July 7, 2024 • 54 mins
Historic SCOTUS news. Immunity ruling freak out. Clay hears the sizzle. Is Buck Island sinking?
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is twenty four, a weekly highlight reel from the
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Bucks.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
We have got a lot of details to discuss surrounding
the ongoing fallout of debate implosion from Joe Biden and
the resulting implosion of his candidacy that has continued to
play out in slow motion. We will discuss all of that.
(00:35):
As for now, Biden is claiming that he is going
to stay in the race, which I think is absolutely
fabulous news for those of us who want to see
Donald Trump win, because I frankly don't see any way
four months out that Joe Biden is capable of winning.
And there's lots of data to support that that is true,
(00:58):
and we will discuss that in great detail today. Take
your calls, answer them on a variety of topics as well.
Eight hundred and two eight two two eight eight two.
I am solo today because Buck is that jury duty
in Miami. He just texted me that he's going in
for Vardar that it means he's being questioned. He doesn't
(01:20):
know at all what case he is potentially involved in,
but that is where he is as we speak right now.
So who knows how long or if he'll get seated
on jury duty, but we hope to have him back
sooner rather than later. But he had put it off
as long as he could, and they said he had
to show up today. So that is where Buck is.
(01:40):
But major breaking news in the last hour and a
half or so, the Supreme Court has sided with Donald
Trump on presidential immunity to a large degree in a
six to three decision. Big picture, this means that the
only case that is going to be completed and go
(02:02):
to a jury and have a verdict rendered is the
Alvin braggcase. We'll talk about that. The New York City
bookkeeping felonies elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. That
sentencing scheduled right now for Thursday of next week. I've
got some theories on that, as you might imagine. But
(02:23):
let's talk right now about what the presidential immunity case
told us, what's going to happen now and why there
are so many left wingers already beginning to panic associated
with the failure of their law for law fare attempts.
Now not a surprise the way this one broke down.
(02:46):
The three liberals on the left in the court disagreeing
with the majority. But essentially, what the court said is
that the president has a substantial privilege associated with his
office that makes it difficult to charge him with crimes
that are related to his official acts as president of
(03:09):
the United States. They took some of the allegations in
this complaint filed by Jack Smith and said we believe
these are official acts, which officially takes them off the board.
And then they said there remained some acts which while
there may be a presumption that they are within presidential privilege.
(03:31):
And that's very important because the presumption means presumption that
a crime was not committed. In other words, you have
to get over the protective p number surrounding the president's acts.
And then there are potentially unofficial acts which could be prosecutable.
And let me kind of take you into that, and
(03:52):
I will answer questions if you guys want to reach
out via email, if you want to call in eight
hundred and two eighty two. To the best of my
legal ability here, but we've tried to tell you this
is the direction this was coming. And I told you
I thought this opinion would come down in the July
fourth week, and we now have it. And again, big picture,
(04:16):
what this does is the Jack Smith case is over.
It is not going to go to a jury. It
is not even I believe, possible to even start it
between now and November. If Trump wins, he'll have his
Department of Justice dismiss this case. But now there will
be a battle over what is official and what is
(04:38):
innofficial for purposes of these acts. And let me give
you just kind of an idea of official versus unofficial acts.
If a president decides that there is a terror group
operating in a foreign country, and he believes that we
need to strike that terror group, and when we it
(05:01):
actually ends up being the case, as recently happened in Afghanistan,
that we end up killing someone who was innocent and
in fact they were not the terrorists that we thought
they were, even though that has led to the death
of an innocent person, that would be an official act,
and the president would not be able to be charged
(05:23):
for that decision. And I think most of you out there,
regardless of your politics, you would sit around and you
would say, Okay, that's why presidential powers matter so much.
The president's not going to be perfect. His advisors are
not going to be perfect.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
He can be.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Acting in what he believes is the best interest of
our nation, to protect the troops, to protect the American citizens,
and he can be wrong. And I use that example
because Biden just did that. Biden just killed in the
past year or so a one hundred percent innocent man
(05:59):
in Afghananistan and members of his family.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
According to the reporting of The New York.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Times, that guy was totally and his family certainly without
any wrongdoing, and we screwed up and.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
He was killed. They thought he was a terrorist. He wasn't.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Even though I think Joe Biden's an awful president, Biden
was acting on the recommendations of his national security team,
and that failure shouldn't put Joe Biden in prison. He
shouldn't be able to be charged with a violation of
the law because that was well within his presidential powers.
(06:39):
I think most of you out there nodding along, saying, yeah, Okay,
I understand that that's an important legacy opinion that they
have now addressed in the Supreme Court. Okay, what about
unofficial acts? The example that I've used on this show
for some time is if the President of the United
States in the oval office, picked up a paperweight and
(07:04):
hit one of his advisors in the head because he
was angry at that advisor. And when he struck that advisor,
he caught them in the temple, and that individual died.
The President would be prosecutable because that is outside the
scope of his official access. President, that's an easy one.
(07:26):
I've given you two easy ones. One president orders an
attack on a terrorist, ends up getting it wrong, innocent
man dies. President can't be prosecuted. That's an official act.
On the opposite extreme, president picks up a paperweight in
the oval office, strikes an advisor or a waiter or
(07:47):
whoever it might be in the White House residence and
kills that individual. The President would be prosecutable because that's
not an official act. Those are sort of the permutations
the scope of potential analysis. What the Supreme Court has
said with some of the acts that Trump undertook on
(08:09):
that day of January sixth, but also surrounding his challenge
of the election results of twenty twenty, is we're gonna
now send this back to the District Court. They are
going to examine is this an official or an unofficial act?
If they believe that it is an unofficial act, then
(08:30):
theoretically Trump could be prosecuted for that because it is
not within the scope of his presidential powers. But once
they make that determination, and Judge Chutkin could make the
determination that all of these are presidential acts, because again,
remember the presumption is that the president is engaging in
(08:55):
an official act. So honestly, most of the time, especially
I believe, having read this opinion, these acts and I
told you this for a while, I think they are
within the official powers of the president. But if she
decides that they are not, and that these are basically
private acts outside of the scope of his presidential powers,
(09:19):
it is more akin to the analogy I made of
the president picking up a paperweight and striking someone in
the head, committing a murder outside of the scope of
his official acts. Then it will go to the DC
Circuit on appeal probably and then also back to the
Supreme Court, which would then have to consider it, probably
(09:41):
in the next year term. Basically, this case is finished
with what we know about Atlanta. I think also significantly
the Atlanta case, which deals with many of the same
aspects as the cases of January sixth opinion The Atlanta
(10:01):
case with our good friend Fanny willis also finished, and
again the classified document case a little bit different, but
it doesn't appear that one is moving forward anytime soon either.
The big takeaway here is that the Biden gamble that
they were going to tie up President Trump in court
(10:24):
and that he was going to be a serial convicted felon,
and that that was going to render her him, in
the minds of the electorate, ineligible or unable to be
elected because of the because of the law fair machinations.
That's all failed worse for the Biden administration. It has
(10:46):
now blown up in their face and in the process
made Trump stronger than he was before all of this started.
Now that doesn't mean that now the Democrat Party, desperate
what is as it is likely to be, may not
make a totally irrational move and try to put Trump
(11:08):
in prison next week. I actually think Judge Merchant is
going to try that. You are dealing with a cornered
politician in Joe Biden, who is losing on all fronts,
who if the election were today, would not only lose,
I don't believe it would be particularly close in the
electoral college based on all the battleground polling. Desperate times,
(11:32):
call for desperate measures. Be aware we have entered desperation
zone for Democrats four months out. How is this going
to play out? Where do we go from here? What
legal questions do you have?
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Again? Major breaking news? Last week we.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Told you the Supreme Court, in our opinion, got the
First Amendment case wrong. I give them credit here. I
believe they got this case close to one hundred percent right.
And it's not just a Trump precedent. This is about
the power of every president for the rest of our
lives and beyond the lives of the living today. This
(12:11):
is a precedent that will stand potentially for hundreds of
years as an attempt to deligate exactly what the president's
powers are in a criminal context as it pertains to
official and unofficial business. It's a monumental ruling. It is
a huge decision that has come down.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
You're listening to twenty four the year of impact with
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
How long are you now cleared without do you know
how long? You don't have to go back for any
one year?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Wow? It's yeah, this may become a more regular occurrence
in my life. But I'll tell you real quick The
downside is the courthouse here in Miami day looks like
a Soviet penal colony or something. I mean, it looks
like where they would have sent you it. Really, a
(13:08):
courthouse should have Roman columns, sweeping entrance, you know, it
should there should be the majesty of the state. And
it really this it's called the Gerstein Building, I think
down to Miami Dade. It looks like something that you know,
Stalin would have sent his enemies to. And it's not
even a prison, mind you. This is just the courthouse.
So there's that. But everybody actually was very professional. I
(13:31):
was impressed with the with one of the judges who
came out. We're in a room of about two hundred people,
I would say, just just stacked. I mean just people
shoulder to shoulder and all these chairs. The judge came
out gave us a little pep talk. I know you
don't want to be here. I know this seems like
it stinks, but it is your duty, and thank you
for being here. That's the short version of it. Everything
(13:51):
was going great, and then after lunch, when I had
not been picked for jurrell morning and it was getting
close to I knew when I would get dismissed. One
of the bailiffs kind of looked me a little funny, Clay,
and the judge in this one trial had gathered us
all in the hallway outside of the courtroom to tell
us what our fate would be. There was a last
minute plea deal that was struck, which I think this
(14:12):
often happened.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
I told you, as soon as they get the jury ready,
the lawyers, the pressure to get a deal done always
comes up. That's that's like ninety percent of the time
what happens. You're there to drive the negotiation in the settlement.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
And I just wanted to know what the case was
even about. We never even found out. But the judge
was very, very friendly, very polite. She said, I know,
I have some good news for all of you. But
the bailiff came over and he looked at me, and
you know, you get you know, he gave me the
look like, wait a second, because everyone there thinks my
name is James, because technically that's my first name. He's like,
I know you. He's like, you're the guy. You're the
(14:45):
guy from Fox and from radio. And I kind of
gave him like a little quiet nod and I swear.
He turns a judge. He goes, judge, you see this,
I know this guy from TV. I was like, shh,
this is in front of all the other jurors, right,
I'm like, let's keep that, let's keep that down. And
and then one of our Jewish brethren came over. He
had a yamaka on came over and he tugged my
(15:06):
shirt and he'sa like, hey, thanks for what you and
Clay do every day. I was like, yes, great victory. Victory.
So anyway, and then we got all got dismiss So
that was Jerry Dudy. Now let's get into news.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
The other thing is a reminder you never want to
be the target of the criminal justice system. And I
know that people say, oh, Trump is unstoppable for us
and look what he's been through and nothing can stop Trump. Well, yes, true,
But just having to show up and be a criminal
defendant in a building like this for a lot of
people I think would be soul crushing and would really
(15:37):
know on more them. You know, just just having to
be there and you are on trial would be trying
to sleep if you faced legitimate prison time and you
knew your trial was coming up, you're out on bail
or whatever.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I mean, the amount of physical stress associated with the
criminal justice system is a huge part of the punishment itself,
whether you're found guilty or innocent.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I was trying to follow events yesterday from the jurm.
