July 23, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 1 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show dives deep into the latest revelations surrounding the Russia-Gate scandal, the 2016 election interference narrative, and the legal and political implications for high-profile figures like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Brennan. Clay and Buck analyze newly released intelligence documents, including commentary from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and explore the enduring fallout from the Russia collusion hoax.
The hosts argue that the mainstream media and Democratic leadership intentionally pushed the Russia collusion narrative to delegitimize President Trump. They revisit 2017 media soundbites and dissect the language used to mislead the public, emphasizing that terms like “hacked” were deliberately vague and misleading. The segment also critiques the lack of accountability for those who perpetuated the narrative, drawing parallels to the Benghazi scandal and the Hunter Biden legal saga.
Listeners are taken inside the intelligence community, where Clay and Buck explain the interagency conflicts, legal hurdles, and venue challenges that make prosecuting former officials nearly impossible. They highlight how presidential powers, statute of limitations, and DC jury pools create a protective shield around figures like Obama and Clinton. The conversation also touches on the Supreme Court precedent set by Trump’s legal battles, which could ironically be used to defend Obama from future indictments.
The hour includes passionate calls from listeners frustrated by the lack of justice, with many demanding action against what they see as treasonous acts. Clay and Buck acknowledge the public’s anger but stress the legal realities that make convictions unlikely.
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 & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in Thursday edition. Clay Short Wednesday, dang it, dang it,
way right off the top, right off the top. I
thought it was Thursday. I've been trying to set up
a dinner with Julie Talbot, our boss, and I was thinking, oh, no,
what day is it? Want a rough start for me?
(00:21):
Right off the times Wednesday. It's Wednesday. For anybody out
there that might have been like, oh no, Buck's actually
going to be out Thursday and Friday, so maybe that'll
make it a little bit easier. Celebrating his dad's birthday. Congratulations,
Happy birthday early to mister Seconman. And you see some
photos posted, you'll see that, yes, the hair is genetic.
He's got a right out of hair for seventy eight.
(00:43):
I was about to say, as I said that, Am
I going to go oh for two? Right off the top?
Is this a big surprise birthday celebration? And I was
going to get the day wrong and blow the surprise
all within the space of a minute. But I do
not think that I managed to do that. Nope, getting
a top all right, well done, sir. We got a
big show to do. We've got a big show where
two radio professionals with a fantastic show to do, Clay,
(01:04):
and it's possible I'll even know what day it is
by the time we finish. All Right, bunch of things
to get into here. Russia Gate has exploded. More of
the internal documents released by D and I Tulci Gabbard.
We will discuss what we think is happening there. Tons
of attention in Idaho the courtroom where Brian Coberger, this
(01:26):
murderer of four innocent college kids, he agreed to plead guilty.
It does not appear, unfortunately, we'll get into this a
little bit, that he is going to explain anything about
exactly what went on there. As part of his plea deal,
he avoids the death penalty, but there does not seem
to be any requirement that he address the families and
(01:48):
explain the entirety of what went on with this story.
It's an awful story. We've talked about it some over
the past several years. The victim impact statements currently underway
live on television being covered on Fox News and other networks.
So we will talk some about that case. Our friend
(02:09):
Sonny hostin at the View says that Stephen Colbert threat
being fired threatens the constitution. We will likely have some
fun with the dumbest show on television. Can we producer rally?
You know, we don't ever pitch ourselves for shows because
you know, people ask us, because that's nice. Just reach
out to whatever contact you can find in the view
and say that Clay and Buck would love to come
(02:30):
hang with the ladies one day. We got we gotta
offer this up. We got to offer this up. I
would It's the number one show that I would most
like to go on, because I think all of you
would enjoy the fireworks that would ensue, especially because they
have a live studio audience. But we start off with
the continuing fallout. Obama issued a statement yesterday evening saying
(02:53):
I have no idea what Trump is talking about. Basically,
I haven't done anything wrong, and I do think that
we talked about this yesterday, and I am open to
being told that I am wrong, as I always am.
I've been married for twenty years eight hundred and two
two two eight a two. But my question for you
(03:13):
guys is this for people who want to weigh in,
I believe that the twenty sixteen Russia collusion UH lies
definitely were intentional. I think they were built as a
way to delegitimize Trump on taking office. I think the
media took it and ran with it, hook line and sinker,
(03:33):
and in that mind, let me play this flashback just
to take you back for those of you who have
forgotten to what twenty seventeen television news sounded like. This
is cut for Russia hacking the election to elect Trump?
What is the end of our democracy?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Votes were definitely affected, But you're Russia hacked the election
to tilted to mister Trump.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
The Russians definitively hacked the election. Russia did hack the election,
no doubt. The Russians hacked the election.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Yes, Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Backed Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
President elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia
hacked the elections. If we find out that Donald Trump
just theoretically was colluding with Russia while they were hacking
the election, that is completely impeachable.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
This dossier alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
the Russian effort to hack the election. The Director of
National Intelligence, the head of the National Security Agency, the
head of the FBI, all of these intelligence experts saying
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
The FBI, the CIA, NSA, the former Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapperman. They've all said this. So to believe that
that's wrong, you have to believe they're all involved in
an elaborate conspiracy to get Donald Trump, which seems a
little far fetched tonight.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Okay, So they said that they hacked the election, they intentionally,
As I said, they're so good about language because they'll say, well,
there's a lot of ways that the election could be hacked.
They hacked Hillary Clinton's cell phone. That doesn't mean that
they hacked into the vote totals and change them. That
doesn't mean that hack, doesn't mean necessarily that they change
(05:05):
the outcome of the election. Hacked is a broad verb
that they are going to use aggressively here. But I
just I think a lot of people, and Buck you
can sign on or sign off of this opinion. I
think a lot of people are getting fired up believing
that there are going to be major consequences. Now, what
(05:26):
is it, nine years after much of this happened, eight
years after much of this happened, And I'm just here
to tell you I don't think you're going to see
charges of anybody in a position of power. Now do
you would you agree with that in general? That I
already saw that from the beginning. I mean, this is
I don't I keep asking friends of mine. I mean,
(05:47):
I'll tell you this. I have spoken to maga lawyer
friends of mine, not who work for the administration, but
are as pro Trump as anybody, as pro Trump as
any of you. Okay, I mean few. I have a
few friends of particular lawyers and they are Wow, they
love Trump. And I said, forget about what you should
do for a second ethically here whether you should bring
(06:09):
the charge or not? Tell me how you could bring
the charge. I think that's the real question. Yeah, that's
what I keep coming to. And I've said deprivation of rights,
but I think the statute on that may be a problem.
Statute of limitations. I've said, there's some others who say
maybe seditious conspiracy. I think the statute on that could
(06:30):
be a problem. And you have to look at these things.
We have all these different trip wires, so to speak,
that are in the system already, and you'd have to
get around those to try to get any justice at
the time. And as we've already discussed, Look, I promise you,
Barack Obama's not spending a minute in jail, Norrisy even
going to be prosecuted by any federal authority. That's not
(06:50):
going to happen. Okay, So I wish that you know
there had been justice, but there was not. I said
this about ben Gazzi. People remember, Oh, Hillary clon, She's
gonna go to prison. No, actually she ended up being
the Democrat nominee after Benghazi. People got very mad at me.
But I'm pretty good at seeing where this stuff is going.
So yes, Clay, you and I are an agreement that it
(07:11):
is very unlikely if we're wrong, we'll come on and
say it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't know it, though.
There's the political cal and that's the other part of this.
There's the political calculus, which I think also applies to
all the Biden dementia cover up stuff. The political calculus is, wow,
look at how dishonest these Democrats really were on Russia collusion.
Part of the problem, Clay, I think is for people
(07:33):
like you and me who have been who followed it
for a long time previously, there's nothing that's going to
come out that surprises me. If John Brennan as CIA
director sent an email to the Obama Principles, which would be,
you know, the top people in the Obama cabinet saying, hey, guys,
Russia collusion's fake, but man, this is going to really
mess up the Trump administration. I would say, yeah, of course.
