June 25, 2025 • 37 mins
Hour 2 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a powerful and in-depth analysis of the latest developments in U.S. foreign policy, national security, and domestic politics, with a strong focus on President Donald Trump’s leadership. The hour opens with a breakdown of Trump’s recent NATO appearance and the media’s reaction to the U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Clay and Buck dissect the conflicting intelligence reports and media narratives, emphasizing how early assessments are being used to undermine what they argue was a strategically successful operation under President Trump’s command. The hosts highlight Trump’s direct rebuttal of media skepticism, particularly targeting outlets like CNN and The New York Times, and stress the obliteration of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as a significant geopolitical win. Buck Sexton, drawing on his intelligence background, critiques the leak of early intelligence assessments and frames it as a politically motivated attempt to discredit the president. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of Trump’s decisive actions for adversaries like China and Russia, reinforcing his image as a strong and unpredictable leader on the world stage. Domestically, the show pivots to the political fallout from the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, where the nomination of a far-left candidate sparks debate over whether this opens the door for a Republican resurgence. Buck expresses skepticism about a GOP victory in New York, citing entrenched liberal voting patterns, while callers offer contrasting views on the potential for political realignment in urban centers. The hour also explores the cultural and political migration trends from blue states to red states, with a focus on how conservative values are influencing local politics in places like Tennessee and Florida. Clay and Buck discuss the ideological divide between liberal transplants and native conservatives, warning about the risk of importing failed policies into thriving communities. In a sharp critique of mainstream media, the hosts call out figures like Joy Reid for controversial takes on nuclear proliferation, particularly the suggestion that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons could stabilize the Middle East. They contrast this with Israel’s successful missile defense and Trump’s growing popularity in Israel, including calls for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The segment concludes with a broader reflection on President Trump’s foreign policy achievements, the failures of the Biden administration, and the media’s consistent bias against Trump. Clay and Buck argue that Trump’s common-sense approach to international relations has yielded tangible results, while Biden’s record is increasingly viewed as a series of strategic blunders.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay and Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Buck, one of my kids called me anunk the
other day, and unk yep slang evidently for not being hip,
being an old dude.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
So how do we ununk?
Speaker 1 (00:08):
You get more people to subscribe to our YouTube channel.
At least that's to what my kids tell me.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
That's simple enough. Just search the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show and hit the subscribe button.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Takes less than five seconds to help ununk me.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Do it for Clay, do it for freedom, and get
great content while you're there The Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show YouTube channel.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
rolling through the Tuesday edition of The Clay Travis buck
Sexton Show. I am in Michigan, my thanks to News
Talk five eight WTCM and Traverse City, Michigan.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Buck.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
It's about as far away as we could be down
in Miami at least top to bottom on the country,
and we are breaking down everything for you. Started off
talking about what is the story behind New York City
making a decision to pick the most radical representative of
the Democrat Party in their mayoral race in any of
(01:11):
our lives probably and what the impact of that is
going to be. Will continue to discuss that. But Trump
is in NATO and I wanted to get you your
take on this buck. But let's play a couple of
cuts here. There was a report that came out yesterday
from one of the many governmental intelligence agencies questioning the
(01:34):
impact of the of the overall strikes in Iran and
how they have have been effective when it comes to
pushing back the nuclear program in Iran. And I'm going
to play a couple of cuts, but I think it's
important for you guys to realize that we moved very
rapidly from it's totally unnecessary to attack Iran's nuclear programs.
(02:01):
How can you trust that they are getting close to
having nuclear weapons? To the tax on iran nuclear weapons
were not actually that effective because they only pushed it
back a few months. Okay, this is where we are.
I don't understand how you can argue both sides there.
Either Iran had a nuclear weapon goal and we have
(02:23):
pushed it back to some degree, or we obliterated it.
Right there is suddenly no argument that Iran didn't have
nuclear weapons. Here is Trump saying it's fake news. You
can't get into the Ford Ol Nuclear Facility tunnels to
check because they are obliterated. Here is cut eight.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Listen what bothered me about these reports?
Speaker 4 (02:46):
So with fake reports put out by the New York
Times failing, I got the failing New York Times because
it's stilling terribly. Without me, it would be doing no
business at all. But and by fake news CNN and
ms DNC, all of these terrible people. You know, they
have no credibility. You know, when I started, there were
(03:07):
ninety four percent credibility the media. Now it's at sixteen percent,
and I'm very proud of it because I've exposed it
for what it is. But when I saw them starting
to question the caliber of the attack, was it bad, Well,
it was really bad. It was devastating. They obliterated, Like
(03:27):
you can't get into the tunnels. They just put that
over that just came out. They can't, there'shing, there's no
way you can even get down. The whole thing has
collapsed at a disaster and I think all of the
nuclear stuff is down there because it's very hard to remove,
and we did it very quickly.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
We did it very quickly.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
Okay, that is that is one cut let me play
one more and then, Buck, I want to hear what
you think, having been with your intelligence background. Here is
Trump telling CNN's Caitlin Collins that your reference to the
document isn't even accurate. And again, this was an early
accurate intelligence report. This is cut nine.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
You just cited Israeli intelligence on these attacks. Earlier you
said US intelligence was inconclusive. Are you relying on Israeli
intelligence for your assessment of impact.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
On the strikes?
Speaker 6 (04:20):
Now?
Speaker 4 (04:20):
This is also a rand made the statement. And it's
also if you read the document that was given. The
document said it could be very severe damage, but they
didn't take that. They said it could be limited or
it could be very severe. They really didn't know other
than to say it could be limited or it could
be very very severe. And you didn't choose to put
that because it was very early. After Since then, we've
(04:43):
collected additional intelligence. We've also spoken to people have seen
the site, and the site the site is obliterated and
we think everything nuclear is down there. They didn't take
it out.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Okay, Bock, you worked in intelligence gathering for years before
you ended up in media, and you and I were
just at the CIA, which just kind of blew my
mind thinking about the tens of thousands of people working
in intelligence. How many different reports do you think there
are that are coming out from a variety of different
(05:16):
intelligence agencies. And are you of the opinion that this
got leaked because it was not particularly positive about Trump
and then they want to run with it at the
New York Times and CNN. What's kind of your take
on this report in general?
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Well, yeah, of course, the media has decided that they're
going to try to find a negative spin on the
attacks that so far seem to have been spectacularly successful.
Trump has said so much, The Secretary of Defense Pete
Hegseth has said as much that there has been a
clear desire in the media to find some way to
(05:56):
we know it's not World War three, we know it's
not US troops on the ground. So a lot of
the fear mongering around this has fallen by the wayside.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
So they're looking for a way.
Speaker 7 (06:05):
To make it seem like this wasn't the brilliant stroke
of statesmanship and decision making from the commander in chief
that it was.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
And so yeah, of course they're going to run with this.
That there would be an early stage assessment from someone
at DIA that would know this or be able to
leak this in this way.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
First of all, it's reckless.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
There's no reason to do that other than to hurt
the president right now, you know why run with this
to the New York Times at this moment in time.
It's if you're upset that it looks like Trump is
running up the scoreboard too much, and your team, the
Democrat team, which is still unfortunately how a lot of
deep staters in the government think about this look like
a bunch of clowns. So they've decided that they're going
(06:54):
to go with this. But also I don't find it,
just as a person used to look at these reports,
I don't find it credible that we would have been
able to drop these kinds of bombs hit the sites
and there would not have been extreme damage the kind
that they're saying, Oh, it maybe only cave the entrance,
it didn't necessarily destroy all the centrifusions or whatever. Well,
(07:17):
a couple things on that one clay, how long would
it take for them to get up and running again?