The wi FI was kind of bad, unfortunately, so I
had to pop in it out. Is when does Bannon
report for his sentence? He's in? He's in. I believe he.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
I believe he is now in the prison, and I
know he did his show yesterday and we talked some
about it. You get the staff in New York can
confirm that he's been officially admitted in. In theory, he
would be there until November one as a part of
serving that four month sentence which I talked about yesterday.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Buck.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
I actually think is a hugely underdiscussed story that if
you're just merely associated with Trump, they're legitimately putting you
in jail for your political belief.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Yeah. They are absolutely tearing down any sense of fairness
in the justice system to get at Trump, not just
with Trump, but with people around him. I want you
all to know that we reached out directly to Steve
and his team and invited him to come on before
he started his sentence because we wanted him to be
able to make sure everybody knows that he's being targeted.
And you know, we clearly stand with Steve. He's a
(17:02):
fighter for his principles and we wish him well while
he is dealing with what he's dealing with right now.
You know, I have Steve's the kind of guy who's
going to go into prison though and make me like
he'll make friends. I'm just saying he's very He's a
very charismatic guy. I'm sure he doesn't want to be
in prison, but I'm saying, you know, he's he'll be okay.
I have a lot of a lot of faith and
confidence in him. He'll come out and he'll come out
(17:23):
even stronger. But I'll tell you this, Clay. The one
thing that I was that was very apparent yesterday is
I was sitting in that jury room as you as
you know, getting ready for Well, it turned out getting
ready for nothing because I didn't get to sit on
a jury or even get to go through Vadir. But
the decision came down from the Supreme Court yesterday. And
I know you've talked through the you know, the the
(17:47):
specifics of it with the audience already and everyone's pretty
up to speed. But it was amazing because the twenty
four hour cycle has played out. What I've seen is
how many people have completely lost their minds and shown
themselves to be either lacking in reading comprehension. I mean
(18:07):
they really have like a soda mayor level of reading
comprehension which is not high, or they're just so dishonest
and so emotionally compromised that they will absolutely say anything.
Producer Greg pulled this together. I mean, I would say
this is a win for Trump, as you discussed yesterday,
(18:28):
insofar as it's very unlikely. I know, I say there's
still a chance, and I still believe it's a chance,
but very very unlikely. There's going to be a trial
before the election. But Trump keeps winning as these things
make their way through the court system on the federal side.
But they didn't say that he can do anything. Far
from it. They actually said that not only can they
(18:49):
be held liable, criminally liable for personal conduct. This is
what we said. He can't bludge in his secretary to
death with a candlestick in the Oval office and then
say I'm the president right, Oh, you're going to prison.
And we've all known that all along. He can't take
a bag full of gold coins under the you know,
under the desk, so to speak, in the Oval office
(19:09):
and say okay, now I'll sign the bill. He doesn't
have a a right as president to do that. That's
not within his presidential powers. All this is saying is,
you know, if the president calls for president calls for
an airstrike on a terrorist group in Afghanistan that he has,
you know, reason to believe is a an imminent threat
to US security or interest, you can't lock him up
(19:29):
in prison for murder and say, oh, but he murdered
those people like that is within his presidential powers. It's
pretty straightforward. The media freak out on this that I've witnessed,
and I know you got to sell us yesterday, but Clay,
I'm pretty sure Greg pulled this together. Just listen as
everybody play one.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Trump.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Supreme Court has to create him a king.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
The imperial presidency is now made concrete, a big step
forward to having an authoritarian president. The blueprint on how
to end the rule of.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Law a green light for criminal activity.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
Did the court to say, yeah, you can assassinate a
political rival.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
President Biden could dispatch the military use Sealed Team six
to go after his political rivals. Orders the Navy Sealed
Team six to assassinate a political rival. Immune organizes a
military coup to hold onto power.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Immune that we must have bold and decisive presidents is
more important than the principle that we should have presidents
who obey the law.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
This is a death squad ruling.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Are all of those people and we know said that
was written Madou at the end, and we recognize some
of the voices. Are they honestly just morons? We've convinced
some section of the public that they're smarter than they are.
Do they just not read that? It is not possible.
I read the whole thing because I was stuck in
a jury room and I couldn't do the show, and
I read the whole decision yesterday. It's not possible to
read what the Supreme Court wrote and think what they
(20:53):
are saying is true, because it's not even close to
being true. You and I are rare because we actually
read so. I mean, this is a media.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
In media, the number of times that I see people
commenting on the stories, not the actual document is ninety
five percent. The story becomes the commentary, not the relation
and reliance on the documents themselves. And I've said this
(21:24):
on the show before, but I think it's so important
and so instructive for people out there read the document.
When I was in law school, I remember my contract's
professor saying, Hey, we're going to talk about a lot
of theories, and we're going to discuss a lot of
different ways to analyze contracts. But there are three things
that matter the most. The contract to contract, the contract,
(21:47):
read the actual document. The number of times buck that
people won't read their actual document. I actually thought John
Roberts did a great job responding to this, and I've
been critical of John Roberts before. He addressed the craziness
of the descent, which was unhinged, and that is what
is driving I think a lot of this conversation was
the unhinged descent that is not related to reality. He said,
(22:08):
separation of powers is the essence of our constitutional government.
If the president behaves in a way that the legislative
branch believes is unacceptable, there is a mechanism to remove
him from power, and the president, as you said, and
is rightly laid out here. The difference between official and
unofficial acts is actually kind of a fascinating debate, you know,
(22:32):
because you can draw the line. But I said yesterday
on the show Buck, I did labor and employment law,
whether or not someone acts within the course of their
employment is one of the foundational tenets of labor and
employment law when it comes to RESPONDIAT superior. But basically,
whether your company can be held responsible for your actions.
This is not something new.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yeah, it's not new at all. In fact, Clay, this
is one where we agreed every step of the way
on what the outcome would be. And we both were right.
I mean, this this was what was it, and we
weren't the only ones. But this is to anyone who
understands the issues involved, this was the really the only outcome.
The alternative would be. Oh, I didn't like the last president,
you know, when he called for again the military stuff
(23:14):
is the easiest. When he called for that special Forces
raid to save you know, a kidnapped American in Gaza,
and there were a few civilians that got killed in
the crossfire. Let's try h for murder. I think that's
murder and and you would the president would have to
go former president would have to go on trial. I mean,
this is insane.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
You don't have us for Biden himself. We talked about
this on the show, and I discussed it yesterday. He
ordered an air strike in Afghanistan that killed one hundred
percent innocent man in his family. They believe that he
was a terrorist. They ordered our president.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Kill like seven kids. It was like a male kid,
and they totally innocent.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
That would mean that when Joe Biden is done with
his term in offense, that he could be put in
prison for his his involvement in that murder.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
It was a murder.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
I mean, it was an errant strike that killed an
innocent man, directed by our president. It's within his powers.
He shouldn't be prosecuted or he wasn't trying to do it.
You know.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
At some level. This is also reminded the presidents have
a lot of power, and having a president who's a
walking vegetable with that power is reckless. That's the other
part of this that I think didn't get nearly hasn't
gotten nearly enough attention with everything that's going on. But
the soda maior descent, which again I read the whole
thing because stuck in jury duty all morning, Right, what
(24:31):
else are you gonna do? I mean, I would have
read it before the show if I could, but it
gave me extra time with it. Sodomior is doing damage
to the Supreme Court because now we know there are
people on the Supreme Court who don't really seem to
have like a high school level understanding of logic and
the law. I don't know what else to say. She's
(24:52):
not up for this, and I don't say that about Kagan.
I haven't seen enough of Katangi Brown Jackson stuff. Really,
I haven't read enough where I would have a great
read on it. But I'm sort of my It is
really as though an unhinged, purple haired, nos ringed cat
lady from the comments section of MSNBC dot com is
(25:14):
writing Supreme Court. It's just there's no connection to reality.
It's as though she doesn't know what her colleagues and
that's that's unsettling. I'll be honest with you. It's not
she disagrees, but she's smart. They're Supreme Court justice that
I disagree with tremendously on things, but at least they're
operating within some framework of logic that I can understand.
She is just an unhinged MSNBC commenter, And I mean
(25:38):
it's it's pathetic. It makes our Supreme Court look like
a joke.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
I don't even understand buck how she could have four
incredibly intelligent law clerks and produce the opinions that.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
She I don't think she picks intelligent law clerks. I
don't know who they are, but I think she picks
based on you know, she picks them based on the
same reason she got picked.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
That's what That's that's scary too, because a lot of
people out there don't under stand. I mean you you
basically have to be a legal genius, and I'm not
exaggerating generally speaking, and you could be a leftist legal
genius or a rightist. To be selected as a clerk,
you have to be one of the thirty five or
thirty six, you know, one of the forty or fifty
brightest legal scholars. In order to be selected, you have
(26:19):
to have been a great clerk in theory for a
circuit court judge.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
This is but this is all clay, This is all
This is like saying it's so hard to get under
yell law. Yeah, unless you're you know, like a Native
American who writes their essay about well if she if
she is, if.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
She is speaking like that, then then yes. But I
mean in general, most people out there who I think
are lawyers would say, I mean, I know several Supreme
Court clerks. They're really I'm trying not to curse.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Really the clerk did they Did they clerk for libs
or do they clerk for conservatives? Both sides?
Speaker 3 (26:50):
I mean, but again, like just to be a meritocracy,
And maybe it's just what I'm saying, it's changed since
you were in law school twenty years ago. You got
to think about how things have adjusted since then. Because
I also have friends who went from Amherst, Harvard and
Yale and they they look around now and they're like, oh, no.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
You're listening to twenty four the most important tier in
politics with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Fuck, I'll give you an open right off the top.
Here are you remaining? The public demands to know, is
Buck Island still flying the Biden flag high? Or would
you hear on the eve of our two hundred and
forty eighth Independence Day like to join so many others
(27:38):
in fleeing your island on whatever possible flotation device might
still be available on the island.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I just want to make it very clear to everybody.
First of all, people are getting a little high falutin
right now, a little other high horses about how oh
look Biden, no, no, do not celebrate early. Do not
think that this is over yet. It might be over
the course of the show, and then we'll just have
to edit this out from the podcast at least. But
I have been very clear. It's not like Obama. Let
(28:08):
me be clear. I have been very clear. It is
Biden or Harris. That has always been my position. This
is I'm just gonna tell Go to the transcript, everybody,
go to the tape, Go to my x feed or
Twitter feed. Go see. I've always said Biden er Harris.
