July 29, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a hard-hitting analysis of the Russia collusion hoax, intelligence community misconduct, and the broader implications for political accountability and media freedom. Clay and Buck are joined by Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of The Federalist, who breaks down newly declassified documents revealing that the CIA and top Obama-era officials knowingly advanced false claims about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Davis argues that the Steele dossier and Mueller investigation were built on lies, and that figures like Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, and Strzok should face criminal charges.
The conversation explores the legal and constitutional boundaries of presidential immunity, particularly in relation to Barack Obama’s alleged involvement in the intelligence community’s actions. Clay and Buck debate whether immunity extends beyond a president’s term and whether subordinates can be prosecuted for executing presidential directives. They express skepticism that any high-profile Democrats will face legal consequences, despite mounting evidence of misconduct.
Listeners call in with questions about the potential use of RICO statutes, civil lawsuits, and the viability of holding intelligence officials financially accountable. Clay and Buck explain the legal hurdles, including statutes of limitations, the difficulty of proving intent, and the protections afforded to public officials. They emphasize that while the public may demand justice, the legal system often shields powerful figures from consequences.
Sean Davis also discusses the Biden administration’s alleged censorship of conservative media, revealing how The Federalist was targeted for blacklisting by major tech platforms. Despite the transition to Trump 2.0, Davis notes that the digital ad market remains hostile to conservative outlets due to the lingering effects of censorship infrastructure built under the previous administration.
The hour also includes commentary on the Epstein controversy, with Davis urging the Trump team to release all related documents in the interest of transparency. Clay and Buck highlight the double standard in how the DOJ has prosecuted January 6 participants while ignoring alleged crimes by political elites. They argue that the process itself has become a form of punishment, disproportionately applied to conservatives.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, welcome in second hour, Clay and Buck. Get's
going right now. We're joined by our friend Sean Davis,
CEO and co founder of the Federalists. Go to the
Federalist dot com. It is one of our favorite sites
on the world wide Web, which I don't think anybody
calls it anymore really that, but it is the worldwide
Web Federalist dot Com. Great work there, including what we're
(00:22):
about to talk about. Sean, Thanks for taking a break
from what you're doing to chat with us. What's going on.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, thanks for having me back. It's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Let's dive into this. Matt Shelby, because so d and
I Gabbard. I sat down with her and we had
a discussion in DC about a month month ago about
a lot of things, and certainly one of her mandates
is to clean up the deep state mess that was
well really the rot that spread from the top down
(00:52):
in places like the CIA. She has released information about
the soft coup attempt or, like I said, the non
violent coup attempt maybe a better way to put it
against Donald Trump. You are following very closely now, you
and Molly Hemingway, your colleague at the Federalists, have been
on this for a decade. Now, what is new and
(01:13):
important that has come out. We're going to walk everyone
through this because the Russian of the media, obviously they
were in on the collusion, right, I mean, they were
in on the whole foax, the fraud. What is new
that people need to know about now?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
So I think to understand the importance of the new developments,
I think it's important to take a step back and
look at what they were trying to do with the
Russia collusion hoax back in sixteen and seventeen and eighteen,
and there were two main pillars of that entire hoax.
One of them was that Donald Trump personally colluded with
(01:48):
Russia and Putin to steal the election from Hillary, that
he was an agent of Russian and that he was
working with them. That was the whole Steele dossier. That
was the bulk of the Mueller thing. We know that
with bank that was bunks for a long time. But
before they could even get to that phase of the operation,
they had the first point, which was the claim that
(02:09):
Russia meddled in our election in twenty sixteen for the
purpose of helping Donald Trump, because Putin wanted Trump to win.
That was injected into the bloodstream, and that was necessary
to be there for people to believe that Trump colluded.
But what we learned last week from the document releases
from TULCA Gabbard is that that claim was a lie.
(02:29):
The CIA knew it was a lie. Obama and Brennan
and Comy were all told it was a lie from
their own experts, and they went ahead with it anyway.
They cooked the books, they fabricated evidence, they ignored the experts,
and they put out this bogus Intel Community assessment claiming
that Russia had interfered for the purpose of Donald of
(02:51):
helping Donald Trump win. And that was a lie.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
All right, Sean, thanks for coming on with us. Thanks
for also sharing a great hometown or our family town
right now. I'm sure you saw that the state of Tennessee,
according to CNBC, was the worst place in America to live.
