June 26, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 1 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show dives into the explosive fallout from a leaked intelligence report questioning the effectiveness of a recent U.S. military strike on Teran. Hosts Clay and Buck, alongside commentary from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, launch a full-throated defense of the mission and President Donald Trump’s leadership, while sharply criticizing the mainstream media for what they describe as politically motivated reporting. The hour opens with a breakdown of the CNN and New York Times leaks, which suggested the strike may have failed. Buck Sexton, drawing on his intelligence background, explains the complexities of identifying leakers and the dangers of politicizing classified information. The hosts argue that the leak was a deliberate attempt by the “deep state” to undermine President Trump’s credibility and military success. Pete Hegseth’s fiery Pentagon press conference is a focal point, where he accuses the press corps of rooting against Trump and downplaying the bravery and precision of U.S. pilots. The segment includes a viral moment where Hegseth is questioned for not explicitly acknowledging female pilots, prompting a broader discussion on gender politics in the military and media. A former female military pilot calls in to express support for Hegseth, dismissing the controversy as media-driven nitpicking. The conversation then shifts to media bias, with Clay and Buck highlighting how left-leaning outlets like MSNBC and The New York Times prioritize partisan attacks over objective journalism. They also explore the influence of Fox News personalities in the Trump administration, praising the communication skills of figures like Hegseth and Dan Bongino. Later in the hour, the hosts discuss the state of the intelligence community, estimating that while military personnel lean pro-Trump (60/40), civilian agencies like the CIA are more ideologically opposed. They revisit the case of Reality Winner as an example of ideological leaks and question the loyalty of some within the intelligence apparatus. The hour also touches on international affairs, including Trump’s NATO summit appearance, where he was humorously referred to as “daddy” by a NATO chief. This leads to a broader discussion on America’s role as the backbone of European security and the need for NATO allies to increase defense spending. Additional segments include commentary on cybersecurity threats, with news of a massive data breach affecting billions of login credentials, and a humorous critique of political correctness in sports, such as the NBA replacing the term “owner” with “governor.”
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:
X - https://x.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in Thursday edition, Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate
all of you rolling with us as we are diving
into the biggest stories of the day and beyond probably,
but also it's going to have a lot of fun
with you as we break down everything going on in
the larger universe. And right off the top here, we
(00:27):
had a big conversation about this yesterday, the fact that
there was a leak to CNN and The New York
Times that suggested the attack on Saturday evening here in
the United States on Tehran was not actually effective, and
that has been pushed back on aggressively. And it started
(00:49):
really early this morning at eight am Eastern, when Pete
Hegseth came out and just went to town on the
press and the reporting surrounded this. Now, I want to
play some of these cuts because it was a pretty
intense press conference, but I'll start with a conversation that
we had yesterday, which was about the challenge the difficulty
(01:12):
of finding out who leaked this information, particularly as it
appears that it may well not have been accurate. So Buck,
you worked in the intelligence community when you saw this
report was leaked, did you think initially, hey, this is
kind of unheard of. Did it totally seem maybe not
(01:35):
a positive thing, but not an unexpected thing. And I
know we talked about this some yesterday, but what are
the difficulties that would be inherent in figuring out who
actually leaked to this because it is certainly classified information.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Well, the fact that somebody would take this to the
press so early on in the process and that it
was already known to be a low confidence assessment just
means somebody wanted to blunt the narrative of Trump is
just kicking ass and making excellent decisions as commander in chief.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
And this war those who said, it's not even a war,
it's a military strike, okay, you know, think of all
the countries that we have had military operations in that
we would not consider ourselves to be at war or
in the midst of a war.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
But Clay, this was meant to.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Have a political ramification, because if you wanted this to
have US national security in mind, if you wanted to
be somebody said, hey, guys, hey, I'm worried about the reactors.
I'm worried that there could still be a lot more here.
We didn't get enough. What you would want is to
wait until you pull together all of the best sources,
(02:48):
get it rock solid, and then work its way up
the chain through the CIA director or the DiiA director
in this case, and then at that point you know
you would have done your due diligence. This wasn't a
due diligence moment. This was somebody who decided I'm going
to be the one who reigns on Trump's parade. Here,
(03:09):
this was an individual. This was a deep stater. This
is someone who did not have the interests of the
United States in mind, but the interests of a very
bitter and weak and feckless looking Democrat machine in mind,
and hope to take away some of the sense of
a bulliance and some of the congratulations that have been
(03:31):
going around, not just for Trump's decision, but for the
men and women who flew the airstrikes themselves, for the
Pentagon pulling this off, the intelligence community for having these
sites mapped out play. It's a big win. But this
would to me, this is a bit like saying somebody
from within the intelligence community after the bin laden raid
is raising concerns that there was really, you know, no
(03:54):
document exploitation that came out of that raid, or maybe
that we didn't even get bin laden. So why would
you do that. You would only do that if you
were trying to hurt Now, of course that didn't happen
because somehow our team doesn't do those kinds of leaks.
That's always a Democrat, left wing thing when there's a
leak of classified to hurt a commander in chief.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
But that's what this was.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
It's very clear there's no way that this person could
have had the level of visibility necessary to with a
Remember it's a low confidence assessment. Clay I was in
the room many times with people from d IA, CIA, NSA,
go down the list all of them, and there were
squabbling over who's right about very important and we were
(04:35):
at war, right, we were in the midst of a war,
and you know things like, hey, could a surge in
Baghdad work to stabilize things? Let me tell you something,
a lot of fighting and dissenting voices over that. The
notion that one person has the keys to the kingdom
on the damage assessment is absurd. It's just a political hit,
(04:57):
and that's why they should go after the leaker.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
All right, so let me play some of these cuts.
This was from the Pentagon earlier today. Secretary of Defense
Pete Hutt Hegseth. I do give a lot of credit.
We've talked about this on the program. They made everybody
get there early eight am Eastern time start for this
to dominate the news cycle for the day. Here's hegseet
(05:20):
blasting the press in particular for these leaks.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
This is cut too.
Speaker 6 (05:26):
Because you, and I mean specifically you, the press, specifically
you the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard.
It's like in your DNA and in your blood to
cheer against Trump because you want him not to be
successful so bad. You have to cheer against the efficacy
(05:46):
of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren't effective,
Maybe the way the Trump administration is representative isn't true.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So let's take half.
Speaker 7 (05:55):
Truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin
it in every way we can to try to cause
doubt and manipulate.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
The mind, the public mind over whether or not our
brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written
about how hard it is to I don't know fly
a plane for thirty six hours. Has MSNBC done that
story as Fox? Have we done the story how hard
that is? Have we done it two or three times
so that American people understand, How about how difficult it
(06:27):
is to shoot a drone from an F fifteen or
sixteen or F twenty two or F thirty five, or
what it's like to man a Patriot battery, or how
hard it is to refuel mid air. Giving the American
people an understanding of how complex and sophisticated this mission
really was. There are so many aspects of what our
brave men and women did that because of the hatred
of this press, corps are undermined because your people are
(06:52):
trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
It's your sponsors.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Okay, so that's one. Let's continue.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
This sounds a little bit like Fox and Friends or
a hit that Pete Hegseth is doing on Fox News.
And it's one reason I think that Trump wanted him
in this position because he is a very talented communicator,
and that matters in this world where you are really
having to lace on the gloves and go head to
(07:19):
head with the press every single day. Here's cut three
more on Hegseth saying, the classified information, as you said, Buck,
is leaked to try and harm Trump cut three.
Speaker 5 (07:31):
Time and time again.