It is the Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama, Whitmer, et cetera
talk that I have been very dismissive of. Now, if
(28:32):
forced into a corner, I have thought it would still
be Biden over Kamala. Under the circumstances. That component of
my analysis is not feeling so warm and fuzzy today. However,
the bet my friend is Gav is third option versus Biden. Harris,
(28:53):
I just want clarity. No, no, no, no, you don't
it's Biden. It's Biden or no Biden.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Appreciate your kare Jian Pierre, Ministry of Disinformation.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Spin here what it is. We can go back. There's
a transcript, folks, there's audio. This doesn't have to be
you know, based on recollection, and we're gonna go back
and pull some of this.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
This is this is unbelievable. Okay, So a couple of things.
I we were just talking about this off air. Tomorrow
is July fourth. I would have usually this is you
you would agree, I think, Buck, one of the deadest
days on the entire American calendar. People are traveling, everybody's
out of work. I mean, if you, uh, if you
(29:38):
put on Fox News, just about every host is out
this week, and we're talking about, hey, we may have
to call in on July fourth, Yeah, because it's possible
news could break, or July fifth, which would usually be
a quiet day as well, that Biden is out. And
(29:58):
the way I would describe it, and I'm curious if
you would agree with me, Buck is first of all,
the absolute latest. The New York Times reported in the
last hour that Biden has had conversations with close out
with at least one close ally about dropping out of
the race. That is the latest news story that is
(30:19):
out there. He is, according to this story, this source.
I mean, let's really get into this for a second.
First of all, we may have an answer while we're
on the air, So you have to listen to us
today for all three hours.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
I know you're probably a lot of you on the road,
which is great because then we'll entertain you while you're
driving to your Independence Day weekend celebration with family or whatever.
But Clay, they we'll get down into this. We may
know the answer today. They have reported that a close
aid to Biden has said that Biden is considering the
possibility that he cannot continue on because basically, after the debate,
(30:53):
he can't win. There have been people in the Biden orbit,
you know, spokespersons the White House, who have said that
report is categorically false, which which is amazing what you
would say if you were still dependent on Biden for
your job and the bowing out was not official yet.
(31:14):
But there is the Palace coup is the effort is underway.
I will admit that there is an effort to push
Joe Biden aside. It's just a question of Kenny hang on.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Here's the headline right now, top of the New York Times.
Biden told ally that he is weighing whether to continue
in the race. Is the headline, sub headline. The president's
conversation is the first indication he is seriously considering whether
he can recover after a devastating performance on the debate
(31:46):
stage in Atlanta on Thursday. That story went live and
was updated about forty five minutes ago, according to The
New York Times. Okay, interesting aspect of this. Things are
so much in an uproar that the Biden team, as
you just pointed out, is now saying that the New
(32:07):
York Times is fake news.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Think of it.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Think about how crazy things have gotten in the Democrat
camp that Joe Biden's chief advisor is saying that this
is completely untrue. Here's Andrew Bates, White House spokesman said
the claim was absolutely false and the White House had
not been given enough time to respond. I don't even
(32:30):
know what that means. Not enough time to respond the
way that I read that, Buck is usually the White
House is able to keep The New York Times from
writing stories they don't like. They get on the phone
with them, they scream at them, to yell at them,
and then The New York Times backs up and says, Okay,
we're not gonna run this here. They went ahead and
just ran it. And now we have a situation where
(32:52):
Joe Biden himself is saying that The New York Times
is fake news. That's how much things have turned into
an uproar. And by the way, minute to minute, we're
in this situation where anything could happen. It would not
stun me if I go on Twitter and hit refresh
if there is a breaking news story. Hey, Biden has
decided to withdraw.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
It is July third, as we all know. And usually
and Clay and I have both been doing media now
for you know, over a decade, in Clay's case, several decades.
He's much older than me, and and usually at this
case we'd be talking about like, hey, like what are
you which is fun, by the way, but hey, what
are your Fourth of July? I know it's Independence weekend,
but you know we all use the shorthand fourth of
(33:34):
July plans. What are you going to be barbecuing? And
we might talk about some of that in the third hour.
But there is a very serious possibility that today may
be the biggest day of political news so far this
entire year. Yeah, the most earth, I mean, bigger than
the Trump verdict, Bigger than bigger than anything, bigger than
(33:55):
Trump winning Iowa. This could be the single biggest day
in politics of the entire your years so far, and
maybe of the entire presidential cycle when all said and done,
So we really mean it, you need to stick around
with us.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
I mean, Buck, I think you could make an argument
that it could be the biggest day of presidential news
since nineteen sixty eight when LBJ said he wouldn't run.
Because I mean again, I correct me if I'm wrong,
and we'll put the crew on this. I don't think
we've ever had an incumbent president choose not to run
in the midst of an election year since LBJ in
(34:29):
sixty eight. So, for many of you that are out
there listening to us, including Buck and me, there isn't
a historical analogy that we have been alive for when
something like this would have occurred. And I'll tell you
I was no surprise watching MSNBC all morning, and I'm
telling you they're doubling up on the early shot.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
What's their position?
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Yeah, like, I mean, are they still defending Biden from
your MSNBC.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Viewing, or how would you assess the overall tote? I mean,
I really and you can tell by the guests they
have on and every they are solidly fence sitting right now.
Oh that's great. They're solidly noncommittal. They want to see
who's gonna win this power struggle there, which is interesting
because remember they went full back Dad Bob right after
the bait. They were doing the whole and right now
(35:20):
they're going, ooh, let's sort of see how this one
shakes out. It's by the way, it's so it's so
great to watch. It's so much fun. I'm telling you.
Speaker 3 (35:27):
So, this is one of the great lines from Old
Country guys. Turtle doesn't get on a fence by an accident.
So right now, MSNBC is the turtle on the fence.
They are intentionally staying right there. They ain't going one
direction or the other. They are right there on top
of the fence. And I yeah, I wonder how we
(35:50):
you know, way, we never got a reckoning for COVID.
Nobody's ever come out and said, hey, I was wrong.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
We blew this.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
I was having this conversation with my wife this morning,
and I said, this might be the story that causes
the left wing New York Times Washington Post to actually
be so humiliated, because I think that's what's going on
right now.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
They have been.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
Humiliated by the degree to which the left the Biden
administration was demanding that they lie. Their own intelligence has
been called into question, and they've asked them to.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Do too much.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
Now they'll still show up and say Kamala Harris is
the modern day Nelson Mandela. If she's the nominee, Kamala
Harris is what Martin Luther King would have been if
he were still alive today, right, Like I mean, all
these puff pieces are coming. They'll try to turn Kamala
Harris into the greatest hero of modern American history. But
the Joe Biden's a good guy, Joe Biden, it's cheap fakes.
(36:49):
The idea that he wasn't on top of his game
at D Day or the G seven or at Juneteenth.
Now when I read it, and the New York Times
released a devastating column sorry reporting on Biden's frailty and
mental and physical deficiencies, and they cited all of the
stories that you and I have been talking about on
(37:09):
this show for months. One of my buddies who's a
Biden voter, sent me that article and he was like, wow,
did you know about all this? He's busy and I
was like, yes, yeah. People really trust the New York
Times to let them know what is going on. And
I think if you're super busy, there are still lots
of people who are just allowing that to be their source.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Clay. There are people, many of them, whose only job
is to tell the American people the truth about what
is going on inside the White House and specifically with
the President himself of the United States. There are every
major news organization has people that are assigned to that.
(37:52):
You know the joke you had one job, you know,
the line you had one job, they had one job.
And what we realize are rather what we see. I
think we've known this all along, but some people are
coming to this realization is that the job is actually
to protect Democrat interests. The job is not to report.
(38:12):
And Charles Cook over at National Review you probably saw
this tweet's going viral, but I think this really nails it.
Charles writes, if you're looking for a broader takeaway from
all this, take how the press covered up Biden's infirmity
because it wanted to protect the Democrats, and apply it
to literally every single thing that it does on any topic,
(38:33):
in any year, in any circumstance forever. He says. The
truth of the media, Charles nails it here. That is
their job. The people that think that they failed by
not reporting on Biden don't understand. Their job is not
to report the truth. Their job is to help Democrat
power and Democrat interests.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
On another part of that, I read this and I
laughed and I shared it. Beckett Adams Twitter account, Pulitzer
Prize winning newsrooms and pundits with six figure salaries all
missed the deterioration of Joe Biden's cognitive abilities, while accounts
with handles such as Patriot Mom seventeen seventy six and
Real Eagle Underscore Freedom have been pointing it out for
(39:18):
about five years. But that really kind of goes at
the essence in a funny way of what exactly we
have seen and the fact that if you pointed it
out NBC News ten days ago, Buck accused me of
being a chief purveyor of disinformation for sharing an actual
video of Biden not being able to do his job.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Yeah, the whole phrase cheap fakes. You're not gonna hear
a lot about that anymore because those were all obviously real.
I would just want everyone to make sure, though, that
we frame our thinking on this accurately. It is not
that they failed to notice this. Like Clay, you mentioned
you have a friend, Yeah, who somehow didn't know. But anyway, whatever,
(39:57):
he trusted the news. Fine, people can trust the news.
That's on them. They got other life, other things they're doing.
But for the people who work in the media, they
didn't miss this. This is like the fifty one intelligence
officers with the Hunter Biden laptop. They weren't fooled. They
lied to you. They lied. This was intentional, This was knowing.
This was willful. It was a top two bottom campaign
(40:21):
of dare I say misinformation about Joe Biden's age, frailty,
mental acuity, cognition, and they expect us to just forget that.
And by even people over at CNN, I don't even
want to have to go through to name the names, like, oh, like,
look what we've discovered. No, you were part of the fraud.
(40:43):
You were part of the calm the whole time. You
don't get to be the Oh, I'm a speaking truth.
I'm a journalist. I'm honest. Now, No, you went along
with this the whole time, and now the whole thing's
blown up in their faces. And we'll see. I believe
there's a phone call which is going to be happening
within minutes, right, I think it's scheduled. It's still scheduled
for there's a White House phone call on the schedule today.
(41:04):
There's like an all hands call. And then there's a
Biden Kamala lunch. You've seen that too, Yeah, And then they've.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
Got the governors in tonight, right, the governor Democrat governors
are all there.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
And I'm going to tell you something right now, I
have a prediction for all of you about what's going
to happen. I think I can see this pretty clearly. Clay,
you're going to have to bring us back.
Speaker 3 (41:25):
I want everybody to think I'm kind of blown away here.
Who do you trust more? The Biden administration or the
New York Times. This is a when they actually start
feuding with each other. I think it's actually a very
hard thing to try to figure out, to get your
heads around that this could actually be happening.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
You're listening to twenty four, the Year of Impact with
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (41:49):
Buck Island seemed like it was about to be uninhabitable.
Maybe one of those islands that they decided they were
going to test nukes around and everybody had to re
locate because it was no longer safe to be there.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Buck Island as a nuclear wasteland already claimed.
Speaker 3 (42:06):
Some of those islands are beautiful in the off the
coast of Puerto Rico.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
You know they glow in the dark at night too.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
Yes, yeah, well that's the downside, but they're they're easy
to find.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
So you said you think he'll still be there on Monday. Yeah,
this is what.