And even more more importantly in some ways than that,
is they know that we can hit them by having
a bunch of guys take off from Missouri and they're back,
you know, eating at the local McDonald's twenty four hours later,
and there's not a damn thing they.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Can do about it. So that's also.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
I think indicative of, you know, the reality here versus
the way it's being reported.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Yeah, I just when I see intelligence reports. And this
was the same woman at CNN who had this initial report,
who also broke the news about Hey, the hunter Biden
laptop is Russian disinformation. Basically, much of the media is
just used to launder stories that otherwise people would not
(08:06):
be able to get out publicly. And I think people
are getting more and more sophisticated about this. I've talked
about this for some time, and I bet the case
is true for you too. You can hate me with
every fiber of your being. I will never be an
anonymous source for any article. If I'm not willing to
put my actual name behind it, I'm not ever gonna
(08:28):
be quoted. There's never been a quote for me that
doesn't say and Klay Travis said, and I bet for you,
for better or worse. This is often true.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Now.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Obviously, when you're in intelligence, you can't necessarily put your
name behind it, but I automatically note I knew this
was going to happen. They were gonna pivot from Trump
made the wrong decision to attack Iran to as soon
as the attack was successful, it wasn't as successful as
it could have been because Trump is involved. And this
(08:57):
is where I've been arguing this for years, Bucket. I
think you see it too in an audience. There's never
a story that is incorrect that benefits Trump. Never in
the history of the New York Times, of the Washington Post,
of ABC, CBS, nbccn N MSNBC have they ever had
to correct a story because it was too positive about Trump.
(09:17):
If you were just negligent and if you were just
incompetent at news gathering, you would make errors in both directions.
Never occurs, and so as soon as they can get
a negative story out. Here's the other thing I want
your take on this, isn't it likely true if we
caved in all of the entrances to the ford Al
Nuclear facility that it is super difficult to know how
(09:41):
far the entrances are caved in because you can't even
get inside right now.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Yes, yes, yes, you would think that Also, the idea
that somebody Clay in the DIA, which is where this
leak reportedly came from, would have the definitive. It was
listed as an early stage reporter in early stage age assessment.
I think that that is, you know, who is this
super g right. It's interesting is that the media is
(10:07):
very skeptical of the intelligence community's ability to know anything.
There are people in the media right now who are
anti Trump, who are skeptical that there were any nuke
programs that we had to be worried about in the
first place.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Although that's fading because Iran has basically acknowledged that they
were trying to do nukes right now, So now it's
that they've moved from oh, they're not even trying to
get nukes too well, the attack wasn't actually that successful,
but it is very funny to see how quickly the
pivot occurs.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
But now what we have is a situation where they're
willing to say, well, this one leak has a better
insight into the real damage assessment here than whatever the
you know, collective response or the you know, collective assessment
is of the Pentagon, the intelligence community.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
And all the rest of it.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
So it's very obvious what's going on here the same
way that all reporting that is anti Trump gets reported
right away with with the the ring of truth to it,
even if it's sketchy, even if there's that, and then
anything that could be.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Favorable to Trump. I'm just asking questions.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
We need more sourcing, it needs more study, and I
think that's true on this as well, because this is
something that Trump has done that seems to be a masterstroke. Honestly,
I mean, what has been the downside of this so far?
The Iranians look like they have been completely boxed into
a corner. The nuclear program is not a concern. We
(11:29):
didn't lose a single American life in this process, didn't
lose a single American plane in this process, correct, And
we didn't have to destroy a lot of civilian infrastructure
or kill any innocent people in that process.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
What is the downside?
Speaker 3 (11:42):
And why was the Biden administration bending over backwards and
the Obama administration before that to try to befriend the
Iranians and act like they had the stronger hand at
the poker table.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
And it's not just people on the left who were
trying to demean the attacks. We have to reiterate everyone
who told you that this was going to lead to
World War three, it actually ended up hastening the pursuit
of peace. And even right now in Europe, Trump is
actually being received as much of a conquering hero. And
(12:15):
the other impact here is everybody out there, whether it's China,
whether it's Russia, to the extent that they wondered whether
Trump was willing to actually unleash Holy Hell on adversaries.
The impact of the choices that he made against Iran
are going to echo for Chinese and Russian leaders because
when he showed Iran the back of the hand, I
(12:37):
still love, by the way, your analogy from yesterday that
the most demeaning thing that you could do if you
were about to start a fight with somebody is not
even throw It's not to throw a punch at them,
it's to walk up and slap them, because you're basically saying,
you're such a bitch, I'm not even concerned about what
you could do to me. And that is what Trump
did to Iran, and that is what the Iranian people
(12:58):
in the back of their minds have to be thinking
if they actually have internet access and can see what
the world now thinks of their leadership.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Yesterday June twenty fourth, twenty twenty five, mark three years
since Roe v. Wade was overturned. It was a good
news day for individuals like me that are pro life
and returning that decision to individual states was the right
thing to do. But the unintended consequences of that decision
are that abortion numbers have surged to a ten year high,
and today over sixty percent of abortions are happening through
(13:29):
the abortion pill. The Preborn Network of clinics are standing
in the gap, working to save the lives of those
unborn children vulnerable to abortion. They welcome young mothers and
provide them with a better solution life for their unborn baby.
When you give to Preborn, you're not just saving a baby,
You're saving a mother too. You're giving her hope, financial support,
and the truth. Your tax deductible gift makes this mission possible.
(13:51):
To donate now dal pound two fifty and say the
keyword baby. That's pound two five zero, say baby, or
go online the Preborn dot Com slash buck that's preborn
dot com slash b u c K sponsored by preboord.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Trump oversees in NATO, breaking the arguments out there about
what exactly was the impact of all of the all
of the attacks that we levied in Iran and the
battle that's going on. There a lot of you wanting
to weigh down and weigh in on a variety of
(14:36):
what we've talked about so far. Let's go to some
of these. Josh and Youngstown, Ohio.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
He is ee.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
I think he's gonna argue and some people are making
this argument that the crazy mom Donnie winning the New
York City Democrat mayoral primary actually opens the door for
Republicans because it's such a disaster that it's hard to defend.
Listen to him, Hey, clan, buck love you guys doing
a great job.
Speaker 8 (15:03):
Listen. Every time I get a chance, I'd like to say,
you guys got are wrong on this New York mayor race.
Crazy liberal just opened up the door for a Republican mayor.
I think all kinds of ammunition and we'll energize the Republicans.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Buck, you lived in New York City for forty years.
Do you think that the Republican mayoral candidate has a
chance here even with Mom Donnie as the nominee.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
We kind of I can't.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
I'm not allowed to give a real answer to this,
because if I do that, I'm that I'm a sour
puss and I'm making everyone unhappy.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
And it's fair to say you are skeptical that the
Republican candidate has a chance to win in New York City.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Very skeptical.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
I think other people look at New York from outside
and other places around the country and they think, Okay,
clearly they're going to wise up and figure this out.
