story to tell in the
twenty twenty four election for a long time to come.
I think it was the craziest time we've ever seen
guys in any campaign ever. I mean, there's one point,
Clay Buck June twenty seventh, twenty twenty four, that debate
in Atlanta. I was there at Georgia Tech, and we

(33:45):
all saw Joe Biden's brain turned applesauce.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
The media was shocked.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Democrats for shocks, you guys have been talking about his
cognitive decline on this show for many years. I have
as well, so it wasn't a surprise to us. But
then think about what happens after that. July eleventh, Joe
Biden says that we need to put Trump in a
bullseye unquote right. And then two days later Butler, Pennsylvania,
somehow a twenty year old kid is able to hide

(34:09):
a high powered rifle next to the one building that
has perfect line of sight to Donald Trump. He's then
able to get up on the building because nobody decided
to secure it. They had some personnel inside of it,
which does nothing. But there that kid is right up
on the building. And if Donald Trump doesn't turn his
head hard to the right to read a chart that
he had never read before in a rally, then we're

(34:31):
having a much different conversation right now. And then July fifteenth,
there he is at the RNC with a big bandage
on his ear. He chooses JD Vance, which not a
lot of people expected. Six days later, Joe Biden drops
out of the race, and a day or two later,
pretty much the Democratic Party consolidated around Kamala Harris. So
if you just look at that twenty four day stretch alone.
It's never going to get any nutier than that. And

(34:52):
yet they thought Kamala Harris was going to be able
to pull this out at the last second.

Speaker 2 (34:58):
I mean, I remember there. Do you remember?

Speaker 1 (35:00):
I know you do because you wrote the book about it,
and also you're Joe and you cover this too. But
when they had that, I think it was about two
weeks maybe in August or all of a sudden it was, oh,
look at Kamala's numbers, She's the greatest. And I got nervous,
Box stayed strong. I was a little bit nervous, I'll
be honest. I actually that was when I made the
call that Trump would win by more than he beat

(35:23):
Hillary by, which in August of twenty twenty four felt
like a little bit of a little bit of a
crazy thing to say. But now, of course, looks great
in retrospect. But do you think any of them actually
believed it, Joe when it came to Kamala, or did
they just have no choice and they knew it? It
was like Hope casting right, And it was a mirage
because she was doing these rallies and you saw the
big crowds and the enthusiasm and Brat's summer and she's

(35:46):
bringing joy back to the campaign. But she wasn't doing
any interviews during that time. Remember July twenty third or so,
she became the nominee in essence, and then she didn't
do an interview until September, Like they wouldn't even let
her go on the View or MSNBC. So she was,
you know, the prompter candidate and read the same speeches
over and over again and talked about how she worked
at a McDonald's, which of course never happened. What I

(36:08):
knew that Trump was gonna win was the teamsters had
these internal polls that they put out, and one when
he was up against Joe Biden, that being Trump, Biden's
up by ten points because he's always portrayed himself as
a very pro union guy. Kamala then gets installed Soviet
style and they do another poll among the rank and
file teamsters and Trump is up by thirty. You're like, wow,
that's a forty point friggin swing. And then Trump's gaining

(36:30):
Black vote and he's gaining Latino votes, and you're thinking,
who's left to vote for Kamala Harris exactly.

Speaker 2 (36:36):
I mean the childless cat ladies. I mean that was
basically all that was left over, Joe. There's so many
different angles.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
And I got your book, and I appreciate you you
sending it out, and I'm looking forward to checking it
out in general. But this thing of suddenly pivoting and
going after people that they claimed were phenomenal. I don't
know if you've seen this today, but New York Magazine
as a huge cover story where they say, and I'm

(37:03):
reading from the teas from New York Magazine, it's about
John Fetterman, Pennsylvania Center senator. Former current staffers paint a
picture of an erratic senator who's become almost impossible to
work for and whose mental health situation is more serious
and complicated than previously reported. It's become harder to tell
whether or not he can even do the job. And