Speaker 3 (42:22):
Buck Island is down to. We think we have enough
coconuts to make it till Monday. We've got there's enough water.
We're hoping it's gonna rain. You are committed to November fifth,
or you're committed to Monday right now on Buck Island.
Speaker 2 (42:37):
I again, we're gonna have to go back to the transcript,
so everyone's very clear. I have said all along it
is Biden or Harris. When there was all this Michelle
Obama talk, which we all remember people calling in for
the last twelve months about, oh, it's gonna be Michelle Obama.
I said no, no, no, they said Gavin Newsom. I
said no, no, no, it's gonna be Biden or Harris.
(42:57):
And that is the foundation of a steak. Bet. We
will go back, We'll check the transcript on this one.
How I can't believe you are waffling like this.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
I'm going to your own Twitter account to do my
own research here, because I seem to remember a recent
tweet that said it's going to be Biden. Everyone else
is a moron? Am I am?
Speaker 2 (43:14):
I wrong? Said that. I didn't say that. That's not fair.
Speaker 3 (43:18):
I said that that might be a rough, rough version,
that's a little harsh. That maybe my characterization. So he's
not bowing out buck Sexton two days ago. He's period
not period bowing period out buck Sexton two days ago.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
I think that he's not bowing out. I'm going to
tell you this right now. I understand that there's I
understand that the US laughing at this. He's not hold
on five days ago, buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (43:48):
He's period not period dropping period out period Ever.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
I'm in your own Twitter account. No, I understand that
that's those statements have been made. I understand those statements
have been made, and I would tell everybody you're likea
Pierre as we sit here. As we sit here, I'm
gonna have the team go back and pull the tape
because all the chatter he can't stay in the race.
(44:17):
End quote.
Speaker 3 (44:17):
Here's the Democrat plot to replace him is wasted energy.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
Yes, yes, okay, sorry, I'm just doing my research. You
continue on. Uh, you know, he's there's some there's some
cheap fakes coming from Clay right now. There's some cherry
picking and misinformation happening here because there are other things
there on the x account which I will find which
tell everybody that it is in fact going to be
(44:44):
Biden or Harris. But I will say this, I think
he's still going uh going to make it. Wait, just
just like anyway. We don't want to spend this whole
time so many breaking news stories.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
By the way, it's almost him possible to know what
is that. The chaos inside of the Democrats right now
is unlike anything buck that I can remember from a
major political party that is self inflicted. It's not as
if you know, somebody has suddenly created a brand new
(45:19):
story that nobody knew existed. We didn't just have a
war start. They have tripped all over themselves to a
degree that I think, past the lives of anybody listening
right now, people will be citing this story in the
same way you know, buck they do. Hey, remember when
television started and Nixon won the debate for everybody listening
(45:41):
on the radio, and Kennedy won for everybody watching, and
it fundamentally changed everything. And people still talk about that,
even though most of our listeners did not watch or
listen to that debate. I think, past the lives of
those who are listening today, people will be talking about
this debate in twenty twenty four as one of the
all time unbelievable American political experiences.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
So yes, and here's and we still don't even know
how unbelievable because does it actually result in a president? Remember,
it wouldn't just be choosing not to run. And this
is a key difference. Biden's decision right now isn't I'm
going to pass the baton for the campaign to someone else.
(46:22):
That's obviously a part of it. It's he's not finishing
his term. Everybody he would he assuming that it is Harris,
which I've assumed all along that it would be if
not Biden, If he steps down, he's got to do
it so that rather, if he decides that he's not
going to try to make this happen, he wants Kamala
(46:43):
Harris to be the president running effectively as an well.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
See that's interesting, so you think that, See that's such
an embarrassment to me for Biden not to finish his
term that I think the consolation prize if he steps
down is it stepping down from running and he will
serve out. I agree with you that he's not competent
to be able to do it, but I don't think
he would be willing to step out of the presidential
(47:09):
role and let her.
Speaker 2 (47:10):
Here's the problem. Here's I mean, I would I understand
that that's that's that could be true. But the problem is, Clay,
if he's not competent to be the president in January,
he's not competent to be the president. Now you're a
hundred percent. That's why that story doesn't go away. If
he continues to be there will be bills he will sign,
there will be things that are done, there will be
executive orders, there'll be pardons, that's for damn sure. So
(47:34):
for him to do those things between now and January,
it's just indefensible. If he's saying he can't run, because remember,
he's not saying I can't run because you know, I
made this decision for my family for the better. You
know what. Whatever the reason he's being forced out, he's
being forced out would be if this happens that he
doesn't have the mental faculties to be president, and and
(47:55):
no one's going to buy you have the mental faculties now,
but you won't in January. Okay, that's an absurd argument.
So I think the problem for Biden, rather, the reason
that I think the Palace coup may fail still is
and you know they've decided to go for it. I
will say I'm a little surprised that they've because remember
Morning Joe, the day after the debate. The day after
(48:18):
the debate, the decision from the apparatus was He's still
our guy. That was a rough night. He's still our guy.
Something has changed, there has been I don't know if
it's mostly the polls, the donors, the combination there and
the donors. I think you have it. So those things
together have made it so that now there's a real
challenge to Biden. So now the system isn't backing him up.
But here's the thing. If you're Joe Biden, and I
(48:40):
think everyone can see that, Joe Biden somebody who has
thought about himself more than anything else or anyone else
his entire life. It's not about service to the country.
It's about Bidenism and what's best for Bidenism. If you're
Joe Biden, you only got a few years left. Let's
be honest. I mean, guys, maybe maybe it's ten years. Maybe,
but he's only got a few years left. Realistically, you're
going to go out now a sure loser. The only
(49:01):
you're gonna give up your shot to be a hero
and to hand the presidency. I'm thinking from the Biden
perspective now, like I'm trying to be Joe Biden, which
is pretty scary.
Speaker 3 (49:10):
Your brain yorks too well to be him. But yes,
this is yes, this is an attempt.
Speaker 2 (49:15):
That was very nice. It works too well to you.
Buzz Clay's a very charitable guy. So if you were
in that position, they would have to And I think
this is the discussion that's going on now. They would
have to entice Biden to step down with promises of
extremely good stuff. They wouldn't make this open by the way.
(49:36):
They wouldn't be but I mean companies Jill Jill, Biden,
the president of a university somewhere making a million dollars
a year to wake up and do nothing. You know,
that's the only way you convince Joe Biden. You have
to induce him, because otherwise he doesn't care. And people
(49:57):
keep saying, Oh, they're gonna, they're gonna wan he's the president.
They're not gonna do anything other than try to convince
him to make the decision. I think they can.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
Offer him millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars
even to leave. I think those conversations are going on
right now. What I don't think buck is I think
Biden has too much pride to leave before his term
is out. And ultimately, I think that becomes a huge
albatross for Kamala Harris to your point, because if you're
(50:27):
not able to run, they'll try to say, hey, I
recognize that it's reckless for me to try to serve
to eighty six.
Speaker 2 (50:34):
I have the ability to.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
Serve until January of twenty twenty four, of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (50:41):
I'll do the best. I'll do this to the best
of my ability. Buck.
Speaker 3 (50:44):
Imagine the shots of him moving his family possessions out
of the White House so Kamala Harris could move in.
It would be such an admission of failure that I
don't think Joe Biden's pride would allow him to do that.
So part of the negotiation is gonna be I ain't
leaving here.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
You know, with you sir, throwing around your your your uh,
slanderous accusations of reading your tweets. You're you're you're reading
you're reading of these tweets you know that are out
of context. I'm just gonna say out of context. And
and there's misinformation here, could be Russian disinformation Clay is
reading I don't know, prove to me that it is not.
(51:22):
Are you now? Are you now actually slyly joining on
Buck Island? The little side island of it has to
be Kama. There is no have you given up on
Gavin and all the rest of this talk well making
it for.
Speaker 3 (51:34):
So many months, I think that Kamala is going to
lose and I actually think the polling is going to
be worse for Kamala.
Speaker 2 (51:41):
So I'm of two minds on so who's the nominee?
That there are three people.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
That I think could potentially potentially beat uh uh Trump
in the Democrat Party Michelle Obama, who it appears is
still putting out hey, I don't want to do it.
Josh Pierro and Gretchen Whitmer. I'm not saying that they
can or even that they're likely. I think every other Democrat,
(52:08):
whether it's mayor Pete, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, they all lose.
Speaker 2 (52:13):
I mean, you know, your shuffle around on the stage here, buddy,
who is going to be the Democrat nominee?
Speaker 3 (52:19):
The most likely one is Kamala right now, but I
still wonder. I still wonder whether the play is for
Biden to say I'm freeing all of my delegates. I'm
not endorsing anyone, and I'm gonna let the Democrats in
Chicago decide who the nominee is.
Speaker 2 (52:38):
Chaos is the enemy of the Democrats at this point,
and chaos would be what they are usually they love chaos,
especially on the streets, but they the disarray this would
cause and going into a broker convention. People don't understand.
There's no conversation that anyone is going to have in
the corridors of power in the Democrat Party that convince
(52:59):
all the day. There are different factions, right, We've seen
this with like the whole Israel Palestine issue for example.
There are different factions. You're gonna have people from all
over the Democrat Party who think that their guy or
gal should be the nominee. I know, and you know,
it's not like they're gonna walk in the convention like, oh,
we've all decided here's the perfect person. They're gonna have
(53:20):
a knockdown, drag out fight a month before early voting
starts basically give or take you know, six weeks or
something before heavy Yeah, dude, I just think they're gonna.
Speaker 3 (53:30):
Kamala can't win, all right, And I'm actually curious we
come back, like, who would even take the VP role
for Kamala?
Speaker 2 (53:37):
Have you seen a single poll that shows anyone other
than Biden doing better than Biden against Trump from a
reputable polster, like a real poll. No.
Speaker 3 (53:48):
But the thing I would say in response to that
is nobody else has gotten to run hundreds of millions
of dollars in ads. The one thing I'll say is
they will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for whoever
the candidate is.
Speaker 2 (54:00):
Eating all that on fire if they switched the candie.
This is why, This is why I'm telling you there's
great deals on waterfront locks on Buck Island. I'm telling
you there's just going on. Why you're still saying they're
gonna stick with Biden. I mean, it's Biden or its Terris,
which is what I've said all along. It's I still
think it's Biden. But I mean today, I mean, that's
(54:20):
a ballsy call. I'm not gonna lie. That's that's that's
that's I'm you know, I'm running down the middle with
no blockers on this one. I'm just hoping to sort
of make it through the mailstream. We'll see what happens.
Speaker 1 (54:34):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tier in
Politics with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
This is twenty four, a weekly highlight reel from the
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Bucks.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
We have got a lot of details to discuss surrounding
the ongoing fallout of debate implosion from Joe Biden and
the resulting implosion of his candidacy that has continued to
play out in slow motion. We will discuss all of that.
(00:35):
As for now, Biden is claiming that he is going
to stay in the race, which I think is absolutely
fabulous news for those of us who want to see
Donald Trump win, because I frankly don't see any way
four months out that Joe Biden is capable of winning.
