September 17, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show continues the in-depth analysis of the political and cultural fallout from the Charlie Kirk assassination, with a sharp focus on media bias, left-wing extremism, and the erosion of civil discourse in America. Clay and Buck dissect the mainstream media’s response, calling out CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets for downplaying the motive behind the killing and falsely suggesting it was not politically driven.
The hosts expose how left-wing commentators and influencers are attempting to reframe the narrative, with some even celebrating Kirk’s death online. They highlight disturbing reactions across social media platforms, including Discord and BlueSky, where thousands—possibly millions—have expressed support for the assassination, revealing a dangerous undercurrent of radical leftist ideology.
Clay and Buck also analyze the shooter’s background, including his relationship with a transgender roommate and his shift toward progressive politics, as confirmed by his own mother. They argue that the motive is clear and rooted in left-wing political hatred, despite media attempts to obscure the facts. The show features a fiery exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, where Cruz challenges the network’s refusal to acknowledge the obvious motive behind the attack.
In a broader cultural critique, the hosts discuss the lack of public free speech events on the left, contrasting it with Charlie Kirk’s open forums and the importance of debate in a healthy democracy. They emphasize that the left avoids open dialogue because their ideas often fail under scrutiny.
The hour also includes highlights from Clay Travis’s debate with ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, where both men condemned political violence and advocated for civil discourse. The conversation touches on the politicization of sports, the possibility of Stephen A. Smith running for president, and the broader implications of celebrity involvement in politics.
Listeners are treated to thoughtful commentary on the Washington Redskins name controversy, the role of Native American representation in sports, and the cultural significance of team mascots. The show wraps with audience calls reacting to the assassination, the media’s spin, and Clay’s potential political future.
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/
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
In hour number two Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We
are live in New York City as we have been
all week long. Appreciate all of you out there listening
to us all over the country. We'll get into some
of the takeaways, but had a lot of fun at
the stephen A.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Smith debate. We'll get Bucks take on it as well.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
We got some cuts that I think are actually interesting
from a political process.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
That we will play later in this hour.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
But here right off the top, we talked an hour
one about the clear motivations becoming a parent. I know
all of you were aware Charlie Kirk was not killed
by a right winger. He was not killed because he
wasn't right wing enough. He wasn't killed, as Jamel Hill,
(00:47):
formerly of ESPN said, by part of a white supremacist
gang hit. This is what she tweeted Buck Now she
since deleted it.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
I mean, if he was in a maximum security prison,
maybe that story would make some sense. But that's insane,
that's truly. Let's lunatic stuff, absolute lunatic stuff. A white
supremacist gang hit, according to Jamel Hill. But what are
they saying on CNN?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
I want to play a couple of these cuts because
they're telling you things that are one false And I
want to ask Buck's opinion on this. I don't understand
how you could have these takes and be on the
internet at all. First, here is CNN's host Abby Phillip
arguing with Scott Jennings about people celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder
(01:40):
cut thirty four.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Everybody here acknowledges that there have been thousands upon thousands
of people, ordinary people who have taken to social media
to celebrate this.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Yes or no, I.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
Don't know about that.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
I just we should just there's we've got to be
factual about this, right. I don't think you know the scope.
I don't know the scope, but I do think that
we have to distinguish between random people in the world
and something that is a dominant issue.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Because the person who people a random person in the world.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
Well, here's the thing here, it's the danger that you
dismissed the random people of the world.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
They have access assassinations in this country. There have been
political assassinations in this country before, Scott, wouldn't you agree,
And they're all reprehensible and in this country do you
believe that in those political assassinations in the sixties and
the seventies and the eighties assassination attempts, that there were
no Americans who cheered that on. I think the question anything,
(02:40):
the question is whether or not. It's not whether or
not it happens. The question is whether or not we
need to place that at the very center of our
political world right now and categorize half the people in
the country according to those random people that we've now
just happened to see because of the Internet.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
We do have to put that in the center of
our political world. By the way, because it.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Is she initially you did that there were thousands and
thousands of people. I actually think Scott Jennings was being
very lenient in his numbering. Certainly there's tens of thousands.
I think there's hundreds of thousands. There may well be millions.
So to say, oh, we don't know that there's thousands, again,
(03:17):
they're trying to minimize what is going on.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Here is MSNBC.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
This is brandy Za drown Z And I'm not sure
if I got that name right, but she is on MSNBC.
You don't know Brandy's I'm not familiar with her work.
I don't know her whole catalog, but she says, to
suggest people on the Internet are cheering for the murder
of Charlie Kirk is actually the total opposite of what's
(03:44):
actually happening.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
This is what she said, cut thirty five.
Speaker 7 (03:47):
If you look across media generally, you have seen a
lot of people trying to grapple with Charlie Kirk's legacy
and what that is as a right wing agitator and
as a provocateur and as you know, a strategist and
the most important GOP figure besides Donald Trump arguably ever
and so or right now, and so there's a lot
(04:09):
of grappling to do. But to suggest that the internet
is cheering for this is just the opposite, total opposite
of what's actually happening.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
No, actually, that's from reading the internet, and that's from
going on discord, and I'm clay. This is one of
the reasons why I did it the night the night
of meaning like we knew that he was dead that night,
I just spent I don't know how, I felt like
an eternity just going through Blue Sky. Going through Blue Sky,
I downloaded the app. I didn'tven have it on my
phone because I obviously don't want to support that lunacy,
(04:39):
but I had to see it with my own eyes,
telling I mean, I know, you know that, Yeah, but
thousands and thousands of people cheering, high fiving, making horrific jokes,
saying horrible things about his widow. I mean, these people
are sick maniacs. And some of them, you can say, oh,
they're not. You know, anchors on CNN, some of them
(05:00):
have a lot of followers. There are people that have
This is something else we all need to understand. There
are people online who have far more influence in political conversation.
There are many of them than any of these these
anchors on ABC. Look at they're empty suits. No person
under the age of sixty gives a you know what
(05:21):
about what these these they're basically like glorified male models,
and you know female models. I mean, they have absolutely
no gravitas with the public anymore. And when you see
who is saying this stuff and the kind of the
kind of following they have, it's really really disconcerting. I mean,
(05:42):
it's pretty scary, honestly that we have to share a
country with so many psychos. There are a lot of
them out there, and one of the things, you know,
Ezra Kline's getting all this pushback from and I'm gonna
tell you Ezra Clin has said some horrible things in
the past. I just just I want to remind people
because I've been in this game a long time. I've
got fifteen years of institutional memory about conservative media and
the Libs and how they used to be right. They're
(06:02):
gonna be sixteen years this, June Clay. It's just been
too long. It's wild. So Asra client, I remember when
they were trying when the whole Me Too thing was happening, said,
you know, the rape laws should be so stringent that
even people who are innocent are going to get caught
up in it. But that's the price we have to pay.
When it came to consent and non consent, I was like, oh,
so someone should have their life ruine to be considered
a rapist as part of the collateral damage of the
(06:24):
Me too movement. He said that on TV. I remember that,
So I'm whether he apologize for it later, I don't know,
but he has said some horrible things in this case.
In this case, he is saying that he you know,
in this op ed that he wrote, He said, you
can just condemn a political assassination without then all this
throat clearing and prefacing of the oil. I know I
(06:44):
don't agree, but you know he's a white national supremacist
and all stuff. No, you can just say we don't
agree with political murder in this country. And that's actually
a core value of being an American. And this is
the test the left is failing. This is where Democrats
are showing us who they really are in millions of cases.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Let me play one more cut to to give you
a sense. This was CNN last night our friend Senator
Ted Cruz on with Caitlyn Collins, and Caitlyn Collins says, well,
we don't know any motive in the Charlie Kirk killing,
and it got heated from there. Listen to cut sixteen.
Speaker 6 (07:19):
We don't have a motive yet, we don't know yet.