(37:26):
it ends with they worry he may present a danger
to the Democrat Party and maybe even to himself if
he's not pro Israel. Is this story ever written, in
your opinion, Joe, if he didn't go to mar A
Lago to meet with Trump? Would it be ever written
if you didn't say that we need much stronger border security,
like things that Democrats have a real problem saying yeah,

(37:48):
all these things. If I'm John Fetterman, I say Democratic Party,
screw all right, I'm out. I'll go caucus with Republicans. Now,
if you don't want me, that's fine, because this was
clearly a plant. And the fact that everybody cheered on
Fetterman in twenty twenty two when he ran against doctor
Oz from the Pennsylvania Senate seat while he literally needed
like close captioning in order to like do interviews. He
couldn't do small talk. Oh no, that's ableism. You guys

(38:10):
can't attack him from because he had a heart attack.
And now, of course they're trying to drive him out
because he's the one Democrat that I could see at
this point that is making common sense arguments, and that's
a big no no in the Party of Crazy. We're
speaking of Joe Kanca Fox News and of course his
book out this week, the Greatest comeback Ever Inside Trump's
Big Beautiful Campaign, probably the biggest, the most beautiful of

(38:31):
all campaigns all time.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
And Joe, what happens now? You know, I know.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
You've covered the media a lot. You're you're a media
guy who covers media. You covered them for many years.
And for example, we have discussed on this show that
there's another book that will be coming out next month,
which we don't have to give the title of, not
that we didn't even know the title, but where Jake
Tapper of CNN has teamed up with Axios reporter or

(38:57):
political alex to Yeah to write a book about the
Biden dementia cover up. What is the possible rationale to
be in the Democrat aligned media and writing a book
now about the Biden dementia cover up?

Speaker 2 (39:14):
If you weren't walking.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
Around wearing a bright orange T shirt saying guys, our
man has dementia. He can't be president anymore when it mattered, like,
what's the game plan here?

Speaker 2 (39:25):
The game plan is three letters buck c why A.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
They're going to pretend that they actually were covering this
and covering it in a tough way. You could probably
find the SoundBite. It's from twenty twenty. Laura Trump is
on CNN with Jake Tapper and she says that she
believes that Joe Biden is going through a cognitive decline,
which was obvious even during that campaign, and Tapper just
scolds her, says, no, it's a stutter, Oh, you don't
have any proof of that. We don't like conspiracy theories

(39:52):
on this network. And you're like, oh boy, so you
know pain is temporary but film is forever. So please,
but let's play that clip as much as possible on
this show, because for Jake Tapper now to turn around
and then talk about how the media missed the story
about Joe Biden's cognitive decline. Alex Thompson, who wrote this
with him, kept saying this at the White House Correspondents Center,
that reporters missed the story, that they were deceived by

(40:13):
the White House.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
No, there's no story to miss.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
If you had eyes, ears, sobriety and sanity, you could
see Joe Biden shaking hands with the air after he
finished his speech. You could see you to know how
to get off a stage after doing it for fifty years.
You could see he's like the kid from the Sixth Sense,
having conversations with dead people, in this case, like dead leaders.
You don't need to be told by a White House
source that Joe Biden's having problems. You just needed to

(40:36):
observe him five minutes outside of a teleprompter where he
was a human Chernobyl when speaking outside of one, Where
did Democrats go from here? You're writing the book about
the greatest political comeback? To be fair, if you had
been on with us in May of twenty twenty one
and you had said, hey, guys, Trump's going to win
a landslide victory in November twenty twenty four, I don't

(40:58):
think it's going to be close. A lot of people
I would have said, that's a bold prediction. I wouldn't
have bought onto it.

Speaker 2 (41:03):
Then.

Speaker 1 (41:04):
Obviously we're now in May of twenty twenty five. It
doesn't feel like Democrats have any future at all.

Speaker 2 (41:10):
Bluck. I don't know if you've seen this.

Speaker 1 (41:12):
CBS News has a big expose up about Kamala Harris.
They say she's not sure what she's gonna do, but
she her options are she may do nothing at all,
she may run for governor, or she may run for president.
So they have an entire feature where they say she
could do anything. Where does Kamala go from here? She's
the defeated candidate. It's May twenty twenty five. Is her

(41:35):
career over or not? And who are the Democrats? Do
you buy Stephen A.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Smith?