(07:55):
I mean, there's nothing that can come out. I already
know that that's what they were doing. So now you
get to will you have any proof of it, I mean,
any criminal indictments. I think probably not, But it is
good for people to know the extent of the Khan.
To me, we're basically writing a history book so that
people can understand what actually happened. Let me ask you this.
(08:16):
You've worked in intelligence a long time. Obama is now
not using the word hacked. They're using the word manipulate.
How many elections in the lives of everybody out there
listening right now, do you think Russia or the Soviet Union,
or do USSR whatever group you want to call them,
has attempted to manipulate that have occurred in the United States.
(08:40):
My argument, I want to hear your art. My argument
would be every single one. They have tried to manipulate
the outcome in some way of every election that has
occurred in the lives of anybody out there listening. So
the idea that they tried to turn this into an
unprecedented level of Russian success and a Russian attempt, I
just don't buy it. You don't think in the Cold
(09:00):
War that Russia was trying to manipulate everything they could
relating to American politics. Oh, the Soviet Union was funding
First of all, the Soviet Union was running communist spies
at very high levels of the United States government. That
is a fact. Another fact, Nixon was an anti communist hero.
Stop believing the Watergate you know, deep throat, Oh my gosh,
(09:23):
Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon's the worst person ever. Nixon was
actually really good on anti communism because there were absolutely
high level Communist penetrations in the United States government. And
guess who they always were going to? Democrats? Guess where
they were always finding sympathetic ears labor unions, Guess where
they were always looking to exploit divisions in this country
(09:44):
race politics. The Soviet Union was doing this for decades.
And the thing is it was always the Democrat Party
that was the entry point for those Communist manipulations of
our system. So we don't get taught this in school.
But the record is quite clear. The Venona Project is
quite clear. You can go check that one out secret
for decades, letting us know how high level the secret program,
(10:06):
letting us know a high level of the communist penetrations
of the United States government were. So also go read
Witnessed by Whittaker Chambers, a book that far more people
should have read and be familiar with. So I throw
all this out there, Clay, because yeah, of course there's
efforts to involve the you know, think of all the
NGOs around the world. Think of all the different heads
(10:26):
of state who weigh in publicly in the media saying
they want this or that candidate in the United States,
what happens all the time. So the idea that Russia
had figured out some ingenious way to skew a multi
billion dollar media, you know, media frenzy in this country
in terms of the spending with one hundred grand on
(10:47):
Facebook is completely insane. But as I've said, it really
is a it's a lie of degree that they were
engaged in.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
So if I tell somebody, you know, Clay, if I
tell somebody that I've hoard a glass of boiling water
in the ocean. I could say that I've attempted to
change the temperature of the ocean. That would be an
honest statement. It's insane because you would never be able
to register it. But you could say that there was
an attempt made to change the temperature of the ocean.
(11:16):
And that's essentially what they did with these Facebook ads
and with the intelligence community review. They took something so
insignificant that no person could think that it matters. Or
it would be like saying, Clay Clay, have you ever jaywalked?
Have you ever jaywalked before?
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Clay?
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Yeah, So Clay has just admitted to breaking the law.
Should I just refer to Clay Travis as a criminal
from now on? I've also jaywalked, Should I refer to
myself as a criminal from now on? It's a lie
of degree, a lie of severity. And that's what they
did with Russia collusion from the start. Okay. So I
think the significance here is you can correct the historic record.
(11:52):
You can further delegitimize the legacy media who took this
swill and treated it as if it were the honest truth.
You could maybe investigate whether there were classified documents that
were improperly leaked. We know that that is typically a
very hard case to make. I think that ultimately people
(12:13):
out there who are expecting, hey, we're gonna get Obama
purp walked, We're gonna get Hillary Clinton held accountable and
arrested for her misdeeds. We're gonna get Clapper or Comy,
whoever you want to point to in the larger intelligence community.
I don't think any of them are going to get
charged with crimes. Now, could I be wrong? Yes, you
(12:36):
are open to tell me where I am wrong. But
I don't want this to turn into a Lucy and
Charlie Brown type situation. I don't want this to be
the flip side of when every time a new story
came out about Trump for the last decade, everybody on
the left said, we've got him now, Oh, we finally
(12:56):
got him, and he was always Charlie were always Charlie
Brown running up and Lucy pulled away the football at
the last possible moment. And then take you can take
it even a step further, Clay with with just the
process problems. Let's say there's a statute they want to
use and a prosecutor we all know the old can
indict a ham Sandwich. Maybe a prosecutor will find some
(13:17):
way to do this. You're gonna bring the case. You
have to bring the case in DC, or else the
whole thing will look incredibly rigged. You're gonna get a
DC jury to that's my question. Indict. First of all,
Obama totally off limits. Was the president. That's not happening.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is just lying to you. Okay,
that's not happening. But even someone like John Brennan, you
think a DC jury's gonna say, yeah, let's throw this
(13:38):
old guy in prison because he thought he was I'm
thinking from their perspective, he thought he was defending the
republic by standing up to Donald Trump. You think any
DC jury is gonna it's just not gonna happen. So
it's important to set the record straight. It's important the
American people know because of the political questions that issue here.
But legally speaking, I think there's a high hurdle. And
(13:59):
if I'm wrong on this, you know you can blame
my non existent law degree. Well, if I'm wrong on it,
you can definitely blame blame my law degree in person.
But I think you're one hundred percent right. There's no
way they're going to indict in the district, the District
of Columbia in Democrat officials. I mean, it's almost impossible.
I think on behalf of Trump. Could I be wrong? Sure,
I've been wrong before. You guys can weigh in and
(14:21):
tell us if you think we're missing something. In the meantime, Look,
if you love baseball, and I love baseball, even though
my Atlanta Braves are a disaster, at least I get
to watch Ronalduacunya and I can pick more or less
when it comes to all of his stats. No matter
which team you root for, and basically no matter which
state you're in, you can have fun with price picks
super easy. You just pick more or less on your
favorite players. As NFL training camps are now officially underway,
(14:43):
it won't be very long until the preseason is here.
Then we've got actual games going on in both the
NFL and in college football. Get hooked up right now.
You play five dollars, win or lose, you get fifty
dollars in your account. You ten times your money you
put in five dollars, you get back fifty. Yeah, have
to get signed up by going to pricepicks dot com.
Use code Clay. That's pricepicks dot com. Code Clay. You
(15:06):
can get hooked up. You can play in California and
play in Texas. You can play in Georgia, you can
play in Florida. You can play all over the country.
Get hooked up today at pricepicks dot com. My name Clay.
That's pricepicks dot com. My name Clay, Claytravison, Buck Sexton.
Mic drops that never sounded so good. Find them on
the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
(15:29):
All right, welcome back in to Clay and Buck. Appreciate
you being here with us. Lines are open eight hundred
two eight two two eight a two. I've got the
trip to New York coming up. So I got birthday
on my mind from my dad, and you're seeing my family,
which is very exciting. But we want to take some
calls here and dive into some more of the news.
(15:50):
I'm dialing in here, I'm getting focused on everything. We
got to talk back BB Cliff in California, who listens
on KFBK radio. Hit it, claybook.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
This is Cliff and California, and I just got to
say if you guys end up on the view. That
is the one thing I can currently think of that
would make me want to actually watch that stupid show.
So I encourage this to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Well, I like this that happened, but I don't think
you'll ever happen either. However, however, you never know. The
show stinks, they need help. We would, it would go viral,
and you and I would be very charming to the ladies.
We would just mentle the arguments and make them look foolish,
but we would be charming. We'd be very friendly while
pointing out that they know nothing, that they're poisoning the
minds of their audience. So I think that this could
(16:37):
really work out for all involved. Yeah. Look, Brandon, by
the way, and Boise Idaho wants to weigh in on
what we were just talking about, the charges or non charges. Brandon,
what you got for us?