Speaker 6 (07:32):
Classified information is leaked or pedaled for political purposes, to
try to make the president look bad. And what's really
happening is you're undermining the success of incredible B two
pilots and incredible F thirty five pilots, and incredible refuelers
and incredible air defenders who accomplish their mission set back
a nuclear program in ways that other presidents would have dreamed.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
How about we celebrate that.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
How about we talked about how special America is that
we only we have these capabilities.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
I think it's too much to ask.
Speaker 5 (08:02):
Unfortunately for the fake news, so we're used.
Speaker 6 (08:05):
To that, but we also have an oportunity to stand
at the podium and read the truth of what's really happening.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
And the reality is.
Speaker 6 (08:12):
You want to call it destroyed, you want to call
it defeated, you want to call it obliterated.
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Choose your word.
Speaker 6 (08:18):
This was an historically successful attack and we should celebrate
it as Americans. And it gives us a chance to
have peace, chance to have a deal, and an opportunity
to prevent a nuclear Iran, which is something President Trump
talked about for twenty years.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
I mean guns blazing here. I don't think we mentioned
the New York Times getting upset about the fact that
heg Seth praised our boys, and so he was actually asked,
we have this cut. And I couldn't believe he was
actually asked, why not acknowledge female pilots that participated instead
(08:53):
of congratulating the boys?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
This is cut for why not.
Speaker 8 (08:57):
Acknowledge the female pilots that also participated in this mission.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
The early messages that you sent out only congratulated the boys.
So when I say something like our boys and bombers, see,
this is the kind of thing the press does.
Speaker 8 (09:08):
Right.
Speaker 6 (09:08):
Of course, the chairman mentioned a female bomber pilot. That's fantastic.
She's fantastic, She's a hero. I want more female bomber pilots.
I hope the men and women of our country sign
up to do such brave and audacious things. But when
you spin it as because I say our boys and
bombers is a common phrase, I'll keep saying things like that,
whether they're men or women. Very proud of that female pilot,
just like I'm very proud of those male pilots, and
(09:30):
I don't care if it's a male or a female
in that cockpit, and the American people don't care. But
it's the obsession with race and gender in this department
that's changed priorities. And we don't do that anymore. We
don't play your little games.
Speaker 5 (09:44):
I love this.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I mean, I hopefully that's a real question he got
to ask. But it's good that we see that.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
This is what the press still pretends is their job,
right is to push They're just asking questions. We'll get
to Jake Tapper's latest on that. Really they're always pushing
an agenda. No one thinks that Pete Hegseth was undermining
any woman who This is a bit like saying, hey,
when you when you were talking, you said, hey, you guys,
great job. Why didn't you say you guys and girls?
(10:10):
I mean, it's absurd, it's it's childish, it's it's focused
on nothing. But I also think that what the shows
you play is in these you know, the media, the
non Fox media and the Democrat media, the non aligned
leftist media. They have been making a lot of jokes
about how Fox News essentially has staffed this Trump administration.
(10:33):
And what's interesting is, yeah, guess what. Now you've got
people who are both qualified to do the job, people
like Dan Bongino and and Hegseth and others who are
also really good at media and comms themselves. Yes, and
so if you think back to other times, we've had
people who are running, you know, Department of Defense, We've
had people who were in these kinds of cabinet level position,
(10:56):
Secretary of Say, look look at Secretary of Say Rubio.
I mean that guy might as well have been a
Fox contributor for the last decade. He's been on Fox,
you know, as much as anybody. They're good at this,
and so the ability that the media has to attack them,
trip them up, undermine them, and then focus on that
instead of what's actually happening is vastly diminished. I mean
(11:16):
it's almost non existent at this point.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Can you imagine being a Pentagon news reporter and we
just had the strike that we did on Iran and
you get a limited amount of time to ask questions
and a limited amount of things that you can even
ask about because they're only going to be whatever it is.
Five six seven people called on that. That would be
the thing that you went in as a Pentagon reporter
(11:41):
to focus on was the fact that one female was
there and said when the when he said the boys
in the planes or whatever the heck used to be,
that that would be your focus.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
It even is stunning to me.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Still this all makes sense, though, because their job. If
you work for the Washington Post and you're in the
Pentagon briefing room, or work for the New York Times
and you're in the White House, the only way you're
going to get any attention and that your readership, which
is hyper partisan, is going to like your reporting is
if you manage to attack successfully, get them to stumble,
(12:16):
get to pull some sound bite.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
They don't actually care about the information.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
They don't They're not there to ask relevant, reasonable questions
and get back objective data for the American people. They
are there to be partisan attack dogs, and so if
they don't do that, they're not actually serving the purposes
of their paper.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
I get the part as an attack dog thing, but
to think that your audience is obsessed because he used
the word boys and did you see.
Speaker 5 (12:50):
Who asked that question? Did you see who asked that question?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
She's been wagging her finger at people for saying you
guys for the last twenty years, I guarantee you.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
I just I can't believe that that is real.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
And by the way, the New York Times got savaged
in their live chat because they had a male reporter
who said, in real time, Hey, well, actually you know
there was a girl. First of all, when the idea
that boys and girls or guys or we all understand
the concept, I mean, I imagine it comes from the
(13:25):
boys in the bombers is also a phrase boys in
the boat, which was one of the best selling books,
A great book by the way. But is there are
there any women that were actually offended by that? I
just the fact that that would be a question that's
asked of the Secretary of Defense in a limited public
availability situation where he doesn't answer a lot of questions,
(13:48):
is actually even for left wing media, I think a
huge embarrassment for them. Look heads up, everybody, Another massive
data breach has happened. Sixteen billion, team billion. The log
in credentials have been leaked Apple, Google, Facebook password stolen
using malware, sixteen billion of them. Eventually they're going to
(14:11):
end up on the dark web. Important to understand how
cybercrime and Identity theft are affecting our lives. Lots of
places can accidentally expose your personal info. That's why LifeLock
monitors millions of data points a second for risk to
your identity. And remember, when you're a LifeLock member, you
can become a victim of identity theft, but you will
(14:32):
immediately have a dedicated US based LifeLock restoration specialist to
fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Join now, say
forty percent off your first year with my name Clay
as the promo code. That's one eight hundred LifeLock to
go online to LifeLock dot com promo code Clay for
forty percent off. That's LifeLock dot com promo code Clay.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
We were just talking a moment ago about the way
the press is covering the nuclear strikes, these strikes.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
On the nuclear facilities.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
You can tell that there are a lot of anti
Trump reporters who aren't happy about this. This is a
problem that has bedeviled the American body politic and really
the international community such as it exists, or at least
the Western world and our allies in Israel for a
long time, and it has been, if not solved, it
(15:32):
has certainly been made a whole lot better, but there
are people who don't want to see it that way,
and there are people who also want to find every
excuse to try to attack and undermine this administration on
this issue. This is a talkback listener Marie. She's a
former military pilot. This is what she thinks about the
nitpicking that was going on play BB.
Speaker 8 (15:53):
As a former military officer and a pilot. I actually
don't care if they say the boys in the cockpit,
and I'm actually glad we're saying cockpit again and not
the box. This is Marie from Florida. Have a great day, guys,
love your show.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
Thank you, Mary, We love it you listen. She's totally spotting.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Indeed, I forgot that they were trying to do away
with the phrase cockpit because they decided that it was
too gendered, which is very funny in and of itself.
But I I just my expectations for media in press.
Cocks are very low.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
They mascot the game cocks.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Oh yeah, South Carolina game cocks. Yeah, cocky, cocky, the
game cock is South Carolina game coy. Look at you
on the sports mascot recall. You know what I'm saying,
I'm learning.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
I'm learning as I go here because I've seen hats
where people wear them and I realized, oh, that's what
they're referring to South Carolina, the mascot. So there we go.