And there's lots of data to support that that is true,
(00:58):
and we will discuss that in great detail today. Take
your calls, answer them on a variety of topics as well.
Eight hundred and two eight two two eight eight two.
I am solo today because Buck is that jury duty
in Miami. He just texted me that he's going in
for Vardar that it means he's being questioned. He doesn't
(01:20):
know at all what case he is potentially involved in,
but that is where he is as we speak right now.
So who knows how long or if he'll get seated
on jury duty, but we hope to have him back
sooner rather than later. But he had put it off
as long as he could, and they said he had
to show up today. So that is where Buck is.
(01:40):
But major breaking news in the last hour and a
half or so, the Supreme Court has sided with Donald
Trump on presidential immunity to a large degree in a
six to three decision. Big picture, this means that the
only case that is going to be completed and go
(02:02):
to a jury and have a verdict rendered is the
Alvin braggcase. We'll talk about that. The New York City
bookkeeping felonies elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. That
sentencing scheduled right now for Thursday of next week. I've
got some theories on that, as you might imagine. But
(02:23):
let's talk right now about what the presidential immunity case
told us, what's going to happen now and why there
are so many left wingers already beginning to panic associated
with the failure of their law for law fare attempts.
Now not a surprise the way this one broke down.
(02:46):
The three liberals on the left in the court disagreeing
with the majority. But essentially, what the court said is
that the president has a substantial privilege associated with his
office that makes it difficult to charge him with crimes
that are related to his official acts as president of
(03:09):
the United States. They took some of the allegations in
this complaint filed by Jack Smith and said we believe
these are official acts, which officially takes them off the board.
And then they said there remained some acts which while
there may be a presumption that they are within presidential privilege.
(03:31):
And that's very important because the presumption means presumption that
a crime was not committed. In other words, you have
to get over the protective p number surrounding the president's acts.
And then there are potentially unofficial acts which could be prosecutable.
And let me kind of take you into that, and
(03:52):
I will answer questions if you guys want to reach
out via email, if you want to call in eight
hundred and two eighty two. To the best of my
legal ability here, but we've tried to tell you this
is the direction this was coming. And I told you
I thought this opinion would come down in the July
fourth week, and we now have it. And again, big picture,
(04:16):
what this does is the Jack Smith case is over.
It is not going to go to a jury. It
is not even I believe, possible to even start it
between now and November. If Trump wins, he'll have his
Department of Justice dismiss this case. But now there will
be a battle over what is official and what is
(04:38):
innofficial for purposes of these acts. And let me give
you just kind of an idea of official versus unofficial acts.
If a president decides that there is a terror group
operating in a foreign country, and he believes that we
need to strike that terror group, and when we it
(05:01):
actually ends up being the case, as recently happened in Afghanistan,
that we end up killing someone who was innocent and
in fact they were not the terrorists that we thought
they were, even though that has led to the death
of an innocent person, that would be an official act,
and the president would not be able to be charged
(05:23):
for that decision. And I think most of you out there,
regardless of your politics, you would sit around and you
would say, Okay, that's why presidential powers matter so much.
The president's not going to be perfect. His advisors are
not going to be perfect.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
He can be.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Acting in what he believes is the best interest of
our nation, to protect the troops, to protect the American citizens,
and he can be wrong. And I use that example
because Biden just did that. Biden just killed in the
past year or so a one hundred percent innocent man
(05:59):
in Afghananistan and members of his family.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
According to the reporting of The New York.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Times, that guy was totally and his family certainly without
any wrongdoing, and we screwed up and.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
He was killed. They thought he was a terrorist. He wasn't.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Even though I think Joe Biden's an awful president, Biden
was acting on the recommendations of his national security team,
and that failure shouldn't put Joe Biden in prison. He
shouldn't be able to be charged with a violation of
the law because that was well within his presidential powers.
(06:39):
I think most of you out there nodding along, saying, yeah, Okay,
I understand that that's an important legacy opinion that they
have now addressed in the Supreme Court. Okay, what about
unofficial acts? The example that I've used on this show
for some time is if the President of the United
States in the oval office, picked up a paperweight and
(07:04):
hit one of his advisors in the head because he
was angry at that advisor. And when he struck that advisor,
he caught them in the temple, and that individual died.
The President would be prosecutable because that is outside the
scope of his official access. President, that's an easy one.
(07:26):
I've given you two easy ones. One president orders an
attack on a terrorist, ends up getting it wrong, innocent
man dies. President can't be prosecuted. That's an official act.
On the opposite extreme, president picks up a paperweight in
the oval office, strikes an advisor or a waiter or
(07:47):
whoever it might be in the White House residence and
kills that individual. The President would be prosecutable because that's
not an official act. Those are sort of the permutations
the scope of potential analysis. What the Supreme Court has
said with some of the acts that Trump undertook on
(08:09):
that day of January sixth, but also surrounding his challenge
of the election results of twenty twenty, is we're gonna
now send this back to the District Court. They are
going to examine is this an official or an unofficial act?
If they believe that it is an unofficial act, then
(08:30):
theoretically Trump could be prosecuted for that because it is
not within the scope of his presidential powers. But once
they make that determination, and Judge Chutkin could make the
determination that all of these are presidential acts, because again,
remember the presumption is that the president is engaging in
(08:55):
an official act. So honestly, most of the time, especially
I believe, having read this opinion, these acts and I
told you this for a while, I think they are
within the official powers of the president. But if she
decides that they are not, and that these are basically
private acts outside of the scope of his presidential powers,
(09:19):
it is more akin to the analogy I made of
the president picking up a paperweight and striking someone in
the head, committing a murder outside of the scope of
his official acts. Then it will go to the DC
Circuit on appeal probably and then also back to the
Supreme Court, which would then have to consider it, probably
(09:41):
in the next year term. Basically, this case is finished
with what we know about Atlanta. I think also significantly
the Atlanta case, which deals with many of the same
aspects as the cases of January sixth opinion The Atlanta
(10:01):
case with our good friend Fanny willis also finished, and
again the classified document case a little bit different, but
it doesn't appear that one is moving forward anytime soon either.
The big takeaway here is that the Biden gamble that
they were going to tie up President Trump in court
(10:24):
and that he was going to be a serial convicted felon,
and that that was going to render her him, in
the minds of the electorate, ineligible or unable to be
elected because of the because of the law fair machinations.
That's all failed worse for the Biden administration. It has
(10:46):
now blown up in their face and in the process
made Trump stronger than he was before all of this started.
Now that doesn't mean that now the Democrat Party, desperate
what is as it is likely to be, may not
make a totally irrational move and try to put Trump
(11:08):
in prison next week. I actually think Judge Merchant is
going to try that. You are dealing with a cornered
politician in Joe Biden, who is losing on all fronts,
who if the election were today, would not only lose,
I don't believe it would be particularly close in the
electoral college based on all the battleground polling. Desperate times,
(11:32):
call for desperate measures. Be aware we have entered desperation
zone for Democrats four months out. How is this going
to play out? Where do we go from here? What
legal questions do you have?
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Again? Major breaking news? Last week we.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Told you the Supreme Court, in our opinion, got the
First Amendment case wrong. I give them credit here. I
believe they got this case close to one hundred percent right.
And it's not just a Trump precedent. This is about
the power of every president for the rest of our
lives and beyond the lives of the living today. This
(12:11):
is a precedent that will stand potentially for hundreds of
years as an attempt to deligate exactly what the president's
powers are in a criminal context as it pertains to
official and unofficial business. It's a monumental ruling. It is
a huge decision that has come down.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
You're listening to twenty four the year of impact with
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
How long are you now cleared without do you know
how long? You don't have to go back for any
one year?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Wow? It's yeah, this may become a more regular occurrence
in my life. But I'll tell you real quick The
downside is the courthouse here in Miami day looks like
a Soviet penal colony or something. I mean, it looks
like where they would have sent you it. Really, a
(13:08):
courthouse should have Roman columns, sweeping entrance, you know, it
should there should be the majesty of the state. And
it really this it's called the Gerstein Building, I think
down to Miami Dade. It looks like something that you know,
Stalin would have sent his enemies to. And it's not
even a prison, mind you. This is just the courthouse.
So there's that. But everybody actually was very professional. I
(13:31):
was impressed with the with one of the judges who
came out. We're in a room of about two hundred people,
I would say, just just stacked. I mean just people
shoulder to shoulder and all these chairs. The judge came
out gave us a little pep talk. I know you
don't want to be here. I know this seems like
it stinks, but it is your duty, and thank you
for being here. That's the short version of it. Everything
(13:51):
was going great, and then after lunch, when I had
not been picked for jurrell morning and it was getting
close to I knew when I would get dismissed. One
of the bailiffs kind of looked me a little funny, Clay,
and the judge in this one trial had gathered us
all in the hallway outside of the courtroom to tell
us what our fate would be. There was a last
minute plea deal that was struck, which I think this
(14:12):
often happened.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
I told you, as soon as they get the jury ready,
the lawyers, the pressure to get a deal done always
comes up. That's that's like ninety percent of the time
what happens. You're there to drive the negotiation in the settlement.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
And I just wanted to know what the case was
even about. We never even found out. But the judge
was very, very friendly, very polite. She said, I know,
I have some good news for all of you. But
the bailiff came over and he looked at me, and
you know, you get you know, he gave me the
look like, wait a second, because everyone there thinks my
name is James, because technically that's my first name. He's like,
I know you. He's like, you're the guy. You're the
(14:45):
guy from Fox and from radio. And I kind of
gave him like a little quiet nod and I swear.
He turns a judge. He goes, judge, you see this,
I know this guy from TV. I was like, shh,
this is in front of all the other jurors, right,
I'm like, let's keep that, let's keep that down. And
and then one of our Jewish brethren came over. He
had a yamaka on came over and he tugged my
(15:06):
shirt and he'sa like, hey, thanks for what you and
Clay do every day. I was like, yes, great victory. Victory.
So anyway, and then we got all got dismiss So
that was Jerry Dudy. Now let's get into news.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
The other thing is a reminder you never want to
be the target of the criminal justice system. And I
know that people say, oh, Trump is unstoppable for us
and look what he's been through and nothing can stop Trump. Well, yes, true,
But just having to show up and be a criminal
defendant in a building like this for a lot of
people I think would be soul crushing and would really
(15:37):
know on more them. You know, just just having to
be there and you are on trial would be trying
to sleep if you faced legitimate prison time and you
knew your trial was coming up, you're out on bail
or whatever.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
I mean, the amount of physical stress associated with the
criminal justice system is a huge part of the punishment itself,
whether you're found guilty or innocent.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
I was trying to follow events yesterday from the jurm.