Speaker 4 (16:50):
Hey, guys, the American people want to see something and
we're second stary, like if if Hillary and Obama literally
did plue in treasonous acts, they need to go after them.
And we're sick and tired of here. I mean, you
have the whole dose thing go on, and all this
(17:11):
broad and abuse and corruption that was uncovered, and there's
just nothing happening from any of it. It may American
people just disgusted. We're sick of the talk. Let's do something.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Thank you for the call. I agree and understand the frustrations,
and we've talked about this. I just I think what's
more frustrating is believing that something is going to happen
that doesn't happen. So I would love to be wrong.
I would love for to suddenly wake up and hear, hey,
there's a ton of indictments that have been brought over
Russia collusion. I'm just telling you, look at Statute of
(17:44):
limitations you consider venue. I find it Obama's presidential powers,
as we just saw with Trump, I find it highly
improbable that it would occur. I agree. So just telling
you what we think our nation needs original idea. He
is to solve our largest problems. If one of those
problems is eliminating our thirty six trillion dollar debt, there
(18:05):
could be a really interesting solution right under our feet.
So if you hear from former presidential advisor Jim Rickards
on this one, he says President Trump's already got something
in mind, and it could be underway soon. Rickards believes
President Trump is about to unleash a one hundred and
fifty trillion dollars stay owned ass hit hidden for over
a century. This could trigger an economic boom not seen
(18:26):
in a century and send one small sector of the
market skyrocketing. But you need to act quickly. Remember President
Trump moves fast, and he wants to get as much
initiated in the first two years of his second term
as possible. Once this breaks out in the mainstream, too
late to get in on it early, So go watch
Jim Rickards interview at Birthright twenty twenty five dot com.
That's Birthright twenty twenty five dot com paid for by
(18:50):
Paradigm Press, Fleet Travis and Buck Sexton on the front
lines of Truth. We're talking about the Russiagate revelations from
Telsea Gabbard inside of the intelligence community surrounding the twenty
sixteen election. We'll take some of your talkbacks here in
a moment. But Buck, one of the aspects of this
that is not getting a ton of attention is that
(19:12):
Russia had determined that Hillary Clinton was not healthy. And
if you remember that video that went viral in September,
I believe of twenty sixteen, right before the election, when
Hillary basically collapsed and had to be helped into the
back of her suv. I know many of you will
(19:33):
remember that that she did not seem healthy at that
point in time. She certainly has not maintained a crazy
public schedule. One would say since twenty sixteen. You remember
that video, Well, oh yeah, she flopped into the back
of the van, and they were trying to hide it.
But beyond that play, we now know, beyond shadow of doubt,
it is public record now it is fact that Democrats
(19:56):
will prop up a dementia pation who should be twenty
five at amendment out of office. So of course, if
Hillary had severe health issues, hiding that from the American people,
that's like table stakes. That's easy for them, no doubt.
And I do think as well that if Russia had
(20:17):
desperately been trying to hack this election on behalf of Trump,
wouldn't one of the top things you would have done
is try to leak Hillary Clinton's health related issues, which
are included in some of this deep dive information that
has come out. So I bring that up. Here is
one pathway that I could see where we could have
(20:38):
a resolution that might not be satisfying, but I think
could attempt to hold people accountable. And this is me
analyzing from a legal perspective. You could present information of
a criminal nature to a DC grand jury seeking indictments,
hoping to get them. If you did not get them,
(21:00):
you could just say, hey, we did everything we could.
DC protected Democrats. Again, I think a lot of people
have not reckoned on both sides, Democrats, Republicans, independence, everybody.
With the precedents being set surrounding Trump when it comes
to presidential powers, I am here to tell you Barack
(21:22):
Obama's presidential powers one billion percent, I believe protect him
when it comes to how he chose to analyze intelligence
related data. So if Trump can't be charged for many
of the things that they wanted to charge him with
because for lack of a better way, the protective powers
of the presidency almost act as a four shield that
(21:44):
will cover many different aspects of his regulation. Getting intelligence
briefings and analyzing them and interpreting them is certainly within
the province of presidential powers. Buck on your end, how
many for interpretations of an intelligence issue do you think
(22:04):
might exist inside of the CIA or the FBI? On
any given issue. One of the most stressful parts of
the job of an intelligence analyst, other than making sure
that the cappuccino machine is functioning properly, is something they
call coordination, where you have to with different agencies. It
depends on the product. And this is getting very deep
(22:26):
into the weeds, but you have to get sign off
or some level of agreement on different assessments. Right, they'll
call it an interagency products. You get all the you know, DIA, CIA, NSA.
Do we all agree on this?
Speaker 3 (22:38):
And it is to.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
Borrow a clayword a Donnie Brook. A lot of the
time I have seen adults in tears during those interagency
meetings fighting over things because some I mean, that was
during wartime and some of this stuff was really important.
But I don't think anyone needed to get that emotional
in a meeting discussing what's getting written down about it.
But that's the reality of how much there's disagreement. And
(23:02):
sometimes one agency will say they want essentially a footnote
at the bottom saying we do not concur with this assessment.
We see it differently. So, of course, when you're talking
about analysis that is meaningful, it's generally analysis of what
will happen or what is likely to happen, and people
aren't very good at predicting the future and often have
big disagreements about that. So I think a lot of
(23:25):
people presume that there is one understood story that I
think what you have to contemplate is that there are
potentially ten different arguments being made about what might have occurred.
Just use what happened with Iran. We just had the
bombing of the nuclear sites in Iran. Different agencies have
(23:46):
different interpretations based on the data of what might happen,
and inside of those agencies there's probably a divergence of opinion.
My point on all that is Obama is going to
be I believe clearly within his presidential powers have believed
that Russia hacked or manipulated the election in favor of Trump,
because there are enough signposts that he can point to
(24:07):
and say, I'm not the intelligence gatherer. They bring me
information and tell me what they think, and we took
this interpretation. I think it's gonna be very hard to
charge him. There may be some feeling of the process
is the punishment goes both ways. Perhaps because Democrats do this,
judges do this to stop Trump. They know they're not
going to get their way, and they know what they're
(24:28):
doing is wrong, but they do it anyway. There may
be a little bit of that mentality behind bringing a
charge of some kind against a federal indictment against some
of the individuals from Russia collusion. That is possible to
me that that may happen in an effort to get justice,
But I just think that it would come apart within
(24:52):
the system at some level. That's where I'm just very
confident you're not going to get a full conviction of
anybody involved in Russia collusion that is currently being talked
about has seen because of things like the statute limitations,
because of the statutory definitions involved. I don't and because
of the DC jury pool slash DC judges that would
(25:14):
oversee this. I think it's really hard, but maybe they
try it anyway, and maybe that's really what there is
a push for. Right now, we're gonna I know, we're
getting a lot of emails and calls. People are angry.
What do you mean. I'm not saying they should get
away with it. I'm just saying I think, unfortunately, they're
likely to continue to get away with it. But I
could be wrong. I think you have to analyze it
(25:36):
legally and rationally, and as we told you would likely
be the case. What do we tell you, Hey, the
South Florida case against Trump on classified documents garbage. We
told you that it was likely to get tossed, that
it was within also said that there was zero chance
Hunter Biden would spend a single day in prison. Zero chance.
And people got a little bit huffy about that one.
(25:57):
Remember that, Clay, Yeah, like, guys, his dad's the president.
They bring charges, sure, Clay Ashley nailed that one early. Well,
they bring charge a shore. But hot, is Joe Biden
gonna let his son go to federal prison? No, we
told you he would pardon. People said, well, he's saying
he's not gonna part, and we were like, he's gonna
part at the last minute. By the way, there are
some interesting actually tons of super interesting questions. Matt in Rockville,
(26:19):
Maryland's got a good one, Matt fire Away.
Speaker 6 (26:24):
Hey, guys, Yes, so one of the things that you're
talking about is getting an indictment in DC. Well, if
you remember, I Lean Cannon, the district judge in Florida.