But yes, I don't think this is also Clay. The
people who actually do this stuff, It's so funny. This
is true across a wide range of things. The people
who are the one on the front lines, whether it's
military or just whatever it is, they don't have the
(17:04):
time to get into this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
It's always other.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
People on their behalf whinding about it. You know.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
I do not think any woman in the military who
actually flies in combat missions.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Luke Pete, Secretary Defense, did great job. Guys.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
I'm upset now, and quite honestly, if anyone did feel
that way, I would question their fitness to continue to
be in high stress, demanding roles.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
You should be more focused on other stuff.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
I do agree with Pete.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Hegseth though, that because I shared one story from the
New York Post about how incredible the fact that these
guys and the gal. When I say guys, by the way,
I mean guys and gals. I don't want to get
to fact checked here. They were in the plane for
thirty six straight hours, they refueled in the air. It
is a pretty incredible accomplishment that hasn't been talked about
(17:51):
enough what they were able to do.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
When I first came across the story, I thought, this
is one you need to hear. We'll see why in
a moment. For over one hundred and sixty years, a
one hundred and fifty trillion with a T dollar asset
has been buried under American soil. This is a wild speculation,
it's documented fact. This endowment, so to speak, is so
large it could pay off our national debt four times over.
But why has it been kept secret for so long?
(18:17):
The answer will make your head spin. But thanks to
Supreme Court decision that Trump administration could soon release that
endowment to the public. Jim Rickards, former advisor of the
White House in Federal Reserve, says, if you're over fifty,
this could be your best chance to build lasting wealth
from a once in a century event. It's a big statement.
To hear more of what Jim has to say, go
online to birthright twenty twenty five dot com. Now, if
(18:39):
he's right, it could make President Trump the most popular
president in history and help millions of investors retire wealthy.
Go to Birthright twenty twenty five dot com to get
the details free of charge, paid for by Paradigm Press
(19:00):
talking about this off the air.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
But Pete Hexset only has one person that he has
to be concerned about. And Donald Trump loved, loved that
press conference with every fiber of his being, and so
it is not a surprise that that would have registered
well with Trump.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
But did you see this morning?
Speaker 2 (19:23):
I was up early, Buck, and one of the first
things I saw was that the Supreme Leader of Iran
Is is sharing tweets about how they won the war.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Did you do you saw these tweets?
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Oh, I think he's going to get a contract at
MSNBC any moment.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I saw that line, very good line. Do you know
our buddy Keith Oberman, formerly maybe the most influential person
on the left on television in America, shared those four
tweets uncritical and said Trump is being dishonest.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
He now is more likely.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
This is this is where Trump derangement syndrome really leads
you that you are looking at the Ayatola Komens tweets
and you are considering them to be more accurate than
you are what Donald Trump is saying, because that is
what Keith Olberman, he of the totally broken Brain, has done,
(20:26):
and it led me into the thought process because we
were talking about the intelligence leak. What percentage of people
that are in the intelligence community do you think are
rooting for Donald Trump to be successful? Because in an
ideal world, you should want in the intelligence community, I
(20:47):
would think for the President of the United States to
be supremely successful because it means the country is doing well.
And if you're in the intelligence community, ostensibly you are
rooting for the country to be doing better. You're putting
your labor towards it happening. How broken do you think
the intelligence community is? Would fifty percent of people be
(21:09):
rooting for Trump to fail just because even though it
would theoretically hurt their their ability to do good job?
Speaker 6 (21:16):
Like?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
How broken?
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Internally?
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Do you think you'd have to slice? You'd have to
slice this pie pretty uh, with pretty clear specificity. I
think to try to get a general sense of it,
and here's how I could do it for you. So
in tons community is huge. I think it's seventeen agencies now.
When I was in it was sixteen. I think they've
added one or I can't, And people say you were in.
(21:37):
Can I name them all off the top of my head?
If I wrote them out, I probably could. You know,
obviously the big ones I could rattle off. But you
know there's like National Geospatial Intelligence Agency there.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
You know, there's there's stuff. You know, there's State Department.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Roll back into my head even thinking about all these governments,
there's State Department.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
I in R, Intelligence and Research, which is what I mean.
There's all this like it really is. You know, you
got I get really deep into the bowels of this thing. Okay,
you're asking, though, what percent of the intel community supports Trump?
The first big cleavage, if you will, is.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Got my attention.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Now, Yeah, I was gonna say, Clay perked up. I
mean separation. The first big separation is between military and civilian,
meaning that if you're looking at places like DIA, and
then you look within even places like CIA and and others,
there are a lot you know NSA, there are a
lot of active duty mill and active duty military people
(22:33):
are about sixty forty pro Trump, sixty forty percent Democrat overall. Now,
when you hone that down into war fighters, infantry, special operations,
it gets a lot more like eighty twenty ninety ten.
But the big mill, big military, you're looking at something
like sixty forty. And then within these so separate that out.
(22:56):
So if you're in a place like DA, yeah, I
would think that you'd probably have a little better than
sixty forty overall support for Trump there, just in a
general sense, but I think that ten to twenty percent
of the people working there really hate Trump and really
would want to subvert Trump in some way.
Speaker 5 (23:13):
I think it's higher at.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
The CIA because it's a civilian agency, and it's really
a lot higher when you get into the analyst cadre,
not the case officers, not the paramilitary, but you get
into the analyst cadre, which I was a part of.
And although when I was first coming in, they're like,
you should be a case officer, like you're very you know,
you're smooth with people, and I was like, no, I'm
(23:35):
a nerd.
Speaker 5 (23:36):
I am.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I am going to be wearing a jacket with tweed
and with the elbow patches.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
And this is like my argument that we're good looking
for radio guys. I would imagine, Yeah, this is the
standard that is quite inside the intelligence community. Being good
with people is a very broad, broad university category for.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
See for the average CIA. I think I was probably
pretty suave. It doesn't mean I'm swave in the general sense. Yes,
it's kind of like we are Clay and I are
basically bikini models of the radio world, which again is
not saying that we are you know, yes.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
For for sports press box status, I might as well
be fabio.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
It is the of the I saw it and I
was at I was taking it. I was like, wow, Wow,
it's quite a scene in here.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
And look, I mean, for people who cover sports, a
lot of them look like they haven't ever seen the
sun in like in like eight years.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
You know, it is a very pallid room. The good
news is.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
That they look like they watch a lot of sports
and don't do anything else. Uh However, back to a
intel and the deep state component of this, so I
think that it's really hard to get a uh a,
you know, a percentage that would be accurate because people
obviously aren't filling out surveys and sharing this. So I'm
just giving you a snapshot of what I know of
the cultures of these different places, and it's been a
(24:54):
while since I've been in So that's basic based in
large part on how it has always been. And then
what I know from friend of mine who are still there.
And this is part of the challenge of trying to
clean it up, is it's not like it's a little
bit like dealing with an insurgency. Yeah, it'd be a
lot easier if they wore uniforms and said, we're the
bad guys. We're trying to you know, shoot at your
people when they're driving through the streets, shoot at your soldiers. No,
(25:16):
they say we're not, We're good, we're civilians. We didn't
do anything. And the deep state right now is certainly
in a period of, if not remission, something, you know,
a bit of hiding. And I think that's where you
get most of the challenge and trying to root them out.
The leak that came out, though, I mean, that's somebody
(25:36):
who thinks that he is doing some or he or
she is doing some great service. You remember there was
that leak, wasn't it the first Trump administration? And the
name was the name of the woman was crazy Reality Winner.
