July 6, 2024 • 36 mins
SCOTUS rules 6-3 that president has immunity from prosecution for official acts. Jack Smith's case goes back to lower courts for debate over "official" and "unofficial" acts. No chance any more Trump cases will go to trial before election. Democrat panic increases likelihood Judge Merchan will jail Trump in NYC case. Callers and VIP emails.
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 (00:00):
Welcome in Monday edition. Happy early fourth of July. I
know that a lot of you are on the road,
maybe you are listening in places where you have already
arrived to celebrate our nation's birthday. We certainly appreciate all
of you out there listening to us every single day
(00:20):
on the first of July, as we now sit essentially
four months away from election day and the panic well,
it is spreading rapidly across the Democrat Party and we
have got a lot of details to discuss surrounding the
ongoing fallout of debate implosion from Joe Biden and the
(00:48):
resulting implosion of his candidacy that has continued to play
out in slow motion. We will discuss all of that
as for now, By 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
(01:08):
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,
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.
(01:31):
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
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
(01:54):
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.
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
(02:16):
six to three decision. Big picture, this means that the
only case that is going to be completed and go
to a jury and have a verdict rendered is the
Alvin Bragg case. We'll talk about that. The New York
City bookkeeping felonies elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony.
(02:37):
That sentencing scheduled right now for Thursday of next week.
I've got some theories on that, as you might imagine,
but 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
(03:00):
associated with the failure of their law for law fare attempts.
Now not a surprise the way this one broke down.
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
(03:22):
office that makes it difficult to charge him with crimes
that are related to his official acts as president of
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.
(03:45):
And then they said there remained some acts which while
there may be a presumption that they are within presidential privilege.
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 penumber surrounding the president's acts.
(04:06):
And then there are potentially unofficial acts which could be prosecutable.
And let me kind of take you into that, and
I will answer questions if you guys want to reach
out via email, if you want to call in eight
hundred and two eight two two eight eight two to
the best of my legal ability here, but we've tried
to tell you this is the direction this was coming.
(04:29):
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, 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,
(04:52):
he'll have his Department of Justice dismiss this case. But
now there will be a battle over what is official
and what is inofficial 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
(05:17):
he believes that we need to strike that terror group,
and when we strike, it 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
(05:38):
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 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.
(06:01):
He can be 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 used that example because Biden just did that. Biden
just killed in the past year or so a one
hundred percent innocent man in Afghanistan and members of his family.
(06:25):
According to the reporting of The New York Times, that
guy was totally and his family certainly without any wrongdoing,
and we screwed up and he was killed. They thought
he was a terrorist. He wasn't. 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
(06:51):
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. 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.
(07:14):
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 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
(07:38):
president would be prosecutable because that is outside the scope
of his official access. President. That's an easy one. 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
(08:01):
opposite extreme, president picks up a paperweight in the oval office,
strikes an advisor or a later or 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.
(08:21):
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 that day of January sixth,
but also surrounding his challenge of the election results of
twenty twenty is we're going to now send this back
to the district court. They are going to examine is
(08:45):
this an official or an unofficial act. If they believe
that it is an unofficial act, then 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
(09:08):
these are presidential acts because again, remember the presumption is
that the president is engaging in 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,
(09:28):
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, 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
(09:51):
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 in the next year term. Basically, this
case is finished with what we know about Atlanta. I
(10:12):
think also significantly the Atlanta case, which deals with many
of the same aspects as the cases of January sixth,
my opinion, the Atlanta case with our good friend Fanny
willis also finished. And again the classified document case a
(10:33):
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, 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,
(10:56):
ineligible or unable to be elected because of because of
the lawfair machinations. That's all failed. Worse for the Biden administration.
It has now blown up in their face and in
the process made Trump stronger than he was before all
(11:16):
of this started. Now that doesn't mean that now the
Democrat Party, desperate as it is likely to be, may
not make a totally irrational move and try to put
Trump in prison next week. I actually think Judge Merchant
is going to try that. You are dealing with a
(11:37):
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 call
for desperate measures. Be aware we have entered desperation zone
(12:00):
Democrats four months out. How is this going to play out?
Where do we go from here? What legal questions do
you have? Again? Major breaking news. Last week we 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.
(12:22):
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
is a precedent that will stand potentially for hundreds of
years as an attempt to deligate exactly what the president's
(12:43):
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. I'll break down
more questions that you guys may have, will open up
phone lines, you can send VIP emails and more. But
as we go to break here, I want to tell
you you saw how Joe Biden doesn't have any energy.
(13:06):
Even the most ardent Biden defenders were shocked by his
performance on Thursday. No vim, no vigor, no vitality, no testosterone,
the vacant, depthless stare. If you don't want to be
like Biden, you need Chalk's mal Vitality Stack all natural
(13:26):
nutritional supplement helping tens of thousands of men with an
everyday source of energy and staminam my guy seating down
in Texas. He has created a perfect all natural formula
that can increase your natural testosterone levels by twenty percent
in just a few months. Get set up today with
Chalk's mail Vitality Stack. Amazing offer choq dot com. My
(13:51):
name Clay as the promo code to unlock thee offer
Chalk dot com Choq subscription. Great deal with my name Clay.