Speaker 1 (41:40):
Do you think there's any outsiders? Who are the Democrats
that might emerge as we get closer to.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
Twenty twenty eight.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
Okay, Clay, So if we're going to apply logic here,
then Democrats would be wise to nominate Andy Vasheer, Kentucky governor.
I know he's a bit vanilla. I know he's boring,
and you need to have a performative aspect to every campaign.
We saw with Obama, we saw with Trump. If Biden
doesn't count because that was COVID and that that was
like the bubble year when the Lakers won the championship.
I can't even count that, right, That wasn't a normal thing.

(42:08):
Let me let me pause here for a sec. Andy
Basher is the biggest pussy Willow on the planet. I
want I have to add Willow. I hope they nominate him.
He is the most milk toast, complete loser with no
spine whatsoever. He would get obliterated, but he might be

(42:29):
their pick. Sorry, I just have to put that in there.
This guy, I hate to say it because he went
to Vanderbilt or both the ms on the same school,
but he's a total loser with no spot.

Speaker 2 (42:38):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (42:39):
Okay, I wanted to go pussy Willow, but I wasn't
sure if the SEC would have like a problem with that.
So you have to add the willow. The will is
the whole thing. Yeah, no, I totally agree blank willow.
That was from the Howard Stern movie Let's See So.
But but my my mild retort would be that he
is at sixty eight percent approval in a red state
like Kentucky. So I don't believe it. I don't believe Okay, yeah, good,

(43:00):
I liked. I like when Tennessee sticks up for Kentucky
on this one. Clay is like, you know what, I'm naughty.
I'm not gonna throw Kentucky under the bus and believe
it's seventy percent of them actually like their governor. Yes,
that's great, but you're right about twenty twenty one. I
never would have predicted that Trump would be sitting where
he is today. I was on board with Ron DeSantis.
I was publicly on board with Ron DeSantis. I thought
that he was Trump without the baggage, without the ninety

(43:22):
four felony accounts, without not a hostile media, but not
as hostile and media. But it probably would have happened anyway.
But the way he was running Florida he wins by
eighteen points in twenty twenty two, and I go down
there to do a speech. It was in Naples, Florida,
and there's maybe two two hundred and fifty people there,
and I did a stroll poll, like who would you
like to be the nominee on the Republican side? And
I thought that DeSantis would get half the votes because
he just did so well in that election. And DeSantis

(43:45):
maybe got ten percent. Nicki Haley got like one percent,
and the other ninety basically went to Donald Trump. I'm
a boy, no one's going anywhere. They are loyal to
this man. And that's when I started to change my
mind about Trump. As for kamal Or, her career is over.
I don't even think she could win in California. You
remember in twenty nineteen when she ran for president, she
dropped out before the California primary because she was pulling
at sixth place in California, her own state, behind Andrew

(44:08):
friggin Yang.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
I mean, so, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (44:11):
After this election, I think a lot of people saw
that she's all foam and no beer, all bubbles and
no bath. And this is somebody that if they nominate her,
they could lose fifty one states, which is mathematically impossible,
but I think it would be that bad. Then the
other alternative is AOC, which she has the energy. I
guess she has a social media following. She has never
passed one piece of legislation since she's been in Congress. Sure,

(44:31):
but that doesn't matter, I guess in this world. So
I could see AOC. But then again, she could really
win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada. I
can't see her doing well in those states. So I
don't know where democrats go here. It's probably someone we're
not even talking about, like a Mark Cuban or somebody
like that. God forbid, Joe, go get the book. We
encourage everybody to check it out. Give us the title

(44:52):
one more time for people as they roll into the weekend. Okay,
I will give you the title that I wanted, all right,
the greatest comeback ever. Inside Trump's big beautiful cam pain
unburdened by what has been. But they said I couldn't
put the lastart on because there wasn't enough real state
on the cover, So go figure. So yeah, the greatest
comeback ever. Thank you, guys. It's a bestseller. Awesome Joe Kanca.
You'll see them on Fox News. You can find them
in your bookstores. Best comeback to ever, Go check it out.