But no, that's what you're seeing from just what happened
in this primary. They have not suffered enough. They have
not dealt with enough poor governance and enough of a
(16:10):
mess here, I think so that they would change their
minds about the path forward.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
My concern is, and this is what I was kind
of hinting at, that the brains are so broken among
voters that Rudy Giuliani was a rational decision. Things were
so bad in New York City. You've talked about this
buck that you had to have security guards when you
were walking to school because even little kids walking to
school were getting harassed trying to go to school. I mean,
(16:39):
you couldn't go to New York City. You couldn't go
in Central Park after dark times Square was a disaster zone,
and Rudy Giuliani cleared it all up because people got
so fed up. Maybe that's happened in San Francisco, where
it seems as if they have finally gone back to
some form of rationality. It's still a Democrat, but the
elected mayor there seems to be some rational My concern
(17:01):
is most cities aren't willing to make rational choices. They
got worse in Chicago after they had Loretta Lynch, who
was the worst possible mayor. Arguably, they got worse in
New York in LA They're path to get worse in
New York City. The three biggest cities in America are
all failing to protect their residents and educate their citizens,
(17:22):
and yet they keep making worse choices.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
They You know, sometimes people think that suffering is a
part of the process, or that this is what the
city needs to go through. I think you if you
approach these decisions like a rational person with a grasp
on reality, you will find yourself in a situation where
none of it makes any sense. If you're trying to
(17:49):
make sense of the senseless, you're going to become frustrated,
and in the case of New York, I think the
decision making here. Now, Remember it wasn't even there were
a lot of Democrats that didn't go along with this,
a lot of Democrats. You voted for Cuomo, but to
go with this guy Mamdani given this guy also has I.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Am sitting here and.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
You are really beaten down as a New York City
guide that New York City could make this decision.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Yes, because I think we might end up with the
worst I think New York may very well end up
with the worst mayor in the United States number one.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
All Right.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
While the media is focusing on the NATO summit today,
they should also focus on the Bricks meetings that are
happening in Rio de Janio in the next couple of
weeks on the agenda moving away from the US dollar
as the world's preserve currency. This meeting has been nicknamed
the Rio Reset, and it may well be the greatest
threat to the US dollars global dominance in the past
eighty years. If that happens, it will affect the value
(18:44):
of your hard earned saved dollars. Brick includes Brazil, Russia, India, China,
Iran and other nations. They've also been laying the groundwork
to replace our dollar with their central banks divesting from
the US dollar and US bonds in favor of goal.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
How can you protect your.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
IRA or four oh and K from the fallout of
this landmark shift. Diversify with gold from the Birch Gold Group.
Historically gold has been a haven in times of high uncertainty,
like right now, get your free info kit on a
tax shelter gold, Die Ray, Text my name Buck do
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight Again text Buck to
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight. Today.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
You know our old friend Joy Reid Buck they kicked
her off MSNBC. I look up last night and by
look up, I mean look down at my phone and
see trending that CNN, not content with losing the battle
to MSNBC, has decided, you know what we should do.
(19:45):
We should put Joyreid on as a part of our
panel discussion. And Joy Reid said, hey, you know what,
I don't know why it's considered to be such a
bad thing if Iran gets nuclear weapon and maybe it
would actually calm everything down. This is what you would
(20:05):
have heard last night cut fifteen if you were watching CNN.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
What do you think we'll see first World War three
on nuclear war.
Speaker 9 (20:12):
I don't think we'll ever see nuclear war in our lifetime,
but I do think we'll see a world war. And
the reason you won't see nuclear war in our lifetime
is that everyone who would deem to threaten global and
highlation has.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Nukes mutually destruction.
Speaker 9 (20:26):
And I think what would in a weird way make
the Middle East? You know how they say the most
polite society in the country is Texas.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Is everybody's packing got good. You know, maybe the Middle
East would be calmer.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Okay, so it would be better if Aaron had nuclear weapons.
It would make everything calmer. It's a crazy town take.
By the way, it was on with Charlemagne, not CNN.
She was also on CNN. And I mean, to me,
the easier analysis here, if you are just being somewhat rational,
(21:06):
just somewhat rational, is would it be better if North
Korea didn't have nuclear weapons? I think the answer is yes.
And by the way, it was also a credit to
Israel and also helping with American intelligence, they shot down
ninety five percent of the ballistic missiles that Iran fired
into Israel and still there were casualties. But can you
(21:29):
imagine if that missile shield had only been half as successful,
or if Iran were able to deliver far more significant
payload damage to Israel than what they did because they
were firing haphazardly, They weren't targeting in particular ways small
segments of the Israeli military defense or top Israeli commanders.
(21:52):
They were just trying to hit anything that they could.
And the idea that you would say, well, maybe they
should have more weapons is and more deadly opportunities is
just crazy to me.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Well, if Iran had it in its capability to, as
I've said, with conventional means, to level Tel Aviv, they
would do so, right. And what's interesting and shocking and
horrifying all at once is that I think many of
the voices right now that are critical of the Israeli strikes,
or you have been critical of the Israeli strikes, would
(22:24):
find a way to say that even if Iran was
engaged in widespread targeting of civilians in response to the
Israeli strikes, that that was Israel's fault. And one thing
that I do know from observing events in the Middle
East is that there's a contingent of people, certainly in
the Middle East you know, non Israelis a lot of
(22:46):
non Israelis, and then in this country for whom everything
is Israel's fault no matter what it does.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yes, and there's no way around that.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
And I think that tells you much more about those
individuals than it does about what they think will bring
peace or what they think is relevant to the laws
of war and the conduct of armed conflict. So, yeah,
it's a good thing that they're able to shoot down
these missiles because Israel could be going on strafing and
(23:13):
bombing runs of Tehran at will right now, and it
does not do so because it does not seek to
kill Iranians. It seeks to stop a threat from the
Iranian regime. These are not fundamentally clay, These are not
nation states. These are not governments that are operating on
the same moral plane.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
I will say positive, Maybe they're going to have to
stop calling Trump Hitler because he's so popular now in
Israel that the Israeli Ambassador to the UN said President
Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think that
anybody Jewish ever suggested suggested that Hitler deserved a Nobel
(23:54):
Peace Prize. But here is cut fourteen. He should I
think Trump should get it based on all the work
he's done to actually try and create peace cut fourteen.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
Hey, US congressman today sent a letter to nominates President
Trump Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
What is your opinion?
Speaker 10 (24:10):
First, I think that President tamp deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think we should thank him for his leadership, for
the pre decision ITUK and to recognize the effort of
the United States.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Do you think President Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize?
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Buck?
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Do you feel good in any way about what would
it take? I guess maybe if you ended the war
in Ukraine and Israel and Iran continue to not fight,
and also you had a situation where Gaza was finally
solved between Hamas and Israel, maybe if you got that triplicate,
you could end up in a situation where Trump got
(24:50):
the Peace Prize. Maybe you expand Abraham Accords to include
Saudi Arabia, which I think could happen down the line.
I think that's what it would take.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
I don't know if there's any situation in which the
people who make those decisions would be willing to give
Trump one, But you know, I think the good thing
about Trump and everyone who supports him and what he's
been doing.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
He you know, he he knows this.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
And getting things right and helping this country and with it,
helping the world is the value that he really seeks
from this. That's the benefit is doing as well as
he's doing in all of these things. It has been
a remarkably successful administration so far. And I would just
point out that even in the first administration, they thought
(25:36):
foreign policy was going to be a weakness because foreign
policy used to be the preserve of the uh you know,
the Brahmins of the DC intelligentsia at some levels like, oh,
these are far away places that only some of us
understand and some of us go to, and we well,
Trump approaches foreign policy with a common sense what's good
(25:56):
for America, who are the bad guys, who are the
good guys, and what do we do about approach And
that is far not just more sensible in theory, but
in practice as well, as we saw. And that's where
I think Trump has had a particularly he's at a
particularly successful portfolio on foreign policy, especially when you line
it up against the way the Democrats see these things,
(26:17):
where there's just no clarity, there's a lot of amorphous
and self congratulatory nonsense.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
And again I do believe that, unfortunately for Trump, he's
trying to clean up the mess that Biden's weakness in
Afghanistan created. I don't think it's coincidental that we looked
as bad and as haphazard leaving Afghanistan as we did,
and shortly thereafter you had putin invade Ukraine and you
had the Hamas attack that took place where they went
(26:45):
into Israel. I don't think either of these things would
have happened if Trump were in office, and unfortunately, he's
got to now clean up the messes that were created there.