You can also call fifty Chalk three thousand, that's five
zero Cchoq three thousand. If you would rather talk to
(14:12):
US based customer service analysts, you can tell them I
sent you and that you want to have more energy
than Joe Biden. Five zero chalk three thousand. That's five
zero cchoq three thousand. My name Clay for the best
deal on subscription.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Keep up with Clay and Bucks campaign coverage with twenty
four a Sunday highlight reel from the week. Find it
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. Let me go ahead
and give you some of the breaking news sound for
those of you out there who are just learning about
what happened with the Supreme Court decision, which was so
incredibly important towards establishing what is presidential unity. Here's our
(15:01):
good friend Shannon Breem reporting. She is the Supreme Court
reporter for Fox News. Here she is outside the courtroom
reporting on the official drop of the opinion just a
couple of hours ago. Listen, it does find this.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of
presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from
criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution
for all his official acts. There is no immunity for
(15:38):
unofficial acts. That's the first blush we've got on this
is it looks like a six to three split. We've
got the descent by Justice Sodermara, Kagan and Jackson join that.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, So that is the breaking news on Fox News
A bit early. Er Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor,
expert on the First Amendment among many other issues. Here
is what he said about the Supreme Court's ruling.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
This is along the lines of many of us anticipated
that the Court did not go with absolute immunity on everything,
but did say that there's absolute immunity when it comes
to core constitutional powers. This case is going to have
to go back to the district Court, which is going
to have to try to sort of thread this needle
to determine what in the case would not fall under
(16:28):
these protections. But this is obviously a win for President
Trump in the sense that the Special Council was arguing,
as with the lower court, that there was very little
immunity here to be concerned with.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
So huge win for Trump. A Supreme Court opinion that
is going to stand for a long time and apply
despite the histrionics that you're already hearing on the left,
to future Democrat presidents as well. It applies to Joe
Biden today. I said, Joe Biden clearly under this opinion,
could not be held criminally responsible for his failed murder.
(17:06):
It is a murder of an innocent man in Afghanistan
that was within the province of his presidential powers. But
if you engage in a criminal act that is clearly
outside the official scope of your duties, you should be
held accountable. This is to me a really good, honest, logical,
(17:29):
common sense ruling from this Supreme Court. Disagreed with them
last week. I think they nailed this here and again.
And this is important from the political perspective. It is
going to set off even more shock waves inside of
this presidential campaign. There is a full fledged panic that
(17:50):
has set in and the Biden team has no idea
what to do to beat Trump right now. They're desperate.
Be ready. My family, he relies on Puretalk for cell
phone service. In fact, my teenage son he's away at
camp right now, sixteen years old. I'm communicating with him
every single day. On his Puretalk phone. That's how we
(18:13):
stay in touch. My family relies on Puretalk not only
for great signals and to stay in touch, but also
to save a bundle of money. Instead of Verizon T
Mobile or AT and T, you can get hooked up
same five G nationwide network at towers and just twenty
dollars a month, unlimited talk, text, plenty of high speed data.
Switch your cell phone service before the fourth of July
(18:36):
weekend and you help support veterans across the country. Just
dial Pound two fifty say the keywords Clay and Buck.
You'll be connected to Puretalk's US customer service team. That's
Pound two five zero. Say Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Clay, Travis, and Buck Sexton on the front lines of truth.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis, buckse Exit show, all of
you hanging out with us. We are talking about the
major historic Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity which has
just come down in the last couple of hours. Also
connected to the continued fallout of Joe Biden's disastrous debate
performance on Thursday. These situations, I think are now connected
(19:20):
to what's going to happen next week. And let me
lay out exactly. Again, this is just the legal because
in the second hour we're going to dive into all
of the stories that were coming out over the weekend
about the pressure on Joe Biden, about doctor Jill and
Hunter Biden saying, Oh Joe, You've got to keep running.
You did a fantastic job. We're going to talk about
(19:42):
all of the ramifications of that as well. But I
think what you need to know now is there are
clearly no real pathways to significant legal success against Donald
Trump left on the board between now November. Buck and
I have both said, and Buck is at jury duty.
(20:05):
Ironically enough, as we break down all this legal maneuverings,
Buck and I have both said, we think there's a
decent chance, maybe even a strong chance, that on Thursday
of next week, that is one week from July fourth,
July eleventh, in New York City, that Judge merchand may
Well try to put Donald Trump in prison for the
(20:31):
felony convictions there. Why because they're desperate, and they thought
they were going to have cases in Atlanta and South
Florida and DC. And now, as I've said for some time,
that's not gonna happen. I was looking at this trying
to analyze it. You'll remember some people were saying, oh,
(20:52):
there's gonna be four cases finished, and I said, basically,
from the get go, I feel like maybe one gets through.
I think that's gonna end up being correct. But the
one that did get through, they're desperate. Now, they're cornered animals.
And can you imagine the reaction if next week Judge
(21:13):
Merchand says the punishment that I think fits this crime
is Donald Trump has to pay a fine of one
hundred thousand dollars for the business records felony convictions. The
left will lose its mind because after all of this,
in addition to probably benefiting that is Trump's overall poll
numbers have gone up. In addition to all of that,
(21:37):
there is a not insubstantial chance now that Trump could
get off next week with nothing. And then everyone sitting
around on the left and they're saying, wait a minute,
We've got a president with dementia who doesn't have the
physical or mental capacity to be president. His wife is
(21:58):
refusing to even consider the possibility that he should step down,
his son, the crackhead convicted felon, is one of his
top advisors, and also telling him Hey, Dad, you can't
step down and you are handcuffed. As all of this
polling continues to come in saying Trump is in the lead.