And I think I speak for everyone out there when
I say, yeah, you're right, it's awful. Please don't come here.
But you're running the Federalist, and I bet you get
(03:17):
asked this question a lot, and it's the number one
question I get asked as in regards to this story.
Let's pretend you had a magic wand and you were
able to dictate policy from this point going forward, as
it pertains to what happened with Russia.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
What should happen?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
In your mind if you had that magic wand and
you were able to direct policy, what do you think
will happen? What is the significance, in other words, going forward,
not looking back, looking forward prospectively as to what should
happen and what will happen here?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Garding two things, if I could may wave a magic wand,
I'd make two things happen. Number One, Comy, Brennan, Clapper,
mccab struck would all go to prison because somebody has
to pay a price for the crimes they perpetrated against
the country.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
At none of them. They would be charged with a
crime if you were able. Okay, that is a concrete action.
That's good. Okay, what else?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And then the second, so that we're going to put
that in like kind of the law enforcement accountability for
the fraud bucket. The other bucket is we have to
make sure that something like this never happens again. And
there was actually a recommendation which was a really good
one in the document that came out last week which
was a declassified hipsy report and investigation of the ICA
(04:34):
and then recommendations on what to do with it. And
I think this business where you had these political appointees
going in and cooking the books and saying, you know,
we don't care if you don't think it's true. We
called it, John Brennan said of the Steel Dotsier accusations
when told they were not true and not corroborated, But
don't they ring true? There has to be a way
(04:57):
to remove that type of political cre option from the process.
And it's interesting. For a long time we kind of
were led to believe that all the experts agreed on
the ICA, that they all agreed that Russia was doing
this to help Trump. And the reality that we learned
was that the experts were saying, no, that's not true,
and it was the Democrat political appointees who demanded that
(05:19):
it go in and be released.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
So what would you like to see now from the
DNI in terms of either further transparency and or actions
from within the IC The intelligence community sean to deal
with this at those levels, Right, there's the accountability and
there's preventing this from happening in the future. What do
you think we should see from D and I Gabbard
(05:43):
U and Dcia Ratcliffe, the Director of Central Intelligence to
get to those two goals.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, I think they've done a great job so far.
You know, Ratcliffe, to my understanding, was trying to get
these documents out back in twenty twenty before the election
and was stymied by then CIA director Tina Haspell, who
It's interesting she was running London's office. Is the station
chief back when some of the original you know, hoax
(06:13):
intel that became the basis of Crossfire Hurricane came through
the London embassy. I would like to know more about
her role. I would like to know all the intel
that was used. I would like to know all of
the people who touched the lies, who signed the affidavits
for the fights of warrants. I think we need complete
and total transparency and openness about every single aspect of
(06:35):
how that hoax was run from the beginning. And luckily,
so far, it seems like Ratcliffe and Gabbard are on
the same page there. I'm thankful that they have been
as forthright as they have been.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Also, the Obama factor in all this. You know, the
names that you're talking about here Sean Brennan Clapper right.
Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence. Brenner was the
Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan had been Obama's counter terrorisms
are in the White House previously. Obama, though, is very
clearly implicated in this too.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Now.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Clay and I have talked about how he was the president.
The Supreme Court's weighed in he's not going to face charges.
But I do think it's important for people to understand
that this wasn't the IC independent of the White House
under the Obama administration. The collusion included the collusion of
Obama and his top people in the IC to try
(07:28):
to essentially hobble the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Yeah, and I think that's a tricky one.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
You know.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Number one, we had the kind of presidential immunity thing. Obviously,
a president can't go out and like pop someone in
the head and be like I can kill whoever I
want on president. There's limits to it, clearly, But the
Supreme Court has ruled that the president has a wide
latitude to execute the authorities of his office. I actually wonder,
(07:57):
in looking what happened, if there is a better case
to be given that Obama's probably not going to get
hauled into a court and have cuslam on him. Might
it be better to look at what Brennan and Komy
and Clapper did and in the things they did in
response to Obama saying get all the intail. Might it
be a better option to look at what they did
and say, you know what, they actually defrauded Obama. He
(08:20):
told them to get this info with the expectation of
what he was going to be given was accurate, and
instead they all got together and colluded and conspired to
give him bogus intel and to defraud not just the
American people, but the commander in chief and President of
the United States as well. I wonder if that might
be a better tack to take going forward.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
I think that's a super interesting idea. We're talking to
Sean Davis. You can check him out at the Federalist.