One of the reasons that she tossed out the case
after the mar Lager raid was that Jack Smith and
paneled a grand jury in DC to go after him
in Florida, which makes zero sense. And another example what
(26:48):
they've done before is if you remember the guy who
made the meme about voting for Hillary Douglas Mackie. Douglas
Mackie was tweeting from Florida. Where did they go after him?
The Eastern District of New York. Why the Twitter servers
were in New York. So that's where they went after
him and arrested him and put them on trial. So
there are ways to go about doing this, and we're
(27:09):
just you know, the shoes on the other foot. Now,
guys like, if you can do it, we can do
it back to you. Okay.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
So these are smart questions, and let me what you're
really hitting is venue. And every lawyer will tell you
that one of the most significant things about any case
is where it's located. And they actually have a term
for it. It's called forum shopping. Where you go to
a district, or you go to a state, or you
go to a locality that you believe is far more
(27:37):
likely to be favorable towards your perspective. Actually, where you
file the race to jurisdiction can be a huge part
of a story. This is getting into the weeds. The
example that you cited is a good one actually in Florida.
If you remember, Jack Smith actually started to prosecute Trump
for classified document issues in DC. That's where you and
(28:00):
paneled the grand jury. Then I think he realized, uh, oh,
I should be doing this where mar A Lago is located,
and just picked up that entire process and tried to
relocate it to Florida, where the crime is committed is
a huge part of the venue. I think you would
be very hard. Given Barack Obama lives in DC, and
(28:23):
given the president by and large is located in Washington,
d C. For most of his time in office, I
think it would be very hard to bring charges. Leave
aside the presidential powers aspect, it would be very hard,
I think, to bring charges against Barack Obama somewhere other
than Washington, d C. Which is why I go to
both presidential powers and then the grand jury. Do you
(28:46):
think a grand jury that ninety five or ninety eight
percent voted Obama is going to indict Obama for crimes?
Speaker 6 (28:53):
I do not.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Now, to your point, they could decide hey, where could
we go elsewhere? I think they would have a major
venue ish you, and I think in the event there
were charges brought, Obama would say, hey, this is clearly
a DC related circuit challenge, and I think the courts
would likely relocate that anything involving him back to d C.
But I thank you for the call, sir. It's a
smart question that he's asking. That gets into very smart
(29:16):
legal procedure. Wise, I would just say, this is where
we get into does the Trump administration decide that we
are in an eye for an eye era of the DOJ,
which I think our caller was also getting. He said,
look that they can do this to us, we can
do this to them. That could be the case. So
I would be far less surprised to see an indictment
(29:38):
brought against a John Brennan. I'm not even sure what
the statute would be currently, but let's just say they
find a statute they're going to use. I would be
far less surprised to see that happen. And then I
would just see an actual trial with an actual jury
convicting and there being some consequence beyond it. But the
process is the punishment works both ways. That is what
(29:59):
I am saying. So maybe that is the desire here.
If they brought charges against Obama, you would see a
form of what happened when they brought charges against Trump.
That is, Obama's attorneys would seek to dismiss the charges
by arguing that all of his actions were within presidential powers.
And ironically, after criticizing Trump. This is just giving you
(30:20):
a preview of how this would go. After criticizing Trump
and saying, oh, this is how dictators destroy our constitution,
Obama's attorneys would argue entirely based on the Trump precedent,
that he could not be prosecuted for anything that happened.
Every president is going to use the Trump precedent to
their advantage for the rest of our lives. Well, the
(30:41):
problem that the huge advantage that Democrats have and the
problem that we have, is that when you have no
integrity to protect, you have a lot of latitude. It
doesn't matter. It's true, you know, so if you're willing
to just do whatever which they are, that means there's
always an option for you. So I could very much
see democrat, any Democrat who indicted, possibly under the Russia
(31:02):
collusion look back just saying well, we have in the
case of Barack Obama specifically, we already handled this with
presidential powers. Supreme Court that you guys all like so
much already waited on this. Sorry, it's all. It's all
over for you with that one. So uh you know,
we'll see. Look, if somebody broke into your home, would
you know how to protect yourself? If the answers no,
(31:24):
go to this website right now, saberradio dot com. There
you will find the best self defense products on the market.
Sabers the number one pepper spray brand, trusted by law enforcement,
same ones we have in our own homes. Saber is
spelled sab r e. Website again saberradio dot com. Fifty
year old company, family own that wants you to feel empowered.
(31:47):
Sabers products reliable, trusted. They can help you protect your family,
particularly if you're not home and you want your spouse
or partner to feel empowered. The pepper gel projectile launcher
shaped like a pistol or rifled, depending on the model.
Both will fire off a pepper gel projectile targeted to
go a longer distance than you might think, and they're
(32:07):
effective against an intruder. Go online to saberradio dot com
you'll say fifteen percent at sab R radio dot com.
You can also call eight four four eight two four safe.
That's eight four four eight two four s a F E.
Want to begin to know when you're on the go,
(32:28):
The Team forty seven podcast drop highlights from the week
Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay in Bug podcast feed.
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts. All right, welcome back into Clay and Block.
We'll get some of your calls and also set up
what's coming on on the show. For the second hour
(32:49):
of the program. We got Senator Rampaul joining us later on.
That'll be fun, always interesting things to talk to the
Senator about. So we're looking forward to that. We've got
a bunch of calls coming and also want to mind
you Crocket coffee my friends.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Good.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
I gotta go fill up right now. I'm wearing a
Crack of Coffee T shirt. Clay, look at this, Look
at this wearing Yes, my boy's love wearing this gear.
The gear is really pretty great. Uh years on. Uh yeah,
they're fantastic conversation starter. So you can get delicious coffee.
You get your Crockett mug, you get your Crockett T shirt,
your Crockett hat. All these things are fantastic, fabulous. Even
(33:21):
go to crack at coffee dot com. If you want
to use code Book. You get a signed coffee of
Clay's American Playbook. Please subscribe because then it just gets
delivered to you every month. Ca cup, ground bean, whole bean,
You drink coffee, drink Cracket coffee, Spirit of America. Everybody,
Let's go for it. Uh callers coming in here, Damon
in Washington, Uh DC fire away, Oh hello, yeah, what
(33:49):
you got for us?
Speaker 7 (33:50):
Hey, I look at I look at Obama from my
previous job opportunities. I look at more of it. Though,
like a demi god, like Loki, it's more about just
beating him. That's not about to me putting in prison
as much as I know when he's never going to
go because everything you all have actually said that, everything
you all know, it's about giving him a black eye
and given about the Democratic Party of black eys.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Look, I don't disagree with the concept of to me,
the most relevant thing here is setting the historic record
in place, and so in the future people understand what
happened in Trump one point zero. Look, I mean, there's
still a lot of people who believe that Trump only
won in twenty sixteen because of Russia, and it was
only because I think he won so significantly in twenty
(34:36):
twenty four that there hasn't been some allegation that he
in some way had a rig job put in place
as well. Joe in Miami, what you got for us?
Speaker 3 (34:46):
I just want I do agree with that. It could
be another Lucy Charlie Brown situation, but just a spin
on it that hasn't been pointed out. When they got Trump,
they had the presidency on their side, they had half
of Congress, they had the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department,
and this court system with their venue, you know, picking
the right venue, and they had media on their side.
(35:08):
But however, this time Trump has the presidency, he has
all of Congress, FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and the court system.
Is going to be a battle, but he does have Fox,
which is the number one show out there. And even
though they had everything they had, they were only they
were able to throw them in jail and almost try
(35:31):
to bankrupt him. Yeah, now that we have more on
our side, we should be able to do at least
that maybe not throw them in jail, but at least
bankrupt them and like you said, set history straight and
ruin their life hopefully and run them through the mill.
You know, these are things we could do, not to
give up, but we have I feel more on our side,
(35:51):
and we have the truth. They did all this with
just lies.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
You're preaching to the choir. Preacher to the choir. Here's
the deal. And I'm telling you this as a lawyer.