We're waiting. Obviously we've heard what the governors had to
say with the course direct motive.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Yet we know we don't have a motive yet. What's
happening with real position. He just happened to fire the
gun and celebration. You can't tell the motive.
Speaker 6 (07:35):
Senator, That's not what I said and I said law
enforcement hasn't laid out a direct motive. They laid out
a lot of evidence here of these messages and.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Charlie Kirk, pardon.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
Senator, with all due respect, you know exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing with you politically. I'm saying that law
enforcement has not put a specific motive. You know that
there's a difference of what they're putting in a legal work.
They have that and know what you're talking about and
are not even we're not about the.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Fact is false, Senator, fact hold on, say let me
answer your statement, because what you said is respect law
enforce your You don't want to that I did.
Speaker 6 (08:15):
Not say, and I want to get back to.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
You the facts of all I mean this is like,
this is like watching an NBA player go one on
one with like, you know, a j V high school athlete.
I'm just just being honest in terms of debate and
and intellectual rigor. Clay, we watched the air it prossec
body you aired it for everybody. They said the explicitly
(08:40):
said there was political motive here explicitly said. And CNN
is still telling their audience. I'm telling Caitlyn has been
told to say this the the the powers that be
over there because the CNN audience, which I am quite
familiar with, having uh been a you know CNN uh
you know target for a number of years CNN is
(09:01):
their audience is not willing to hear what is true
here because they want to believe that they're the good guys,
and in this case they're side of the bad guys.
That's the truth. Their ideas, they're Oh, if you don't
say the right pronouns, you're erasing somebody is tied directly
to this individual's lunacy, which was the motivation for the
assassination of our friend Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
This is if you're wondering, this was actually during the
layout of charges, the seven felony charges brought here is
Utah County DA Jeff Gray. In addition to the text
messages which Buck read for you an hour one that
we discussed here, he is yesterday saying. Suspect's mother says
(09:43):
he had become more pro gay and trans rites oriented.
This is cut fourteen.
Speaker 8 (09:49):
Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so,
Robinson had become more political and had started to lean
more to the left becoming more pro gay and trance
writes Oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate,
a biological mel who was transitioning genders. This resulted in
(10:12):
several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and
his father, who have very different political views.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Okay, so they tried to say always too far right wing.
Then on Saturday, Fox News breaks the story that his
roommate is a man who is deciding to become a woman.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
And we said back, and we said, ah, you.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Know, number of Trump voters who are dating or hooking
up with a man pretending to be a woman. I
think a fairly small number. Maybe there's some, but there's
not that many of them. And in conjunction with writing
all of these slogans on the bullets as a part
of the murder, and in addition to even though it
(10:58):
sounds suspect in some ways, the text messages there is
zero doubt about what the motive is.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Also, might I just add the decision.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
To murder someone at a free speech event while they
are discussing all different sorts of issues is a sign
of general animus. You know, they're still saying this about
the guy who tried to kill Trump, who we remember
know virtually nothing about. Right, they're still saying right now, well,
we don't really know why he did it.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Let me tell you something, just a general idea.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
If you prepare an assassination attempt and if you kill someone,
my general proposition would be, you probably are motivated by
not liking the guy. I don't think there's very many
assassination attempts that have been motivated by love for the
person they're trying to assassinate. He hated Charlie Kirk. He
(11:57):
hated what Charlie Kirk stood for.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
This is like, this would be like arguing, you know
the guy who shot Lincoln, you know Booth Booth was
really it was all about being an abolitionist and uh
and really love the Republican Party. You'd be mocked endlessly
because that's the dumbest thing imaginable. Right, That's what they
are doing. Yes, they are doing that game. They are
playing that script out for people, and they're doing it
(12:22):
on major news networks. By the way, I want to
be clear about this too. This is a game the
left always plays, clay, where they delay it to take
the impact out of the public consciousness. This is why
they say, oh, we just don't. We don't know the
motive yet. We don't know the motive yet. In six months,
maybe they'll be willing to say what we've already known
from the first moments why this. But at that point
(12:42):
they figure there won't be the same psychological impact, and
particularly on their audience, which wants to believe that they're
the good people. They want to believe that the left
is where the good, nice people are, even though that
is where the psycho terrorists murdering people come from disproportionately
clearly as compared to the right. They can't process that information. Look,
(13:03):
the left is the emotionally deranged and destabilized side of
politics in America. We know this. If you have, if
you have like serious emotional problems, the chance that you
are and you care about politics at all, or you
care about any political beliefs at all, the chance that
you're left wing instead of right wing. I would argue
it's five or ten to one.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
I think that's right.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I would also point out, as we go to break here,
and I think this is an interesting way to think
about it. Who on the left has public free speech events?
You thought about this at all, Buck, We've talked about
who the left wing version of Charlie Kirk would be,
and you pointed out there isn't one, And I think
that's accurate. But can you even think of a leftist
(13:43):
that does public events with open microphones to debate people
on issues. No, I can't even remember ever seeing that.
Why would that be? Because One, I think they know
their arguments are not good. Two, they don't want an
actual marketplace. They don't want there to be actual debate.
(14:05):
Charlie was a threat. The fact that there is no
Charlie Kirk of the left is not just a coincidence.
It's not a failure of the marketplace. It is a
failure of the left to actually debate and embrace debate.
And I would say, this is what you saw in
one of the few real debates we've ever had in
the modern era between two strong advocates. I'm not counting
(14:28):
Biden as a strong advocate. When Gavin Newsom and Ron
DeSantis debated on Sean Hannity's television show, Gavin Newsom got
destroyed because the facts were not on his side and
he hadn't actually had to debate with anybody ever.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
And it's funny, we'll talk about the stephen A.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
He did have wind swept hair and that just winning
grin that. Gavin Newsom, well.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
You were when we were walking over for the steven
A debate, and we'll play some audio of that for
you here in this hour. We met up with Emily
Campangno from Fox News. She was walking with us and
she was like, well, do you know you know what
kind of questions are going to be asked? And I
was like, I'm not a Democrat running for president, you know,
I don't get the questions in advance.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Was a good line, good line.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I like that one.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Look, I want to tell you two years ago, October seventh,
Israel changed forever. That's the day Hamas Terriss murdered more
than twelve hundred innocent Israelis took two hundred and fifty hostages.
The pain of that day, the horror that so many
of us witnessed, much of it was captured on video,
will never be forgotten. It was the most brutal attack
on Jewish people since the Holocaust. Yet, anti Semitism is
(15:30):
on the rise. If you're feeling helpless about how to
combat it, there is something you can do. Mark this
date on your calendar. Sunday, October fifth, there's a movement
of love and support for the people of Israel called
the Flags of Fellowship. It's organized by the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. On that Sunday, millions across America
(15:51):
will plant an Israeli flag in honor and solidarity with
the victims of October seventh, twenty twenty three and their
grieving families. Can be part of this movement. To get
more information about how you can join the Flags of
Fellowship movement, visit the Fellowship online at IFCJ dot org.
That's IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
You don't know what you don't know, right, but you could.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
On the Sunday Hang with Clay and Buck podcast.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
All right, welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
We have every line Litz, so let's get some calls here.
Kathy in Florida, welcome, Hello, have a question? Hello, Yeah,
you're on.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (16:34):
I just have a question. I don't really understand or
I feel like it's foolish that we've released all the
detailed information of these text messages and the detailed information
of the evidence that they've found and everything. Why why
if they released all of this I want I feel
like one, it's giving the left the fuel to be
(16:59):
able to to spin their narrative.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Does it make it harder for them to spend the
narrative if the facts are out there publicly.
Speaker 9 (17:06):
Well because of the way they're spinning it, like this guy.