And so much of what Trump is having to do
right now is not even about it and seing the ball.
It's just limiting the disasters that were put in place
by the entire Biden administration, which we talked about yesterday.
(27:08):
But I think increasingly there's going to be a recognition
that Biden was the worst president and anybody's living right
now live the Democrats are going to kick him to
the curb. They don't want to defend him anymore. And
you're starting to see that recognition that basically every choice
he made was the wrong choice. That's hard to do.
It's hard to be in a place where you have
(27:30):
constantly two roads diverging and you take the wrong side
every single time on the choice trail. But that's basically
what Biden did.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
No, I mean, he was known.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
I think it was the former CI director and former
Secretary of Defense Gates who said that Biden was famously
the guy who was wrong on every major four he
was the foreign policy expert who's wrong on every foreign
policy decision of the last forty years. I think that
was something like that was the quote, and it's true.
And when the more you look at Joe Biden, as
(28:01):
I said, I think one of the more interesting time
to come clean moments of the whole Biden book and
the dementia cover up and everything has been that he's
not a good guy. He's not an honest, ethical person,
never has been. He's really a shameless, sleazy politician, and
that has been his calling card all along, and that
(28:22):
he fancied himself because of his grin and his handshake
and his ability to believe his own nonsense some kind
of a foreign policy guru and was brought on as
Obama's VP for that reason.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
Is is wild when he is stunning stuff.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
I just I don't think we talk enough honestly, and
I know it's coming out.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
More and more.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
No one was around Joe Biden more than Barack Obama,
and after being around Joe Biden for multiple years, Obama said, yeah,
I'm going with the Secretary of State. You can't be president.
Biden was wrong on the raid that happened in to
(29:10):
take out Osama bin Laden. I think Obama and his
team knew that Biden was a joke, and I think
the Biden being a joke factor was hidden because of COVID.
And again, history judges over time more accurately. I think
you're already starting to see a recalibration of everything that
Biden did wrong. We'll talk about this, We'll take some
(29:32):
of your calls. Got a bunch of great talkbacks. But
in the meantime, Israeli citizens appreciate the generosity of our
nation and of people like you that have made donations
to help residence in need in this time of need,
more than anything else. Finally, Israeli citizens are being able
to leave their bomb shelters and get a decent night's
sleep after having to constantly scramble in and out of
(29:54):
that situation, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food,
first aid and emergency kits for Israel's most vulnerable people.
Fellowship also making sure hospital's emergency room shelters fully stocked
with critical life saving medical supplies. That's why the Fellowship
(30:15):
needs your gift today to make the work possible. Stand
with Israel. Make your donation today eight eight eight four
eight eight. IFCJ is the phone number, that's eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ. You can also go online
at IFCJ dot org. That's IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
We'll open up line, take some calls.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Also, Cracket Coffee, my friends, go to Cracketcoffee dot com.
That is Cracketcoffee dot com and click subscribe or go
start your subscription there. Please, the best coffee you're gonna
get anywhere. Ten percent of our profits goes to the Tunnel,
the Towers Foundation. We've got the Mushroom Coffee, which if
you haven't tried, it's a lot of fun. But just
(31:04):
get your light roast, your dark roast, your get hooked
up with Crockett. And also they've got a lot of
great gear, including these very cool mugs made in America.
They are actually made in Americas. Very insistent on that.
So we're doing it up at Crocket Coffee hoping you
will join us as part of this, uh, this great
American brand, this parallel economy, this revolution of sorts that
(31:25):
conservatives are now building their own companies and you are
building this company alongside us.
Speaker 9 (31:30):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Well, let us get into clay some of our wonderful
talkbacks and calls. Here James in Cedar City, Utah. What's
going on?
Speaker 2 (31:40):
James?
Speaker 6 (31:42):
Hey, I tell you doing you know, it's interest in
blug Usually I find you really intuitive about things. But
a reference moving like turned states liberal. It's not people
like you moving from a liberal place to a conservative place.
Those people aren't aren't scared. It's the liberals that move
from a liberal state and carry their ideology over. A
perfect example is you know a Nevada. Nevada used to
(32:04):
be a solid red state. Well, liberals from California moved in.
It turned blue and then kind of purple. Same with Colorado,
and if you go far enough back, Washington and Oregon
were like that. So it's not people aren't worried about
people like you. It's the ideology where they just don't
connect their voting history with the problems. And and just
(32:25):
one other quick point of what you guys talked about,
and I know you guys have a lot of influence.
I'd be really curious you talked about Biden voting against
the Osama bin Laden I'd be curious, why don't you
guys ask a reporter because I've never heard him go
on the record, did you actually vote against that? And
just just to get him on the record, I would
be really curious.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Well, he doesn't. He doesn't.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
I mean, obviously he was the vice president. He doesn't vote,
but his his It's been widely reported that he was
in discussions in the White House about the bin Laden raid,
that he was opposed to it. So that's and that's
not you can find that with a quick Google search.
But obviously he don't and actually formally vote on anything
as the vice president. As your other point, I would
just say it depends where you are and depends what
(33:07):
state people are moving from. But when you have something
like COVID, or when you have a socialist mayor in
the mix or perhaps soon to be in the mix.
The people who will tend to leave in moments like
that are generally more conservative from those blue states. The
longer term migration trends out of a place like California,
(33:29):
that's a little bit of a different, different ball of axe.
I know there have been a lot of Californians that
have moved to Austin, that have moved to Nevada, and
they'll try and Nashville now, but there are Libs who
move from California to some of those places. You can
just look at you can look at the data for
a state like Florida. Since the Great the COVID migration,
(33:51):
Florida is much much redder than it previously was. There's
no question about that. So I would say probably three
out of four people who moved down here were Republicans
if you just look at the registration change.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
Look, this was a major concern that a lot of
people in my home state of Tennessee had, and I
have met so many people from my area of the
country that came specifically because of the politics and are
actually redder than the people that they are moving in
alongside of. And that's why I'm less concerned.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Now.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
If you live in Nevada. As he mentioned, if you
live in Arizona, if you live in North Carolina, frankly,
if you live in Georgia, there has certainly been a
lot of liberal relocation that has impacted things. But where
I am, and in fact, we've got somebody who had
a nice comment. I think it was Aa talking about
she came up from Alabama visited where I live in Franklin, Tennessee,
(34:50):
which I think is the greatest place on the planet.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Can we hear that talk back?
Speaker 11 (34:54):
I was in Franklin this past weekend celebrating our birthdays
with my granddaughter, and I was reminded of how beautiful
this area of the country is and how fortunate you
are to live here. The rolling Green Hills, the beautiful
horse farms, Annabella mansions, historical homes and sites. It's just gorgeous.
I feel like you, Laura and the boys a part
(35:16):
of my extended family, since I spend as much time
each day with you and Buck as I do my husband.
Speaker 6 (35:23):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
But yes, Franklin, Tennessee is kind of utopia. Williamson County,
Tennessee is kind of utopia, and we want to keep
it that way. And I tend to think that the
people that are moving are making it more such. But
I understand the nervousness if you love where you live.
Right now, there is a theory that people are like
moths they destroy because, let's be honest, California, Washington, and
(35:48):
Oregon kind of the most beautiful places almost in the world.
When you just talk about the pure geography and the
majesty of many of those cities and what they look like,
and the people there have allowed them to be destroyed.
They're like moths. They have destroyed that area and then
they move on to a new area and they don't
(36:08):
connect the fact that their politics are what created it
and they start to destroy me.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
You mean Locus away like, yeah, moths are not as
scary Clay. I was like, why are you throwing moths
under the bus?