You have to find something to charge them with, right
and it has to be within the statute of limitations,
and it has to be actionable based on the venue.
That is what we have tried to focus on. What
are the charges going to be? I thought maybe you
(36:16):
could get them. I think Buck you said ten years
on leaking intelligence documents to the media, which we know happened.
Those are tough cases to prove, but we know that
they got information at the Washington Post the New York
Times to be writing the stories that they did. I
think the challenge you're going to find is the precedent
Trump set when he won those Supreme Court cases is
(36:39):
as long as you're acting arguably within your authority as president,
it's almost impossible to criminally charge you. Obama would cite
the Trump precedents now ironically to protect himself
Welcome in Thursday edition. Clay Short Wednesday, dang it, dang it,
way right off the top, right off the top. I
thought it was Thursday. I've been trying to set up
a dinner with Julie Talbot, our boss, and I was thinking, oh, no,
what day is it? Want a rough start for me?
(00:21):
Right off the times Wednesday. It's Wednesday. For anybody out
there that might have been like, oh no, Buck's actually
going to be out Thursday and Friday, so maybe that'll
make it a little bit easier. Celebrating his dad's birthday. Congratulations,
Happy birthday early to mister Seconman. And you see some
photos posted, you'll see that, yes, the hair is genetic.
He's got a right out of hair for seventy eight.
(00:43):
I was about to say, as I said that, Am
I going to go oh for two? Right off the top?
Is this a big surprise birthday celebration? And I was
going to get the day wrong and blow the surprise
all within the space of a minute. But I do
not think that I managed to do that. Nope, getting
a top all right, well done, sir. We got a
big show to do. We've got a big show where
two radio professionals with a fantastic show to do, Clay,
(01:04):
and it's possible I'll even know what day it is
by the time we finish. All Right, bunch of things
to get into here. Russia Gate has exploded. More of
the internal documents released by D and I Tulci Gabbard.
We will discuss what we think is happening there. Tons
of attention in Idaho the courtroom where Brian Coberger, this
(01:26):
murderer of four innocent college kids, he agreed to plead guilty.
It does not appear, unfortunately, we'll get into this a
little bit, that he is going to explain anything about
exactly what went on there. As part of his plea deal,
he avoids the death penalty, but there does not seem
to be any requirement that he address the families and
(01:48):
explain the entirety of what went on with this story.
It's an awful story. We've talked about it some over
the past several years. The victim impact statements currently underway
live on television being covered on Fox News and other networks.
So we will talk some about that case. Our friend
(02:09):
Sonny hostin at the View says that Stephen Colbert threat
being fired threatens the constitution. We will likely have some
fun with the dumbest show on television. Can we producer rally?
You know, we don't ever pitch ourselves for shows because
you know, people ask us, because that's nice. Just reach
out to whatever contact you can find in the view
and say that Clay and Buck would love to come
(02:30):
hang with the ladies one day. We got we gotta
offer this up. We got to offer this up. I
would It's the number one show that I would most
like to go on, because I think all of you
would enjoy the fireworks that would ensue, especially because they
have a live studio audience. But we start off with
the continuing fallout. Obama issued a statement yesterday evening saying
(02:53):
I have no idea what Trump is talking about. Basically,
I haven't done anything wrong, and I do think that
we talked about this yesterday, and I am open to
being told that I am wrong, as I always am.
I've been married for twenty years eight hundred and two
two two eight a two. But my question for you
(03:13):
guys is this for people who want to weigh in,
I believe that the twenty sixteen Russia collusion UH lies
definitely were intentional. I think they were built as a
way to delegitimize Trump on taking office. I think the
media took it and ran with it, hook line and sinker,
(03:33):
and in that mind, let me play this flashback just
to take you back for those of you who have
forgotten to what twenty seventeen television news sounded like. This
is cut for Russia hacking the election to elect Trump?
What is the end of our democracy?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Votes were definitely affected, But you're Russia hacked the election
to tilted to mister Trump.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
The Russians definitively hacked the election. Russia did hack the election,
no doubt. The Russians hacked the election.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Yes, Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Backed Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
President elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia
hacked the elections. If we find out that Donald Trump
just theoretically was colluding with Russia while they were hacking
the election, that is completely impeachable.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
This dossier alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
the Russian effort to hack the election. The Director of
National Intelligence, the head of the National Security Agency, the
head of the FBI, all of these intelligence experts saying
Russia hacked the election.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
The FBI, the CIA, NSA, the former Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapperman. They've all said this. So to believe that
that's wrong, you have to believe they're all involved in
an elaborate conspiracy to get Donald Trump, which seems a
little far fetched tonight.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Okay, So they said that they hacked the election, they intentionally,
As I said, they're so good about language because they'll say, well,
there's a lot of ways that the election could be hacked.
They hacked Hillary Clinton's cell phone. That doesn't mean that
they hacked into the vote totals and change them. That
doesn't mean that hack, doesn't mean necessarily that they change
(05:05):
the outcome of the election. Hacked is a broad verb
that they are going to use aggressively here. But I
just I think a lot of people, and Buck you
can sign on or sign off of this opinion. I
think a lot of people are getting fired up believing
that there are going to be major consequences. Now, what
(05:26):
is it, nine years after much of this happened, eight
years after much of this happened, And I'm just here
to tell you I don't think you're going to see
charges of anybody in a position of power. Now do
you would you agree with that in general? That I
already saw that from the beginning. I mean, this is
I don't I keep asking friends of mine. I mean,
(05:47):
I'll tell you this. I have spoken to maga lawyer
friends of mine, not who work for the administration, but
are as pro Trump as anybody, as pro Trump as
any of you. Okay, I mean few. I have a
few friends of particular lawyers and they are Wow, they
love Trump. And I said, forget about what you should
do for a second ethically here whether you should bring
(06:09):
the charge or not? Tell me how you could bring
the charge. I think that's the real question. Yeah, that's
what I keep coming to. And I've said deprivation of rights,
but I think the statute on that may be a problem.
Statute of limitations. I've said, there's some others who say
maybe seditious conspiracy. I think the statute on that could
(06:30):
be a problem. And you have to look at these things.
We have all these different trip wires, so to speak,
that are in the system already, and you'd have to
get around those to try to get any justice at
the time. And as we've already discussed, Look, I promise you,
Barack Obama's not spending a minute in jail, Norrisy even
going to be prosecuted by any federal authority. That's not
(06:50):
going to happen. Okay, So I wish that you know
there had been justice, but there was not. I said
this about ben Gazzi. People remember, Oh, Hillary clon, She's
gonna go to prison. No, actually she ended up being
the Democrat nominee after Benghazi. People got very mad at me.
But I'm pretty good at seeing where this stuff is going.
So yes, Clay, you and I are an agreement that it
(07:11):
is very unlikely if we're wrong, we'll come on and
say it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't know it, though.
There's the political cal and that's the other part of this.
There's the political calculus, which I think also applies to
all the Biden dementia cover up stuff. The political calculus is, wow,
look at how dishonest these Democrats really were on Russia collusion.
Part of the problem, Clay, I think is for people
(07:33):
like you and me who have been who followed it
for a long time previously, there's nothing that's going to
come out that surprises me. If John Brennan as CIA
director sent an email to the Obama Principles, which would be,
you know, the top people in the Obama cabinet saying, hey, guys,
Russia collusion's fake, but man, this is going to really
mess up the Trump administration. I would say, yeah, of course.
(07:55):
I mean, there's nothing that can come out. I already
know that that's what they were doing. So now you
get to will you have any proof of it, I mean,
any criminal indictments. I think probably not, But it is
good for people to know the extent of the Khan.
To me, we're basically writing a history book so that
people can understand what actually happened. Let me ask you this.
(08:16):
You've worked in intelligence a long time. Obama is now
not using the word hacked. They're using the word manipulate.
How many elections in the lives of everybody out there
listening right now, do you think Russia or the Soviet Union,
or do USSR whatever group you want to call them,
has attempted to manipulate that have occurred in the United States.