(22:20):
That's why I think one of their last opportunities, opportunities
to change the narrative is doing something in the legal
process next week, which is unexpected right now if you
talk to most legal experts, that is trying to put
Trump in prison over this, because it's so outrageous and
(22:41):
so unjustified based on traditional precedent. But we're in abnormal
times and Democrats have proven that they will behave in
ways that are manifestly indefensible, and so I think there
is a very good chance that as a result of
this Supreme Court case, as a result of Anny willis
probably going to get lose that case down in Atlanta.
(23:04):
But I think even the Supreme Court immunity case likely
sends the Atlanta case into the appellate sphere, and I
think they're going to look at that and have to
analyze official versus unofficial acts in that case as well,
because it doesn't stand a reason that you can prosecute
under state law a president any easier for official unofficial
(23:27):
acts than you could under federal law, So that case
is going to get tossed. That case is done, and
that leaves South Florida, where Judge Eileen Cannon has been
rightly pointing out, Wait a minute, Joe Biden actually kept
classified documents and bragged about it on tape, and the
Department of Justice said Joe Biden's brain doesn't work well
(23:49):
enough for him to be charged that. If that's not
selective prosecution, I don't know what is. That case is
out the window too. So you're sitting around, You're saying,
the only bite at the criminal apple we're going to
get is New York City. So how do you respond
to that? You, I believe engage in reckless acts. Now
(24:12):
even more bringing that case in the first place as
a felony was a reckless act by Alvin Bragg. But
now that is the last best option to try to
stop the Trump train. And I just refuse to believe
Merchand after all of the rulings he's had is going
to come out next week and say, yeah, the conviction happened,
no prison time, and we're just going to find you
(24:34):
one hundred thousand dollars. I can't believe that he's going
to allow that to happen, and I think a lot
of you questioned it as well. So that is where
we are. A couple of you want to weigh in.
Eight hundred and two A two two eight A two
deluged with questions on the VIP emails. I'm going to
go through some of those as well and read them
(24:56):
during this break when I have a little bit of time.
But we've got but several people out there who want
to weigh in. Let's start with David in San Antonio.
What you got for me?
Speaker 5 (25:09):
Hey, Clay, I agree with your analysis completely. I love
your show. You guys are just awesome. My question is
if Trump is able to get elected, which you know
that's still up for debate as far as what they're
going to pull, is it possible to move all of
(25:29):
the federal courts out of DC where there's a different
jury pull to pull from, because right now they have
the judges and the jury pull, which makes it a
slam dunk for their site.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
It's a great question. So, first of all, if Trump
is elected, he will dismiss I believe, these federal charges
against him because he'll be in charge of the Department
of Justice. Then he'll have a new Attorney General. But
what you're hitting on is something that I have hammered
on this show for some time. I believe what we
need to have put in place is is, if you
(26:01):
are charged with federal offenses in Washington, d C. You
should be able to remove that to the federal location
of your jurisdiction. So, for instance, let's pretend that I
got charged with federal crimes in Washington, d C. That
jury pool is not gonna stun you, probably not likely
(26:23):
to be made up with a ton of huge Clay
Travis and Buck Sexton fans. The jury would be a
ninety five ninety seven percent left wing jury pool, which
is likely to convict, as we've seen with Steve Bannon,
who is going into prison today, which we can't forget
what exactly is going on. While Trump may be winning
(26:45):
some aspects in the legal process, there are many people
out there that are essentially being put in prison because
they have the audacity to stand up to our existing
infrastructure of left wing active the lawfair you should be
able to remove it to your home jurisdiction. So if
(27:06):
they want to bring charges against me in Washington, d C.
I should be able to say, hey, let me bring
it back to my home state. I want to bring
it back to the state of Tennessee, where I'm actually
a domicile. Where I live, I will get a fair
jury pool in my home that will actually be part
(27:26):
of my jury of peers. I think that needs to
be a law that's passed, and I have talked to
a bunch of Senators and a bunch of prominent people
in the House about this. I think, by the way,
the protections would also apply to anyone else. But if
somebody brings federal charges against you of a political nature
trying to use Washington, DC as the forum, I think
(27:48):
you should be able to remove it to your home jurisdiction.
That feels to me like one way to push back
against the lawfair and the kangaroo court advantage the forum shopping,
which is clearly going on as it pertains to bringing
charges in those jurisdictions. Jason and Colorado, What you got
for me?
Speaker 6 (28:09):
The hyperbolics in splitting hearers, But they're they're trying to
determine what's official what's unofficial. So first are they going
to have to determine whether or not that was political
speech that he had on January sixth, second, and second,
are they going to be able to turn around and
determine what is like official sentences or statements that he
(28:32):
made versus what is political statements that he made that day.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Yes, I mean the easy answer is this is going
to be now sent back to the district court. Again.