Oh yeah, Reality Winner. She was an NSA translator. And
(25:57):
I'm trying to remember the year twenty twenty one. Anyway,
whatever the point is, she came out and she shared
she gave some top secret document to a website and
she end up going to prison for a long time
for it, and she didn't accomplish anything by it, and
people wanted to call her a whistleblower. And it's just like,
don't do that, don't do this thing, don't betray your oath,
don't break the law. Not smart, And so you have
(26:18):
to be really ideologically kind of a radical clay.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Think about this.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
You're risking prison time. You're risking prison time because you
think you can help shift the conversation. You've got to
be a little delusional to believe that.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
And also you have to on some level be rooting
against your own country, right, because I think I'm old
fashioned in this sense probably, but I would like to
think that if you are a government employee, irrespective of
whether it's a Democrat or Republican, that you want the
president to have success because having success probably means less
(26:55):
American troops are going to die, more world peace, peace
people make more money. Right, I mean, like just the
basic things before you get into the policy that helps
to make that happen, and I am not at all
surprised that the leak came out when it did. And
it just feels to me so toxic, and I think
that's why heckseth and I give them credit. Man, these
(27:19):
early morning press conferences, it's a little bit like making
the media run, because you know when you would do
a bad job and a team and your coach would
be like, all right, get on the line. You're gonna
run today. When you make the media get there at
eight am, they hate it. They have to be up
at six am. They got a rush.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
And do you control you still as a coach? Do
you still call that running? We used to call it
when I was playing sports, running suicides. I feel like
that's probably is that still what it said or is it.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
Now running sides?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yeah, probably still called suicides. I mean, I don't think
people are like, hey, we want you to kill yourself
at the end of these right, But I'm just saying
people are very sensitive about the words now. So you know, kids,
I feel like if you're at a school and you
tell if you're a coach and you blow the whistle,
you're like, hey, everybody on the line, we're running suicides.
Like how dare They replaced disabled list with injured list
(28:13):
I believe in baseball because it was offensive.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
And this is the craziest one.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
They replaced the word owner in the NBA with governor
because owner, they said, sounded too much.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Like it might be slavery.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
I did not know that. That is truly nuts.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
They called the owners of NBA franchises governors now because
some players complained and said, owner makes it sound like
you actually own us, and it like connotes slavery. And
so the NBA was like, you know what, morons, You're right,
let's change it to governors. So now it sounds like
(28:54):
you're some sort of you know, British British like head
of a head of company.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Because of words, speaking of words that are used the
best words, some people use the best words of all words.
This was referring to the NATO summit that Trump was
a part of. Sky News reporter asked Trump about the
NATO chief calling him daddy.
Speaker 5 (29:18):
This has cut one play it, Mark writter.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
The NATO chief, who is your friend?
Speaker 5 (29:23):
He called you daddy earlier?
Speaker 7 (29:27):
Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of children?
Speaker 5 (29:31):
No, he likes me. I think he likes me.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
If he doesn't, I'll let you know. I'll come back
and I'll.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
Hit him hard. Okay, he did.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
He did it very affectionate. Daddy here, my daddy.
Speaker 5 (29:44):
Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
I mean, I think Trump could have very easily, Yes,
Trump could have very easily said yes, America is the
dad of Europe. Were bigger, badder, bolder than all of you.
And so if you had to give us a familiar
familial name, it would be America's Europe's daddy, which would
have been very funny too.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
They mean, if Russian tanks did start rolling into the
Baltics or start rolling into you know, Poland, what would
be I mean, the first call from pretty much everybody
in Europe, from all the prime ministers, presidents, etc.
Speaker 8 (30:16):
Et.
Speaker 5 (30:17):
Donald Trump. That's a fact.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
They'd be like Trump, run to Trump right away and
then then run to our military. So and Trump's trying
to prevent that, which is why he wants them to
be able to provide for their own security.
Speaker 5 (30:28):
Think about that, by the way. You know a lot
of people like we could.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
Have socialism is great, and look at these countries in
Europe and actually they're not socialist countries. Their countries with
high taxation, large welfare states, but they don't have government
control of industry. Even places like Denmark, for example, have
very free markets. It's just a question of how they
tax and how they spend, but it's actually not government
control of industry.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Which is really what you have in classical socialism.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Putting that aside for a second, it's also a lot
easier to have free you know, to spend money on.
Speaker 5 (30:59):
Health in the UK. The healthcare is trash, by the way,
especially the dentistry. It's bad.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
It's easy to do that when somebody else has got
your back, and it's like, if you get invaded or
you have a big national security problem, we're gonna roll
in with the heavy cavalry and take care of you.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
Europe gets a free ride on.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
As Trump sees this, I've got a funny email that
may get me in trouble, but I'm gonna read it anyway.
Speaker 5 (31:22):
Buck.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Karen writes in and says.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Beware, I no longer have filters, even some of the
polite ones which you got my attention right off the bat.
She says, if it's cockpits offensive, should we call where
a female pilot is the pussy pit? Moronic? Hysterical? Karen
very good email. She doesn't have a filter, buck and
(31:48):
if you're upset, be mad at Karen. And I gotta
tell everybody out there, Look, we've been dealing with all
sorts of chaos, all sorts of challenges, all of ridiculousness
all throughout Israel and the people that have been doing
the best to help take care of what's going on
(32:10):
in Israel. From a American perspective, I honestly mean this,
with all of the work that you guys are helping
to provide, with all of the allies. There is the
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. I saw for myself
what they do on the ground, free meals for people
that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford meals, bomb shelters
(32:31):
for people that otherwise wouldn't have access to bomb shelters,
bulletper vehicles for first responders. They are doing incredible work
and the Fellowship can do so much more if you
guys continue to provide the support that you have, and
that's what I'm gonna encourage you to do today as well.
You can go online to IFCJ dot org and make
(32:55):
a tremendous difference there, but you can also call if
you would rather eight eight eight four eight eight if
CJ again, IFCJ dot org. I saw the work these
guys do for myself when I was in Israel. It's incredible.
Eight eight eight four eight eight if CJIFCJ dot org
(33:16):
is the website, they could use your help more now
than ever. That's if CJ dot org.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
I'm sitting here drinking some Rocket coffee. It's delicious.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
You know what I actually did with mine? I mixed
a little bit. This is a carry hack for the
hot summer days here in Miami. I mixed a little
bit of coconut watering with my Crocket coffee. It's actually
quite quite delicioso.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
Big fan.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
But Crockett on its own is fantastic. Go to Cracket
Coffee dot com. Please subscribe temp some of the prophits
because of the towers. Get yourself some gear the Crockett
Camo hat. All the cool kids are wearing it. The
mugs are sturdy and made in America. An over Mountain
mug for yourself over Mountain, Over Mountain Club. And you
can also get a sign copy of Clay's American Playbook
if you use code book so it is the best
(34:08):
coffee anywhere.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
The hoodies my my teenage boys where they're super comfortable,
and one of my teenage boys has the hoodie on today.
We're running around in northern Michigan, a little bit chilly
up here compared to the rest of the country that's baking.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
It's actually great. But he was rocking the hoodie.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
It's in the sixties for a high up here right now,
and so it's pretty comfortable gear he was.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
He was singing its praises and.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Wow, hoodies. I haven't thought about hoodies in quite a
while down here. It's different vibes in South Florida. Kathy
from Or Again, you want to weigh in what's going on, Well.
Speaker 9 (34:46):
I wanted to put my two cents in on the
women being included in the one of the boys. I
am an Army veteran. I was air traffic control, not
a pilot. But I grew up with three brothers and
no sisters, and any.
Speaker 8 (35:04):
Time I was.
Speaker 9 (35:07):
Called one of the boys, I felt proud, included and
very exuberant. It made me feel like I counted.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Thank you for the call.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
Look I coached. I've mentioned this before. I think I
coached a lot of different sports league' Buck. One of
the leagues was ten year old and the best player
on our team was a girl. And early on I
was like, look, I'm not going to just signal you
out every time and say boys and you know girl name.