Speaker 9 (36:18):
Well?
Speaker 1 (36:18):
They could make holes in your jackets in there, like
one or two. It's the locusts that really Freakypucas is
the buk that I wanted to reference there. You're like
Locus coming and destroying. I was like, is it months now?
I think it's Locus. That's the fear that when people
move from blue states that they're going to like a
horde of locusts descend upon places that are otherwise great
and destroy them.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Absolutely all right.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
We're going to come in here with more on the
aftermath of Trump at NATO and the strikes rather the
US strikes on the nuclear facilities, and a whole lot
more stuff, including also your thoughts on whether New York
City mayor Mamdani to be is a hard avinger of
(37:00):
things to come for a crazy Democrat party that We're
gonna have a rocking third hour, my friends, and make
sure you get those lines lit up.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Send in your emails and talkbacks. We'll talk to you soon.
Hey, Buck, one of my kids called me anunk the
other day, and unk yep slang evidently for not being hip,
being an old dude.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
So how do we ununk?
Speaker 1 (00:08):
You get more people to subscribe to our YouTube channel.
At least that's to what my kids tell me.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
That's simple enough. Just search the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show and hit the subscribe button.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Takes less than five seconds to help ununk me.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Do it for Clay, do it for freedom, and get
great content while you're there The Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show YouTube channel.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
rolling through the Tuesday edition of The Clay Travis buck
Sexton Show. I am in Michigan, my thanks to News
Talk five eight WTCM and Traverse City, Michigan.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Buck.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
It's about as far away as we could be down
in Miami at least top to bottom on the country,
and we are breaking down everything for you. Started off
talking about what is the story behind New York City
making a decision to pick the most radical representative of
the Democrat Party in their mayoral race in any of
(01:11):
our lives probably and what the impact of that is
going to be. Will continue to discuss that. But Trump
is in NATO and I wanted to get you your
take on this buck. But let's play a couple of
cuts here. There was a report that came out yesterday
from one of the many governmental intelligence agencies questioning the
(01:34):
impact of the of the overall strikes in Iran and
how they have have been effective when it comes to
pushing back the nuclear program in Iran. And I'm going
to play a couple of cuts, but I think it's
important for you guys to realize that we moved very
rapidly from it's totally unnecessary to attack Iran's nuclear programs.
(02:01):
How can you trust that they are getting close to
having nuclear weapons? To the tax on iran nuclear weapons
were not actually that effective because they only pushed it
back a few months. Okay, this is where we are.
I don't understand how you can argue both sides there.
Either Iran had a nuclear weapon goal and we have
(02:23):
pushed it back to some degree, or we obliterated it.
Right there is suddenly no argument that Iran didn't have
nuclear weapons. Here is Trump saying it's fake news. You
can't get into the Ford Ol Nuclear Facility tunnels to
check because they are obliterated. Here is cut eight.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Listen what bothered me about these reports?
Speaker 4 (02:46):
So with fake reports put out by the New York
Times failing, I got the failing New York Times because
it's stilling terribly. Without me, it would be doing no
business at all. But and by fake news CNN and
ms DNC, all of these terrible people. You know, they
have no credibility. You know, when I started, there were
(03:07):
ninety four percent credibility the media. Now it's at sixteen percent,
and I'm very proud of it because I've exposed it
for what it is. But when I saw them starting
to question the caliber of the attack, was it bad, Well,
it was really bad. It was devastating. They obliterated, Like
(03:27):
you can't get into the tunnels. They just put that
over that just came out. They can't, there'shing, there's no
way you can even get down. The whole thing has
collapsed at a disaster and I think all of the
nuclear stuff is down there because it's very hard to remove,
and we did it very quickly.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
We did it very quickly.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
Okay, that is that is one cut let me play
one more and then, Buck, I want to hear what
you think, having been with your intelligence background. Here is
Trump telling CNN's Caitlin Collins that your reference to the
document isn't even accurate. And again, this was an early
accurate intelligence report. This is cut nine.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
You just cited Israeli intelligence on these attacks. Earlier you
said US intelligence was inconclusive. Are you relying on Israeli
intelligence for your assessment of impact.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
On the strikes?
Speaker 6 (04:20):
Now?
Speaker 4 (04:20):
This is also a rand made the statement. And it's
also if you read the document that was given. The
document said it could be very severe damage, but they
didn't take that. They said it could be limited or
it could be very severe. They really didn't know other
than to say it could be limited or it could
be very very severe. And you didn't choose to put
that because it was very early. After Since then, we've
(04:43):
collected additional intelligence. We've also spoken to people have seen
the site, and the site the site is obliterated and
we think everything nuclear is down there. They didn't take
it out.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Okay, Bock, you worked in intelligence gathering for years before
you ended up in media, and you and I were
just at the CIA, which just kind of blew my
mind thinking about the tens of thousands of people working
in intelligence. How many different reports do you think there
are that are coming out from a variety of different
(05:16):
intelligence agencies. And are you of the opinion that this
got leaked because it was not particularly positive about Trump
and then they want to run with it at the
New York Times and CNN. What's kind of your take
on this report in general?
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Well, yeah, of course, the media has decided that they're
going to try to find a negative spin on the
attacks that so far seem to have been spectacularly successful.
Trump has said so much, The Secretary of Defense Pete
Hegseth has said as much that there has been a
clear desire in the media to find some way to
(05:56):
we know it's not World War three, we know it's
not US troops on the ground. So a lot of
the fear mongering around this has fallen by the wayside.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
So they're looking for a way.
Speaker 7 (06:05):
To make it seem like this wasn't the brilliant stroke
of statesmanship and decision making from the commander in chief
that it was.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
And so yeah, of course they're going to run with this.
That there would be an early stage assessment from someone
at DIA that would know this or be able to
leak this in this way.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
First of all, it's reckless.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
There's no reason to do that other than to hurt
the president right now, you know why run with this
to the New York Times at this moment in time.
It's if you're upset that it looks like Trump is
running up the scoreboard too much, and your team, the
Democrat team, which is still unfortunately how a lot of
deep staters in the government think about this look like
a bunch of clowns. So they've decided that they're going
(06:54):
to go with this. But also I don't find it,
just as a person used to look at these reports,
I don't find it credible that we would have been
able to drop these kinds of bombs hit the sites
and there would not have been extreme damage the kind
that they're saying, Oh, it maybe only cave the entrance,
it didn't necessarily destroy all the centrifusions or whatever. Well,
(07:17):
a couple things on that one clay, how long would
it take for them to get up and running again?
And even more more importantly in some ways than that,
is they know that we can hit them by having
a bunch of guys take off from Missouri and they're back,
you know, eating at the local McDonald's twenty four hours later,
and there's not a damn thing they.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Can do about it. So that's also.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
I think indicative of, you know, the reality here versus
the way it's being reported.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Yeah, I just when I see intelligence reports. And this
was the same woman at CNN who had this initial report,
who also broke the news about Hey, the hunter Biden
laptop is Russian disinformation. Basically, much of the media is
just used to launder stories that otherwise people would not
(08:06):
be able to get out publicly. And I think people
are getting more and more sophisticated about this. I've talked
about this for some time, and I bet the case
is true for you too. You can hate me with
every fiber of your being. I will never be an
anonymous source for any article. If I'm not willing to
put my actual name behind it, I'm not ever gonna
(08:28):
be quoted. There's never been a quote for me that
doesn't say and Klay Travis said, and I bet for you,
for better or worse. This is often true.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Now.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Obviously, when you're in intelligence, you can't necessarily put your
name behind it, but I automatically note I knew this
was going to happen. They were gonna pivot from Trump
made the wrong decision to attack Iran to as soon
as the attack was successful, it wasn't as successful as
it could have been because Trump is involved. And this
(08:57):
is where I've been arguing this for years, Bucket. I
think you see it too in an audience. There's never
a story that is incorrect that benefits Trump. Never in
the history of the New York Times, of the Washington Post,
of ABC, CBS, nbccn N MSNBC have they ever had
to correct a story because it was too positive about Trump.