I think it's important that the court said that there
is presumptive immunity. And that's kind of a complicated phrase
that's floating around out there, but I think it's very significant. Basically,
it means the presumption is the act of the president
(29:01):
is legal and not criminal in nature. So one way
to think about this is there is a number of
powers that surrounds the presidency. Some acts are clearly official
in nature. When a president sits down and pulls out
(29:22):
a pen and signs a bill into law, that is
clearly a presidential act that is within the scope of
his powers. Other acts, and again I use the example
of picking up a paperweight in the oval office and
striking someone and killing them I think would clearly be
outside the scope of an official act. But when you
(29:45):
have a presumptive immunity, it is going to be well
nigh in my opinion, impossible to argue that jan six
related tweets and behavior that alternate al slates that asking
the vice president to engage in an act that arguably
(30:06):
is within his constitutional powers. To me, all of that
is presumptive immunity. I think it is going to be
very hard to argue that those are unofficial acts, not
only in the Jack Smith case, but also in the
Fanny Willis case. So those cases, to me are both
gone now. Now. Judge Chuckkin, to be fair, clearly wants
(30:28):
Trump guilty here, as does Jack Smith. It's possible that
they will look at all these acts and argue, hey,
we believe these are outside the scope of the president's
official powers. She will issue a ruling on that. Then
it will go to the DC Court of Appeals. That's
a left wing court. They might well rubber stamp Judge
(30:51):
Chuckkin's opinion. Then it would go to the Supreme Court,
and then the Supreme Court would have to get into
the nitty gritty potentially of deciding whether or not these
particular acts do or do not consist of official acts
or unofficial acts. But all of that will take so
long that I think the Supreme Court will punt on
(31:14):
this and say, if Trump wins, it gets dismissed, and
so the issue becomes mute, moot, and then moot. They
don't have the opportunity or necessity to need to rule
on the individual acts themselves. I think that's what the
Supreme Court is hoping. They have put forward a powerful
(31:37):
overall framework that presumes immunity for the president, Democrat, Republican,
independent into the future, I believe, because they don't want
to create a scenario which is inevitable. I believe if
it were allowed to prosecute the president where the president
would almost always get charged with crimes because there would
(31:58):
always be able claim that it was an unofficial act.
Now this is getting complicated, but I'm trying to give
you a roadmap of where we're going, probably in a
more detailed fashion than you're almost gonna hear anywhere else
in media. But again, the presumptive immunity is going to
be a hurdle that is hard to get over because
(32:21):
you have to overcome the presumption. Basically, the Court is saying, hey,
we believe the president is almost always acting in his
official duties. In order to prove that he's not, you
have to overcome our presumption of presidential powers, and I
don't think any of the acts here are able to
do that. I think the president engaging in clear criminal
(32:44):
behavior or alleged criminal behavior. For instance, if the president
attacked his wife, that would not be protected as an
official act. If the president engaged in domestic violence, if
the president assaulted someone, that would not be considered an
(33:07):
official act. Those are easy cases in theory still bring.
But this, I believe, effectively ends these cases. I think
it's the right decision. I think it's an incredibly important decision,
and it will stand the test of time. Whether it's
a Democrat or Republican. You guys out there listening right
(33:29):
now may in the years ahead come to regret this decision,
because there may be a Democrat or someone that you
don't like from a political perspective, who makes a decision
that you believe is outside the bounds of his presidential authority.
What the court is saying is, we're going to presume
that the president acts in a lawful manner, and you
(33:52):
have to overcome that presumption in order to charge him
with an illegal act. We'll take more calls, we'll break
down more of this and significantly dive into the political
fallout of the Biden debate versus Trump on Thursday as well,
which is also a huge story. We're overloaded with monster
stories right now. Today, most CEOs are very successful companies,
(34:14):
enjoy a lucrative cash salary. Until a couple of years ago,
Buck's friend Porter Stansbury did too. He got paid a
substantial salary to run a successful financial research company, but
now he's reduced that to just a dollar a year,
choosing a totally different compensation form. Porter did it because
he says he's found a much better way to save
(34:34):
and get paid. He sees a new form of money
in America. It's making some people very rich. You don't
have to be a CEO to obtain this new kind
of compensation. Thousands of Americans in a wide variety of
full time roles have already started to be compensated in
this new form. Factory workers to office staff members, all
different sorts of employees. Porter's learned every American's legally entitled
(34:58):
to use this not well known currency few know much
about now. Porter is hoping to change that decision from
so many people. But it's critical to understand how America's
new money system works. He believes it's the most critical
way to protect your income as the dollar continues to
decline in value. Check out Porter's latest detailed presentation online
(35:19):
at Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com. You won't
see this opportunity discussed anywhere else. Secretcurrency twenty twenty four
dot com. That Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton telling it like it is.
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Over the weekend,
the Biden team tried to put out the fire that
has emerged into massive conflagration. Ever since we all watch
Thursday night's ninety minute debate, and the Biden team has
been scrambling to try to come up with a different
reason why someone other than Joe Biden himself is to blame.
(36:07):
This is not a joke, they have to I'm always
quoting Biden when I say that not a joke. They
have said the makeup artist is to blame for why
Joe Biden was so bad on Thursday. They have said
all of his advising team needs to be fired. They
have said that Biden was believe it or not over prepared.
They have said that Biden had a cold. They have
(36:30):
said that CNN is to blame. They have said that
the debate happened too late at night. And now they
are saying the president is really good, but only from
ten am to four pm. These are all different defenses
the Biden team has put out in their scramble over
the past several days. What happens now with the Biden campaign?