(45:14):
I want to tell you it is not Mother's Day yet, Okay,
so I don't want all the men out there to panic.

Speaker 2 (45:21):
But next weekend is Mother's Day.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
So maybe you do need to panic because you only
have what is the math, nine days? You only have
nine days to get taken care of.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
May is here.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Mother's Day matters, Father's Day does not. That is the reality.
Don't screw up Mother's Day. And I have an incredible
offer for a lot of you. How about the gift
of a lifetime of memories made by your family, all
digitized forever with Legacy Box. Help Legacy Box right here
in my home state of Tennessee. They've got more old
VCRs than anybody on the planet, and they can hook

(45:51):
you up. They will make sure that all of your
old VHS tapes, all your old slides, all your old photographs,
all of them are preserved forever digitally and you can
share it with Mom, with Grandma, with your aunts, with
your wives, with whatever you whoever you would like. That
is a mom in your life. It's an incredible gift.

(46:12):
It's a thoughtful gift. They will be stunned that you
managed to pull this off. All you have to do
is go to legacy box dot com slash clay for
the best Mother's Day saleever. You don't want to get
a robe, you don't want to get God forbid a
vacuum cleaner. You don't want to give mom something she
doesn't want. Stun her with your incredible gift of Legacy

(46:36):
box a legacy box dot com slash clay sixty percent
off their regular prices. A legacy box dot com slash
clay sixty percent off. Get hooked up with a Mother's
Day present now before you blow it legacy box dot
com slash clay.

Speaker 2 (46:50):
Sometimes all you can do is laugh, and they do
a lot of it with the Sunday Hang. Join Clay
and Buck as they laugh.

Speaker 5 (46:58):
It up in the Clay and Buck podcast feed on
the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (47:04):
Verry honored to bring to you first time on the program.
Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector, attorney and founder of opsdesk
dot org, also formerly my Boss and the chain of
Command at the NYPD Intelligence Division. Paul, it's going back
fifteen years now. I'm getting old, my friend. You know,

(47:24):
I got to think back to these times now, and
I was I was just a young buck making my
way in the world.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
And I appreciated your your.

Speaker 1 (47:31):
Steadfast leadership in the Intel Division, always doing a great job.
So thank you for being here with us. First and
foremost of.

Speaker 7 (47:40):
Course, thank you for having me. Fuck, you haven't changed.
I gotta tell you look the same, brother.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Thank you that that is true.

Speaker 1 (47:46):
I definitely, I definitely do look the same a little more,
little hair man. Yeah, you know, the hair is still there.
I'm a lucky man. So you're launching, let's talk about
this for a second. If you're launching a new weekly
Fox name show. Karen read Retrial Life. So my wife
is a little more into the true crime stuff than
I am, which I don't think I'm the only guy

(48:07):
in America who's going to say that. But the Karen
Reid trial. We haven't talked about this on the show.
Can you tell everybody, like why this has fascinated so
many people? They're all focused in on this, what's going on?

Speaker 7 (48:22):
So the stories are so divergent and obviously only one
side can be true, and this is one of those
things where there are undeniably strong indicators on both sides. Now, look,
I incline heavily towards the law enforcement side of things.
The idea that something like five different agencies and well
into double figures all colluded to try to frame this

(48:45):
woman I find preposterous. And now apparently that conspiracy has
grown to include the forensics team that dumped the phone
of a woman named Jen McCabe, who's the prime witness.
So that is kind of the beauty of the defense
of a police conspiracy because everything can come under that rubric,

(49:06):
and so as the prosecution presents its evidence, the implication
on the defense side is these people have all been
co opted into some sort of a police conspiracy. But
that is something that you only need one juror to entertain.
For Karen Reid to this time around, she remember she
was tried once already and the jury hung. You only

(49:29):
need one to have either beyond a reasonable doubt questions
to hang the jury, or if you can get all
twelve to have the reasonable doubt, you have an acquittal.
So despite the fact that there is some really compelling
evidence in my mind, and that should likely hold sway
here there.

Speaker 2 (49:48):
Is this what happened?