(08:40):
My argument, I want to hear your art. My argument
would be every single one. They have tried to manipulate
the outcome in some way of every election that has
occurred in the lives of anybody out there listening. So
the idea that they tried to turn this into an
unprecedented level of Russian success and a Russian attempt, I
just don't buy it. You don't think in the Cold
(09:00):
War that Russia was trying to manipulate everything they could
relating to American politics. Oh, the Soviet Union was funding
First of all, the Soviet Union was running communist spies
at very high levels of the United States government. That
is a fact. Another fact, Nixon was an anti communist hero.
Stop believing the Watergate you know, deep throat, Oh my gosh,
(09:23):
Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon's the worst person ever. Nixon was
actually really good on anti communism because there were absolutely
high level Communist penetrations in the United States government. And
guess who they always were going to? Democrats? Guess where
they were always finding sympathetic ears labor unions, Guess where
they were always looking to exploit divisions in this country
(09:44):
race politics. The Soviet Union was doing this for decades.
And the thing is it was always the Democrat Party
that was the entry point for those Communist manipulations of
our system. So we don't get taught this in school.
But the record is quite clear. The Venona Project is
quite clear. You can go check that one out secret
for decades, letting us know how high level the secret program,
(10:06):
letting us know a high level of the communist penetrations
of the United States government were. So also go read
Witnessed by Whittaker Chambers, a book that far more people
should have read and be familiar with. So I throw
all this out there, Clay, because yeah, of course there's
efforts to involve the you know, think of all the
NGOs around the world. Think of all the different heads
(10:26):
of state who weigh in publicly in the media saying
they want this or that candidate in the United States,
what happens all the time. So the idea that Russia
had figured out some ingenious way to skew a multi
billion dollar media, you know, media frenzy in this country
in terms of the spending with one hundred grand on
(10:47):
Facebook is completely insane. But as I've said, it really
is a it's a lie of degree that they were
engaged in.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
So if I tell somebody, you know, Clay, if I
tell somebody that I've hoard a glass of boiling water
in the ocean. I could say that I've attempted to
change the temperature of the ocean. That would be an
honest statement. It's insane because you would never be able
to register it. But you could say that there was
an attempt made to change the temperature of the ocean.
(11:16):
And that's essentially what they did with these Facebook ads
and with the intelligence community review. They took something so
insignificant that no person could think that it matters. Or
it would be like saying, Clay Clay, have you ever jaywalked?
Have you ever jaywalked before?
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Clay?
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Yeah, So Clay has just admitted to breaking the law.
Should I just refer to Clay Travis as a criminal
from now on? I've also jaywalked, Should I refer to
myself as a criminal from now on? It's a lie
of degree, a lie of severity. And that's what they
did with Russia collusion from the start. Okay. So I
think the significance here is you can correct the historic record.
(11:52):
You can further delegitimize the legacy media who took this
swill and treated it as if it were the honest truth.
You could maybe investigate whether there were classified documents that
were improperly leaked. We know that that is typically a
very hard case to make. I think that ultimately people
(12:13):
out there who are expecting, hey, we're gonna get Obama
purp walked, We're gonna get Hillary Clinton held accountable and
arrested for her misdeeds. We're gonna get Clapper or Comy,
whoever you want to point to in the larger intelligence community.
I don't think any of them are going to get
charged with crimes. Now, could I be wrong? Yes, you
(12:36):
are open to tell me where I am wrong. But
I don't want this to turn into a Lucy and
Charlie Brown type situation. I don't want this to be
the flip side of when every time a new story
came out about Trump for the last decade, everybody on
the left said, we've got him now, Oh, we finally
(12:56):
got him, and he was always Charlie were always Charlie
Brown running up and Lucy pulled away the football at
the last possible moment. And then take you can take
it even a step further, Clay with with just the
process problems. Let's say there's a statute they want to
use and a prosecutor we all know the old can
indict a ham Sandwich. Maybe a prosecutor will find some
(13:17):
way to do this. You're gonna bring the case. You
have to bring the case in DC, or else the
whole thing will look incredibly rigged. You're gonna get a
DC jury to that's my question. Indict. First of all,
Obama totally off limits. Was the president. That's not happening.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is just lying to you. Okay,
that's not happening. But even someone like John Brennan, you
think a DC jury's gonna say, yeah, let's throw this
(13:38):
old guy in prison because he thought he was I'm
thinking from their perspective, he thought he was defending the
republic by standing up to Donald Trump. You think any
DC jury is gonna it's just not gonna happen. So
it's important to set the record straight. It's important the
American people know because of the political questions that issue here.
But legally speaking, I think there's a high hurdle. And
(13:59):
if I'm wrong on this, you know you can blame
my non existent law degree. Well, if I'm wrong on it,
you can definitely blame blame my law degree in person.
But I think you're one hundred percent right. There's no
way they're going to indict in the district, the District
of Columbia in Democrat officials. I mean, it's almost impossible.
I think on behalf of Trump. Could I be wrong? Sure,
I've been wrong before. You guys can weigh in and
(14:21):
tell us if you think we're missing something. In the meantime, Look,
if you love baseball, and I love baseball, even though
my Atlanta Braves are a disaster, at least I get
to watch Ronalduacunya and I can pick more or less
when it comes to all of his stats. No matter
which team you root for, and basically no matter which
state you're in, you can have fun with price picks
super easy. You just pick more or less on your
favorite players. As NFL training camps are now officially underway,
(14:43):
it won't be very long until the preseason is here.
Then we've got actual games going on in both the
NFL and in college football. Get hooked up right now.
You play five dollars, win or lose, you get fifty
dollars in your account. You ten times your money you
put in five dollars, you get back fifty. Yeah, have
to get signed up by going to pricepicks dot com.
Use code Clay. That's pricepicks dot com. Code Clay. You
(15:06):
can get hooked up. You can play in California and
play in Texas. You can play in Georgia, you can
play in Florida. You can play all over the country.
Get hooked up today at pricepicks dot com. My name Clay.
That's pricepicks dot com. My name Clay, Claytravison, Buck Sexton.
Mic drops that never sounded so good. Find them on
the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
(15:29):
All right, welcome back in to Clay and Buck. Appreciate
you being here with us. Lines are open eight hundred
two eight two two eight a two. I've got the
trip to New York coming up. So I got birthday
on my mind from my dad, and you're seeing my family,
which is very exciting. But we want to take some
calls here and dive into some more of the news.
(15:50):
I'm dialing in here, I'm getting focused on everything. We
got to talk back BB Cliff in California, who listens
on KFBK radio. Hit it, claybook.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
This is Cliff and California, and I just got to
say if you guys end up on the view. That
is the one thing I can currently think of that
would make me want to actually watch that stupid show.
So I encourage this to happen.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Well, I like this that happened, but I don't think
you'll ever happen either. However, however, you never know. The
show stinks, they need help. We would, it would go viral,
and you and I would be very charming to the ladies.
We would just mentle the arguments and make them look foolish,
but we would be charming. We'd be very friendly while
pointing out that they know nothing, that they're poisoning the
minds of their audience. So I think that this could
(16:37):
really work out for all involved. Yeah. Look, Brandon, by
the way, and Boise Idaho wants to weigh in on
what we were just talking about, the charges or non charges. Brandon,
what you got for us?
Speaker 4 (16:50):
Hey, guys, the American people want to see something and
we're second stary, like if if Hillary and Obama literally
did plue in treasonous acts, they need to go after them.
And we're sick and tired of here. I mean, you
have the whole dose thing go on, and all this
(17:11):
broad and abuse and corruption that was uncovered, and there's
just nothing happening from any of it. It may American
people just disgusted. We're sick of the talk. Let's do something.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Thank you for the call. I agree and understand the frustrations,
and we've talked about this. I just I think what's
more frustrating is believing that something is going to happen
that doesn't happen. So I would love to be wrong.