Does great work there. Okay. I mentioned if you had
the magic wand a lot of this audience, and I
would put myself in this category is very skeptical that
anybody in a position of power in the Democrat Party
is ever going to be held accountable for anything that
(09:02):
they have ever done. And I think this is where
a lot of the frustration, Epstein, everything else comes you
are Grandma who walked in the Capitol Jan sixth, Merrick Garland,
the Biden DOJ. I mean, they will manighacally focus on
it to the extent that they're going to do a
pre morning raid to arrest you for trespass on that day. Meanwhile,
(09:24):
you got all these different alleged crimes being committed by
people in positions of power on the left in the
Democrat Party. What do you think the chances are if
you were handicapping right now, Sean, that there will actually
be charges brought. I'm not even talking about convictions. I'm
just talking about charges brought against any of these individuals
related to what they did surrounding the Russia collusion.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Lie.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah, that's a hard question because you know, I'm not
involved obviously in like the internal discussions about those types
of charges. I think they're far better now than they
ever have been, just kind of reading between the lines
and things we've seen and heard from Ratcliffe, from Gabbard,
from Bondi. Bondi forming these DJ task forces to go
(10:09):
after the Russia hoaxers is opposed to doing a special counsel.
I think is a really good idea. These task forces
have traditionally been used by the federal government to get
cooperations from all the various agencies and were a major
tool used against the mob, against racketeering, against organized crime
early on, which is something you have to kind of
(10:30):
look at. You have to look at an organized conspiracy
in order to get around a lot of these statute
of limitations that you have. But I think it's important
to look at what happened like J sixers. These were
people who were put through the ringer, They were bankrupted,
their families were terrorized, they were eventually pardoned. Why is
the right not putting the left in the people who've
(10:51):
done far, far worse things to this country and far
greater crimes. Why are they not subjecting them to the
same punishment by process that the left is doing. Because
if anyone has ever been involved in any sort of lawsuit,
criminal or sibyl, they'll tell you it's awful, it's miserable.
It SAPs you of all types of energy and focus.
And what I don't understand is why is Congress in
(11:12):
their Oversight Committee not doing the exact same things to
the left. Why is DOJ not doing the exact same
thing to the left that they did to our side
for eight years, because I do think the process is
the punishment, and our side was terrorized by the process
for eight years, and it's about time to the other
side gets a turn in the barrel if we're ever
going to get to a point where people decide we
can't do this anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Last question for you, a little bit quick here maybe
on the answer, and I know it's not a topic
that necessarily lends itself to a rapid answer. If the
Trump team we're listening right now, and I think there's
probably a decent chance that some of them are, what
advice would you give them on what they should do
for the Epstein controversy at this point?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Oh man, that's thirty seconds.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Yeah. I wish they would just release everything. I get
why that is difficult. They've got an appeal with Glene
Maxwell going on now, there's a lot of victim right stuff.
I wish they would release everything, and if the conclusions
are different than what people are expecting, walk us through
why that is what they looked at. I just think
openness and transparency is the most important antidote here, and
(12:18):
I think it got oversold very early on by some
people in the administration, and that caused them a lot
of problems and they're now having to make themselves out
from that.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
I know, I said last question, but I'm actually curious.
You run a digital media site. I sold one several
years ago. Can you tell a difference in the ad
market in Trump two point zero compared to Trump one
point zero? Does it feel fairer to you based on
the business that you run?
Speaker 2 (12:45):
It doesn't to me. We were targeted for extinction by
the Biden admin and the entire left wing censorship industrial complex.