(36:53):
Does he stay or does he go? We'll talk about
it next
Welcome in Monday edition. Happy early fourth of July. I
know that a lot of you are on the road,
maybe you are listening in places where you have already
arrived to celebrate our nation's birthday. We certainly appreciate all
of you out there listening to us every single day
(00:20):
on the first of July, as we now sit essentially
four months away from election day and the panic well,
it is spreading rapidly across the Democrat Party and we
have got a lot of details to discuss surrounding the
ongoing fallout of debate implosion from Joe Biden and the
(00:48):
resulting implosion of his candidacy that has continued to play
out in slow motion. We will discuss all of that
as for now, By 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
(01:08):
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,
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.
(01:31):
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
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
(01:54):
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.
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
(02:16):
six to three decision. Big picture, this means that the
only case that is going to be completed and go
to a jury and have a verdict rendered is the
Alvin Bragg case. We'll talk about that. The New York
City bookkeeping felonies elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony.
(02:37):
That sentencing scheduled right now for Thursday of next week.
I've got some theories on that, as you might imagine,
but 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
(03:00):
associated with the failure of their law for law fare attempts.
Now not a surprise the way this one broke down.
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
(03:22):
office that makes it difficult to charge him with crimes
that are related to his official acts as president of
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.
(03:45):
And then they said there remained some acts which while
there may be a presumption that they are within presidential privilege.
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 penumber surrounding the president's acts.
(04:06):
And then there are potentially unofficial acts which could be prosecutable.
And let me kind of take you into that, and
I will answer questions if you guys want to reach
out via email, if you want to call in eight
hundred and two eight two two eight eight two to
the best of my legal ability here, but we've tried
to tell you this is the direction this was coming.
(04:29):
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, 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,
(04:52):
he'll have his Department of Justice dismiss this case. But
now there will be a battle over what is official
and what is inofficial 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
(05:17):
he believes that we need to strike that terror group,
and when we strike, it 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
(05:38):
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 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.
(06:01):
He can be 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 used that example because Biden just did that. Biden
just killed in the past year or so a one
hundred percent innocent man in Afghanistan and members of his family.
(06:25):
According to the reporting of The New York Times, that
guy was totally and his family certainly without any wrongdoing,
and we screwed up and he was killed. They thought
he was a terrorist. He wasn't. 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
(06:51):
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. 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.
(07:14):
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 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
(07:38):
president would be prosecutable because that is outside the scope
of his official access. President. That's an easy one. 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
(08:01):
opposite extreme, president picks up a paperweight in the oval office,
strikes an advisor or a later or 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.
(08:21):
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 that day of January sixth,
but also surrounding his challenge of the election results of
twenty twenty is we're going to now send this back
to the district court. They are going to examine is
(08:45):
this an official or an unofficial act. If they believe
that it is an unofficial act, then 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
(09:08):
these are presidential acts because again, remember the presumption is
that the president is engaging in 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,
(09:28):
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, 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
(09:51):
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 in the next year term. Basically, this
case is finished with what we know about Atlanta. I
(10:12):
think also significantly the Atlanta case, which deals with many
of the same aspects as the cases of January sixth,
my opinion, the Atlanta case with our good friend Fanny
willis also finished. And again the classified document case a
(10:33):
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, 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,
(10:56):
ineligible or unable to be elected because of because of
the lawfair machinations. That's all failed. Worse for the Biden administration.
It has now blown up in their face and in
the process made Trump stronger than he was before all
(11:16):
of this started. Now that doesn't mean that now the
Democrat Party, desperate as it is likely to be, may
not make a totally irrational move and try to put
Trump in prison next week. I actually think Judge Merchant
is going to try that. You are dealing with a
(11:37):
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 call
for desperate measures. Be aware we have entered desperation zone
(12:00):
Democrats four months out. How is this going to play out?
Where do we go from here? What legal questions do
you have? Again? Major breaking news. Last week we 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.
(12:22):
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
is a precedent that will stand potentially for hundreds of
years as an attempt to deligate exactly what the president's
(12:43):
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. I'll break down
more questions that you guys may have, will open up
phone lines, you can send VIP emails and more. But
as we go to break here, I want to tell
you you saw how Joe Biden doesn't have any energy.
(13:06):
Even the most ardent Biden defenders were shocked by his
performance on Thursday. No vim, no vigor, no vitality, no testosterone,
the vacant, depthless stare. If you don't want to be
like Biden, you need Chalk's mal Vitality Stack all natural
(13:26):
nutritional supplement helping tens of thousands of men with an
everyday source of energy and staminam my guy seating down
in Texas. He has created a perfect all natural formula
that can increase your natural testosterone levels by twenty percent
in just a few months. Get set up today with
Chalk's mail Vitality Stack. Amazing offer choq dot com. My
(13:51):
name Clay as the promo code to unlock thee offer
Chalk dot com Choq subscription. Great deal with my name Clay.