Speaker 1 (49:51):
I'm not sure that everybody listening knows just the what
are the basic facts of the case of this Karen
Reid trial, because I know in the true crime world
everyone's watching this. There there's a network I think out
on this right now.

Speaker 7 (50:03):
What happened several Oh, all right, So she comes back
from drinking at a bar with her boyfriend. They're not living,
but they practically live together, et cetera. And they go
to a house party after they're out at this bar
with a bunch of people, and they're invited back to
this house party, and a lot of the same people
are at the house party as we're at the bar.

(50:25):
That's where the stories diverge. He claims that he went
in the house, never to be seen alive again by her,
and that in the house something happened and he was
dumped on the lawn to expire from blunt force's trauma
and hypothermia. On the prosecution side, they say that she

(50:46):
let him out of the car to go into the house.
They were having an argument, she reversed into him, hit him,
He fell backwards, bumped his head on the curb. It
was the night of a historic blizzard in New England.
This is all happening in message Choosetts and then she
leaves the scene. Now that from there, that's the basic
facts of the two sides of things, and that's where

(51:07):
the story diverge. And one of the things that emerges
when you tease it out is, even under the fact
pattern that the prosecution is a legend, can you get
to the point that it is an intentional murder? And
a lot of people feel the question becomes was the
case overcharged?

Speaker 2 (51:25):
Because she's charged with.

Speaker 7 (51:26):
Murder II intentional murder and then manslaughter and then leaving
the scene charge. So those are the two sides of things,
and there are strong indicators on both sides.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
What's the motivation why?

Speaker 1 (51:37):
I mean, she was angry at him, but is this
a couple that had a history of domestic violence. I'm
like Buck, I have not followed these cases. Sometimes I
get super fascinated by them. I bet a lot of
our audience is very well informed. I bet a lot
of them also have not been following this. You laid
out the two different arguments, but what was the motive

(51:58):
to precipitate the argument?

Speaker 2 (52:01):
In general? What was their relationship?

Speaker 1 (52:03):
Like, why would something like I think most people would say, hey,
getting in a fight. And I'm also betting there was
a lot of alcohol involved, which makes it more difficult
to know anybody who has ever been outside in cold weather,
that's one of the dangers when you drink is you
don't feel the cold in the same way. And if
she's driving and she's been consuming alcohol, that certainly can
impact things. How would we assess that?

Speaker 7 (52:26):
So certainly they were drinking. The video they pulled from
the night in the bar and they've been at another
bar first, has her drinking about nine drinks. They were
all drinking a lot, There's no doubt about that. And
in fact, she has nine drinks with sidecars in other words,
of shit, nine drinks that I've seen her picture.

Speaker 1 (52:42):
She weighs like one hundred and twenty pounds. I mean,
we're not talking about nine drinks for like a three
hundred and fifty pound guy.

Speaker 2 (52:49):
That's right. And then she drives.

Speaker 7 (52:50):
She's the one who's driving, remember, and all this comes
into play because it damages potentially her recollections of what occurred.

Speaker 2 (52:57):
So they're all banged up.

Speaker 7 (52:59):
There's no two ways about that. They drive to the
house party. She's never been to the house before they
get there. Now, look, there's no indisha of any domestic
violence in the past, But you raise a really salient
question because what is there is after she lets him
out of the car under either fact pattern, when they
dump his phone, they get voicemails from her to him

(53:21):
and she is screaming at him, And there's something like
fifty sixty calls from her over the next couple of
hours where she is screaming, cursing, adam, yelling at him.

Speaker 2 (53:29):
He is why that matters.

Speaker 7 (53:30):
Sure, it indicates that the relationship was praying, they'd only
been together a couple of years, etc.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
But what it.

Speaker 7 (53:38):
Also indicates to me is that she thought he was alive.
She's leaving him these messages. She does sound to me
like she's acting. So if she's yelling at him, she
thinks he's alive, she.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
Thinks he's going to get these messages.

Speaker 7 (53:49):
Well, then this to me undermines the idea that the
murder was intentional. And so that's why a lot of
people do feel like the case maybe it was overcharged,
and that the manslaughter charge that is intent to injure
results in death, that might have been a more reasonable
top charge.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
Not to mention, if she's that drunk and driving a car,
she may be reckless to your point, but the intent
of committing a murder she might not have even been
capable of it, right because she might be engaging in
reckless behavior. But also she's so drunk she might not
have been able to even understand exactly what she was doing.