They trey to get a blacklisted from Google, from Facebook,
they went after all the major ad players, got us
blacklisted there. I said, no, we have not seen any
difference yet, but it's because of the damage that was
(13:05):
done to us by our own government and our own
tax dollars illegally was pretty significant, and so I haven't
seen a big change in the ad market yet, at
least for us.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
That's something we should have a longer form discussion about sometime.
Sean Davis is the Federalist, because I do think that's
a story that a lot of people don't understand how
aggressively the Biden team went after Digital Truth tellers, in
my opinion, to try to bankrupt them, and most of
that story really hasn't been told to a large degree.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Appreciate the time, Sean.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Thank you both. Take care.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Good work at the Federalist.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
I want to tell you, speaking of good work, last
week we had steaks in the Travis household. They were phenomenal.
They were from good ranchers. The last time that I
was with Buck down in Miami, lovely wife Carrie, she
made us steaks and they were from good ranchers. We
love this company. They are doing fabulous work. I was
up at the ND five hundred with the founders of
(14:01):
this company, with Ben and his wife Corley. They have
four young kids, and they wanted to have American made products,
American grown products that were free of harmful antibiotics, free
of all of the sort of antigens that get put
in unfortunately into a lot of the meats, the preservatives,
everything else. This is all American raised cattle from American farmers,
(14:26):
chickens raised right here at home. No antibiotics, no added
hormones in these proteins. You're gonna love them, whether it's steaks, burgers, chicken,
whatever you like, whatever your kids like sent straight to
the home when that box arrives. I guarantee you're going
to be excited. In fact, got young kids. My kids
love the chicken nuggets. They are fabulous. Right now, when
(14:48):
you subscribe, you get your pick of free meat for life.
That can be wagu burgers, hot dogs, bacon, chicken wings,
chicken nuggets. Whatever you want to sign up for. You
can get hooked up and right now, just to try out,
why not forty dollars off You go pick whatever meets
you like. They got salmon, they've got chicken, they've got steak,
they got everything under the sun, straight to your home.
(15:11):
American ranchers, American farmers. You are gonna love it. Good
ranchers dot Com is the website. Just go check it out.
It's really cool. Good ranchers dot com. If you got kids, grandkids,
you want them to eat healthy, you want protein sent
straight to the home. Good ranchers dot com forty dollars
off when you use my name Clay. That's good ranchers
dot com. My name Clay, forty dollars off. Plus you
(15:33):
get free meat for life the first time you sign up.
Check it out today. Good ranchers dot Com code Clay.
That's good Ranchers dot com code Clay.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Want to begin to know when you're on the go the.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Team forty seven podcasts Trump Highlights from the week some
days at noon.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Eastern in the Clanbug podcast feed.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Find it's on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts. Welcome back in Clay than Travis Buck Sexton Show.
Appreciate all of you hanging out with us as we
are rolling through the Tuesday edition of the program here
and Sean's perspective there, I think is really interesting because
(16:16):
and I'm sure you have felt this too, Buck, and
maybe we'll take some calls on this eight hundred and
two two two eight A two. I think what I
kind of sense is that there is a deep seated
distrust that anything consequential is going to happen for any
of this. And I understand why because you know, look,
(16:36):
I think the chances of Obama being charged, I think
Trump did a good job of tamping that down. And
you just heard Sean Davis talk about presidential a privilege,
uh and the ruling that came down from the Supreme Court.
But I thought his angle there, Buck, of Obama actually
being defrauded in some way by his intelligence agents. The
(16:57):
challenge though, and I want to get your perspective on it,
is I think again people think that there's one opinion
that comes out of the intelligence agencies, there's like a hundred.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
I appreciated Sean's outside the box thinking on that one.
But I mean, remember a week ago was the discussion
was will Obama face charges based on what D and
I gabberd was saying. So I don't think that exculpating
Obama is the way this is going to go forward.
I also don't think Obama's going to face charges, as
we said at the time, and I think you're going
(17:30):
to find out were right. I don't think any of
them are going to face charges, and that's just the
way it's going to be. But that doesn't mean we
shouldn't know the information and shouldn't have access to the truth,
because at least then it can be a political question.
There can be political consequences to keep these maniacs out
of power going forward, but that may be the best
we can hope for in the situation. Yeah, one question
(17:51):
for you when we come back, do you think that
the D and I release and all of the Russia
collusion controversy changes anything inside of the intelligence agencies going forward.