So I said, I'm just going to call all of
you guys and that is a general term, instead of
(35:45):
having to refer to your sexes all the time. She's,
by the way, the best player on the team. I
think she's going to be a heck of a women's
softball player one day. It's probably already is. But I
think just using generic terms, we don't all even need
to take offense and you're not being excluded in the context.
And really, again the idea that that would be the
(36:07):
focal point, that you have a limited number of questions
that you can ever ask of the of the Defense Secretary,
of the President of the United States, the ones that
you choose to ask in that context tell us more
about you than I think them.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
And it just showed me how broken.
Speaker 5 (36:22):
The media is. What you got for us.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Top of the next hour, Buck, where are we headed?
Speaker 3 (36:26):
Oh, it's going to be a magical journey, my friends.
We've got more on the new York City mayor's race,
the wave of socialist fervor that is now at least
sweeping through the Democrat Party.
Speaker 5 (36:40):
We will discuss
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and Buck
Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome in Thursday edition, Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate
all of you rolling with us as we are diving
into the biggest stories of the day and beyond probably,
but also it's going to have a lot of fun
with you as we break down everything going on in
the larger universe. And right off the top here, we
(00:27):
had a big conversation about this yesterday, the fact that
there was a leak to CNN and The New York
Times that suggested the attack on Saturday evening here in
the United States on Tehran was not actually effective, and
that has been pushed back on aggressively. And it started
(00:49):
really early this morning at eight am Eastern, when Pete
Hegseth came out and just went to town on the
press and the reporting surrounded this. Now, I want to
play some of these cuts because it was a pretty
intense press conference, but I'll start with a conversation that
we had yesterday, which was about the challenge the difficulty
(01:12):
of finding out who leaked this information, particularly as it
appears that it may well not have been accurate. So Buck,
you worked in the intelligence community when you saw this
report was leaked, did you think initially, hey, this is
kind of unheard of. Did it totally seem maybe not
(01:35):
a positive thing, but not an unexpected thing. And I
know we talked about this some yesterday, but what are
the difficulties that would be inherent in figuring out who
actually leaked to this because it is certainly classified information.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Well, the fact that somebody would take this to the
press so early on in the process and that it
was already known to be a low confidence assessment just
means somebody wanted to blunt the narrative of Trump is
just kicking ass and making excellent decisions as commander in chief.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
And this war those who said, it's not even a war,
it's a military strike, okay, you know, think of all
the countries that we have had military operations in that
we would not consider ourselves to be at war or
in the midst of a war.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
But Clay, this was meant to.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Have a political ramification, because if you wanted this to
have US national security in mind, if you wanted to
be somebody said, hey, guys, hey, I'm worried about the reactors.
I'm worried that there could still be a lot more here.
We didn't get enough. What you would want is to
wait until you pull together all of the best sources,
(02:48):
get it rock solid, and then work its way up
the chain through the CIA director or the DiiA director
in this case, and then at that point you know
you would have done your due diligence. This wasn't a
due diligence moment. This was somebody who decided I'm going
to be the one who reigns on Trump's parade. Here,
(03:09):
this was an individual. This was a deep stater. This
is someone who did not have the interests of the
United States in mind, but the interests of a very
bitter and weak and feckless looking Democrat machine in mind,
and hope to take away some of the sense of
a bulliance and some of the congratulations that have been
(03:31):
going around, not just for Trump's decision, but for the
men and women who flew the airstrikes themselves, for the
Pentagon pulling this off, the intelligence community for having these
sites mapped out play. It's a big win. But this
would to me, this is a bit like saying somebody
from within the intelligence community after the bin laden raid
is raising concerns that there was really, you know, no
(03:54):
document exploitation that came out of that raid, or maybe
that we didn't even get bin laden. So why would
you do that. You would only do that if you
were trying to hurt Now, of course that didn't happen
because somehow our team doesn't do those kinds of leaks.
That's always a Democrat, left wing thing when there's a
leak of classified to hurt a commander in chief.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
But that's what this was.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
It's very clear there's no way that this person could
have had the level of visibility necessary to with a
Remember it's a low confidence assessment. Clay I was in
the room many times with people from d IA, CIA, NSA,
go down the list all of them, and there were
squabbling over who's right about very important and we were
(04:35):
at war, right, we were in the midst of a war,
and you know things like, hey, could a surge in
Baghdad work to stabilize things? Let me tell you something,
a lot of fighting and dissenting voices over that. The
notion that one person has the keys to the kingdom
on the damage assessment is absurd. It's just a political hit,
(04:57):
and that's why they should go after the leaker.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
All right, so let me play some of these cuts.
This was from the Pentagon earlier today. Secretary of Defense
Pete Hutt Hegseth. I do give a lot of credit.
We've talked about this on the program. They made everybody
get there early eight am Eastern time start for this
to dominate the news cycle for the day. Here's hegseet
(05:20):
blasting the press in particular for these leaks.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
This is cut too.
Speaker 6 (05:26):
Because you, and I mean specifically you, the press, specifically
you the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard.
It's like in your DNA and in your blood to
cheer against Trump because you want him not to be
successful so bad. You have to cheer against the efficacy
(05:46):
of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren't effective,
Maybe the way the Trump administration is representative isn't true.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So let's take half.
Speaker 7 (05:55):
Truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin
it in every way we can to try to cause
doubt and manipulate.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
The mind, the public mind over whether or not our
brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written
about how hard it is to I don't know fly
a plane for thirty six hours. Has MSNBC done that
story as Fox? Have we done the story how hard
that is? Have we done it two or three times
so that American people understand, How about how difficult it
(06:27):
is to shoot a drone from an F fifteen or
sixteen or F twenty two or F thirty five, or
what it's like to man a Patriot battery, or how
hard it is to refuel mid air. Giving the American
people an understanding of how complex and sophisticated this mission
really was. There are so many aspects of what our
brave men and women did that because of the hatred
of this press, corps are undermined because your people are
(06:52):
trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
It's your sponsors.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Okay, so that's one. Let's continue.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
This sounds a little bit like Fox and Friends or
a hit that Pete Hegseth is doing on Fox News.
And it's one reason I think that Trump wanted him
in this position because he is a very talented communicator,
and that matters in this world where you are really
having to lace on the gloves and go head to
(07:19):
head with the press every single day. Here's cut three
more on Hegseth saying, the classified information, as you said, Buck,
is leaked to try and harm Trump cut three.
Speaker 5 (07:31):
Time and time again.
Speaker 6 (07:32):
Classified information is leaked or pedaled for political purposes, to
try to make the president look bad. And what's really
happening is you're undermining the success of incredible B two
pilots and incredible F thirty five pilots, and incredible refuelers
and incredible air defenders who accomplish their mission set back
a nuclear program in ways that other presidents would have dreamed.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
How about we celebrate that.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
How about we talked about how special America is that
we only we have these capabilities.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
I think it's too much to ask.
Speaker 5 (08:02):
Unfortunately for the fake news, so we're used.
Speaker 6 (08:05):
To that, but we also have an oportunity to stand
at the podium and read the truth of what's really happening.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
And the reality is.
Speaker 6 (08:12):
You want to call it destroyed, you want to call
it defeated, you want to call it obliterated.
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Choose your word.
Speaker 6 (08:18):
This was an historically successful attack and we should celebrate
it as Americans. And it gives us a chance to
have peace, chance to have a deal, and an opportunity
to prevent a nuclear Iran, which is something President Trump
talked about for twenty years.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
I mean guns blazing here. I don't think we mentioned
the New York Times getting upset about the fact that
heg Seth praised our boys, and so he was actually asked,
we have this cut. And I couldn't believe he was
actually asked, why not acknowledge female pilots that participated instead
(08:53):
of congratulating the boys?