Speaker 7 (54:26):
So generally, in the law, the idea that you were
incapacitated due to your own actions. You would drink and
you were on drugs, et cetera, is not going to
be a defense. Where it can sometimes come in is
under a diminished capacity calculus in the sentencing phase. So
you know, we'd have to see if you know, that
has any impact on the way this goes with the

(54:47):
judge and so forth, if it gets that far. But
at this point in the proceedings, the key witnesses have
already in my mind, taken the stand. The prosecution really
front loaded things, and that is the and you know, Buck,
you're well familiar with this. We were doing this when
you were at the PD. The forensic digital work on

(55:08):
the phones involved here in addition to the phone stuff,
I just talked about from one of the witnesses, one
man Jen McCabe, who's been testifying they dumped her phone
at twenty seven. The original allegation was that Jen mckab
googled how long to die in the cold? If that
happened to two twenty seven, Karen Reid has got to

(55:28):
get off because the body's not founduntil oh, six hundred
six o'clock actually about six twenty. However, the firm that
dumped the phone, firm called Celebrate, which Buck and I
worked with. We did all kinds of work with them.
It's an Israeli firm, the top of the food chain
when it comes to digital forensics. They now have had
to come back and cop to the fact that their

(55:49):
software didn't really get it right. And this time around,
it's probably the most compelling prosecution witness who now says
that search was done by Jen McCabe at six twenty three.
If that's the case, it happened after the body was found,
and then Jen McCain took the stand and said, yes,
that's exactly what happened. And in fact I did that

(56:10):
search because Karen Reid asked me to do it at
the scene when we found a body. So if you
believe Jen McCabe and the Google forensics guy, it's not Google,
but it was a Google search. You believe to celebrate guy,
then you really got to come out and saying to yourself,
Karen Reid's been lying about this and it looks bad
for her.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
All Right, I'm sold.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
I'm watching Paul Morrow's new show, Karen Reid Retrial Live
my WiFi. I think is gonna be. She likes the
true crime stuff. She's gonna love this, so we're gonna
have to check this out. It's on Fox Nation, Paul.

Speaker 7 (56:42):
It is on Fox Nation Live today starting at three.
We got an all star cast coming in. It's not
just me. I'm just the host.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
I'm the goalie.

Speaker 7 (56:48):
But we're gonna be doing it every week Friday at three,
recapping this case as long as it goes on and
a lot of drama coming.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Oh that's great.

Speaker 1 (56:55):
That's gonna be coming up then right after we finished here,
so folks can go tune right in at three Eastern
on Fox Nation. If I could, Paul, I want to
switch gears for a second and draw upon your extensive
NYPD experience. You know, we had Stephen Miller on before.
Who's a senior White House You know, Steve Miller is
a senior White House guy works a lot of the
immigrant on the immigration piece. He was talking about getting

(57:16):
more cooperation from local law enforcement on immigration issues for
federal law enforcement. Can you lay out, you know, we
worked in a place where because it's terrorism, FBI, US marshalls, NYPD,
everybody's trying to work together for the same mission on immigration.
That is not the case, right. Can you give everyone

(57:36):
some census to what some of the rules are, what
some of the walls that are implemented by the mayor,
the governor, et cetera, so that NYPD can and can't
what can they do what can they not do when
it comes to helping ice.

Speaker 7 (57:52):
All right, So all of this started under the previous
mayor who was not a disaster for this city, a
guy named Doblasio, and he put through two pieces of
legislation in conjunction with the city Council making New York
City a sanctuary city.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
And that's really the salient thing.

Speaker 7 (58:07):
We're also a sanctuary state, but nypedia city employees and
that's what applies now. The out even in this legislation.
The out is that if you are a member of
a task force, a federal task force, well, then you're
federalized and you can do immigration enforcement. You can look
into a person's immigration status, and that can be a

(58:28):
lever that you use as part of a criminal case.
And that's why Buck, when you and I were in
the task force, now, those laws were not in place yet.
Even had they been, we would have been carved out
of it as members of a task force. If you're
not a member of the task force. Now it becomes
a policy and law issue, sort of ping pong game.