You know this, this news reporter taking sympathy for this
guy's Yeah, well.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Look he had to apologize for it, right, So look,
I understand you want to be on guard against the
efforts to shift the narrative from them. But I think
having the primary source material of evidence in the case
out there, I think Cash Betel on this score is
doing the right thing.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Clay, Yeah, I agree. I also think this is a
part of the indictment. This is how you are bringing
the charges. There isn't my understanding a grand jury in
Utah which would review all this evidence and then bring
the charges. They indict based on this summary detail, and
they're trying to put out the evidence to make it
clear why the charges are justified.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Thank you for calling them. We'll take more calls the
back half of this hour, and also get some of
your talk packs. Switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk,
the wireless provider we rely on pure Talk's coverage is
on the same towers and network as one of those
other companies, but at a more affordable price points you're
saving money. For just twenty five bucks a month, you
can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data on
America's most dependable five G network. Imagine the money you'll save.
(18:12):
The average sized family of four saves more than one
thousand dollars a year when they switch to pure Talk
from AT and T, Verizon or T Mobile. And with
pure Talk's the US customer service team, you can switch
hassle free in as little as ten minutes. You can
keep your phone and your number using your cell phone.
Dial pound two fifty and save the keywords Clay and
Buck to make the switch. You'll save an additional fifty
percent off your first month. Again, dial pound two five
(18:33):
zero and say Clay and Buck. To start saving today,
pay for what you need while not paying for things
you don't need. Dial pound two five zero, say Clay
and Buck. Switch to my wireless company, which is Puretalk,
the best customer service, the best prices. You'll save up
to additional fifty percent off your first month when you
switch today. Dial pound two five zero say Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis, Buck, Sexton show up in
New York City right now. And last night we had
a lot of events going on. Got to hang out
with a bunch of advertisers. Appreciate all the people who
support this program. Great dinner. And before the dinner, we
had a big debate, and we'll play a couple of
cuts for you from that debate, Me versus Steven A
(19:18):
Smith from ESPN. I want to hear what Buck thought
about it. It's up on YouTube and up on Twitter
if you're interested in watching this about forty five to
fifty minutes. And I did think the tone was important
in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. I give
credit to Stephen A. Smith, who has condemned unequivocally the
(19:42):
idea that violence is the answer in any way. And
we started off the discussion here is cut one. Whether
you agree with me, whether you agree with him, whether
you think both of us are morons, Violence is never
the answer, and good spirited debate, going after people for
(20:02):
things you agree or disagree with is the foundation I
think of an American republic. In our democracy, I think
free speech is the most important right that we have,
but it can never extend into violence.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And I hope.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
That a lot of the young people out there, particularly
that we're struck by Charlie Kirk's public forums, I hope
that they don't take the lesson that violence is the answer.
And certainly, if you're as old as me or steven A,
you should know better. But if you don't let that be,
I think a stringent and sterling call for stability.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
When it comes to that, somebody should give that guy
a radio show.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Not so anyway, we started there, and there were a
couple of things, Buck, I'm curious what stood out to you.
The one thing I would say is I wish there
had been it was more of a conversation than a debate,
and I wish there had been even equal time, where
you have two minutes or five minutes or six minutes
or whatever math you want to.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Put out there.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
But I'll hit a couple of things that I thought
were interesting here. I've made this argument for a long time,
and I actually think there should have been less politics
in the NBA, for instance, and here I was telling
steven A there are millions of Trump voting hardcore NBA fans,
(21:17):
cut three. I think there are millions of Trump voting
hardcore NBA fans.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
I don't know that Adam Silver believes that.
Speaker 10 (21:25):
But I think if he did, they would not have
gotten as political and turned off some of those fans
who say, man, I love Donald Trump, and I also
love the NBA. And so if you're trying to appeal
to everyone, which I think the NFL, the NBA, the NHL,
Major League Baseball, they all should be, then I think
you should be saying, hey, I don't care about your
politics at all. I want you in our stadium's arenas,
(21:47):
and we want to bring.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Everybody together, all right, and then let's hit a couple
of cuts here. I actually, I don't know if Buck
agrees with me on this. I think Steven A. Smith's
going to run for president.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I don't know why you wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Here, he is directly asked that question. Cut nine.
Speaker 11 (22:05):
I have no desire whatsoever to be a politician. Life
is really really good, and I don't really want to
compromise it at all. But I've been asked by various people,
including my pastor, including people in this business and others,
to keep an open mind because you never know what
the state of affairs in this country will be in
a couple of years. And as a result, they said
(22:27):
to me, could you at least stop saying no? Could
you at least say I'll leave the door open, even
if you are willing to admit you sincerely, ninety nine
percent doubt that you would ever run for office, And
that's one.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Of the most I'm running for president answers I've ever
heard of my life. Look, I'm amazing. My life is amazing.
I don't want to deal with the nonsense of politics.
What everybody needs me, So maybe I'm gonna have to
step up and run.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
He makes forty million dollars a year right now, according
to the New York Times report that's out today from ESPN,
in from satellite radio. He's got a new politics channel
on SERIOUSXM. So this would challenge your thesis, Buck that
nobody ever loses by running, because I don't know if
you could take a salary to sixty million a year.
(23:14):
I don't know where you just tap out. The dollars
aren't any higher. But unlike someone who say owns a company,
when you work for labor, you and I work for labor.
We have to show up and work we're not just
owners of companies that don't require us to be out working.
To give up a forty million dollar a year job
for a four hundred thousand dollars a year job, not
(23:36):
very many people do it.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Well, they would take him back. First of all, he's
not gonna win, so we're talking about really a max
Vanity project. Yeah, he's not gonna win. So it'd be
an eighteen month long process that he would have to
I assume you have to step away from ESPN. I
don't really know. I think the broader part of this
(23:58):
is I stand by my theesis, which is that people
run for president now as part of a brand enhancement project.
It used to be you'd have these people who would
run who had no chance, and it was always but
they're an important voice in the conversation.
Speaker 8 (24:10):
You know.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
You say, well, I don't know if like pulling it
zero point three percent of the national vote makes you
an important voice in the conversation. Maybe it does. But
now I think it's become more clear than ever before
that people running. I mean, look like vivek Ran basically
telling everybody vote for Donald Trump. But I'm running because
this is a great way to have a lot of
people here about Viveke and it worked for him. I
(24:33):
mean I at the time and still a poll this
thought that it was quite a strange move from the
perspective of you're not going to be president like Donald Trump.
If you're saying the guy that is running that everyone's
going to vote for is going to be your mentor
when you're president, you're accepting that he's going to be
the president and you're not. But that was really the
pinnacle of or that reach that was peak. This is
(24:54):
brand and attention seeking instead of I actually am going
to run at least on the right or I'm going
to win rather and I think that you'll see more
and more of that. So you know, look, steven A,
by the way, I think steven A would get some
I mean I think he would get some support. I
think he would be one of these candidates again thinking
I don't know who the Democrats are we're gonna run,
but you know, I would soon think you'd see him
(25:15):
getting in the top five, maybe the top three. The
Democrats are gonna have a it's gonna be a whole
bus load of candidates the next time around. Because again
it's even for politicians it's national recognition and if you
can get on that debate stage. So I don't think
he would be a joke candidate at all. I don't
think he would win. But people said that about Donald
Trump too, so you can't. You can't discount any anybody
(25:37):
who has charisma, some funding for themselves. You know that
makes it really a lot easier and an insatiable willingness
to put themselves out there can run for president and
be taken seriously. Now you know that that's where we are.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
And they grabbed me saying if Steven A ran, I
would run against him and kick his ass, which is
very fun. And here was cut eleven from that debate.
If Stephen A runs, I'll run and I'll kick his ass,
all right, really quickly.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
No, he wouldn't. He'd get his ass kicked.
Speaker 11 (26:15):
And let me tell you why, because he's somewhat rigid.
In other words, you'd appeal to your base.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
No doubt.
Speaker 11 (26:24):
But I'm more of a centrist with the capability to
appeal to both sides, so he'd get a segment of
the country.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
I'd get everything around.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Well, let me, I actually will give a little political
analysis of this year. I don't think he's familiar with
your conversion, with your past, with where you've come from politically,
So I think that he just thinks talk radio and
assumes he would maybe be more right saying that about me.