Speaker 1 (08:55):
This is cut for why not.
Speaker 8 (08:57):
Acknowledge the female pilots that also participated in this mission.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
The early messages that you sent out only congratulated the boys.
So when I say something like our boys and bombers, see,
this is the kind of thing the press does.
Speaker 8 (09:08):
Right.
Speaker 6 (09:08):
Of course, the chairman mentioned a female bomber pilot. That's fantastic.
She's fantastic, She's a hero. I want more female bomber pilots.
I hope the men and women of our country sign
up to do such brave and audacious things. But when
you spin it as because I say our boys and
bombers is a common phrase, I'll keep saying things like that,
whether they're men or women. Very proud of that female pilot,
just like I'm very proud of those male pilots, and
(09:30):
I don't care if it's a male or a female
in that cockpit, and the American people don't care. But
it's the obsession with race and gender in this department
that's changed priorities. And we don't do that anymore. We
don't play your little games.
Speaker 5 (09:44):
I love this.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I mean, I hopefully that's a real question he got
to ask. But it's good that we see that.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
This is what the press still pretends is their job,
right is to push They're just asking questions. We'll get
to Jake Tapper's latest on that. Really they're always pushing
an agenda. No one thinks that Pete Hegseth was undermining
any woman who This is a bit like saying, hey,
when you when you were talking, you said, hey, you guys,
great job. Why didn't you say you guys and girls?
(10:10):
I mean, it's absurd, it's it's childish, it's it's focused
on nothing. But I also think that what the shows
you play is in these you know, the media, the
non Fox media and the Democrat media, the non aligned
leftist media. They have been making a lot of jokes
about how Fox News essentially has staffed this Trump administration.
(10:33):
And what's interesting is, yeah, guess what. Now you've got
people who are both qualified to do the job, people
like Dan Bongino and and Hegseth and others who are
also really good at media and comms themselves. Yes, and
so if you think back to other times, we've had
people who are running, you know, Department of Defense, We've
had people who were in these kinds of cabinet level position,
(10:56):
Secretary of Say, look look at Secretary of Say Rubio.
I mean that guy might as well have been a
Fox contributor for the last decade. He's been on Fox,
you know, as much as anybody. They're good at this,
and so the ability that the media has to attack them,
trip them up, undermine them, and then focus on that
instead of what's actually happening is vastly diminished. I mean
(11:16):
it's almost non existent at this point.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Can you imagine being a Pentagon news reporter and we
just had the strike that we did on Iran and
you get a limited amount of time to ask questions
and a limited amount of things that you can even
ask about because they're only going to be whatever it is.
Five six seven people called on that. That would be
the thing that you went in as a Pentagon reporter
(11:41):
to focus on was the fact that one female was
there and said when the when he said the boys
in the planes or whatever the heck used to be,
that that would be your focus.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
It even is stunning to me.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Still this all makes sense, though, because their job. If
you work for the Washington Post and you're in the
Pentagon briefing room, or work for the New York Times
and you're in the White House, the only way you're
going to get any attention and that your readership, which
is hyper partisan, is going to like your reporting is
if you manage to attack successfully, get them to stumble,
(12:16):
get to pull some sound bite.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
They don't actually care about the information.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
They don't They're not there to ask relevant, reasonable questions
and get back objective data for the American people. They
are there to be partisan attack dogs, and so if
they don't do that, they're not actually serving the purposes
of their paper.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
I get the part as an attack dog thing, but
to think that your audience is obsessed because he used
the word boys and did you see.
Speaker 5 (12:50):
Who asked that question? Did you see who asked that question?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
She's been wagging her finger at people for saying you
guys for the last twenty years, I guarantee you.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
I just I can't believe that that is real.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
And by the way, the New York Times got savaged
in their live chat because they had a male reporter
who said, in real time, Hey, well, actually you know
there was a girl. First of all, when the idea
that boys and girls or guys or we all understand
the concept, I mean, I imagine it comes from the
(13:25):
boys in the bombers is also a phrase boys in
the boat, which was one of the best selling books,
A great book by the way. But is there are
there any women that were actually offended by that? I
just the fact that that would be a question that's
asked of the Secretary of Defense in a limited public
availability situation where he doesn't answer a lot of questions,
(13:48):
is actually even for left wing media, I think a
huge embarrassment for them. Look heads up, everybody, Another massive
data breach has happened. Sixteen billion, team billion. The log
in credentials have been leaked Apple, Google, Facebook password stolen
using malware, sixteen billion of them. Eventually they're going to
(14:11):
end up on the dark web. Important to understand how
cybercrime and Identity theft are affecting our lives. Lots of
places can accidentally expose your personal info. That's why LifeLock
monitors millions of data points a second for risk to
your identity. And remember, when you're a LifeLock member, you
can become a victim of identity theft, but you will
(14:32):
immediately have a dedicated US based LifeLock restoration specialist to
fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Join now, say
forty percent off your first year with my name Clay
as the promo code. That's one eight hundred LifeLock to
go online to LifeLock dot com promo code Clay for
forty percent off. That's LifeLock dot com promo code Clay.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
We were just talking a moment ago about the way
the press is covering the nuclear strikes, these strikes.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
On the nuclear facilities.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
You can tell that there are a lot of anti
Trump reporters who aren't happy about this. This is a
problem that has bedeviled the American body politic and really
the international community such as it exists, or at least
the Western world and our allies in Israel for a
long time, and it has been, if not solved, it
(15:32):
has certainly been made a whole lot better, but there
are people who don't want to see it that way,
and there are people who also want to find every
excuse to try to attack and undermine this administration on
this issue. This is a talkback listener Marie. She's a
former military pilot. This is what she thinks about the
nitpicking that was going on play BB.
Speaker 8 (15:53):
As a former military officer and a pilot. I actually
don't care if they say the boys in the cockpit,
and I'm actually glad we're saying cockpit again and not
the box. This is Marie from Florida. Have a great day, guys,
love your show.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
Thank you, Mary, We love it you listen. She's totally spotting.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Indeed, I forgot that they were trying to do away
with the phrase cockpit because they decided that it was
too gendered, which is very funny in and of itself.
But I I just my expectations for media in press.
Cocks are very low.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
They mascot the game cocks.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Oh yeah, South Carolina game cocks. Yeah, cocky, cocky, the
game cock is South Carolina game coy. Look at you
on the sports mascot recall. You know what I'm saying,
I'm learning.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
I'm learning as I go here because I've seen hats
where people wear them and I realized, oh, that's what
they're referring to South Carolina, the mascot. So there we go.
But yes, I don't think this is also Clay. The
people who actually do this stuff, It's so funny. This
is true across a wide range of things. The people
who are the one on the front lines, whether it's
military or just whatever it is, they don't have the
(17:04):
time to get into this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
It's always other.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
People on their behalf whinding about it. You know.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
I do not think any woman in the military who
actually flies in combat missions.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Luke Pete, Secretary Defense, did great job. Guys.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
I'm upset now, and quite honestly, if anyone did feel
that way, I would question their fitness to continue to
be in high stress, demanding roles.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
You should be more focused on other stuff.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
I do agree with Pete.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Hegseth though, that because I shared one story from the
New York Post about how incredible the fact that these
guys and the gal. When I say guys, by the way,
I mean guys and gals. I don't want to get
to fact checked here. They were in the plane for
thirty six straight hours, they refueled in the air. It
is a pretty incredible accomplishment that hasn't been talked about
(17:51):
enough what they were able to do.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
When I first came across the story, I thought, this
is one you need to hear. We'll see why in
a moment. For over one hundred and sixty years, a
one hundred and fifty trillion with a T dollar asset
has been buried under American soil. This is a wild speculation,
it's documented fact. This endowment, so to speak, is so
large it could pay off our national debt four times over.