(58:49):
The policy issue is as follows. They won't ut a
detainer's now a detainer is not in order from a judge.
That is something that essentially Ice says, we conjured this,
we needed to he's in jail. We need you to
hang on to him for a couple of days so
we can go get him. And essentially the local jurisdictions
in the sanctuary cities say, no, we're not gonna do that.

(59:10):
They probably can't get away with that even if we
go forward and run all the legal traps on it,
because it's a separate sovereign state to federal et cetera.

Speaker 2 (59:18):
Well, have more trouble.

Speaker 7 (59:20):
And we're seeing this come to a head now in
the case in Milwaukee. Is this judge who tried to
hide this guy and slip him out the back door?
Why because Ice had a warrant, and it doesn't matter
that it was not from a judge. She tried to
hang her hat on that. This is not a judicial warrant.
This is an administrative warrants. Some federal agencies can issue
their own warrants. This was an arrest warrant period at
the story, the guy was amenable to deportation. They came

(59:43):
with the proper PaperWorks. She tried to slide them out
the door. That's why that case is so important because
ICE can issue administrative to warrants all day long. And
if the Feds win that case, which I think they're gonna,
you're gonna now put in You're gonna compromize the idea
that the ICE warrants, the administrative warrants have the force

(01:00:03):
of law, and judges you can't get in a way.
So now Ice knows where the body's gonna be. Because
these guys all get locked up. You know that buck
Dy will permit robberies, etc.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
So now you know where.

Speaker 7 (01:00:13):
They're gonna be they're gonna be in state court. They
got to go in front of a judge. You're wait
in the hallway, just like these guys were doing. You know,
they didn't budge into her courtroom. This was all ego.
She didn't want them in her building in th Sudther nonsense.
You don't own the building. It's a pro public building.
They didn't go into her courthouse. They waited in the hallway,
which is what Warren cops do all the time. Now
ice can wait in the hallway when they know these

(01:00:34):
guys are gonna be there, they come out.

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
Boom, You got them.

Speaker 7 (01:00:37):
Nobody can get in the way, and out they go.
And this is crucial to the worst first paradigm that
the Trump administration wants to put into place. I think
they win this one, and god speed.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
To them because they should.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Paul Morrow, everybody go check out Karen Reid retrial live
coming up here in just a few minutes on Fox Nation.
Inspect Tomorrow always an honor, So come back and talk
to us again soon.

Speaker 7 (01:00:58):
Oh anytime, you guys are the best.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Love it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Thank him sounds fantastic. I want to tell you since
nine to eleven Tunnel the Towers Foundation has been supporting
America's greatest heroes and their families, Heroes who protect our
communities and our country. Heroes like firefighter James Dickman, who
was passionate about fire safety and aspired to do everything
in his power to keep his community and fellow firefighters safe.

(01:01:21):
While responding to an apartment fire, James and his crew
tried to save people who were thought to be trapped inside.
When the situation escalated, James wasn't able to escape. He
perished in a blazing inferno cause of the fire arson
James leaves behind his loving wife, Jamie and his children.
Page and Grant. Tunnel the Towers gave the Dickman family

(01:01:42):
the gift of a mortgage free home. Jamie's grateful to
Tunnel to Towers and to caring friends like you for
lifting the financial burden of a mortgage off her shoulders.
Donate eleven dollars a month to Tunnel to Towers at
T two t dot org.

Speaker 2 (01:01:56):
That's t the number two t dot org.

Speaker 5 (01:02:00):
Keep up with the biggest political comeback in world history
on the Team forty seven podcast.

Speaker 1 (01:02:06):
Plain Book Highlight Trump Free plays from the week Sundays
at noon Eastern

Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
Find it on the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
your podcasts.

All Episodes

Daily Review with Clay and Buck - May 2 2025

Episode Transcript

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Clay Travis

Buck Sexton

Show Links

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Daily Review with Clay and Buck - May 2 2025