You can also call fifty Chalk three thousand, that's five
zero Cchoq three thousand. If you would rather talk to
(14:12):
US based customer service analysts, you can tell them I
sent you and that you want to have more energy
than Joe Biden. Five zero chalk three thousand. That's five
zero cchoq three thousand. My name Clay for the best
deal on subscription.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Keep up with Clay and Bucks campaign coverage with twenty
four a Sunday highlight reel from the week. Find it
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. Let me go ahead
and give you some of the breaking news sound for
those of you out there who are just learning about
what happened with the Supreme Court decision, which was so
incredibly important towards establishing what is presidential unity. Here's our
(15:01):
good friend Shannon Breem reporting. She is the Supreme Court
reporter for Fox News. Here she is outside the courtroom
reporting on the official drop of the opinion just a
couple of hours ago. Listen, it does find this.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of
presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from
criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution
for all his official acts. There is no immunity for
(15:38):
unofficial acts. That's the first blush we've got on this
is it looks like a six to three split. We've
got the descent by Justice Sodermara, Kagan and Jackson join that.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, So that is the breaking news on Fox News
A bit early. Er Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor,
expert on the First Amendment among many other issues. Here
is what he said about the Supreme Court's ruling.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
This is along the lines of many of us anticipated
that the Court did not go with absolute immunity on everything,
but did say that there's absolute immunity when it comes
to core constitutional powers. This case is going to have
to go back to the district Court, which is going
to have to try to sort of thread this needle
to determine what in the case would not fall under
(16:28):
these protections. But this is obviously a win for President
Trump in the sense that the Special Council was arguing,
as with the lower court, that there was very little
immunity here to be concerned with.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
So huge win for Trump. A Supreme Court opinion that
is going to stand for a long time and apply
despite the histrionics that you're already hearing on the left,
to future Democrat presidents as well. It applies to Joe
Biden today. I said, Joe Biden clearly under this opinion,
could not be held criminally responsible for his failed murder.
(17:06):
It is a murder of an innocent man in Afghanistan
that was within the province of his presidential powers. But
if you engage in a criminal act that is clearly
outside the official scope of your duties, you should be
held accountable. This is to me a really good, honest, logical,
(17:29):
common sense ruling from this Supreme Court. Disagreed with them
last week. I think they nailed this here and again.
And this is important from the political perspective. It is
going to set off even more shock waves inside of
this presidential campaign. There is a full fledged panic that
(17:50):
has set in and the Biden team has no idea
what to do to beat Trump right now. They're desperate.
Be ready. My family, he relies on Puretalk for cell
phone service. In fact, my teenage son he's away at
camp right now, sixteen years old. I'm communicating with him
every single day. On his Puretalk phone. That's how we
(18:13):
stay in touch. My family relies on Puretalk not only
for great signals and to stay in touch, but also
to save a bundle of money. Instead of Verizon T
Mobile or AT and T, you can get hooked up
same five G nationwide network at towers and just twenty
dollars a month, unlimited talk, text, plenty of high speed data.
Switch your cell phone service before the fourth of July
(18:36):
weekend and you help support veterans across the country. Just
dial Pound two fifty say the keywords Clay and Buck.
You'll be connected to Puretalk's US customer service team. That's
Pound two five zero. Say Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Clay, Travis, and Buck Sexton on the front lines of truth.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Welcome back in Clay, Travis, buckse Exit show, all of
you hanging out with us. We are talking about the
major historic Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity which has
just come down in the last couple of hours. Also
connected to the continued fallout of Joe Biden's disastrous debate
performance on Thursday. These situations, I think are now connected
(19:20):
to what's going to happen next week. And let me
lay out exactly. Again, this is just the legal because
in the second hour we're going to dive into all
of the stories that were coming out over the weekend
about the pressure on Joe Biden, about doctor Jill and
Hunter Biden saying, Oh Joe, You've got to keep running.
You did a fantastic job. We're going to talk about
(19:42):
all of the ramifications of that as well. But I
think what you need to know now is there are
clearly no real pathways to significant legal success against Donald
Trump left on the board between now November. Buck and
I have both said, and Buck is at jury duty.
(20:05):
Ironically enough, as we break down all this legal maneuverings,
Buck and I have both said, we think there's a
decent chance, maybe even a strong chance, that on Thursday
of next week, that is one week from July fourth,
July eleventh, in New York City, that Judge merchand may
Well try to put Donald Trump in prison for the
(20:31):
felony convictions there. Why because they're desperate, and they thought
they were going to have cases in Atlanta and South
Florida and DC. And now, as I've said for some time,
that's not gonna happen. I was looking at this trying
to analyze it. You'll remember some people were saying, oh,
(20:52):
there's gonna be four cases finished, and I said, basically,
from the get go, I feel like maybe one gets through.
I think that's gonna end up being correct. But the
one that did get through, they're desperate. Now, they're cornered animals.
And can you imagine the reaction if next week Judge
(21:13):
Merchand says the punishment that I think fits this crime
is Donald Trump has to pay a fine of one
hundred thousand dollars for the business records felony convictions. The
left will lose its mind because after all of this,
in addition to probably benefiting that is Trump's overall poll
numbers have gone up. In addition to all of that,
(21:37):
there is a not insubstantial chance now that Trump could
get off next week with nothing. And then everyone sitting
around on the left and they're saying, wait a minute,
We've got a president with dementia who doesn't have the
physical or mental capacity to be president. His wife is
(21:58):
refusing to even consider the possibility that he should step down,
his son, the crackhead convicted felon, is one of his
top advisors, and also telling him Hey, Dad, you can't
step down and you are handcuffed. As all of this
polling continues to come in saying Trump is in the lead.