The wi FI was kind of bad, unfortunately, so I
had to pop in it out. Is when does Bannon
report for his sentence? He's in? He's in. I believe he.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
I believe he is now in the prison, and I
know he did his show yesterday and we talked some
about it. You get the staff in New York can
confirm that he's been officially admitted in. In theory, he
would be there until November one as a part of
serving that four month sentence which I talked about yesterday.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Buck.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
I actually think is a hugely underdiscussed story that if
you're just merely associated with Trump, they're legitimately putting you
in jail for your political belief.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Yeah. They are absolutely tearing down any sense of fairness
in the justice system to get at Trump, not just
with Trump, but with people around him. I want you
all to know that we reached out directly to Steve
and his team and invited him to come on before
he started his sentence because we wanted him to be
able to make sure everybody knows that he's being targeted.
And you know, we clearly stand with Steve. He's a
(17:02):
fighter for his principles and we wish him well while
he is dealing with what he's dealing with right now.
You know, I have Steve's the kind of guy who's
going to go into prison though and make me like
he'll make friends. I'm just saying he's very He's a
very charismatic guy. I'm sure he doesn't want to be
in prison, but I'm saying, you know, he's he'll be okay.
I have a lot of a lot of faith and
confidence in him. He'll come out and he'll come out
(17:23):
even stronger. But I'll tell you this, Clay. The one
thing that I was that was very apparent yesterday is
I was sitting in that jury room as you as
you know, getting ready for Well, it turned out getting
ready for nothing because I didn't get to sit on
a jury or even get to go through Vadir. But
the decision came down from the Supreme Court yesterday. And
I know you've talked through the you know, the the
(17:47):
specifics of it with the audience already and everyone's pretty
up to speed. But it was amazing because the twenty
four hour cycle has played out. What I've seen is
how many people have completely lost their minds and shown
themselves to be either lacking in reading comprehension. I mean
(18:07):
they really have like a soda mayor level of reading
comprehension which is not high, or they're just so dishonest
and so emotionally compromised that they will absolutely say anything.
Producer Greg pulled this together. I mean, I would say
this is a win for Trump, as you discussed yesterday,
(18:28):
insofar as it's very unlikely. I know, I say there's
still a chance, and I still believe it's a chance,
but very very unlikely. There's going to be a trial
before the election. But Trump keeps winning as these things
make their way through the court system on the federal side.
But they didn't say that he can do anything. Far
from it. They actually said that not only can they
(18:49):
be held liable, criminally liable for personal conduct. This is
what we said. He can't bludge in his secretary to
death with a candlestick in the Oval office and then
say I'm the president right, Oh, you're going to prison.
And we've all known that all along. He can't take
a bag full of gold coins under the you know,
under the desk, so to speak, in the Oval office
(19:09):
and say okay, now I'll sign the bill. He doesn't
have a a right as president to do that. That's
not within his presidential powers. All this is saying is,
you know, if the president calls for president calls for
an airstrike on a terrorist group in Afghanistan that he has,
you know, reason to believe is a an imminent threat
to US security or interest, you can't lock him up
(19:29):
in prison for murder and say, oh, but he murdered
those people like that is within his presidential powers. It's
pretty straightforward. The media freak out on this that I've witnessed,
and I know you got to sell us yesterday, but Clay,
I'm pretty sure Greg pulled this together. Just listen as
everybody play one.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Trump.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Supreme Court has to create him a king.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
The imperial presidency is now made concrete, a big step
forward to having an authoritarian president. The blueprint on how
to end the rule of.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Law a green light for criminal activity.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
Did the court to say, yeah, you can assassinate a
political rival.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
President Biden could dispatch the military use Sealed Team six
to go after his political rivals. Orders the Navy Sealed
Team six to assassinate a political rival. Immune organizes a
military coup to hold onto power.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Immune that we must have bold and decisive presidents is
more important than the principle that we should have presidents
who obey the law.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
This is a death squad ruling.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Are all of those people and we know said that
was written Madou at the end, and we recognize some
of the voices. Are they honestly just morons? We've convinced
some section of the public that they're smarter than they are.
Do they just not read that? It is not possible.
I read the whole thing because I was stuck in
a jury room and I couldn't do the show, and
I read the whole decision yesterday. It's not possible to
read what the Supreme Court wrote and think what they
(20:53):
are saying is true, because it's not even close to
being true. You and I are rare because we actually
read so. I mean, this is a media.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
In media, the number of times that I see people
commenting on the stories, not the actual document is ninety
five percent. The story becomes the commentary, not the relation
and reliance on the documents themselves. And I've said this
(21:24):
on the show before, but I think it's so important
and so instructive for people out there read the document.
When I was in law school, I remember my contract's
professor saying, Hey, we're going to talk about a lot
of theories, and we're going to discuss a lot of
different ways to analyze contracts. But there are three things
that matter the most. The contract to contract, the contract,
(21:47):
read the actual document. The number of times buck that
people won't read their actual document. I actually thought John
Roberts did a great job responding to this, and I've
been critical of John Roberts before. He addressed the craziness
of the descent, which was unhinged, and that is what
is driving I think a lot of this conversation was
the unhinged descent that is not related to reality. He said,
(22:08):
separation of powers is the essence of our constitutional government.
If the president behaves in a way that the legislative
branch believes is unacceptable, there is a mechanism to remove
him from power, and the president, as you said, and
is rightly laid out here. The difference between official and
unofficial acts is actually kind of a fascinating debate, you know,
(22:32):
because you can draw the line. But I said yesterday
on the show Buck, I did labor and employment law,
whether or not someone acts within the course of their
employment is one of the foundational tenets of labor and
employment law when it comes to RESPONDIAT superior. But basically,
whether your company can be held responsible for your actions.
This is not something new.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yeah, it's not new at all. In fact, Clay, this
is one where we agreed every step of the way
on what the outcome would be. And we both were right.
I mean, this this was what was it, and we
weren't the only ones. But this is to anyone who
understands the issues involved, this was the really the only outcome.
The alternative would be. Oh, I didn't like the last president,
you know, when he called for again the military stuff
(23:14):
is the easiest. When he called for that special Forces
raid to save you know, a kidnapped American in Gaza,
and there were a few civilians that got killed in
the crossfire. Let's try h for murder. I think that's
murder and and you would the president would have to
go former president would have to go on trial. I mean,
this is insane.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
You don't have us for Biden himself. We talked about
this on the show, and I discussed it yesterday. He
ordered an air strike in Afghanistan that killed one hundred
percent innocent man in his family. They believe that he
was a terrorist. They ordered our president.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Kill like seven kids. It was like a male kid,
and they totally innocent.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
That would mean that when Joe Biden is done with
his term in offense, that he could be put in
prison for his his involvement in that murder.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
It was a murder.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
I mean, it was an errant strike that killed an
innocent man, directed by our president. It's within his powers.
He shouldn't be prosecuted or he wasn't trying to do it.
You know.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
At some level. This is also reminded the presidents have
a lot of power, and having a president who's a
walking vegetable with that power is reckless. That's the other
part of this that I think didn't get nearly hasn't
gotten nearly enough attention with everything that's going on. But
the soda maior descent, which again I read the whole
thing because stuck in jury duty all morning, Right, what
(24:31):
else are you gonna do? I mean, I would have
read it before the show if I could, but it
gave me extra time with it. Sodomior is doing damage
to the Supreme Court because now we know there are
people on the Supreme Court who don't really seem to
have like a high school level understanding of logic and
the law. I don't know what else to say. She's
(24:52):
not up for this, and I don't say that about Kagan.
I haven't seen enough of Katangi Brown Jackson stuff. Really,
I haven't read enough where I would have a great
read on it. But I'm sort of my It is
really as though an unhinged, purple haired, nos ringed cat
lady from the comments section of MSNBC dot com is
(25:14):
writing Supreme Court. It's just there's no connection to reality.
It's as though she doesn't know what her colleagues and
that's that's unsettling. I'll be honest with you. It's not
she disagrees, but she's smart. They're Supreme Court justice that
I disagree with tremendously on things, but at least they're
operating within some framework of logic that I can understand.
She is just an unhinged MSNBC commenter, And I mean
(25:38):
it's it's pathetic. It makes our Supreme Court look like
a joke.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
I don't even understand buck how she could have four
incredibly intelligent law clerks and produce the opinions that.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
She I don't think she picks intelligent law clerks. I
don't know who they are, but I think she picks
based on you know, she picks them based on the
same reason she got picked.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
That's what That's that's scary too, because a lot of
people out there don't under stand. I mean you you
basically have to be a legal genius, and I'm not
exaggerating generally speaking, and you could be a leftist legal
genius or a rightist. To be selected as a clerk,
you have to be one of the thirty five or
thirty six, you know, one of the forty or fifty
brightest legal scholars. In order to be selected, you have
(26:19):
to have been a great clerk in theory for a
circuit court judge.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
This is but this is all clay, This is all
This is like saying it's so hard to get under
yell law. Yeah, unless you're you know, like a Native
American who writes their essay about well if she if
she is, if.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
She is speaking like that, then then yes. But I
mean in general, most people out there who I think
are lawyers would say, I mean, I know several Supreme
Court clerks. They're really I'm trying not to curse.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Really the clerk did they Did they clerk for libs
or do they clerk for conservatives? Both sides?
Speaker 3 (26:50):
I mean, but again, like just to be a meritocracy,
And maybe it's just what I'm saying, it's changed since
you were in law school twenty years ago. You got
to think about how things have adjusted since then. Because
I also have friends who went from Amherst, Harvard and
Yale and they they look around now and they're like, oh, no.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
You're listening to twenty four the most important tier in
politics with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Fuck, I'll give you an open right off the top.
Here are you remaining? The public demands to know, is
Buck Island still flying the Biden flag high? Or would
you hear on the eve of our two hundred and
forty eighth Independence Day like to join so many others
(27:38):
in fleeing your island on whatever possible flotation device might
still be available on the island.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I just want to make it very clear to everybody.
First of all, people are getting a little high falutin
right now, a little other high horses about how oh
look Biden, no, no, do not celebrate early. Do not
think that this is over yet. It might be over
the course of the show, and then we'll just have
to edit this out from the podcast at least. But
I have been very clear. It's not like Obama. Let
(28:08):
me be clear. I have been very clear. It is
Biden or Harris. That has always been my position. This
is I'm just gonna tell Go to the transcript, everybody,
go to the tape, Go to my x feed or
Twitter feed. Go see. I've always said Biden er Harris.
It is the Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama, Whitmer, et cetera
talk that I have been very dismissive of. Now, if
(28:32):
forced into a corner, I have thought it would still
be Biden over Kamala. Under the circumstances. That component of
my analysis is not feeling so warm and fuzzy today. However,
the bet my friend is Gav is third option versus Biden. Harris,
(28:53):
I just want clarity. No, no, no, no, you don't
it's Biden. It's Biden or no Biden.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Appreciate your kare Jian Pierre, Ministry of Disinformation.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Spin here what it is. We can go back. There's
a transcript, folks, there's audio. This doesn't have to be
you know, based on recollection, and we're gonna go back
and pull some of this.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
This is this is unbelievable. Okay, So a couple of things.