(09:17):
If you were just negligent and if you were just
incompetent at news gathering, you would make errors in both directions.
Never occurs, and so as soon as they can get
a negative story out. Here's the other thing I want
your take on this, isn't it likely true if we
caved in all of the entrances to the ford Al
Nuclear facility that it is super difficult to know how
(09:41):
far the entrances are caved in because you can't even
get inside right now.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Yes, yes, yes, you would think that Also, the idea
that somebody Clay in the DIA, which is where this
leak reportedly came from, would have the definitive. It was
listed as an early stage reporter in early stage age assessment.
I think that that is, you know, who is this
super g right. It's interesting is that the media is
(10:07):
very skeptical of the intelligence community's ability to know anything.
There are people in the media right now who are
anti Trump, who are skeptical that there were any nuke
programs that we had to be worried about in the
first place.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Although that's fading because Iran has basically acknowledged that they
were trying to do nukes right now, So now it's
that they've moved from oh, they're not even trying to
get nukes too well, the attack wasn't actually that successful,
but it is very funny to see how quickly the
pivot occurs.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
But now what we have is a situation where they're
willing to say, well, this one leak has a better
insight into the real damage assessment here than whatever the
you know, collective response or the you know, collective assessment
is of the Pentagon, the intelligence community.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
And all the rest of it.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
So it's very obvious what's going on here the same
way that all reporting that is anti Trump gets reported
right away with with the the ring of truth to it,
even if it's sketchy, even if there's that, and then
anything that could be.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Favorable to Trump. I'm just asking questions.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
We need more sourcing, it needs more study, and I
think that's true on this as well, because this is
something that Trump has done that seems to be a masterstroke. Honestly,
I mean, what has been the downside of this so far?
The Iranians look like they have been completely boxed into
a corner. The nuclear program is not a concern. We
(11:29):
didn't lose a single American life in this process, didn't
lose a single American plane in this process, correct, And
we didn't have to destroy a lot of civilian infrastructure
or kill any innocent people in that process.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
What is the downside?
Speaker 3 (11:42):
And why was the Biden administration bending over backwards and
the Obama administration before that to try to befriend the
Iranians and act like they had the stronger hand at
the poker table.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
And it's not just people on the left who were
trying to demean the attacks. We have to reiterate everyone
who told you that this was going to lead to
World War three, it actually ended up hastening the pursuit
of peace. And even right now in Europe, Trump is
actually being received as much of a conquering hero. And
(12:15):
the other impact here is everybody out there, whether it's China,
whether it's Russia, to the extent that they wondered whether
Trump was willing to actually unleash Holy Hell on adversaries.
The impact of the choices that he made against Iran
are going to echo for Chinese and Russian leaders because
when he showed Iran the back of the hand, I
(12:37):
still love, by the way, your analogy from yesterday that
the most demeaning thing that you could do if you
were about to start a fight with somebody is not
even throw It's not to throw a punch at them,
it's to walk up and slap them, because you're basically saying,
you're such a bitch, I'm not even concerned about what
you could do to me. And that is what Trump
did to Iran, and that is what the Iranian people
(12:58):
in the back of their minds have to be thinking
if they actually have internet access and can see what
the world now thinks of their leadership.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Yesterday June twenty fourth, twenty twenty five, mark three years
since Roe v. Wade was overturned. It was a good
news day for individuals like me that are pro life
and returning that decision to individual states was the right
thing to do. But the unintended consequences of that decision
are that abortion numbers have surged to a ten year high,
and today over sixty percent of abortions are happening through
(13:29):
the abortion pill. The Preborn Network of clinics are standing
in the gap, working to save the lives of those
unborn children vulnerable to abortion. They welcome young mothers and
provide them with a better solution life for their unborn baby.
When you give to Preborn, you're not just saving a baby,
You're saving a mother too. You're giving her hope, financial support,
and the truth. Your tax deductible gift makes this mission possible.
(13:51):
To donate now dal pound two fifty and say the
keyword baby. That's pound two five zero, say baby, or
go online the Preborn dot Com slash buck that's preborn
dot com slash b u c K sponsored by preboord.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Trump oversees in NATO, breaking the arguments out there about
what exactly was the impact of all of the all
of the attacks that we levied in Iran and the
battle that's going on. There a lot of you wanting
to weigh down and weigh in on a variety of
(14:36):
what we've talked about so far. Let's go to some
of these. Josh and Youngstown, Ohio.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
He is ee.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
I think he's gonna argue and some people are making
this argument that the crazy mom Donnie winning the New
York City Democrat mayoral primary actually opens the door for
Republicans because it's such a disaster that it's hard to defend.
Listen to him, Hey, clan, buck love you guys doing
a great job.
Speaker 8 (15:03):
Listen. Every time I get a chance, I'd like to say,
you guys got are wrong on this New York mayor race.
Crazy liberal just opened up the door for a Republican mayor.
I think all kinds of ammunition and we'll energize the Republicans.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Buck, you lived in New York City for forty years.
Do you think that the Republican mayoral candidate has a
chance here even with Mom Donnie as the nominee.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
We kind of I can't.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
I'm not allowed to give a real answer to this,
because if I do that, I'm that I'm a sour
puss and I'm making everyone unhappy.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
And it's fair to say you are skeptical that the
Republican candidate has a chance to win in New York City.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Very skeptical.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
I think other people look at New York from outside
and other places around the country and they think, Okay,
clearly they're going to wise up and figure this out.
But no, that's what you're seeing from just what happened
in this primary. They have not suffered enough. They have
not dealt with enough poor governance and enough of a
(16:10):
mess here, I think so that they would change their
minds about the path forward.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
My concern is, and this is what I was kind
of hinting at, that the brains are so broken among
voters that Rudy Giuliani was a rational decision. Things were
so bad in New York City. You've talked about this
buck that you had to have security guards when you
were walking to school because even little kids walking to
school were getting harassed trying to go to school. I mean,
(16:39):
you couldn't go to New York City. You couldn't go
in Central Park after dark times Square was a disaster zone,
and Rudy Giuliani cleared it all up because people got
so fed up. Maybe that's happened in San Francisco, where
it seems as if they have finally gone back to
some form of rationality. It's still a Democrat, but the
elected mayor there seems to be some rational My concern
(17:01):
is most cities aren't willing to make rational choices. They
got worse in Chicago after they had Loretta Lynch, who
was the worst possible mayor. Arguably, they got worse in
New York in LA They're path to get worse in
New York City. The three biggest cities in America are
all failing to protect their residents and educate their citizens,
(17:22):
and yet they keep making worse choices.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
They You know, sometimes people think that suffering is a
part of the process, or that this is what the
city needs to go through. I think you if you
approach these decisions like a rational person with a grasp
on reality, you will find yourself in a situation where
none of it makes any sense. If you're trying to
(17:49):
make sense of the senseless, you're going to become frustrated,
and in the case of New York, I think the
decision making here. Now, Remember it wasn't even there were
a lot of Democrats that didn't go along with this,
a lot of Democrats. You voted for Cuomo, but to
go with this guy Mamdani given this guy also has I.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Am sitting here and.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
You are really beaten down as a New York City
guide that New York City could make this decision.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Yes, because I think we might end up with the
worst I think New York may very well end up
with the worst mayor in the United States number one.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
All Right.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
While the media is focusing on the NATO summit today,
they should also focus on the Bricks meetings that are
happening in Rio de Janio in the next couple of
weeks on the agenda moving away from the US dollar
as the world's preserve currency. This meeting has been nicknamed
the Rio Reset, and it may well be the greatest
threat to the US dollars global dominance in the past
eighty years. If that happens, it will affect the value
(18:44):
of your hard earned saved dollars. Brick includes Brazil, Russia, India, China,
Iran and other nations. They've also been laying the groundwork
to replace our dollar with their central banks divesting from
the US dollar and US bonds in favor of goal.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
How can you protect your.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
IRA or four oh and K from the fallout of
this landmark shift. Diversify with gold from the Birch Gold Group.