(22:20):
That's why I think one of their last opportunities, opportunities
to change the narrative is doing something in the legal
process next week, which is unexpected right now if you
talk to most legal experts, that is trying to put
Trump in prison over this, because it's so outrageous and
(22:41):
so unjustified based on traditional precedent. But we're in abnormal
times and Democrats have proven that they will behave in
ways that are manifestly indefensible, and so I think there
is a very good chance that as a result of
this Supreme Court case, as a result of Anny willis
probably going to get lose that case down in Atlanta.
(23:04):
But I think even the Supreme Court immunity case likely
sends the Atlanta case into the appellate sphere, and I
think they're going to look at that and have to
analyze official versus unofficial acts in that case as well,
because it doesn't stand a reason that you can prosecute
under state law a president any easier for official unofficial
(23:27):
acts than you could under federal law, So that case
is going to get tossed. That case is done, and
that leaves South Florida, where Judge Eileen Cannon has been
rightly pointing out, Wait a minute, Joe Biden actually kept
classified documents and bragged about it on tape, and the
Department of Justice said Joe Biden's brain doesn't work well
(23:49):
enough for him to be charged that. If that's not
selective prosecution, I don't know what is. That case is
out the window too. So you're sitting around, You're saying,
the only bite at the criminal apple we're going to
get is New York City. So how do you respond
to that? You, I believe engage in reckless acts. Now
(24:12):
even more bringing that case in the first place as
a felony was a reckless act by Alvin Bragg. But
now that is the last best option to try to
stop the Trump train. And I just refuse to believe
Merchand after all of the rulings he's had is going
to come out next week and say, yeah, the conviction happened,
no prison time, and we're just going to find you
(24:34):
one hundred thousand dollars. I can't believe that he's going
to allow that to happen, and I think a lot
of you questioned it as well. So that is where
we are. A couple of you want to weigh in.
Eight hundred and two A two two eight A two
deluged with questions on the VIP emails. I'm going to
go through some of those as well and read them
(24:56):
during this break when I have a little bit of time.
But we've got but several people out there who want
to weigh in. Let's start with David in San Antonio.
What you got for me?
Speaker 5 (25:09):
Hey, Clay, I agree with your analysis completely. I love
your show. You guys are just awesome. My question is
if Trump is able to get elected, which you know
that's still up for debate as far as what they're
going to pull, is it possible to move all of
(25:29):
the federal courts out of DC where there's a different
jury pull to pull from, because right now they have
the judges and the jury pull, which makes it a
slam dunk for their site.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
It's a great question. So, first of all, if Trump
is elected, he will dismiss I believe, these federal charges
against him because he'll be in charge of the Department
of Justice. Then he'll have a new Attorney General. But
what you're hitting on is something that I have hammered
on this show for some time. I believe what we
need to have put in place is is, if you
(26:01):
are charged with federal offenses in Washington, d C. You
should be able to remove that to the federal location
of your jurisdiction. So, for instance, let's pretend that I
got charged with federal crimes in Washington, d C. That
jury pool is not gonna stun you, probably not likely
(26:23):
to be made up with a ton of huge Clay
Travis and Buck Sexton fans. The jury would be a
ninety five ninety seven percent left wing jury pool, which
is likely to convict, as we've seen with Steve Bannon,
who is going into prison today, which we can't forget
what exactly is going on. While Trump may be winning
(26:45):
some aspects in the legal process, there are many people
out there that are essentially being put in prison because
they have the audacity to stand up to our existing
infrastructure of left wing active the lawfair you should be
able to remove it to your home jurisdiction. So if
(27:06):
they want to bring charges against me in Washington, d C.
I should be able to say, hey, let me bring
it back to my home state. I want to bring
it back to the state of Tennessee, where I'm actually
a domicile. Where I live, I will get a fair
jury pool in my home that will actually be part
(27:26):
of my jury of peers. I think that needs to
be a law that's passed, and I have talked to
a bunch of Senators and a bunch of prominent people
in the House about this. I think, by the way,
the protections would also apply to anyone else. But if
somebody brings federal charges against you of a political nature
trying to use Washington, DC as the forum, I think
(27:48):
you should be able to remove it to your home jurisdiction.
That feels to me like one way to push back
against the lawfair and the kangaroo court advantage the forum shopping,
which is clearly going on as it pertains to bringing
charges in those jurisdictions. Jason and Colorado, What you got
for me?
Speaker 6 (28:09):
The hyperbolics in splitting hearers, But they're they're trying to
determine what's official what's unofficial. So first are they going
to have to determine whether or not that was political
speech that he had on January sixth, second, and second,
are they going to be able to turn around and
determine what is like official sentences or statements that he
(28:32):
made versus what is political statements that he made that day.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Yes, I mean the easy answer is this is going
to be now sent back to the district court. Again.