But why has it been kept secret for so long?
(18:17):
The answer will make your head spin. But thanks to
Supreme Court decision that Trump administration could soon release that
endowment to the public. Jim Rickards, former advisor of the
White House in Federal Reserve, says, if you're over fifty,
this could be your best chance to build lasting wealth
from a once in a century event. It's a big statement.
To hear more of what Jim has to say, go
online to birthright twenty twenty five dot com. Now, if
(18:39):
he's right, it could make President Trump the most popular
president in history and help millions of investors retire wealthy.
Go to Birthright twenty twenty five dot com to get
the details free of charge, paid for by Paradigm Press
(19:00):
talking about this off the air.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
But Pete Hexset only has one person that he has
to be concerned about. And Donald Trump loved, loved that
press conference with every fiber of his being, and so
it is not a surprise that that would have registered
well with Trump.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
But did you see this morning?
Speaker 2 (19:23):
I was up early, Buck, and one of the first
things I saw was that the Supreme Leader of Iran
Is is sharing tweets about how they won the war.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Did you do you saw these tweets?
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Oh, I think he's going to get a contract at
MSNBC any moment.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I saw that line, very good line. Do you know
our buddy Keith Oberman, formerly maybe the most influential person
on the left on television in America, shared those four
tweets uncritical and said Trump is being dishonest.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
He now is more likely.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
This is this is where Trump derangement syndrome really leads
you that you are looking at the Ayatola Komens tweets
and you are considering them to be more accurate than
you are what Donald Trump is saying, because that is
what Keith Olberman, he of the totally broken Brain, has done,
(20:26):
and it led me into the thought process because we
were talking about the intelligence leak. What percentage of people
that are in the intelligence community do you think are
rooting for Donald Trump to be successful? Because in an
ideal world, you should want in the intelligence community, I
(20:47):
would think for the President of the United States to
be supremely successful because it means the country is doing well.
And if you're in the intelligence community, ostensibly you are
rooting for the country to be doing better. You're putting
your labor towards it happening. How broken do you think
the intelligence community is? Would fifty percent of people be
(21:09):
rooting for Trump to fail just because even though it
would theoretically hurt their their ability to do good job?
Speaker 6 (21:16):
Like?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
How broken?
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Internally?
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Do you think you'd have to slice? You'd have to
slice this pie pretty uh, with pretty clear specificity. I
think to try to get a general sense of it,
and here's how I could do it for you. So
in tons community is huge. I think it's seventeen agencies now.
When I was in it was sixteen. I think they've
added one or I can't, And people say you were in.
(21:37):
Can I name them all off the top of my head?
If I wrote them out, I probably could. You know,
obviously the big ones I could rattle off. But you
know there's like National Geospatial Intelligence Agency there.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
You know, there's there's stuff. You know, there's State Department.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Roll back into my head even thinking about all these governments,
there's State Department.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
I in R, Intelligence and Research, which is what I mean.
There's all this like it really is. You know, you
got I get really deep into the bowels of this thing. Okay,
you're asking, though, what percent of the intel community supports Trump?
The first big cleavage, if you will, is.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Got my attention.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Now, Yeah, I was gonna say, Clay perked up. I
mean separation. The first big separation is between military and civilian,
meaning that if you're looking at places like DIA, and
then you look within even places like CIA and and others,
there are a lot you know NSA, there are a
lot of active duty mill and active duty military people
(22:33):
are about sixty forty pro Trump, sixty forty percent Democrat overall. Now,
when you hone that down into war fighters, infantry, special operations,
it gets a lot more like eighty twenty ninety ten.
But the big mill, big military, you're looking at something
like sixty forty. And then within these so separate that out.
(22:56):
So if you're in a place like DA, yeah, I
would think that you'd probably have a little better than
sixty forty overall support for Trump there, just in a
general sense, but I think that ten to twenty percent
of the people working there really hate Trump and really
would want to subvert Trump in some way.
Speaker 5 (23:13):
I think it's higher at.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
The CIA because it's a civilian agency, and it's really
a lot higher when you get into the analyst cadre,
not the case officers, not the paramilitary, but you get
into the analyst cadre, which I was a part of.
And although when I was first coming in, they're like,
you should be a case officer, like you're very you know,
you're smooth with people, and I was like, no, I'm
(23:35):
a nerd.
Speaker 5 (23:36):
I am.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I am going to be wearing a jacket with tweed
and with the elbow patches.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
And this is like my argument that we're good looking
for radio guys. I would imagine, Yeah, this is the
standard that is quite inside the intelligence community. Being good
with people is a very broad, broad university category for.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
See for the average CIA. I think I was probably
pretty suave. It doesn't mean I'm swave in the general sense. Yes,
it's kind of like we are Clay and I are
basically bikini models of the radio world, which again is
not saying that we are you know, yes.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
For for sports press box status, I might as well
be fabio.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
It is the of the I saw it and I
was at I was taking it. I was like, wow, Wow,
it's quite a scene in here.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
And look, I mean, for people who cover sports, a
lot of them look like they haven't ever seen the
sun in like in like eight years.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
You know, it is a very pallid room. The good
news is.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
That they look like they watch a lot of sports
and don't do anything else. Uh However, back to a
intel and the deep state component of this, so I
think that it's really hard to get a uh a,
you know, a percentage that would be accurate because people
obviously aren't filling out surveys and sharing this. So I'm
just giving you a snapshot of what I know of
the cultures of these different places, and it's been a
(24:54):
while since I've been in So that's basic based in
large part on how it has always been. And then
what I know from friend of mine who are still there.
And this is part of the challenge of trying to
clean it up, is it's not like it's a little
bit like dealing with an insurgency. Yeah, it'd be a
lot easier if they wore uniforms and said, we're the
bad guys. We're trying to you know, shoot at your
people when they're driving through the streets, shoot at your soldiers. No,
(25:16):
they say we're not, We're good, we're civilians. We didn't
do anything. And the deep state right now is certainly
in a period of, if not remission, something, you know,
a bit of hiding. And I think that's where you
get most of the challenge and trying to root them out.
The leak that came out, though, I mean, that's somebody
(25:36):
who thinks that he is doing some or he or
she is doing some great service. You remember there was
that leak, wasn't it the first Trump administration? And the
name was the name of the woman was crazy Reality Winner.
Oh yeah, Reality Winner. She was an NSA translator. And
(25:57):
I'm trying to remember the year twenty twenty one. Anyway,
whatever the point is, she came out and she shared
she gave some top secret document to a website and
she end up going to prison for a long time
for it, and she didn't accomplish anything by it, and
people wanted to call her a whistleblower. And it's just like,
don't do that, don't do this thing, don't betray your oath,
don't break the law. Not smart, And so you have
(26:18):
to be really ideologically kind of a radical clay.
Speaker 5 (26:22):
Think about this.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
You're risking prison time. You're risking prison time because you
think you can help shift the conversation. You've got to
be a little delusional to believe that.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
And also you have to on some level be rooting
against your own country, right, because I think I'm old
fashioned in this sense probably, but I would like to
think that if you are a government employee, irrespective of
whether it's a Democrat or Republican, that you want the
president to have success because having success probably means less
(26:55):
American troops are going to die, more world peace, peace
people make more money. Right, I mean, like just the
basic things before you get into the policy that helps
to make that happen, and I am not at all
surprised that the leak came out when it did. And
it just feels to me so toxic, and I think
that's why heckseth and I give them credit. Man, these
(27:19):
early morning press conferences, it's a little bit like making
the media run, because you know when you would do
a bad job and a team and your coach would
be like, all right, get on the line. You're gonna
run today. When you make the media get there at
eight am, they hate it. They have to be up
at six am. They got a rush.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
And do you control you still as a coach? Do
you still call that running? We used to call it
when I was playing sports, running suicides. I feel like
that's probably is that still what it said or is it.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
Now running sides?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yeah, probably still called suicides. I mean, I don't think
people are like, hey, we want you to kill yourself
at the end of these right, But I'm just saying
people are very sensitive about the words now. So you know, kids,
I feel like if you're at a school and you
tell if you're a coach and you blow the whistle,
you're like, hey, everybody on the line, we're running suicides.