I we were just talking about this off air. Tomorrow
is July fourth. I would have usually this is you
you would agree, I think, Buck, one of the deadest
days on the entire American calendar. People are traveling, everybody's
out of work. I mean, if you, uh, if you
(29:38):
put on Fox News, just about every host is out
this week, and we're talking about, hey, we may have
to call in on July fourth, Yeah, because it's possible
news could break, or July fifth, which would usually be
a quiet day as well, that Biden is out. And
(29:58):
the way I would describe it, and I'm curious if
you would agree with me, Buck is first of all,
the absolute latest. The New York Times reported in the
last hour that Biden has had conversations with close out
with at least one close ally about dropping out of
the race. That is the latest news story that is
(30:19):
out there. He is, according to this story, this source.
I mean, let's really get into this for a second.
First of all, we may have an answer while we're
on the air, So you have to listen to us
today for all three hours.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
I know you're probably a lot of you on the road,
which is great because then we'll entertain you while you're
driving to your Independence Day weekend celebration with family or whatever.
But Clay, they we'll get down into this. We may
know the answer today. They have reported that a close
aid to Biden has said that Biden is considering the
possibility that he cannot continue on because basically, after the debate,
(30:53):
he can't win. There have been people in the Biden orbit,
you know, spokespersons the White House, who have said that
report is categorically false, which which is amazing what you
would say if you were still dependent on Biden for
your job and the bowing out was not official yet.
(31:14):
But there is the Palace coup is the effort is underway.
I will admit that there is an effort to push
Joe Biden aside. It's just a question of Kenny hang on.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Here's the headline right now, top of the New York Times.
Biden told ally that he is weighing whether to continue
in the race. Is the headline, sub headline. The president's
conversation is the first indication he is seriously considering whether
he can recover after a devastating performance on the debate
(31:46):
stage in Atlanta on Thursday. That story went live and
was updated about forty five minutes ago, according to The
New York Times. Okay, interesting aspect of this. Things are
so much in an uproar that the Biden team, as
you just pointed out, is now saying that the New
(32:07):
York Times is fake news.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Think of it.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
Think about how crazy things have gotten in the Democrat
camp that Joe Biden's chief advisor is saying that this
is completely untrue. Here's Andrew Bates, White House spokesman said
the claim was absolutely false and the White House had
not been given enough time to respond. I don't even
(32:30):
know what that means. Not enough time to respond the
way that I read that, Buck is usually the White
House is able to keep The New York Times from
writing stories they don't like. They get on the phone
with them, they scream at them, to yell at them,
and then The New York Times backs up and says, Okay,
we're not gonna run this here. They went ahead and
just ran it. And now we have a situation where
(32:52):
Joe Biden himself is saying that The New York Times
is fake news. That's how much things have turned into
an uproar. And by the way, minute to minute, we're
in this situation where anything could happen. It would not
stun me if I go on Twitter and hit refresh
if there is a breaking news story. Hey, Biden has
decided to withdraw.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
It is July third, as we all know. And usually
and Clay and I have both been doing media now
for you know, over a decade, in Clay's case, several decades.
He's much older than me, and and usually at this
case we'd be talking about like, hey, like what are
you which is fun, by the way, but hey, what
are your Fourth of July? I know it's Independence weekend,
but you know we all use the shorthand fourth of
(33:34):
July plans. What are you going to be barbecuing? And
we might talk about some of that in the third hour.
But there is a very serious possibility that today may
be the biggest day of political news so far this
entire year. Yeah, the most earth, I mean, bigger than
the Trump verdict, Bigger than bigger than anything, bigger than
(33:55):
Trump winning Iowa. This could be the single biggest day
in politics of the entire your years so far, and
maybe of the entire presidential cycle when all said and done,
So we really mean it, you need to stick around
with us.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
I mean, Buck, I think you could make an argument
that it could be the biggest day of presidential news
since nineteen sixty eight when LBJ said he wouldn't run.
Because I mean again, I correct me if I'm wrong,
and we'll put the crew on this. I don't think
we've ever had an incumbent president choose not to run
in the midst of an election year since LBJ in
(34:29):
sixty eight. So, for many of you that are out
there listening to us, including Buck and me, there isn't
a historical analogy that we have been alive for when
something like this would have occurred. And I'll tell you
I was no surprise watching MSNBC all morning, and I'm
telling you they're doubling up on the early shot.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
What's their position?
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Yeah, like, I mean, are they still defending Biden from
your MSNBC.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Viewing, or how would you assess the overall tote? I mean,
I really and you can tell by the guests they
have on and every they are solidly fence sitting right now.
Oh that's great. They're solidly noncommittal. They want to see
who's gonna win this power struggle there, which is interesting
because remember they went full back Dad Bob right after
the bait. They were doing the whole and right now
(35:20):
they're going, ooh, let's sort of see how this one
shakes out. It's by the way, it's so it's so
great to watch. It's so much fun. I'm telling you.
Speaker 3 (35:27):
So, this is one of the great lines from Old
Country guys. Turtle doesn't get on a fence by an accident.
So right now, MSNBC is the turtle on the fence.
They are intentionally staying right there. They ain't going one
direction or the other. They are right there on top
of the fence. And I yeah, I wonder how we
(35:50):
you know, way, we never got a reckoning for COVID.
Nobody's ever come out and said, hey, I was wrong.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
We blew this.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
I was having this conversation with my wife this morning,
and I said, this might be the story that causes
the left wing New York Times Washington Post to actually
be so humiliated, because I think that's what's going on
right now.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
They have been.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
Humiliated by the degree to which the left the Biden
administration was demanding that they lie. Their own intelligence has
been called into question, and they've asked them to.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Do too much.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
Now they'll still show up and say Kamala Harris is
the modern day Nelson Mandela. If she's the nominee, Kamala
Harris is what Martin Luther King would have been if
he were still alive today, right, Like I mean, all
these puff pieces are coming. They'll try to turn Kamala
Harris into the greatest hero of modern American history. But
the Joe Biden's a good guy, Joe Biden, it's cheap fakes.
(36:49):
The idea that he wasn't on top of his game
at D Day or the G seven or at Juneteenth.
Now when I read it, and the New York Times
released a devastating column sorry reporting on Biden's frailty and
mental and physical deficiencies, and they cited all of the
stories that you and I have been talking about on
(37:09):
this show for months. One of my buddies who's a
Biden voter, sent me that article and he was like, wow,
did you know about all this? He's busy and I
was like, yes, yeah. People really trust the New York
Times to let them know what is going on. And
I think if you're super busy, there are still lots
of people who are just allowing that to be their source.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Clay. There are people, many of them, whose only job
is to tell the American people the truth about what
is going on inside the White House and specifically with
the President himself of the United States. There are every
major news organization has people that are assigned to that.
(37:52):
You know the joke you had one job, you know,
the line you had one job, they had one job.
And what we realize are rather what we see. I
think we've known this all along, but some people are
coming to this realization is that the job is actually
to protect Democrat interests. The job is not to report.
(38:12):
And Charles Cook over at National Review you probably saw
this tweet's going viral, but I think this really nails it.
Charles writes, if you're looking for a broader takeaway from
all this, take how the press covered up Biden's infirmity
because it wanted to protect the Democrats, and apply it
to literally every single thing that it does on any topic,
(38:33):
in any year, in any circumstance forever. He says. The
truth of the media, Charles nails it here. That is
their job. The people that think that they failed by
not reporting on Biden don't understand. Their job is not
to report the truth. Their job is to help Democrat
power and Democrat interests.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
On another part of that, I read this and I
laughed and I shared it. Beckett Adams Twitter account, Pulitzer
Prize winning newsrooms and pundits with six figure salaries all
missed the deterioration of Joe Biden's cognitive abilities, while accounts
with handles such as Patriot Mom seventeen seventy six and
Real Eagle Underscore Freedom have been pointing it out for
(39:18):
about five years. But that really kind of goes at
the essence in a funny way of what exactly we
have seen and the fact that if you pointed it
out NBC News ten days ago, Buck accused me of
being a chief purveyor of disinformation for sharing an actual
video of Biden not being able to do his job.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Yeah, the whole phrase cheap fakes. You're not gonna hear
a lot about that anymore because those were all obviously real.
I would just want everyone to make sure, though, that
we frame our thinking on this accurately. It is not
that they failed to notice this. Like Clay, you mentioned
you have a friend, Yeah, who somehow didn't know. But anyway, whatever,
(39:57):
he trusted the news. Fine, people can trust the news.
That's on them. They got other life, other things they're doing.
But for the people who work in the media, they
didn't miss this. This is like the fifty one intelligence
officers with the Hunter Biden laptop. They weren't fooled. They
lied to you. They lied. This was intentional, This was knowing.
This was willful. It was a top two bottom campaign
(40:21):
of dare I say misinformation about Joe Biden's age, frailty,
mental acuity, cognition, and they expect us to just forget that.
And by even people over at CNN, I don't even
want to have to go through to name the names, like, oh, like,
look what we've discovered. No, you were part of the fraud.
(40:43):
You were part of the calm the whole time. You
don't get to be the Oh, I'm a speaking truth.
I'm a journalist. I'm honest. Now, No, you went along
with this the whole time, and now the whole thing's
blown up in their faces. And we'll see. I believe
there's a phone call which is going to be happening
within minutes, right, I think it's scheduled. It's still scheduled
for there's a White House phone call on the schedule today.
(41:04):
There's like an all hands call. And then there's a
Biden Kamala lunch. You've seen that too, Yeah, And then they've.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
Got the governors in tonight, right, the governor Democrat governors
are all there.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
And I'm going to tell you something right now, I
have a prediction for all of you about what's going
to happen. I think I can see this pretty clearly. Clay,
you're going to have to bring us back.
Speaker 3 (41:25):
I want everybody to think I'm kind of blown away here.
Who do you trust more? The Biden administration or the
New York Times. This is a when they actually start
feuding with each other. I think it's actually a very
hard thing to try to figure out, to get your
heads around that this could actually be happening.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
You're listening to twenty four, the Year of Impact with
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (41:49):
Buck Island seemed like it was about to be uninhabitable.
Maybe one of those islands that they decided they were
going to test nukes around and everybody had to re
locate because it was no longer safe to be there.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Buck Island as a nuclear wasteland already claimed.
Speaker 3 (42:06):
Some of those islands are beautiful in the off the
coast of Puerto Rico.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
You know they glow in the dark at night too.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
Yes, yeah, well that's the downside, but they're they're easy
to find.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
So you said you think he'll still be there on Monday. Yeah,
this is what.
Speaker 3 (42:22):
Buck Island is down to. We think we have enough
coconuts to make it till Monday. We've got there's enough water.
We're hoping it's gonna rain. You are committed to November fifth,
or you're committed to Monday right now on Buck Island.
Speaker 2 (42:37):
I again, we're gonna have to go back to the transcript,
so everyone's very clear. I have said all along it
is Biden or Harris. When there was all this Michelle
Obama talk, which we all remember people calling in for
the last twelve months about, oh, it's gonna be Michelle Obama.