(26:53):
But you you know, being like that guy's a right
wing maniac. But you look at it, as you've said,
you you are somebody who has had a political transformation
in the last decade, and so you understand people that
are now looking people who are saying, oh wait, the
Democrat Party is insane. You can, by the way, you're
not allowed to run for president. Let's just get this clear. Okay,
you have a job here. But I'm just saying I
(27:14):
disagree with his political analysis of that because I think
that he, uh, well, look, he's a great entertainer, and
he was very cordial to you on that stage and
very respectful. So I appreciate that. I'm not really familiar.
You know, I'm one of the rare Americans I think
who's not familiar with his work really at all, because
I don't watch sports commentary. But he acquitted himself incredibly
well and was respectful to you. But I think that
(27:38):
he thinks you're more right, Like, it's not that you're
not right wing, but I think that he doesn't understand
the connectivity that you have to people in the center.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I think that's true, and I think there's tons of
people out there listening right now that are like me.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong on something.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
And I look out there and COVID was in many
ways radical eye and I think there are a lot
of people that recognize that. And then the Charlie Kirk assassination,
I think there are people out there, probably tens of
thousands of you that are listening to us right now
that might not have listened before. I've heard from a
lot of people that just say, man, the world is
(28:18):
more toxic than I realized. And that is a moment
of toxicity that it's almost impossible not to be thinking
about on a deeper level than just what you saw.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
I would offer that the Charlie Kirk assassination aftermath, the
responses that we've seen, it's not that it is radicalizing.
It is clarifying. This is making it clear to everybody
what the stakes are, what the stakes are, what the
teams are, who stands for what? This is giving you
(28:48):
real clarity. Every single one of you who listens to
us knows you know this and you know God for
but this, ever actually happens the Democrat was assassinated, we
would condemn it and there would not be all this
throat clearing about, oh, well, you know Senator so and so,
I don't like some of the bills that he voted for.
I'm not happy that he was you know, harm physically
or whatever. But I know we would just say that's
(29:10):
absolutely beyond the pale. You know, the person should be
prosecuted the fullest extent of the law. Part of the
reality here is that doesn't happen to left wing people,
and I hope it still doesn't. But we've had to
deal with this now on the right numerous times, and
the celebration of violence against people who are on the
right in this country. This is a pattern. It is
far too clear, and like I said, this is the
(29:32):
clarifying moment.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
One more cut and then we'll take some of your
calls reactions as we roll into the third hour. Here
was Stephen a cut four. I think he had some
nice things to say about me.
Speaker 11 (29:49):
What I like about Clay is this Clay is the
kind of person that will pick up on that unspoken
pressure that we don't allude to, and he'll bring it up.
It gives you the license to say, Ah, there we go.
That's the question I was waiting for, because folks don't
really realize what I'm going through. And if more white commentators, pundits,
(30:13):
people in positions of power really really understood the sensitive
pressure that emanates from our communities and how they're trying
to compel us to speak more about this issue, which
forces us to do so, then you'd have a greater
understanding as to why folks choose to address those subjects.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
What I would say, too, in response to that, is
to actually some of the white guys in the NBA
that are the most outspoken politically, Steve Kerr, Greg Popovich
and I just think.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
It's a bad look for the NBA.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
All right.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
One other thing, but a couple of things we didn't
have fall back and forth. We got into a discussion.
You and I talked about this afterwards about the Washington
Redskins name, and Steven A said, well, if Native Americans
have decided that name's offensive, I think they should get
to make that choice. We've talked about this quite a
lot on the program, but I didn't say it during
(31:04):
the discussion because it didn't circle back to me. There's
not a clarity or a consistency necessarily from the Native
American community about the Redskins Moniker about that nickname. In fact,
there are lots of Native Americans who saw it as
a symbol of honor, much like the Florida State seminoles
(31:24):
is seen as a symbol of honor. And both the
Cleveland Indians the Washington Redskins they came after the Atlanta
Braves Kansas City Chiefs. That doesn't end, and I think
it's not definitive that everybody who's Native American has the
same opinion. In fact, there are some studies that suggest
that Native Americans actually see the Redskins name and the
(31:47):
logo as somewhat beneficial or a positive reflection of their overall.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
That's really straightforward. Do you name teams about things that
you respect, think are cool and love, or do you
name teams about things that you demean? We all know,
you know, same thing with like Apache helicopters and the
Comanche system and all this. The gep Cherokee is is
that out of respect for the warrior culture that those
people's had or is it. Is it meant to, you know,
(32:14):
defame and demean them. This is very straightforward.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Yeah, I think that's what I'll said, Sam, And of.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Course, in the sports context, the same thing we cheer
for sports teams. We're not laughing at the sports teams.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
You don't want to detigrate your sports team. So I
think it is a name of honor. But we'll take
some of your calls and continue to update you. We
should mention as well, for those of you out there
looking at mortgages or concerned about the rates of interest
that you are paying, expectation that at the top of
the next hour we will get an announcement from the
(32:45):
Fed again expectations that interest rates are going to be
cut a quarter point, maybe even a half point. We
will update you here in about fifteen minutes when that
news officially comes down the line. In the meantime, we've
been up in New York running around like crazy, all hours,
meetings everywhere. Chalk can help keep you so that your
(33:07):
body is running on a great level. In fact, Male
Vitality Stack makes a huge difference. We've got some chad
mode in here from Chalk, and the male Vitality Stack
includes ingredients that replenish diminished testosterone levels in men. That's
your body's natural source of energy testosterone when levels are low,
(33:27):
and every guy experiences this as he ages. Chalk's Male
Vitality Stack can replenish it by twenty percent in just
three months time. If you're looking them up right now,
they spell the company name with a Q as in
cchoq dot com. That's Chalk. Go online to chalk dot
com my name Clay for a massive discount on any
subscription for life. You can cancel at any time without
(33:50):
any penalty, no worries at all. Check it out today.
Put some testosterone back in your life. Don't be a
white dude for Harris, or a black dude for Harris,
or a Hispanic dude for Harris, or an Asian dude
for Harris. Be a Trump voter with energy. Chalk dot
com c hoq dot com, my name Clay to get
hooked up today news.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
And politics, but also a little comic relief. Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Welcome back in to Clay and Buck. Do talk about
Crocket coffee Yees.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Today we have not we wear an off T shirt.
I am T shirt looks good.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
By the way, the T shirt is stylin, unlike that
Polo we had to take off you a couple of
days ago. This Crockett T shirt. This is the gear
that you can get at Crocketcoffee dot com. Please go
subscribe today. Use codebook at a signed copy of Clay's
American Playbook while they last. They're running out, which makes
Laura Travis very happy.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Yes, need it does.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
Boxes of books anymore might just be a couple of boxes,
and we want to get to a whole bunch of
your calls. But go to Crocketoffee dot com, sign up
today and let's do. Jason in Mesa, Arizona, what's up, Jason?
Speaker 9 (34:59):
Hi?
Speaker 3 (35:00):
I love your show. Guys, thank you.
Speaker 8 (35:03):
I think you're onto something with the With the text,
it sounds almost I thought about it earlier this morning.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Sounds like a script for somebody inside of.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
A bank robbery. They called nine to eleven and they
don't want to They want to give their location away,
you know.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Oh yes, mister robber, I'll put my hands in the
air here at the US Bank at ninth and twelve.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
It just seems weird.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
We're with you, Jay, it just seems that's the way
to describe it. Totally agree, it just seems weird. It's
off to be concerned. As I said, Jason, I think
you probably heard this. Why would you be concerned about
the evidence left behind? First of all, he didn't do
a good job at all of like not leaving behind evidence.
But why would be concerned about that? But then script
out the entire thing online where you're confessing it makes
(35:45):
no sense.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
I just why would you not have a phone call if.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
You was a more intimate anyway we're talking this is
his Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
Over, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
If you're trying to convey information of a sensitive nature,
how often at work do you sometimes see let's meet
in person about this, yeah, instead of putting it in
an email. Why would you text all this stuff unless
you wanted there to be a written record.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Let's play BB Here Don from California listens on k
EIB the Patriot hit.