I'd be curious about that. In the meantime, none.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Of us want to think about needing to use self
protection devices, especially in our own homes. But here's a
sobering stat. Home invasions happen every thirty seconds in this country.
And while hopefully crime reductions are going to be going down,
home burglaries unfortunately continue to skyrocket. Are you protected inside
of your home? Because maybe it is a burglary, but
(18:25):
maybe it's just like.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Your situation is similar to mine.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
You got knucklehead teenagers who might be coming back at
any hour setting off the home alarm? What do you
have to protect you and your family? Non lethal basis?
You need to check out Saber today. That's Saber radio
dot com, sab rradio dot com. We have every one
of these products. You're gonna love it. You can also
call and talk with them eight four four eight two
(18:50):
four safe. That's eight four four eight to four safe.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Welcome back into play and Block. We got a lot
of calls, a lot of talkbacks, tons of stuff to
dive into here momentarily, but Clay wanted to finish a
thought or lay out something having to do with the
intel community, the deep state, and all that before. So
if you're on hold, stay with us. We'll get to
you momentarily. I'll get some of your talkbacks as well.
But Clay, take it away while.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
I'm teeing it up for you, because we talked a
lot about this on the program Thursday Friday, as the
fallout of all the revelations of Telsea Gabberd really were unspooling.
And I'm curious from your perspective two things. One, I
do think this idea that there is one opinion. I
do think that you can hammer home that there are
(19:36):
hundreds of people working and they're fighting over what the
interpretation is. And I think there is the idea out
there that the intelligence agency has one opinion on an issue,
and I'd like for you to talk about how that
actually looks inside of an agency. Second part of this,
and I don't know the answer. I'm curious how you
would analyze this. Let's acknowledge that we think that this
(19:58):
whole thing was screwed up with Russia collusion. Has it
improved inside of the agencies? Is there something that is
going to be a positive of the mess that unspooled.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
So from your perspective on those.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Two, how would you analyze that multiple different perspectives, and
has anything change going forward?
Speaker 1 (20:17):
There's so many perspectives that you generally can't even get
agreement within an office on an issue, never mind across agencies.
So that's always going to be just the reality. And
I remember these are assessments, it's analysis. The intel community
is wrong a lot, even when there is some unanimity
on things. They you know, people they missed nine to eleven. Obviously,
(20:40):
they missed the fall the Berlin Wall. They missed the
reality of the Afghanic. Well, there's a whole bunch of things.
You can just point to plenty of intelligence failures because
really it's it's analysis about what's going to happen, right,
you're really talking about predicting the future. The intelligence community
doesn't put it forward that way, but we think that
this is what's going on and this is what's next.
(21:02):
Is a lot of they sometimes we call it opportunity analysis,
or they're just trying to trying to tell you what's
going to happen, and no one's good. No one can
predict the future. Really, as I always say, occasionally someone can,
but no one can with any consistency. So that's on that.
And then so that was the first part of it,
the multi and then you're asking about is it going
to get better? Is it going to change? There's the
(21:27):
accountability piece for people that were inside, who I think
now at least have gotten a public there's this sort
of public retribution against their reputations, Brendan Clapper and others.
But you have to change the culture of these places,
and that's a long term. That's a long term thing.
The intelligence agencies post nine to eleven got a lot
(21:50):
of people who were meat eaters, so to speak, who
wanted to go get bin laden, and a lot of
them left. You know, there's a lot of guys, guys
and gals who went in there to do the mission.
And I'm not speaking about myself here, but I certainly
know plenty of people that are in this boat. And
the bureaucracy took over and in the Obama years, they
(22:10):
just couldn't handle it anymore. So that's what I see
with that. And now let us let us dive into
some of these calls. And we've got Charles in Northampton, Pennsylvania.
What's going on, Charles.