I said no, no, no, they said Gavin Newsom. I
said no, no, no, it's gonna be Biden or Harris.
(42:57):
And that is the foundation of a steak. Bet. We
will go back, We'll check the transcript on this one.
How I can't believe you are waffling like this.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
I'm going to your own Twitter account to do my
own research here, because I seem to remember a recent
tweet that said it's going to be Biden. Everyone else
is a moron? Am I am?
Speaker 2 (43:14):
I wrong? Said that. I didn't say that. That's not fair.
Speaker 3 (43:18):
I said that that might be a rough, rough version,
that's a little harsh. That maybe my characterization. So he's
not bowing out buck Sexton two days ago. He's period
not period bowing period out buck Sexton two days ago.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
I think that he's not bowing out. I'm going to
tell you this right now. I understand that there's I
understand that the US laughing at this. He's not hold
on five days ago, buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (43:48):
He's period not period dropping period out period Ever.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
I'm in your own Twitter account. No, I understand that
that's those statements have been made. I understand those statements
have been made, and I would tell everybody you're likea
Pierre as we sit here. As we sit here, I'm
gonna have the team go back and pull the tape
because all the chatter he can't stay in the race.
(44:17):
End quote.
Speaker 3 (44:17):
Here's the Democrat plot to replace him is wasted energy.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
Yes, yes, okay, sorry, I'm just doing my research. You
continue on. Uh, you know, he's there's some there's some
cheap fakes coming from Clay right now. There's some cherry
picking and misinformation happening here because there are other things
there on the x account which I will find which
tell everybody that it is in fact going to be
(44:44):
Biden or Harris. But I will say this, I think
he's still going uh going to make it. Wait, just
just like anyway. We don't want to spend this whole
time so many breaking news stories.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
By the way, it's almost him possible to know what
is that. The chaos inside of the Democrats right now
is unlike anything buck that I can remember from a
major political party that is self inflicted. It's not as
if you know, somebody has suddenly created a brand new
(45:19):
story that nobody knew existed. We didn't just have a
war start. They have tripped all over themselves to a
degree that I think, past the lives of anybody listening
right now, people will be citing this story in the
same way you know, buck they do. Hey, remember when
television started and Nixon won the debate for everybody listening
(45:41):
on the radio, and Kennedy won for everybody watching, and
it fundamentally changed everything. And people still talk about that,
even though most of our listeners did not watch or
listen to that debate. I think, past the lives of
those who are listening today, people will be talking about
this debate in twenty twenty four as one of the
all time unbelievable American political experiences.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
So yes, and here's and we still don't even know
how unbelievable because does it actually result in a president? Remember,
it wouldn't just be choosing not to run. And this
is a key difference. Biden's decision right now isn't I'm
going to pass the baton for the campaign to someone else.
(46:22):
That's obviously a part of it. It's he's not finishing
his term. Everybody he would he assuming that it is Harris,
which I've assumed all along that it would be if
not Biden, If he steps down, he's got to do
it so that rather, if he decides that he's not
going to try to make this happen, he wants Kamala
(46:43):
Harris to be the president running effectively as an well.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
See that's interesting, so you think that, See that's such
an embarrassment to me for Biden not to finish his
term that I think the consolation prize if he steps
down is it stepping down from running and he will
serve out. I agree with you that he's not competent
to be able to do it, but I don't think
he would be willing to step out of the presidential
(47:09):
role and let her.
Speaker 2 (47:10):
Here's the problem. Here's I mean, I would I understand
that that's that's that could be true. But the problem is, Clay,
if he's not competent to be the president in January,
he's not competent to be the president. Now you're a
hundred percent. That's why that story doesn't go away. If
he continues to be there will be bills he will sign,
there will be things that are done, there will be
executive orders, there'll be pardons, that's for damn sure. So
(47:34):
for him to do those things between now and January,
it's just indefensible. If he's saying he can't run, because remember,
he's not saying I can't run because you know, I
made this decision for my family for the better. You
know what. Whatever the reason he's being forced out, he's
being forced out would be if this happens that he
doesn't have the mental faculties to be president, and and
(47:55):
no one's going to buy you have the mental faculties now,
but you won't in January. Okay, that's an absurd argument.
So I think the problem for Biden, rather, the reason
that I think the Palace coup may fail still is
and you know they've decided to go for it. I
will say I'm a little surprised that they've because remember
Morning Joe, the day after the debate. The day after
(48:18):
the debate, the decision from the apparatus was He's still
our guy. That was a rough night. He's still our guy.
Something has changed, there has been I don't know if
it's mostly the polls, the donors, the combination there and
the donors. I think you have it. So those things
together have made it so that now there's a real
challenge to Biden. So now the system isn't backing him up.
But here's the thing. If you're Joe Biden, and I
(48:40):
think everyone can see that, Joe Biden somebody who has
thought about himself more than anything else or anyone else
his entire life. It's not about service to the country.
It's about Bidenism and what's best for Bidenism. If you're
Joe Biden, you only got a few years left. Let's
be honest. I mean, guys, maybe maybe it's ten years. Maybe,
but he's only got a few years left. Realistically, you're
going to go out now a sure loser. The only
(49:01):
you're gonna give up your shot to be a hero
and to hand the presidency. I'm thinking from the Biden
perspective now, like I'm trying to be Joe Biden, which
is pretty scary.
Speaker 3 (49:10):
Your brain yorks too well to be him. But yes,
this is yes, this is an attempt.
Speaker 2 (49:15):
That was very nice. It works too well to you.
Buzz Clay's a very charitable guy. So if you were
in that position, they would have to And I think
this is the discussion that's going on now. They would
have to entice Biden to step down with promises of
extremely good stuff. They wouldn't make this open by the way.
(49:36):
They wouldn't be but I mean companies Jill Jill, Biden,
the president of a university somewhere making a million dollars
a year to wake up and do nothing. You know,
that's the only way you convince Joe Biden. You have
to induce him, because otherwise he doesn't care. And people
(49:57):
keep saying, Oh, they're gonna, they're gonna wan he's the president.
They're not gonna do anything other than try to convince
him to make the decision. I think they can.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
Offer him millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars
even to leave. I think those conversations are going on
right now. What I don't think buck is I think
Biden has too much pride to leave before his term
is out. And ultimately, I think that becomes a huge
albatross for Kamala Harris to your point, because if you're
(50:27):
not able to run, they'll try to say, hey, I
recognize that it's reckless for me to try to serve
to eighty six.
Speaker 2 (50:34):
I have the ability to.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
Serve until January of twenty twenty four, of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (50:41):
I'll do the best. I'll do this to the best
of my ability. Buck.
Speaker 3 (50:44):
Imagine the shots of him moving his family possessions out
of the White House so Kamala Harris could move in.
It would be such an admission of failure that I
don't think Joe Biden's pride would allow him to do that.
So part of the negotiation is gonna be I ain't
leaving here.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
You know, with you sir, throwing around your your your uh,
slanderous accusations of reading your tweets. You're you're you're reading
you're reading of these tweets you know that are out
of context. I'm just gonna say out of context. And
and there's misinformation here, could be Russian disinformation Clay is
reading I don't know, prove to me that it is not.
(51:22):
Are you now? Are you now actually slyly joining on
Buck Island? The little side island of it has to
be Kama. There is no have you given up on
Gavin and all the rest of this talk well making
it for.
Speaker 3 (51:34):
So many months, I think that Kamala is going to
lose and I actually think the polling is going to
be worse for Kamala.
Speaker 2 (51:41):
So I'm of two minds on so who's the nominee?
That there are three people.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
That I think could potentially potentially beat uh uh Trump
in the Democrat Party Michelle Obama, who it appears is
still putting out hey, I don't want to do it.
Josh Pierro and Gretchen Whitmer. I'm not saying that they
can or even that they're likely. I think every other Democrat,
(52:08):
whether it's mayor Pete, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, they all lose.
Speaker 2 (52:13):
I mean, you know, your shuffle around on the stage here, buddy,
who is going to be the Democrat nominee?
Speaker 3 (52:19):
The most likely one is Kamala right now, but I
still wonder. I still wonder whether the play is for
Biden to say I'm freeing all of my delegates. I'm
not endorsing anyone, and I'm gonna let the Democrats in
Chicago decide who the nominee is.
Speaker 2 (52:38):
Chaos is the enemy of the Democrats at this point,
and chaos would be what they are usually they love chaos,
especially on the streets, but they the disarray this would
cause and going into a broker convention. People don't understand.
There's no conversation that anyone is going to have in
the corridors of power in the Democrat Party that convince
(52:59):
all the day. There are different factions, right, We've seen
this with like the whole Israel Palestine issue for example.
There are different factions. You're gonna have people from all
over the Democrat Party who think that their guy or
gal should be the nominee. I know, and you know,
it's not like they're gonna walk in the convention like, oh,
we've all decided here's the perfect person. They're gonna have
(53:20):
a knockdown, drag out fight a month before early voting
starts basically give or take you know, six weeks or
something before heavy Yeah, dude, I just think they're gonna.
Speaker 3 (53:30):
Kamala can't win, all right, And I'm actually curious we
come back, like, who would even take the VP role
for Kamala?
Speaker 2 (53:37):
Have you seen a single poll that shows anyone other
than Biden doing better than Biden against Trump from a
reputable polster, like a real poll. No.
Speaker 3 (53:48):
But the thing I would say in response to that
is nobody else has gotten to run hundreds of millions
of dollars in ads. The one thing I'll say is
they will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for whoever
the candidate is.
Speaker 2 (54:00):
Eating all that on fire if they switched the candie.
This is why, This is why I'm telling you there's
great deals on waterfront locks on Buck Island. I'm telling
you there's just going on. Why you're still saying they're
gonna stick with Biden. I mean, it's Biden or its Terris,
which is what I've said all along. It's I still
think it's Biden. But I mean today, I mean, that's
(54:20):
a ballsy call. I'm not gonna lie. That's that's that's
that's I'm you know, I'm running down the middle with
no blockers on this one. I'm just hoping to sort
of make it through the mailstream. We'll see what happens.
Speaker 1 (54:34):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tier in
Politics with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
)
Clay Travis
)
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
)
1. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
)
2. Amy and T.J. Podcast
"Amy and T.J." is hosted by renowned television news anchors Amy Robach and T. J. Holmes. Hosts and executive producers Robach and Holmes are a formidable broadcasting team with decades of experience delivering headline news and captivating viewers nationwide. Now, the duo will get behind the microphone to explore meaningful conversations about current events, pop culture and everything in between. Nothing is off limits. “Amy & T.J.” is guaranteed to be informative, entertaining and above all, authentic. It marks the first time Robach and Holmes speak publicly since their own names became a part of the headlines. Follow @ajrobach, and @officialtjholmes on Instagram for updates.
)
3. The Dan Bongino Show
He’s a former Secret Service Agent, former NYPD officer, and New York Times best-selling author. Join Dan Bongino each weekday as he tackles the hottest political issues, debunking both liberal and Republican establishment rhetoric.