Speaker 12 (36:12):
It play, go ahead and play around with it, but
do not run Covan. You guys are on this show,
and we love you guys.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
We don't want to lose.
Speaker 12 (36:27):
But and plus you know you already made your money
down and find out.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
But you can play around with it. But don't run
Clay all right, We don't worry. Don We're not letting
him run. It's not happening. Lara Travis is gonna put
the Kai bosh on that.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Lara Travis is very antiv being involved in any political office.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
So you, for better or worse, you got me here.
Would we come back?
Speaker 2 (36:47):
By the way bed News expected on interest rates, we
should have it for you right off the top.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
Next
Welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
In hour number two Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We
are live in New York City as we have been
all week long. Appreciate all of you out there listening
to us all over the country. We'll get into some
of the takeaways, but had a lot of fun at
the stephen A.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Smith debate. We'll get Bucks take on it as well.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
We got some cuts that I think are actually interesting
from a political process.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
That we will play later in this hour.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
But here right off the top, we talked an hour
one about the clear motivations becoming a parent. I know
all of you were aware Charlie Kirk was not killed
by a right winger. He was not killed because he
wasn't right wing enough. He wasn't killed, as Jamel Hill,
(00:47):
formerly of ESPN said, by part of a white supremacist
gang hit. This is what she tweeted Buck Now she
since deleted it.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
I mean, if he was in a maximum security prison,
maybe that story would make some sense. But that's insane,
that's truly. Let's lunatic stuff, absolute lunatic stuff. A white
supremacist gang hit, according to Jamel Hill. But what are
they saying on CNN?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
I want to play a couple of these cuts because
they're telling you things that are one false And I
want to ask Buck's opinion on this. I don't understand
how you could have these takes and be on the
internet at all. First, here is CNN's host Abby Phillip
arguing with Scott Jennings about people celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder
(01:40):
cut thirty four.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Everybody here acknowledges that there have been thousands upon thousands
of people, ordinary people who have taken to social media
to celebrate this.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Yes or no, I.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
Don't know about that.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
I just we should just there's we've got to be
factual about this, right. I don't think you know the scope.
I don't know the scope, but I do think that
we have to distinguish between random people in the world
and something that is a dominant issue.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Because the person who people a random person in the world.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
Well, here's the thing here, it's the danger that you
dismissed the random people of the world.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
They have access assassinations in this country. There have been
political assassinations in this country before, Scott, wouldn't you agree,
And they're all reprehensible and in this country do you
believe that in those political assassinations in the sixties and
the seventies and the eighties assassination attempts, that there were
no Americans who cheered that on. I think the question anything,
(02:40):
the question is whether or not. It's not whether or
not it happens. The question is whether or not we
need to place that at the very center of our
political world right now and categorize half the people in
the country according to those random people that we've now
just happened to see because of the Internet.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
We do have to put that in the center of
our political world. By the way, because it.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Is she initially you did that there were thousands and
thousands of people. I actually think Scott Jennings was being
very lenient in his numbering. Certainly there's tens of thousands.
I think there's hundreds of thousands. There may well be millions.
So to say, oh, we don't know that there's thousands, again,
(03:17):
they're trying to minimize what is going on.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Here is MSNBC.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
This is brandy Za drown Z And I'm not sure
if I got that name right, but she is on MSNBC.
You don't know Brandy's I'm not familiar with her work.
I don't know her whole catalog, but she says, to
suggest people on the Internet are cheering for the murder
of Charlie Kirk is actually the total opposite of what's
(03:44):
actually happening.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
This is what she said, cut thirty five.
Speaker 7 (03:47):
If you look across media generally, you have seen a
lot of people trying to grapple with Charlie Kirk's legacy
and what that is as a right wing agitator and
as a provocateur and as you know, a strategist and
the most important GOP figure besides Donald Trump arguably ever
and so or right now, and so there's a lot
(04:09):
of grappling to do. But to suggest that the internet
is cheering for this is just the opposite, total opposite
of what's actually happening.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
No, actually, that's from reading the internet, and that's from
going on discord, and I'm clay. This is one of
the reasons why I did it the night the night
of meaning like we knew that he was dead that night,
I just spent I don't know how, I felt like
an eternity just going through Blue Sky. Going through Blue Sky,
I downloaded the app. I didn'tven have it on my
phone because I obviously don't want to support that lunacy,
(04:39):
but I had to see it with my own eyes,
telling I mean, I know, you know that, Yeah, but
thousands and thousands of people cheering, high fiving, making horrific jokes,
saying horrible things about his widow. I mean, these people
are sick maniacs. And some of them, you can say, oh,
they're not. You know, anchors on CNN, some of them
(05:00):
have a lot of followers. There are people that have
This is something else we all need to understand. There
are people online who have far more influence in political conversation.
There are many of them than any of these these
anchors on ABC. Look at they're empty suits. No person
under the age of sixty gives a you know what
(05:21):
about what these these they're basically like glorified male models,
and you know female models. I mean, they have absolutely
no gravitas with the public anymore. And when you see
who is saying this stuff and the kind of the
kind of following they have, it's really really disconcerting. I mean,
(05:42):
it's pretty scary, honestly that we have to share a
country with so many psychos. There are a lot of
them out there, and one of the things, you know,
Ezra Kline's getting all this pushback from and I'm gonna
tell you Ezra Clin has said some horrible things in
the past. I just just I want to remind people
because I've been in this game a long time. I've
got fifteen years of institutional memory about conservative media and
the Libs and how they used to be right. They're
(06:02):
gonna be sixteen years this, June Clay. It's just been
too long. It's wild. So Asra client, I remember when
they were trying when the whole Me Too thing was happening, said,
you know, the rape laws should be so stringent that
even people who are innocent are going to get caught
up in it. But that's the price we have to pay.
When it came to consent and non consent, I was like, oh,
so someone should have their life ruine to be considered
a rapist as part of the collateral damage of the
(06:24):
Me too movement. He said that on TV. I remember that,
So I'm whether he apologize for it later, I don't know,
but he has said some horrible things in this case.
In this case, he is saying that he you know,
in this op ed that he wrote, He said, you
can just condemn a political assassination without then all this
throat clearing and prefacing of the oil. I know I
(06:44):
don't agree, but you know he's a white national supremacist
and all stuff. No, you can just say we don't
agree with political murder in this country. And that's actually
a core value of being an American. And this is
the test the left is failing. This is where Democrats
are showing us who they really are in millions of cases.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Let me play one more cut to to give you
a sense. This was CNN last night our friend Senator
Ted Cruz on with Caitlyn Collins, and Caitlyn Collins says, well,
we don't know any motive in the Charlie Kirk killing,
and it got heated from there. Listen to cut sixteen.
Speaker 6 (07:19):
We don't have a motive yet, we don't know yet.
We're waiting. Obviously we've heard what the governors had to
say with the course direct motive.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Yet we know we don't have a motive yet. What's
happening with real position. He just happened to fire the
gun and celebration. You can't tell the motive.
Speaker 6 (07:35):
Senator, That's not what I said and I said law
enforcement hasn't laid out a direct motive. They laid out
a lot of evidence here of these messages and.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
Charlie Kirk, pardon.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
Senator, with all due respect, you know exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing with you politically. I'm saying that law
enforcement has not put a specific motive. You know that
there's a difference of what they're putting in a legal work.
They have that and know what you're talking about and
are not even we're not about the.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Fact is false, Senator, fact hold on, say let me
answer your statement, because what you said is respect law
enforce your You don't want to that I did.
Speaker 6 (08:15):
Not say, and I want to get back to.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
You the facts of all I mean this is like,
this is like watching an NBA player go one on
one with like, you know, a j V high school athlete.