I would love for to suddenly wake up and hear, hey,
there's a ton of indictments that have been brought over
Russia collusion. I'm just telling you, look at Statute of
(17:44):
limitations you consider venue. I find it Obama's presidential powers,
as we just saw with Trump, I find it highly
improbable that it would occur. I agree. So just telling
you what we think our nation needs original idea. He
is to solve our largest problems. If one of those
problems is eliminating our thirty six trillion dollar debt, there
(18:05):
could be a really interesting solution right under our feet.
So if you hear from former presidential advisor Jim Rickards
on this one, he says President Trump's already got something
in mind, and it could be underway soon. Rickards believes
President Trump is about to unleash a one hundred and
fifty trillion dollars stay owned ass hit hidden for over
a century. This could trigger an economic boom not seen
(18:26):
in a century and send one small sector of the
market skyrocketing. But you need to act quickly. Remember President
Trump moves fast, and he wants to get as much
initiated in the first two years of his second term
as possible. Once this breaks out in the mainstream, too
late to get in on it early, So go watch
Jim Rickards interview at Birthright twenty twenty five dot com.
That's Birthright twenty twenty five dot com paid for by
(18:50):
Paradigm Press, Fleet Travis and Buck Sexton on the front
lines of Truth. We're talking about the Russiagate revelations from
Telsea Gabbard inside of the intelligence community surrounding the twenty
sixteen election. We'll take some of your talkbacks here in
a moment. But Buck, one of the aspects of this
that is not getting a ton of attention is that
(19:12):
Russia had determined that Hillary Clinton was not healthy. And
if you remember that video that went viral in September,
I believe of twenty sixteen, right before the election, when
Hillary basically collapsed and had to be helped into the
back of her suv. I know many of you will
(19:33):
remember that that she did not seem healthy at that
point in time. She certainly has not maintained a crazy
public schedule. One would say since twenty sixteen. You remember
that video, Well, oh yeah, she flopped into the back
of the van, and they were trying to hide it.
But beyond that play, we now know, beyond shadow of doubt,
it is public record now it is fact that Democrats
(19:56):
will prop up a dementia pation who should be twenty
five at amendment out of office. So of course, if
Hillary had severe health issues, hiding that from the American people,
that's like table stakes. That's easy for them, no doubt.
And I do think as well that if Russia had
(20:17):
desperately been trying to hack this election on behalf of Trump,
wouldn't one of the top things you would have done
is try to leak Hillary Clinton's health related issues, which
are included in some of this deep dive information that
has come out. So I bring that up. Here is
one pathway that I could see where we could have
(20:38):
a resolution that might not be satisfying, but I think
could attempt to hold people accountable. And this is me
analyzing from a legal perspective. You could present information of
a criminal nature to a DC grand jury seeking indictments,
hoping to get them. If you did not get them,
(21:00):
you could just say, hey, we did everything we could.
DC protected Democrats. Again, I think a lot of people
have not reckoned on both sides, Democrats, Republicans, independence, everybody.
With the precedents being set surrounding Trump when it comes
to presidential powers, I am here to tell you Barack
(21:22):
Obama's presidential powers one billion percent, I believe protect him
when it comes to how he chose to analyze intelligence
related data. So if Trump can't be charged for many
of the things that they wanted to charge him with
because for lack of a better way, the protective powers
of the presidency almost act as a four shield that
(21:44):
will cover many different aspects of his regulation. Getting intelligence
briefings and analyzing them and interpreting them is certainly within
the province of presidential powers. Buck on your end, how
many for interpretations of an intelligence issue do you think
(22:04):
might exist inside of the CIA or the FBI? On
any given issue. One of the most stressful parts of
the job of an intelligence analyst, other than making sure
that the cappuccino machine is functioning properly, is something they
call coordination, where you have to with different agencies. It
depends on the product. And this is getting very deep
(22:26):
into the weeds, but you have to get sign off
or some level of agreement on different assessments. Right, they'll
call it an interagency products. You get all the you know, DIA, CIA, NSA.
Do we all agree on this?
Speaker 3 (22:38):
And it is to.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
Borrow a clayword a Donnie Brook. A lot of the
time I have seen adults in tears during those interagency
meetings fighting over things because some I mean, that was
during wartime and some of this stuff was really important.
But I don't think anyone needed to get that emotional
in a meeting discussing what's getting written down about it.
But that's the reality of how much there's disagreement. And
(23:02):
sometimes one agency will say they want essentially a footnote
at the bottom saying we do not concur with this assessment.
We see it differently. So, of course, when you're talking
about analysis that is meaningful, it's generally analysis of what
will happen or what is likely to happen, and people
aren't very good at predicting the future and often have
big disagreements about that. So I think a lot of
(23:25):
people presume that there is one understood story that I
think what you have to contemplate is that there are
potentially ten different arguments being made about what might have occurred.
Just use what happened with Iran. We just had the
bombing of the nuclear sites in Iran. Different agencies have
(23:46):
different interpretations based on the data of what might happen,
and inside of those agencies there's probably a divergence of opinion.
My point on all that is Obama is going to
be I believe clearly within his presidential powers have believed
that Russia hacked or manipulated the election in favor of Trump,
because there are enough signposts that he can point to
(24:07):
and say, I'm not the intelligence gatherer. They bring me
information and tell me what they think, and we took
this interpretation. I think it's gonna be very hard to
charge him. There may be some feeling of the process
is the punishment goes both ways. Perhaps because Democrats do this,
judges do this to stop Trump. They know they're not
going to get their way, and they know what they're
(24:28):
doing is wrong, but they do it anyway. There may
be a little bit of that mentality behind bringing a
charge of some kind against a federal indictment against some
of the individuals from Russia collusion. That is possible to
me that that may happen in an effort to get justice,
But I just think that it would come apart within
(24:52):
the system at some level. That's where I'm just very
confident you're not going to get a full conviction of
anybody involved in Russia collusion that is currently being talked
about has seen because of things like the statute limitations,
because of the statutory definitions involved. I don't and because
of the DC jury pool slash DC judges that would
(25:14):
oversee this. I think it's really hard, but maybe they
try it anyway, and maybe that's really what there is
a push for. Right now, we're gonna I know, we're
getting a lot of emails and calls. People are angry.
What do you mean. I'm not saying they should get
away with it. I'm just saying I think, unfortunately, they're
likely to continue to get away with it. But I
could be wrong. I think you have to analyze it
(25:36):
legally and rationally, and as we told you would likely
be the case. What do we tell you, Hey, the
South Florida case against Trump on classified documents garbage. We
told you that it was likely to get tossed, that
it was within also said that there was zero chance
Hunter Biden would spend a single day in prison. Zero chance.
And people got a little bit huffy about that one.
(25:57):
Remember that, Clay, Yeah, like, guys, his dad's the president.
They bring charges, sure, Clay Ashley nailed that one early. Well,
they bring charge a shore. But hot, is Joe Biden
gonna let his son go to federal prison? No, we
told you he would pardon. People said, well, he's saying
he's not gonna part, and we were like, he's gonna
part at the last minute. By the way, there are
some interesting actually tons of super interesting questions. Matt in Rockville,
(26:19):
Maryland's got a good one, Matt fire Away.
Speaker 6 (26:24):
Hey, guys, Yes, so one of the things that you're
talking about is getting an indictment in DC. Well, if
you remember, I Lean Cannon, the district judge in Florida.
One of the reasons that she tossed out the case
after the mar Lager raid was that Jack Smith and
paneled a grand jury in DC to go after him
in Florida, which makes zero sense. And another example what
(26:48):
they've done before is if you remember the guy who
made the meme about voting for Hillary Douglas Mackie. Douglas
Mackie was tweeting from Florida. Where did they go after him?
The Eastern District of New York. Why the Twitter servers
were in New York. So that's where they went after
him and arrested him and put them on trial. So
there are ways to go about doing this, and we're
(27:09):
just you know, the shoes on the other foot. Now,
guys like, if you can do it, we can do
it back to you. Okay.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
So these are smart questions, and let me what you're
really hitting is venue. And every lawyer will tell you
that one of the most significant things about any case
is where it's located. And they actually have a term
for it. It's called forum shopping. Where you go to
a district, or you go to a state, or you
go to a locality that you believe is far more
(27:37):
likely to be favorable towards your perspective. Actually, where you
file the race to jurisdiction can be a huge part
of a story. This is getting into the weeds. The
example that you cited is a good one actually in Florida.