Speaker 5 (22:26):
Yes, well, I was just thinking maybe we should look
at rather than putting people in jail, that we should
look for recovery of expenses for you know, court costs,
maybe slander and libel, loss of wages, emotional distress, you know,
(22:47):
the punitive damages, that kind of stuff towards and hit
Obama and the Clinton's and Comy clap or Brennan where
it hurts, which would be the money that they have
in the bank that they've accumulated over the last however
many years.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Charles, I'm not really I'm not really seeing. I mean,
in the case of the Obamas, they're worth over one
hundred million dollars. I mean, they could hire lawyers for
the next century and it wouldn't really affect them very much,
so I don't think. And and also they would have
Obama would have immunity in office as he was president.
You look at the others you're talking about bringing civil suits.
Bringing a civil suit is very expensive for the person
(23:25):
bringing it, right, So unless you're saying that you want
the federal government to sue them on what, I'm not
really clear on how this how this would go.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Clay, do you have a better picture of this. The
only thing thanks for the call. The only thing I
can think is that he's saying he wants Trump to
sue and try to hold these individuals responsible. Here's the challenge.
First of all, most civil suit basis for lawsuits the
statute of limitations has expired, so I don't know in
(23:55):
front of me right now. Usually why bowl defamation, slander
there's usually around a two year and individual states can differ,
but usually around to two year based. I also don't
think you could hit that hurdle when you're talking about
a president, a public figure. You have to prove actual malice,
You have to prove all that I mean this is
so the answer is no. I don't think you're going
to be able to get some kind of civil judgment
(24:16):
that that destroys these people that work. The people ask
all the time, can you sue? The answer is yes,
you can sue for anything. The better question is can
you sue and have any likelihood of success that is
significant in nature? For this, The answer I think is no.
And for people out there who are confused, he was
(24:37):
asking a question I think about civil lawsuits as opposed
to criminal culpability. The civil standard is lower and look,
I mean to your point, Buck, We've talked about this before.
Sometimes the process can be the punishment. So yes, there
are legal fees associated with this everything else. I just
I don't find that to be a very likely or
(24:58):
significantly like lihood of success on that angle.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Tim in North Indiana? What's going on? Tim?
Speaker 6 (25:07):
Hey fellows a great job. By the way, I had
two things I wanted to bring up, and now I'll
hang up and you guys can discuss the work. Is
One is the Rico statue. Is that something that could
be applied to these fifty one treasonous intelligence agents who
signed the fraudulent Crossfire hurricane affidavits? That's one.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Two.
Speaker 6 (25:30):
If there is evidence, hard evidence that Obama was involved
in that pole debacle after January twentieth, twenty seventeen, when
he's no longer in the White House, he doesn't no
longer have presidential immunity, could he be you know, held
to account on actions he performed after his term of office?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Wade, Tim, thank you for the question on the fifty
one intelligence officials. They they have a very straightforward defense
which is going to be very unsatisfying everybody to hear,
which is I was so dumb. I believed it. And
this is the problem, right, you can't prove that there
was a unless they were unless they were writing down
(26:15):
I'm lying about the you know, you have people to
prove that they knew what they were saying was not true. Uh.
And it's very easy for people to say, no, I'm dumb.
I believed it. That's it. So I think it's very
hard and Rico, as we saw with Diddy, Rico, you
want to use against mobsters and cartels and very limited
cases because once you start talking about racketeering and your
(26:38):
corrupt corrupt influence, it's very you know, you don't you don't.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
I know.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
They were going to try this against Trump in Atlanta,
and that was a that was a preposterous case. Okay, Yeah,
they couldn't even get that to first base. They couldn't
even get that thing. So so using Rico, I think
a lot of people like the Rico thing because they
saw it in the in the Batman Uman beginning.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Well, it sounds cool when you say you sound like
you're a super Look. I actually think he was asking
an interesting question on the back end, which is something
that the Supreme Court may have to apply. The fact
pattern of their prior ruling, the six' to three decision
on presidential. POWER i think you just mentioned That, Atlanta georgia.
CASE i, think for, instance The Supreme court really hasn't addressed.
(27:21):
THIS i don't think you can bring state charges against a.
PRESIDENT i think that that would be the president has federal.