Historically gold has been a haven in times of high uncertainty,
like right now, get your free info kit on a
tax shelter gold, Die Ray, Text my name Buck do
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight Again text Buck to
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight. Today.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
You know our old friend Joy Reid Buck they kicked
her off MSNBC. I look up last night and by
look up, I mean look down at my phone and
see trending that CNN, not content with losing the battle
to MSNBC, has decided, you know what we should do.
(19:45):
We should put Joyreid on as a part of our
panel discussion. And Joy Reid said, hey, you know what,
I don't know why it's considered to be such a
bad thing if Iran gets nuclear weapon and maybe it
would actually calm everything down. This is what you would
(20:05):
have heard last night cut fifteen if you were watching CNN.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
What do you think we'll see first World War three
on nuclear war.
Speaker 9 (20:12):
I don't think we'll ever see nuclear war in our lifetime,
but I do think we'll see a world war. And
the reason you won't see nuclear war in our lifetime
is that everyone who would deem to threaten global and
highlation has.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Nukes mutually destruction.
Speaker 9 (20:26):
And I think what would in a weird way make
the Middle East? You know how they say the most
polite society in the country is Texas.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Is everybody's packing got good. You know, maybe the Middle
East would be calmer.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Okay, so it would be better if Aaron had nuclear weapons.
It would make everything calmer. It's a crazy town take.
By the way, it was on with Charlemagne, not CNN.
She was also on CNN. And I mean, to me,
the easier analysis here, if you are just being somewhat rational,
(21:06):
just somewhat rational, is would it be better if North
Korea didn't have nuclear weapons? I think the answer is yes.
And by the way, it was also a credit to
Israel and also helping with American intelligence, they shot down
ninety five percent of the ballistic missiles that Iran fired
into Israel and still there were casualties. But can you
(21:29):
imagine if that missile shield had only been half as successful,
or if Iran were able to deliver far more significant
payload damage to Israel than what they did because they
were firing haphazardly, They weren't targeting in particular ways small
segments of the Israeli military defense or top Israeli commanders.
(21:52):
They were just trying to hit anything that they could.
And the idea that you would say, well, maybe they
should have more weapons is and more deadly opportunities is
just crazy to me.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Well, if Iran had it in its capability to, as
I've said, with conventional means, to level Tel Aviv, they
would do so, right. And what's interesting and shocking and
horrifying all at once is that I think many of
the voices right now that are critical of the Israeli strikes,
or you have been critical of the Israeli strikes, would
(22:24):
find a way to say that even if Iran was
engaged in widespread targeting of civilians in response to the
Israeli strikes, that that was Israel's fault. And one thing
that I do know from observing events in the Middle
East is that there's a contingent of people, certainly in
the Middle East you know, non Israelis a lot of
(22:46):
non Israelis, and then in this country for whom everything
is Israel's fault no matter what it does.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yes, and there's no way around that.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
And I think that tells you much more about those
individuals than it does about what they think will bring
peace or what they think is relevant to the laws
of war and the conduct of armed conflict. So, yeah,
it's a good thing that they're able to shoot down
these missiles because Israel could be going on strafing and
(23:13):
bombing runs of Tehran at will right now, and it
does not do so because it does not seek to
kill Iranians. It seeks to stop a threat from the
Iranian regime. These are not fundamentally clay, These are not
nation states. These are not governments that are operating on
the same moral plane.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
I will say positive, Maybe they're going to have to
stop calling Trump Hitler because he's so popular now in
Israel that the Israeli Ambassador to the UN said President
Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think that
anybody Jewish ever suggested suggested that Hitler deserved a Nobel
(23:54):
Peace Prize. But here is cut fourteen. He should I
think Trump should get it based on all the work
he's done to actually try and create peace cut fourteen.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
Hey, US congressman today sent a letter to nominates President
Trump Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
What is your opinion?
Speaker 10 (24:10):
First, I think that President tamp deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think we should thank him for his leadership, for
the pre decision ITUK and to recognize the effort of
the United States.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
There you go.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Do you think President Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize?
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Buck?
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Do you feel good in any way about what would
it take? I guess maybe if you ended the war
in Ukraine and Israel and Iran continue to not fight,
and also you had a situation where Gaza was finally
solved between Hamas and Israel, maybe if you got that triplicate,
you could end up in a situation where Trump got
(24:50):
the Peace Prize. Maybe you expand Abraham Accords to include
Saudi Arabia, which I think could happen down the line.
I think that's what it would take.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
I don't know if there's any situation in which the
people who make those decisions would be willing to give
Trump one, But you know, I think the good thing
about Trump and everyone who supports him and what he's
been doing.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
He you know, he he knows this.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
And getting things right and helping this country and with it,
helping the world is the value that he really seeks
from this. That's the benefit is doing as well as
he's doing in all of these things. It has been
a remarkably successful administration so far. And I would just
point out that even in the first administration, they thought
(25:36):
foreign policy was going to be a weakness because foreign
policy used to be the preserve of the uh you know,
the Brahmins of the DC intelligentsia at some levels like, oh,
these are far away places that only some of us
understand and some of us go to, and we well,
Trump approaches foreign policy with a common sense what's good
(25:56):
for America, who are the bad guys, who are the
good guys, and what do we do about approach And
that is far not just more sensible in theory, but
in practice as well, as we saw. And that's where
I think Trump has had a particularly he's at a
particularly successful portfolio on foreign policy, especially when you line
it up against the way the Democrats see these things,
(26:17):
where there's just no clarity, there's a lot of amorphous
and self congratulatory nonsense.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
And again I do believe that, unfortunately for Trump, he's
trying to clean up the mess that Biden's weakness in
Afghanistan created. I don't think it's coincidental that we looked
as bad and as haphazard leaving Afghanistan as we did,
and shortly thereafter you had putin invade Ukraine and you
had the Hamas attack that took place where they went
(26:45):
into Israel. I don't think either of these things would
have happened if Trump were in office, and unfortunately, he's
got to now clean up the messes that were created there.
And so much of what Trump is having to do
right now is not even about it and seing the ball.
It's just limiting the disasters that were put in place
by the entire Biden administration, which we talked about yesterday.
(27:08):
But I think increasingly there's going to be a recognition
that Biden was the worst president and anybody's living right
now live the Democrats are going to kick him to
the curb. They don't want to defend him anymore. And
you're starting to see that recognition that basically every choice
he made was the wrong choice. That's hard to do.
It's hard to be in a place where you have
(27:30):
constantly two roads diverging and you take the wrong side
every single time on the choice trail. But that's basically
what Biden did.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
No, I mean, he was known.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
I think it was the former CI director and former
Secretary of Defense Gates who said that Biden was famously
the guy who was wrong on every major four he
was the foreign policy expert who's wrong on every foreign
policy decision of the last forty years. I think that
was something like that was the quote, and it's true.