I'm just just being honest in terms of debate and
and intellectual rigor. Clay, we watched the air it prossec
body you aired it for everybody. They said the explicitly
(08:40):
said there was political motive here explicitly said. And CNN
is still telling their audience. I'm telling Caitlyn has been
told to say this the the the powers that be
over there because the CNN audience, which I am quite
familiar with, having uh been a you know CNN uh
you know target for a number of years CNN is
(09:01):
their audience is not willing to hear what is true
here because they want to believe that they're the good guys,
and in this case they're side of the bad guys.
That's the truth. Their ideas, they're Oh, if you don't
say the right pronouns, you're erasing somebody is tied directly
to this individual's lunacy, which was the motivation for the
assassination of our friend Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
This is if you're wondering, this was actually during the
layout of charges, the seven felony charges brought here is
Utah County DA Jeff Gray. In addition to the text
messages which Buck read for you an hour one that
we discussed here, he is yesterday saying. Suspect's mother says
(09:43):
he had become more pro gay and trans rites oriented.
This is cut fourteen.
Speaker 8 (09:49):
Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so,
Robinson had become more political and had started to lean
more to the left becoming more pro gay and trance
writes Oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate,
a biological mel who was transitioning genders. This resulted in
(10:12):
several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and
his father, who have very different political views.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Okay, so they tried to say always too far right wing.
Then on Saturday, Fox News breaks the story that his
roommate is a man who is deciding to become a woman.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
And we said back, and we said, ah, you.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Know, number of Trump voters who are dating or hooking
up with a man pretending to be a woman. I
think a fairly small number. Maybe there's some, but there's
not that many of them. And in conjunction with writing
all of these slogans on the bullets as a part
of the murder, and in addition to even though it
(10:58):
sounds suspect in some ways, the text messages there is
zero doubt about what the motive is.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Also, might I just add the decision.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
To murder someone at a free speech event while they
are discussing all different sorts of issues is a sign
of general animus. You know, they're still saying this about
the guy who tried to kill Trump, who we remember
know virtually nothing about. Right, they're still saying right now, well,
we don't really know why he did it.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Let me tell you something, just a general idea.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
If you prepare an assassination attempt and if you kill someone,
my general proposition would be, you probably are motivated by
not liking the guy. I don't think there's very many
assassination attempts that have been motivated by love for the
person they're trying to assassinate. He hated Charlie Kirk. He
(11:57):
hated what Charlie Kirk stood for.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
This is like, this would be like arguing, you know
the guy who shot Lincoln, you know Booth Booth was
really it was all about being an abolitionist and uh
and really love the Republican Party. You'd be mocked endlessly
because that's the dumbest thing imaginable. Right, That's what they
are doing. Yes, they are doing that game. They are
playing that script out for people, and they're doing it
(12:22):
on major news networks. By the way, I want to
be clear about this too. This is a game the
left always plays, clay, where they delay it to take
the impact out of the public consciousness. This is why
they say, oh, we just don't. We don't know the
motive yet. We don't know the motive yet. In six months,
maybe they'll be willing to say what we've already known
from the first moments why this. But at that point
(12:42):
they figure there won't be the same psychological impact, and
particularly on their audience, which wants to believe that they're
the good people. They want to believe that the left
is where the good, nice people are, even though that
is where the psycho terrorists murdering people come from disproportionately
clearly as compared to the right. They can't process that information. Look,
(13:03):
the left is the emotionally deranged and destabilized side of
politics in America. We know this. If you have, if
you have like serious emotional problems, the chance that you
are and you care about politics at all, or you
care about any political beliefs at all, the chance that
you're left wing instead of right wing. I would argue
it's five or ten to one.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
I think that's right.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I would also point out, as we go to break here,
and I think this is an interesting way to think
about it. Who on the left has public free speech events?
You thought about this at all, Buck, We've talked about
who the left wing version of Charlie Kirk would be,
and you pointed out there isn't one, And I think
that's accurate. But can you even think of a leftist
(13:43):
that does public events with open microphones to debate people
on issues. No, I can't even remember ever seeing that.
Why would that be? Because One, I think they know
their arguments are not good. Two, they don't want an
actual marketplace. They don't want there to be actual debate.
(14:05):
Charlie was a threat. The fact that there is no
Charlie Kirk of the left is not just a coincidence.
It's not a failure of the marketplace. It is a
failure of the left to actually debate and embrace debate.
And I would say, this is what you saw in
one of the few real debates we've ever had in
the modern era between two strong advocates. I'm not counting
(14:28):
Biden as a strong advocate. When Gavin Newsom and Ron
DeSantis debated on Sean Hannity's television show, Gavin Newsom got
destroyed because the facts were not on his side and
he hadn't actually had to debate with anybody ever.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
And it's funny, we'll talk about the stephen A.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
He did have wind swept hair and that just winning
grin that. Gavin Newsom, well.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
You were when we were walking over for the steven
A debate, and we'll play some audio of that for
you here in this hour. We met up with Emily
Campangno from Fox News. She was walking with us and
she was like, well, do you know you know what
kind of questions are going to be asked? And I
was like, I'm not a Democrat running for president, you know,
I don't get the questions in advance.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Was a good line, good line.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
I like that one.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Look, I want to tell you two years ago, October seventh,
Israel changed forever. That's the day Hamas Terriss murdered more
than twelve hundred innocent Israelis took two hundred and fifty hostages.
The pain of that day, the horror that so many
of us witnessed, much of it was captured on video,
will never be forgotten. It was the most brutal attack
on Jewish people since the Holocaust. Yet, anti Semitism is
(15:30):
on the rise. If you're feeling helpless about how to
combat it, there is something you can do. Mark this
date on your calendar. Sunday, October fifth, there's a movement
of love and support for the people of Israel called
the Flags of Fellowship. It's organized by the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. On that Sunday, millions across America
(15:51):
will plant an Israeli flag in honor and solidarity with
the victims of October seventh, twenty twenty three and their
grieving families. Can be part of this movement. To get
more information about how you can join the Flags of
Fellowship movement, visit the Fellowship online at IFCJ dot org.
That's IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
You don't know what you don't know, right, but you could.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
On the Sunday Hang with Clay and Buck podcast.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
All right, welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
We have every line Litz, so let's get some calls here.
Kathy in Florida, welcome, Hello, have a question? Hello, Yeah,
you're on.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (16:34):
I just have a question. I don't really understand or
I feel like it's foolish that we've released all the
detailed information of these text messages and the detailed information
of the evidence that they've found and everything. Why why
if they released all of this I want I feel
like one, it's giving the left the fuel to be
(16:59):
able to to spin their narrative.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Does it make it harder for them to spend the
narrative if the facts are out there publicly.
Speaker 9 (17:06):
Well because of the way they're spinning it, like this guy.
You know this, this news reporter taking sympathy for this
guy's Yeah, well.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Look he had to apologize for it, right, So look,
I understand you want to be on guard against the
efforts to shift the narrative from them. But I think
having the primary source material of evidence in the case
out there, I think Cash Betel on this score is
doing the right thing.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Clay, Yeah, I agree. I also think this is a
part of the indictment. This is how you are bringing
the charges. There isn't my understanding a grand jury in
Utah which would review all this evidence and then bring
the charges. They indict based on this summary detail, and
they're trying to put out the evidence to make it
clear why the charges are justified.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Thank you for calling them. We'll take more calls the
back half of this hour, and also get some of
your talk packs. Switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk,
the wireless provider we rely on pure Talk's coverage is
on the same towers and network as one of those
other companies, but at a more affordable price points you're
saving money. For just twenty five bucks a month, you
can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data on
America's most dependable five G network. Imagine the money you'll save.
(18:12):
The average sized family of four saves more than one
thousand dollars a year when they switch to pure Talk
from AT and T, Verizon or T Mobile. And with
pure Talk's the US customer service team, you can switch
hassle free in as little as ten minutes. You can
keep your phone and your number using your cell phone.