If you remember, Jack Smith actually started to prosecute Trump
for classified document issues in DC. That's where you and
(28:00):
paneled the grand jury. Then I think he realized, uh, oh,
I should be doing this where mar A Lago is located,
and just picked up that entire process and tried to
relocate it to Florida, where the crime is committed is
a huge part of the venue. I think you would
be very hard. Given Barack Obama lives in DC, and
(28:23):
given the president by and large is located in Washington,
d C. For most of his time in office, I
think it would be very hard to bring charges. Leave
aside the presidential powers aspect, it would be very hard,
I think, to bring charges against Barack Obama somewhere other
than Washington, d C. Which is why I go to
both presidential powers and then the grand jury. Do you
(28:46):
think a grand jury that ninety five or ninety eight
percent voted Obama is going to indict Obama for crimes?
Speaker 6 (28:53):
I do not.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Now, to your point, they could decide hey, where could
we go elsewhere? I think they would have a major
venue ish you, and I think in the event there
were charges brought, Obama would say, hey, this is clearly
a DC related circuit challenge, and I think the courts
would likely relocate that anything involving him back to d C.
But I thank you for the call, sir. It's a
smart question that he's asking. That gets into very smart
(29:16):
legal procedure. Wise, I would just say, this is where
we get into does the Trump administration decide that we
are in an eye for an eye era of the DOJ,
which I think our caller was also getting. He said,
look that they can do this to us, we can
do this to them. That could be the case. So
I would be far less surprised to see an indictment
(29:38):
brought against a John Brennan. I'm not even sure what
the statute would be currently, but let's just say they
find a statute they're going to use. I would be
far less surprised to see that happen. And then I
would just see an actual trial with an actual jury
convicting and there being some consequence beyond it. But the
process is the punishment works both ways. That is what
(29:59):
I am saying. So maybe that is the desire here.
If they brought charges against Obama, you would see a
form of what happened when they brought charges against Trump.
That is, Obama's attorneys would seek to dismiss the charges
by arguing that all of his actions were within presidential powers.
And ironically, after criticizing Trump. This is just giving you
(30:20):
a preview of how this would go. After criticizing Trump
and saying, oh, this is how dictators destroy our constitution,
Obama's attorneys would argue entirely based on the Trump precedent,
that he could not be prosecuted for anything that happened.
Every president is going to use the Trump precedent to
their advantage for the rest of our lives. Well, the
(30:41):
problem that the huge advantage that Democrats have and the
problem that we have, is that when you have no
integrity to protect, you have a lot of latitude. It
doesn't matter. It's true, you know, so if you're willing
to just do whatever which they are, that means there's
always an option for you. So I could very much
see democrat, any Democrat who indicted, possibly under the Russia
(31:02):
collusion look back just saying well, we have in the
case of Barack Obama specifically, we already handled this with
presidential powers. Supreme Court that you guys all like so
much already waited on this. Sorry, it's all. It's all
over for you with that one. So uh you know,
we'll see. Look, if somebody broke into your home, would
you know how to protect yourself? If the answers no,
(31:24):
go to this website right now, saberradio dot com. There
you will find the best self defense products on the market.
Sabers the number one pepper spray brand, trusted by law enforcement,
same ones we have in our own homes. Saber is
spelled sab r e. Website again saberradio dot com. Fifty
year old company, family own that wants you to feel empowered.
(31:47):
Sabers products reliable, trusted. They can help you protect your family,
particularly if you're not home and you want your spouse
or partner to feel empowered. The pepper gel projectile launcher
shaped like a pistol or rifled, depending on the model.
Both will fire off a pepper gel projectile targeted to
go a longer distance than you might think, and they're
(32:07):
effective against an intruder. Go online to saberradio dot com
you'll say fifteen percent at sab R radio dot com.
You can also call eight four four eight two four safe.
That's eight four four eight two four s a F E.
Want to begin to know when you're on the go,
(32:28):
The Team forty seven podcast drop highlights from the week
Sundays at noon Eastern in the Clay in Bug podcast feed.
Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts. All right, welcome back into Clay and Block.
We'll get some of your calls and also set up
what's coming on on the show. For the second hour
(32:49):
of the program. We got Senator Rampaul joining us later on.
That'll be fun, always interesting things to talk to the
Senator about. So we're looking forward to that. We've got
a bunch of calls coming and also want to mind
you Crocket coffee my friends.
Speaker 4 (33:00):
Good.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
I gotta go fill up right now. I'm wearing a
Crack of Coffee T shirt. Clay, look at this, Look
at this wearing Yes, my boy's love wearing this gear.
The gear is really pretty great. Uh years on. Uh yeah,
they're fantastic conversation starter. So you can get delicious coffee.
You get your Crockett mug, you get your Crockett T shirt,
your Crockett hat. All these things are fantastic, fabulous. Even
(33:21):
go to crack at coffee dot com. If you want
to use code Book. You get a signed coffee of
Clay's American Playbook. Please subscribe because then it just gets
delivered to you every month. Ca cup, ground bean, whole bean,
You drink coffee, drink Cracket coffee, Spirit of America. Everybody,
Let's go for it. Uh callers coming in here, Damon
in Washington, Uh DC fire away, Oh hello, yeah, what
(33:49):
you got for us?
Speaker 7 (33:50):
Hey, I look at I look at Obama from my
previous job opportunities. I look at more of it. Though,
like a demi god, like Loki, it's more about just
beating him. That's not about to me putting in prison
as much as I know when he's never going to
go because everything you all have actually said that, everything
you all know, it's about giving him a black eye
and given about the Democratic Party of black eys.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Look, I don't disagree with the concept of to me,
the most relevant thing here is setting the historic record
in place, and so in the future people understand what
happened in Trump one point zero. Look, I mean, there's
still a lot of people who believe that Trump only
won in twenty sixteen because of Russia, and it was
only because I think he won so significantly in twenty
(34:36):
twenty four that there hasn't been some allegation that he
in some way had a rig job put in place
as well. Joe in Miami, what you got for us?
Speaker 3 (34:46):
I just want I do agree with that. It could
be another Lucy Charlie Brown situation, but just a spin
on it that hasn't been pointed out. When they got Trump,
they had the presidency on their side, they had half
of Congress, they had the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department,
and this court system with their venue, you know, picking
the right venue, and they had media on their side.
(35:08):
But however, this time Trump has the presidency, he has
all of Congress, FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and the court system.
Is going to be a battle, but he does have Fox,
which is the number one show out there. And even
though they had everything they had, they were only they
were able to throw them in jail and almost try
(35:31):
to bankrupt him. Yeah, now that we have more on
our side, we should be able to do at least
that maybe not throw them in jail, but at least
bankrupt them and like you said, set history straight and
ruin their life hopefully and run them through the mill.
You know, these are things we could do, not to
give up, but we have I feel more on our side,
(35:51):
and we have the truth. They did all this with
just lies.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
You're preaching to the choir. Preacher to the choir. Here's
the deal. And I'm telling you this as a lawyer.
You have to find something to charge them with, right
and it has to be within the statute of limitations,
and it has to be actionable based on the venue.
That is what we have tried to focus on. What
are the charges going to be? I thought maybe you
(36:16):
could get them. I think Buck you said ten years
on leaking intelligence documents to the media, which we know happened.
Those are tough cases to prove, but we know that
they got information at the Washington Post the New York
Times to be writing the stories that they did. I
think the challenge you're going to find is the precedent
Trump set when he won those Supreme Court cases is
(36:39):
as long as you're acting arguably within your authority as president,
it's almost impossible to criminally charge you. Obama would cite
the Trump precedents now ironically to protect himself
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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