And when the more you look at Joe Biden, as
(28:01):
I said, I think one of the more interesting time
to come clean moments of the whole Biden book and
the dementia cover up and everything has been that he's
not a good guy. He's not an honest, ethical person,
never has been. He's really a shameless, sleazy politician, and
that has been his calling card all along, and that
(28:22):
he fancied himself because of his grin and his handshake
and his ability to believe his own nonsense some kind
of a foreign policy guru and was brought on as
Obama's VP for that reason.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
Is is wild when he is stunning stuff.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
I just I don't think we talk enough honestly, and
I know it's coming out.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
More and more.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
No one was around Joe Biden more than Barack Obama,
and after being around Joe Biden for multiple years, Obama said, yeah,
I'm going with the Secretary of State. You can't be president.
Biden was wrong on the raid that happened in to
(29:10):
take out Osama bin Laden. I think Obama and his
team knew that Biden was a joke, and I think
the Biden being a joke factor was hidden because of COVID.
And again, history judges over time more accurately. I think
you're already starting to see a recalibration of everything that
Biden did wrong. We'll talk about this, We'll take some
(29:32):
of your calls. Got a bunch of great talkbacks. But
in the meantime, Israeli citizens appreciate the generosity of our
nation and of people like you that have made donations
to help residence in need in this time of need,
more than anything else. Finally, Israeli citizens are being able
to leave their bomb shelters and get a decent night's
sleep after having to constantly scramble in and out of
(29:54):
that situation, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food,
first aid and emergency kits for Israel's most vulnerable people.
Fellowship also making sure hospital's emergency room shelters fully stocked
with critical life saving medical supplies. That's why the Fellowship
(30:15):
needs your gift today to make the work possible. Stand
with Israel. Make your donation today eight eight eight four
eight eight. IFCJ is the phone number, that's eight eight
eight four eight eight IFCJ. You can also go online
at IFCJ dot org. That's IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
We'll open up line, take some calls.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Also, Cracket Coffee, my friends, go to Cracketcoffee dot com.
That is Cracketcoffee dot com and click subscribe or go
start your subscription there. Please, the best coffee you're gonna
get anywhere. Ten percent of our profits goes to the Tunnel,
the Towers Foundation. We've got the Mushroom Coffee, which if
you haven't tried, it's a lot of fun. But just
(31:04):
get your light roast, your dark roast, your get hooked
up with Crockett. And also they've got a lot of
great gear, including these very cool mugs made in America.
They are actually made in Americas. Very insistent on that.
So we're doing it up at Crocket Coffee hoping you
will join us as part of this, uh, this great
American brand, this parallel economy, this revolution of sorts that
(31:25):
conservatives are now building their own companies and you are
building this company alongside us.
Speaker 9 (31:30):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Well, let us get into clay some of our wonderful
talkbacks and calls. Here James in Cedar City, Utah. What's
going on?
Speaker 2 (31:40):
James?
Speaker 6 (31:42):
Hey, I tell you doing you know, it's interest in
blug Usually I find you really intuitive about things. But
a reference moving like turned states liberal. It's not people
like you moving from a liberal place to a conservative place.
Those people aren't aren't scared. It's the liberals that move
from a liberal state and carry their ideology over. A
perfect example is you know a Nevada. Nevada used to
(32:04):
be a solid red state. Well, liberals from California moved in.
It turned blue and then kind of purple. Same with Colorado,
and if you go far enough back, Washington and Oregon
were like that. So it's not people aren't worried about
people like you. It's the ideology where they just don't
connect their voting history with the problems. And and just
(32:25):
one other quick point of what you guys talked about,
and I know you guys have a lot of influence.
I'd be really curious you talked about Biden voting against
the Osama bin Laden I'd be curious, why don't you
guys ask a reporter because I've never heard him go
on the record, did you actually vote against that? And
just just to get him on the record, I would
be really curious.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Well, he doesn't. He doesn't.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
I mean, obviously he was the vice president. He doesn't vote,
but his his It's been widely reported that he was
in discussions in the White House about the bin Laden raid,
that he was opposed to it. So that's and that's
not you can find that with a quick Google search.
But obviously he don't and actually formally vote on anything
as the vice president. As your other point, I would
just say it depends where you are and depends what
(33:07):
state people are moving from. But when you have something
like COVID, or when you have a socialist mayor in
the mix or perhaps soon to be in the mix.
The people who will tend to leave in moments like
that are generally more conservative from those blue states. The
longer term migration trends out of a place like California,
(33:29):
that's a little bit of a different, different ball of axe.
I know there have been a lot of Californians that
have moved to Austin, that have moved to Nevada, and
they'll try and Nashville now, but there are Libs who
move from California to some of those places. You can
just look at you can look at the data for
a state like Florida. Since the Great the COVID migration,
(33:51):
Florida is much much redder than it previously was. There's
no question about that. So I would say probably three
out of four people who moved down here were Republicans
if you just look at the registration change.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
Look, this was a major concern that a lot of
people in my home state of Tennessee had, and I
have met so many people from my area of the
country that came specifically because of the politics and are
actually redder than the people that they are moving in
alongside of. And that's why I'm less concerned.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Now.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
If you live in Nevada. As he mentioned, if you
live in Arizona, if you live in North Carolina, frankly,
if you live in Georgia, there has certainly been a
lot of liberal relocation that has impacted things. But where
I am, and in fact, we've got somebody who had
a nice comment. I think it was Aa talking about
she came up from Alabama visited where I live in Franklin, Tennessee,
(34:50):
which I think is the greatest place on the planet.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Can we hear that talk back?
Speaker 11 (34:54):
I was in Franklin this past weekend celebrating our birthdays
with my granddaughter, and I was reminded of how beautiful
this area of the country is and how fortunate you
are to live here. The rolling Green Hills, the beautiful
horse farms, Annabella mansions, historical homes and sites. It's just gorgeous.
I feel like you, Laura and the boys a part
(35:16):
of my extended family, since I spend as much time
each day with you and Buck as I do my husband.
Speaker 6 (35:23):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
But yes, Franklin, Tennessee is kind of utopia. Williamson County,
Tennessee is kind of utopia, and we want to keep
it that way. And I tend to think that the
people that are moving are making it more such. But
I understand the nervousness if you love where you live.
Right now, there is a theory that people are like
moths they destroy because, let's be honest, California, Washington, and
(35:48):
Oregon kind of the most beautiful places almost in the world.
When you just talk about the pure geography and the
majesty of many of those cities and what they look like,
and the people there have allowed them to be destroyed.
They're like moths. They have destroyed that area and then
they move on to a new area and they don't
(36:08):
connect the fact that their politics are what created it
and they start to destroy me.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
You mean Locus away like, yeah, moths are not as
scary Clay. I was like, why are you throwing moths
under the bus?
Speaker 9 (36:18):
Well?
Speaker 1 (36:18):
They could make holes in your jackets in there, like
one or two. It's the locusts that really Freakypucas is
the buk that I wanted to reference there. You're like
Locus coming and destroying. I was like, is it months now?
I think it's Locus. That's the fear that when people
move from blue states that they're going to like a
horde of locusts descend upon places that are otherwise great
and destroy them.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Absolutely all right.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
We're going to come in here with more on the
aftermath of Trump at NATO and the strikes rather the
US strikes on the nuclear facilities, and a whole lot
more stuff, including also your thoughts on whether New York
City mayor Mamdani to be is a hard avinger of
(37:00):
things to come for a crazy Democrat party that We're
gonna have a rocking third hour, my friends, and make
sure you get those lines lit up.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Send in your emails and talkbacks. We'll talk to you soon.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!