Dial pound two fifty and save the keywords Clay and
Buck to make the switch. You'll save an additional fifty
percent off your first month. Again, dial pound two five
(18:33):
zero and say Clay and Buck. To start saving today,
pay for what you need while not paying for things
you don't need. Dial pound two five zero, say Clay
and Buck. Switch to my wireless company, which is Puretalk,
the best customer service, the best prices. You'll save up
to additional fifty percent off your first month when you
switch today. Dial pound two five zero say Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis, Buck, Sexton show up in
New York City right now. And last night we had
a lot of events going on. Got to hang out
with a bunch of advertisers. Appreciate all the people who
support this program. Great dinner. And before the dinner, we
had a big debate, and we'll play a couple of
cuts for you from that debate, Me versus Steven A
(19:18):
Smith from ESPN. I want to hear what Buck thought
about it. It's up on YouTube and up on Twitter
if you're interested in watching this about forty five to
fifty minutes. And I did think the tone was important
in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. I give
credit to Stephen A. Smith, who has condemned unequivocally the
(19:42):
idea that violence is the answer in any way. And
we started off the discussion here is cut one. Whether
you agree with me, whether you agree with him, whether
you think both of us are morons, Violence is never
the answer, and good spirited debate, going after people for
(20:02):
things you agree or disagree with is the foundation I
think of an American republic. In our democracy, I think
free speech is the most important right that we have,
but it can never extend into violence.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And I hope.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
That a lot of the young people out there, particularly
that we're struck by Charlie Kirk's public forums, I hope
that they don't take the lesson that violence is the answer.
And certainly, if you're as old as me or steven A,
you should know better. But if you don't let that be,
I think a stringent and sterling call for stability.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
When it comes to that, somebody should give that guy
a radio show.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Not so anyway, we started there, and there were a
couple of things, Buck, I'm curious what stood out to you.
The one thing I would say is I wish there
had been it was more of a conversation than a debate,
and I wish there had been even equal time, where
you have two minutes or five minutes or six minutes
or whatever math you want to.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Put out there.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
But I'll hit a couple of things that I thought
were interesting here. I've made this argument for a long time,
and I actually think there should have been less politics
in the NBA, for instance, and here I was telling
steven A there are millions of Trump voting hardcore NBA fans,
(21:17):
cut three. I think there are millions of Trump voting
hardcore NBA fans.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
I don't know that Adam Silver believes that.
Speaker 10 (21:25):
But I think if he did, they would not have
gotten as political and turned off some of those fans
who say, man, I love Donald Trump, and I also
love the NBA. And so if you're trying to appeal
to everyone, which I think the NFL, the NBA, the NHL,
Major League Baseball, they all should be, then I think
you should be saying, hey, I don't care about your
politics at all. I want you in our stadium's arenas,
(21:47):
and we want to bring.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Everybody together, all right, and then let's hit a couple
of cuts here. I actually, I don't know if Buck
agrees with me on this. I think Steven A. Smith's
going to run for president.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I don't know why you wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Here, he is directly asked that question. Cut nine.
Speaker 11 (22:05):
I have no desire whatsoever to be a politician. Life
is really really good, and I don't really want to
compromise it at all. But I've been asked by various people,
including my pastor, including people in this business and others,
to keep an open mind because you never know what
the state of affairs in this country will be in
a couple of years. And as a result, they said
(22:27):
to me, could you at least stop saying no? Could
you at least say I'll leave the door open, even
if you are willing to admit you sincerely, ninety nine
percent doubt that you would ever run for office, And
that's one.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
Of the most I'm running for president answers I've ever
heard of my life. Look, I'm amazing. My life is amazing.
I don't want to deal with the nonsense of politics.
What everybody needs me, So maybe I'm gonna have to
step up and run.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
He makes forty million dollars a year right now, according
to the New York Times report that's out today from ESPN,
in from satellite radio. He's got a new politics channel
on SERIOUSXM. So this would challenge your thesis, Buck that
nobody ever loses by running, because I don't know if
you could take a salary to sixty million a year.
(23:14):
I don't know where you just tap out. The dollars
aren't any higher. But unlike someone who say owns a company,
when you work for labor, you and I work for labor.
We have to show up and work we're not just
owners of companies that don't require us to be out working.
To give up a forty million dollar a year job
for a four hundred thousand dollars a year job, not
(23:36):
very many people do it.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
Well, they would take him back. First of all, he's
not gonna win, so we're talking about really a max
Vanity project. Yeah, he's not gonna win. So it'd be
an eighteen month long process that he would have to
I assume you have to step away from ESPN. I
don't really know. I think the broader part of this
(23:58):
is I stand by my theesis, which is that people
run for president now as part of a brand enhancement project.
It used to be you'd have these people who would
run who had no chance, and it was always but
they're an important voice in the conversation.
Speaker 8 (24:10):
You know.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
You say, well, I don't know if like pulling it
zero point three percent of the national vote makes you
an important voice in the conversation. Maybe it does. But
now I think it's become more clear than ever before
that people running. I mean, look like vivek Ran basically
telling everybody vote for Donald Trump. But I'm running because
this is a great way to have a lot of
people here about Viveke and it worked for him. I
(24:33):
mean I at the time and still a poll this
thought that it was quite a strange move from the
perspective of you're not going to be president like Donald Trump.
If you're saying the guy that is running that everyone's
going to vote for is going to be your mentor
when you're president, you're accepting that he's going to be
the president and you're not. But that was really the
pinnacle of or that reach that was peak. This is
(24:54):
brand and attention seeking instead of I actually am going
to run at least on the right or I'm going
to win rather and I think that you'll see more
and more of that. So you know, look, steven A,
by the way, I think steven A would get some
I mean I think he would get some support. I
think he would be one of these candidates again thinking
I don't know who the Democrats are we're gonna run,
but you know, I would soon think you'd see him
(25:15):
getting in the top five, maybe the top three. The
Democrats are gonna have a it's gonna be a whole
bus load of candidates the next time around. Because again
it's even for politicians it's national recognition and if you
can get on that debate stage. So I don't think
he would be a joke candidate at all. I don't
think he would win. But people said that about Donald
Trump too, so you can't. You can't discount any anybody
(25:37):
who has charisma, some funding for themselves. You know that
makes it really a lot easier and an insatiable willingness
to put themselves out there can run for president and
be taken seriously. Now you know that that's where we are.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
And they grabbed me saying if Steven A ran, I
would run against him and kick his ass, which is
very fun. And here was cut eleven from that debate.
If Stephen A runs, I'll run and I'll kick his ass,
all right, really quickly.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
No, he wouldn't. He'd get his ass kicked.
Speaker 11 (26:15):
And let me tell you why, because he's somewhat rigid.
In other words, you'd appeal to your base.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
No doubt.
Speaker 11 (26:24):
But I'm more of a centrist with the capability to
appeal to both sides, so he'd get a segment of
the country.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
I'd get everything around.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Well, let me, I actually will give a little political
analysis of this year. I don't think he's familiar with
your conversion, with your past, with where you've come from politically,
So I think that he just thinks talk radio and
assumes he would maybe be more right saying that about me.
(26:53):
But you you know, being like that guy's a right
wing maniac. But you look at it, as you've said,
you you are somebody who has had a political transformation
in the last decade, and so you understand people that
are now looking people who are saying, oh wait, the
Democrat Party is insane. You can, by the way, you're
not allowed to run for president. Let's just get this clear. Okay,
you have a job here. But I'm just saying I
(27:14):
disagree with his political analysis of that because I think
that he, uh, well, look, he's a great entertainer, and
he was very cordial to you on that stage and
very respectful. So I appreciate that. I'm not really familiar.