I think it's important that the court said that there
is presumptive immunity. And that's kind of a complicated phrase
that's floating around out there, but I think it's very significant. Basically,
it means the presumption is the act of the president
(29:01):
is legal and not criminal in nature. So one way
to think about this is there is a number of
powers that surrounds the presidency. Some acts are clearly official
in nature. When a president sits down and pulls out
(29:22):
a pen and signs a bill into law, that is
clearly a presidential act that is within the scope of
his powers. Other acts, and again I use the example
of picking up a paperweight in the oval office and
striking someone and killing them I think would clearly be
outside the scope of an official act. But when you
(29:45):
have a presumptive immunity, it is going to be well
nigh in my opinion, impossible to argue that jan six
related tweets and behavior that alternate al slates that asking
the vice president to engage in an act that arguably
(30:06):
is within his constitutional powers. To me, all of that
is presumptive immunity. I think it is going to be
very hard to argue that those are unofficial acts, not
only in the Jack Smith case, but also in the
Fanny Willis case. So those cases, to me are both
gone now. Now. Judge Chuckkin, to be fair, clearly wants
(30:28):
Trump guilty here, as does Jack Smith. It's possible that
they will look at all these acts and argue, hey,
we believe these are outside the scope of the president's
official powers. She will issue a ruling on that. Then
it will go to the DC Court of Appeals. That's
a left wing court. They might well rubber stamp Judge
(30:51):
Chuckkin's opinion. Then it would go to the Supreme Court,
and then the Supreme Court would have to get into
the nitty gritty potentially of deciding whether or not these
particular acts do or do not consist of official acts
or unofficial acts. But all of that will take so
long that I think the Supreme Court will punt on
(31:14):
this and say, if Trump wins, it gets dismissed, and
so the issue becomes mute, moot, and then moot. They
don't have the opportunity or necessity to need to rule
on the individual acts themselves. I think that's what the
Supreme Court is hoping. They have put forward a powerful
(31:37):
overall framework that presumes immunity for the president, Democrat, Republican,
independent into the future, I believe, because they don't want
to create a scenario which is inevitable. I believe if
it were allowed to prosecute the president where the president
would almost always get charged with crimes because there would
(31:58):
always be able claim that it was an unofficial act.
Now this is getting complicated, but I'm trying to give
you a roadmap of where we're going, probably in a
more detailed fashion than you're almost gonna hear anywhere else
in media. But again, the presumptive immunity is going to
be a hurdle that is hard to get over because
(32:21):
you have to overcome the presumption. Basically, the Court is saying, hey,
we believe the president is almost always acting in his
official duties. In order to prove that he's not, you
have to overcome our presumption of presidential powers, and I
don't think any of the acts here are able to
do that. I think the president engaging in clear criminal
(32:44):
behavior or alleged criminal behavior. For instance, if the president
attacked his wife, that would not be protected as an
official act. If the president engaged in domestic violence, if
the president assaulted someone, that would not be considered an
(33:07):
official act. Those are easy cases in theory still bring.
But this, I believe, effectively ends these cases. I think
it's the right decision. I think it's an incredibly important decision,
and it will stand the test of time. Whether it's
a Democrat or Republican. You guys out there listening right
(33:29):
now may in the years ahead come to regret this decision,
because there may be a Democrat or someone that you
don't like from a political perspective, who makes a decision
that you believe is outside the bounds of his presidential authority.
What the court is saying is, we're going to presume
that the president acts in a lawful manner, and you
(33:52):
have to overcome that presumption in order to charge him
with an illegal act. We'll take more calls, we'll break
down more of this and significantly dive into the political
fallout of the Biden debate versus Trump on Thursday as well,
which is also a huge story. We're overloaded with monster
stories right now. Today, most CEOs are very successful companies,
(34:14):
enjoy a lucrative cash salary. Until a couple of years ago,
Buck's friend Porter Stansbury did too. He got paid a
substantial salary to run a successful financial research company, but
now he's reduced that to just a dollar a year,
choosing a totally different compensation form. Porter did it because
he says he's found a much better way to save
(34:34):
and get paid. He sees a new form of money
in America. It's making some people very rich. You don't
have to be a CEO to obtain this new kind
of compensation. Thousands of Americans in a wide variety of
full time roles have already started to be compensated in
this new form. Factory workers to office staff members, all
different sorts of employees. Porter's learned every American's legally entitled
(34:58):
to use this not well known currency few know much
about now. Porter is hoping to change that decision from
so many people. But it's critical to understand how America's
new money system works. He believes it's the most critical
way to protect your income as the dollar continues to
decline in value. Check out Porter's latest detailed presentation online
(35:19):
at Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com. You won't
see this opportunity discussed anywhere else. Secretcurrency twenty twenty four
dot com. That Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton telling it like it is.
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Over the weekend,
the Biden team tried to put out the fire that
has emerged into massive conflagration. Ever since we all watch
Thursday night's ninety minute debate, and the Biden team has
been scrambling to try to come up with a different
reason why someone other than Joe Biden himself is to blame.
(36:07):
This is not a joke, they have to I'm always
quoting Biden when I say that not a joke. They
have said the makeup artist is to blame for why
Joe Biden was so bad on Thursday. They have said
all of his advising team needs to be fired. They
have said that Biden was believe it or not over prepared.
They have said that Biden had a cold. They have
(36:30):
said that CNN is to blame. They have said that
the debate happened too late at night. And now they
are saying the president is really good, but only from
ten am to four pm. These are all different defenses
the Biden team has put out in their scramble over
the past several days. What happens now with the Biden campaign?
(36:53):
Does he stay or does he go? We'll talk about
it next
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.