Like how dare They replaced disabled list with injured list
(28:13):
I believe in baseball because it was offensive.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
And this is the craziest one.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
They replaced the word owner in the NBA with governor
because owner, they said, sounded too much.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Like it might be slavery.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
I did not know that. That is truly nuts.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
They called the owners of NBA franchises governors now because
some players complained and said, owner makes it sound like
you actually own us, and it like connotes slavery. And
so the NBA was like, you know what, morons, You're right,
let's change it to governors. So now it sounds like
(28:54):
you're some sort of you know, British British like head
of a head of company.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Because of words, speaking of words that are used the
best words, some people use the best words of all words.
This was referring to the NATO summit that Trump was
a part of. Sky News reporter asked Trump about the
NATO chief calling him daddy.
Speaker 5 (29:18):
This has cut one play it, Mark writter.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
The NATO chief, who is your friend?
Speaker 5 (29:23):
He called you daddy earlier?
Speaker 7 (29:27):
Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of children?
Speaker 5 (29:31):
No, he likes me. I think he likes me.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
If he doesn't, I'll let you know. I'll come back
and I'll.
Speaker 5 (29:35):
Hit him hard. Okay, he did.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
He did it very affectionate. Daddy here, my daddy.
Speaker 5 (29:44):
Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
I mean, I think Trump could have very easily, Yes,
Trump could have very easily said yes, America is the
dad of Europe. Were bigger, badder, bolder than all of you.
And so if you had to give us a familiar
familial name, it would be America's Europe's daddy, which would
have been very funny too.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
They mean, if Russian tanks did start rolling into the
Baltics or start rolling into you know, Poland, what would
be I mean, the first call from pretty much everybody
in Europe, from all the prime ministers, presidents, etc.
Speaker 8 (30:16):
Et.
Speaker 5 (30:17):
Donald Trump. That's a fact.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
They'd be like Trump, run to Trump right away and
then then run to our military. So and Trump's trying
to prevent that, which is why he wants them to
be able to provide for their own security.
Speaker 5 (30:28):
Think about that, by the way. You know a lot
of people like we could.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
Have socialism is great, and look at these countries in
Europe and actually they're not socialist countries. Their countries with
high taxation, large welfare states, but they don't have government
control of industry. Even places like Denmark, for example, have
very free markets. It's just a question of how they
tax and how they spend, but it's actually not government
control of industry.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
Which is really what you have in classical socialism.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Putting that aside for a second, it's also a lot
easier to have free you know, to spend money on.
Speaker 5 (30:59):
Health in the UK. The healthcare is trash, by the way,
especially the dentistry. It's bad.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
It's easy to do that when somebody else has got
your back, and it's like, if you get invaded or
you have a big national security problem, we're gonna roll
in with the heavy cavalry and take care of you.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
Europe gets a free ride on.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
As Trump sees this, I've got a funny email that
may get me in trouble, but I'm gonna read it anyway.
Speaker 5 (31:22):
Buck.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Karen writes in and says.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Beware, I no longer have filters, even some of the
polite ones which you got my attention right off the bat.
She says, if it's cockpits offensive, should we call where
a female pilot is the pussy pit? Moronic? Hysterical? Karen
very good email. She doesn't have a filter, buck and
(31:48):
if you're upset, be mad at Karen. And I gotta
tell everybody out there, Look, we've been dealing with all
sorts of chaos, all sorts of challenges, all of ridiculousness
all throughout Israel and the people that have been doing
the best to help take care of what's going on
(32:10):
in Israel. From a American perspective, I honestly mean this,
with all of the work that you guys are helping
to provide, with all of the allies. There is the
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. I saw for myself
what they do on the ground, free meals for people
that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford meals, bomb shelters
(32:31):
for people that otherwise wouldn't have access to bomb shelters,
bulletper vehicles for first responders. They are doing incredible work
and the Fellowship can do so much more if you
guys continue to provide the support that you have, and
that's what I'm gonna encourage you to do today as well.
You can go online to IFCJ dot org and make
(32:55):
a tremendous difference there, but you can also call if
you would rather eight eight eight four eight eight if
CJ again, IFCJ dot org. I saw the work these
guys do for myself when I was in Israel. It's incredible.
Eight eight eight four eight eight if CJIFCJ dot org
(33:16):
is the website, they could use your help more now
than ever. That's if CJ dot org.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
I'm sitting here drinking some Rocket coffee. It's delicious.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
You know what I actually did with mine? I mixed
a little bit. This is a carry hack for the
hot summer days here in Miami. I mixed a little
bit of coconut watering with my Crocket coffee. It's actually
quite quite delicioso.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
Big fan.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
But Crockett on its own is fantastic. Go to Cracket
Coffee dot com. Please subscribe temp some of the prophits
because of the towers. Get yourself some gear the Crockett
Camo hat. All the cool kids are wearing it. The
mugs are sturdy and made in America. An over Mountain
mug for yourself over Mountain, Over Mountain Club. And you
can also get a sign copy of Clay's American Playbook
if you use code book so it is the best
(34:08):
coffee anywhere.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
The hoodies my my teenage boys where they're super comfortable,
and one of my teenage boys has the hoodie on today.
We're running around in northern Michigan, a little bit chilly
up here compared to the rest of the country that's baking.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
It's actually great. But he was rocking the hoodie.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
It's in the sixties for a high up here right now,
and so it's pretty comfortable gear he was.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
He was singing its praises and.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Wow, hoodies. I haven't thought about hoodies in quite a
while down here. It's different vibes in South Florida. Kathy
from Or Again, you want to weigh in what's going on, Well.
Speaker 9 (34:46):
I wanted to put my two cents in on the
women being included in the one of the boys. I
am an Army veteran. I was air traffic control, not
a pilot. But I grew up with three brothers and
no sisters, and any.
Speaker 8 (35:04):
Time I was.
Speaker 9 (35:07):
Called one of the boys, I felt proud, included and
very exuberant. It made me feel like I counted.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Thank you for the call.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
Look I coached. I've mentioned this before. I think I
coached a lot of different sports league' Buck. One of
the leagues was ten year old and the best player
on our team was a girl. And early on I
was like, look, I'm not going to just signal you
out every time and say boys and you know girl name.
So I said, I'm just going to call all of
you guys and that is a general term, instead of
(35:45):
having to refer to your sexes all the time. She's,
by the way, the best player on the team. I
think she's going to be a heck of a women's
softball player one day. It's probably already is. But I
think just using generic terms, we don't all even need
to take offense and you're not being excluded in the context.
And really, again the idea that that would be the
(36:07):
focal point, that you have a limited number of questions
that you can ever ask of the of the Defense Secretary,
of the President of the United States, the ones that
you choose to ask in that context tell us more
about you than I think them.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
And it just showed me how broken.
Speaker 5 (36:22):
The media is. What you got for us.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Top of the next hour, Buck, where are we headed?
Speaker 3 (36:26):
Oh, it's going to be a magical journey, my friends.
We've got more on the new York City mayor's race,
the wave of socialist fervor that is now at least
sweeping through the Democrat Party.
Speaker 5 (36:40):
We will discuss
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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