POWERS i don't think you can bring state charges like
they tried to Do Fanny willis In. Georgia that has
not gotten all the way to The Supreme.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Court is my.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Understanding someone out there can correct me If i'm. WRONG
i think The Supreme court only analyzed federal, charges those
that were brought Against trump And, florida those that were
brought Against trump IN. Dc they didn't go into The
New york state, charges and again that was a very
specific business related. Charge the question he's asking is how
far does presidential priv extend into the.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Future, Right so.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Let's say That obama is protected Until january, twenty twenty,
seventeen or whatever the date was When trump came into,
office and then he undergoes and continues.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
ACTIONS i think it Gets it's legally an interesting theoretical
but there's no you're not going to find some Post
obama presidency's smoking gun of him In russia collusion that
would still be admissible that. WAY i, mean this is
we're getting way down.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
Here they're asking, questions which are intelligent, questions AND i
think it actually becomes really. Interesting, buck when you were
OUT i talked about. This one of the challenges of
all these, cases and this is me being a legal
nerd is if the president has, protection which The Supreme
court has said to do his, JOB i don't understand
(28:47):
how you prosecute people underneath the. President if the president
has protection to do it and he authorizes someone underneath
him to do, it it seems really unfair to me
to charge an underling who is responding to a president's.
Act in other, WORDS i think the presidential immunity ruling
(29:08):
is actually not only going to protect the. PRESIDENT i
think it is going to go to secondary and maybe
even tertiary. Figures there you go using it very appropriately
if you remember yesterday's, CALL i think it is going
to be a blanket in many ways of protection that
extends from the president and basically descends. DOWNWARDS i think
(29:30):
all this is a challenge What buck AND i are
trying To none of them.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Are going to. Prison, Okay i'm just none of them
are going to, prison AND i don't even think they're
gonna get. Charged And i'm just telling you this BECAUSE
i don't want anyone to get your hopes. Up but
there's going to be more, accountability you. Know and If i'm,
wrong of Course i'll come out and, Say, wow they
Actually i'm. SORRY i don't see it. Happening AND i,
Remember i've been through. This i've been through this all
The benghazi, hearings you, Know TREY, goudi you, know, shouting
(29:54):
pounding the table and everything. Else the whole TIME i was,
saying no one's gonna get in trouble for. This know
what's going to Get trump telling you, SO i don't
think this is going to be something that ends the
way that a lot of people are. Hoping gary And,
Burlington Burlington, Junction. Missouri what's going? On?
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Gary?
Speaker 5 (30:12):
YEAH i was just wanting to talk.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
A little bit about.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
That play kind of answered my question there about this
blanket blanket pardoner or, whatever not, pardon but.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
You know WHAT i. Mean, Community, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:26):
Yeah AND i don't know why in the, world after
The democrats did what they did To, trump how come to.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Shoot don't fit the other.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Side, well, again the problem that you run, against thank
you for calling, In. Gary the problem you run against,
here over and over again is, they even though we
know that for a whole bunch of, reasons they didn't
really believe the things that they were pretending to, believe
and they abused the, system their fallback is always going.
To this is the same thing With, comey same thing With,
brennan same thing with the fifty one intelligence, officials all this.
(30:57):
Stuff they'll just, Say, OKAY i was. WRONG i THOUGHT
i was defending the country AND i was. Wrong that's
not a. Crime now we can all say bull. Crap
we know you know you were, Lying but proving that
and fitting it into a statutory crime is the challenge.
Here those are different, things AND i appreciate the.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
CALL i DON'T i think people every, crime by and,
large there are some strict liability. Crimes every crime requires an,
act and then they call it an actisraya and then
A men'sraa mensrea requires. Intent and What buck is getting at,
is in order to prove beyond a reasonable, doubt you
(31:40):
have to be able to prove that they knew it
was a lie and that they intended to propagate a.
LIE i think What buck is hitting on is the
defense is going to be very strongly rooted, In, hey
we thought this was. True and that's WHY i was
asking him to, explain BECAUSE i do think this. Matters
there might be a thousand different opinions about What Vladimir
(32:04):
putin's health is right. Now inside of THE, cia there's
all these analysts working all the, time and they are
trying to look at whatever evidence we have out, there
and they're trying to, say, hey we think he's one
hundred percent. Healthy he's healthy as a, horse he's going
to live another twenty years and his reign is going to.