You know, I'm one of the rare Americans I think
who's not familiar with his work really at all, because
I don't watch sports commentary. But he acquitted himself incredibly
well and was respectful to you. But I think that
(27:38):
he thinks you're more right, Like, it's not that you're
not right wing, but I think that he doesn't understand
the connectivity that you have to people in the center.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I think that's true, and I think there's tons of
people out there listening right now that are like me.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong on something.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
And I look out there and COVID was in many
ways radical eye and I think there are a lot
of people that recognize that. And then the Charlie Kirk assassination,
I think there are people out there, probably tens of
thousands of you that are listening to us right now
that might not have listened before. I've heard from a
lot of people that just say, man, the world is
(28:18):
more toxic than I realized. And that is a moment
of toxicity that it's almost impossible not to be thinking
about on a deeper level than just what you saw.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
I would offer that the Charlie Kirk assassination aftermath, the
responses that we've seen, it's not that it is radicalizing.
It is clarifying. This is making it clear to everybody
what the stakes are, what the stakes are, what the
teams are, who stands for what? This is giving you
(28:48):
real clarity. Every single one of you who listens to
us knows you know this and you know God for
but this, ever actually happens the Democrat was assassinated, we
would condemn it and there would not be all this
throat clearing about, oh, well, you know Senator so and so,
I don't like some of the bills that he voted for.
I'm not happy that he was you know, harm physically
or whatever. But I know we would just say that's
(29:10):
absolutely beyond the pale. You know, the person should be
prosecuted the fullest extent of the law. Part of the
reality here is that doesn't happen to left wing people,
and I hope it still doesn't. But we've had to
deal with this now on the right numerous times, and
the celebration of violence against people who are on the
right in this country. This is a pattern. It is
far too clear, and like I said, this is the
(29:32):
clarifying moment.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
One more cut and then we'll take some of your
calls reactions as we roll into the third hour. Here
was Stephen a cut four. I think he had some
nice things to say about me.
Speaker 11 (29:49):
What I like about Clay is this Clay is the
kind of person that will pick up on that unspoken
pressure that we don't allude to, and he'll bring it up.
It gives you the license to say, Ah, there we go.
That's the question I was waiting for, because folks don't
really realize what I'm going through. And if more white commentators, pundits,
(30:13):
people in positions of power really really understood the sensitive
pressure that emanates from our communities and how they're trying
to compel us to speak more about this issue, which
forces us to do so, then you'd have a greater
understanding as to why folks choose to address those subjects.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
What I would say, too, in response to that, is
to actually some of the white guys in the NBA
that are the most outspoken politically, Steve Kerr, Greg Popovich
and I just think.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
It's a bad look for the NBA.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
All right.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
One other thing, but a couple of things we didn't
have fall back and forth. We got into a discussion.
You and I talked about this afterwards about the Washington
Redskins name, and Steven A said, well, if Native Americans
have decided that name's offensive, I think they should get
to make that choice. We've talked about this quite a
lot on the program, but I didn't say it during
(31:04):
the discussion because it didn't circle back to me. There's
not a clarity or a consistency necessarily from the Native
American community about the Redskins Moniker about that nickname. In fact,
there are lots of Native Americans who saw it as
a symbol of honor, much like the Florida State seminoles
(31:24):
is seen as a symbol of honor. And both the
Cleveland Indians the Washington Redskins they came after the Atlanta
Braves Kansas City Chiefs. That doesn't end, and I think
it's not definitive that everybody who's Native American has the
same opinion. In fact, there are some studies that suggest
that Native Americans actually see the Redskins name and the
(31:47):
logo as somewhat beneficial or a positive reflection of their overall.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
That's really straightforward. Do you name teams about things that
you respect, think are cool and love, or do you
name teams about things that you demean? We all know,
you know, same thing with like Apache helicopters and the
Comanche system and all this. The gep Cherokee is is
that out of respect for the warrior culture that those
people's had or is it. Is it meant to, you know,
(32:14):
defame and demean them. This is very straightforward.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Yeah, I think that's what I'll said, Sam, And of.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Course, in the sports context, the same thing we cheer
for sports teams. We're not laughing at the sports teams.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
You don't want to detigrate your sports team. So I
think it is a name of honor. But we'll take
some of your calls and continue to update you. We
should mention as well, for those of you out there
looking at mortgages or concerned about the rates of interest
that you are paying, expectation that at the top of
the next hour we will get an announcement from the
(32:45):
Fed again expectations that interest rates are going to be
cut a quarter point, maybe even a half point. We
will update you here in about fifteen minutes when that
news officially comes down the line. In the meantime, we've
been up in New York running around like crazy, all hours,
meetings everywhere. Chalk can help keep you so that your
(33:07):
body is running on a great level. In fact, Male
Vitality Stack makes a huge difference. We've got some chad
mode in here from Chalk, and the male Vitality Stack
includes ingredients that replenish diminished testosterone levels in men. That's
your body's natural source of energy testosterone when levels are low,
(33:27):
and every guy experiences this as he ages. Chalk's Male
Vitality Stack can replenish it by twenty percent in just
three months time. If you're looking them up right now,
they spell the company name with a Q as in
cchoq dot com. That's Chalk. Go online to chalk dot
com my name Clay for a massive discount on any
subscription for life. You can cancel at any time without
(33:50):
any penalty, no worries at all. Check it out today.
Put some testosterone back in your life. Don't be a
white dude for Harris, or a black dude for Harris,
or a Hispanic dude for Harris, or an Asian dude
for Harris. Be a Trump voter with energy. Chalk dot
com c hoq dot com, my name Clay to get
hooked up today news.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
And politics, but also a little comic relief. Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Welcome back in to Clay and Buck. Do talk about
Crocket coffee Yees.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Today we have not we wear an off T shirt.
I am T shirt looks good.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
By the way, the T shirt is stylin, unlike that
Polo we had to take off you a couple of
days ago. This Crockett T shirt. This is the gear
that you can get at Crocketcoffee dot com. Please go
subscribe today. Use codebook at a signed copy of Clay's
American Playbook while they last. They're running out, which makes
Laura Travis very happy.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Yes, need it does.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
Boxes of books anymore might just be a couple of boxes,
and we want to get to a whole bunch of
your calls. But go to Crocketoffee dot com, sign up
today and let's do. Jason in Mesa, Arizona, what's up, Jason?
Speaker 9 (34:59):
Hi?
Speaker 3 (35:00):
I love your show. Guys, thank you.
Speaker 8 (35:03):
I think you're onto something with the With the text,
it sounds almost I thought about it earlier this morning.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Sounds like a script for somebody inside of.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
A bank robbery. They called nine to eleven and they
don't want to They want to give their location away,
you know.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Oh yes, mister robber, I'll put my hands in the
air here at the US Bank at ninth and twelve.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
It just seems weird.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
We're with you, Jay, it just seems that's the way
to describe it. Totally agree, it just seems weird. It's
off to be concerned. As I said, Jason, I think
you probably heard this. Why would you be concerned about
the evidence left behind? First of all, he didn't do
a good job at all of like not leaving behind evidence.
But why would be concerned about that? But then script
out the entire thing online where you're confessing it makes
(35:45):
no sense.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
I just why would you not have a phone call if.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
You was a more intimate anyway we're talking this is
his Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
Over, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
If you're trying to convey information of a sensitive nature,
how often at work do you sometimes see let's meet
in person about this, yeah, instead of putting it in
an email. Why would you text all this stuff unless
you wanted there to be a written record.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Let's play BB Here Don from California listens on k
EIB the Patriot hit.
Speaker 12 (36:12):
It play, go ahead and play around with it, but
do not run Covan. You guys are on this show,
and we love you guys.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
We don't want to lose.
Speaker 12 (36:27):
But and plus you know you already made your money
down and find out.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
But you can play around with it. But don't run
Clay all right, We don't worry. Don We're not letting
him run. It's not happening. Lara Travis is gonna put
the Kai bosh on that.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Lara Travis is very antiv being involved in any political office.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
So you, for better or worse, you got me here.
Would we come back?
Speaker 2 (36:47):
By the way bed News expected on interest rates, we
should have it for you right off the top.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
Next
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.