Continue somebody else might, say, HEY i think there's evidence
(32:24):
that he's been treated for some sort of serious health
related condition and his power is more tenuous than we.
Think somebody's going to be, right somebody's going to be.
Wrong but every spectrum of analysis is going to be
covered inside of. There AND i, think AND i was
of this opinion prior to understanding doing this. Show frankly
and spending a little bit of, TIME i kind of
(32:46):
had the Sense buck that the larger, world like there
was one. Interpretation i'm seeing now like every interpretation under
the sun basically is being written at THE cia every.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Day, yeah. Yep i'm a big believer in having your
body chemistry. Right over the past, year getting ready for
my son to be, BORN i DECIDED i had to
get into, shape had to shed some. LB's and there's
a TAKEAWAY i can give you all on this. One
you want to have the right, stuff the right supplements
for your. Body if your goal is to be, healthy
(33:18):
certain all natural supplements can really help you perform at your.
Best and that is Where chalk comes. IN i Take
chalk every. Day this is the same company That i've
been talking, about The chalk daily. SUPPLEMENT i also Love
chalk's chad mode to give me that boost of. ENERGY
i keep it on my broadcast desk here to remind
me to take it every. YEAR i, Mean i've Got
chalk right off. CAMERA i can't grab it right this,
(33:39):
second But i'll show it to you another. TIME i
take My chalk products every, day formulated with herbal. Ingredients for,
example their Male vitality stack includes a leading ingredient that
replenishes diminish theestosteron levels and MEN i have up my
tea levels in the last. YEAR i can tell you
substantially and it makes such a, Difference, guys such a.
Difference Chalk's Male Vitality stack can Rep LENIS testosn levels
(34:01):
by twenty percent in just three months. Time use my
Name buck as your promo code when you go To
chalk dot com cchoq dot. Com get a sizeable discount
on Any chalk subscription for. Life this is top, CLASS
i mean best in class kind of products From, chalk
so well, tested such high. Quality go check them out
(34:22):
chalkcchoq dot. Com use my Name buck for that big
discount on any subscription for. Life you can cancer subscription
whatever you, want but you're not gonna want to worry
about that once you see the, Benefits go to chalkcchoq
dot com and use my Name. Buck Today news you
can count on as some laughs.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Too claytravis At Buck sexton find them on the Free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your. Podcasts welcome back
In Clay travis Buck sexton show a lot of great.
Talkbacks you can always go talk back also on The iHeartRadio.
App we want us subscribe to The clay And buck
(35:03):
a YouTube. PAGE i keep talking about how YouTube audience
has just. Exploded more people watch videos of radio shows
now than actually listen to radio shows on. Podcasts we
are over ninety five thousand of. You i've been saying
the target is one hundred. K that is a respectable
(35:24):
number for us to hit on. YouTube see if you
can drive us over that number, today go search Out
Clay travis Buck. Sexton i'm asking all of you go.
Subscribe you'll see a lot of clips sooner rather than.
Later we hope to have all three hours of the program.
Up we love the five hundred and fifty FIVE amfm
radio stations in all fifty states where many of you
(35:46):
are listening right, now but we want to be everywhere
wherever the viewer and or listener may. Be and so
please go subscribe to The Clay travis And Buck Sexton.
Show PAM, aa let's listen To pam has got great
instincts as a.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Listener, Hey, CLAY.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
I just wanted to say THAT i had Known. BUCK
i listened to him for many years dating back to the,
place BUT i didn't know you at, all AND i
have grown to absolutely just love you to pieces for.
Real and whoever decided to pair you. Guys brilliant, Decision
so just wanted to throw that at.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
You our lovely Boss Julie, talbot WHO i had dinner
with last, night put us together and thank you for.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
That pam From, ALASKA i think you have incredible.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Taste when we come, Back, buck that's a perfect.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
Talkback it is stuck the. Landing ten out of.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Ten democrats have hit a thirty five year low in.
Popularity what's next The Wall Street journal. Poll we will
discuss all that final hour coming out with
All right, welcome in second hour, Clay and Buck. Get's
going right now. We're joined by our friend Sean Davis,
CEO and co founder of the Federalists. Go to the
Federalist dot com. It is one of our favorite sites
on the world wide Web, which I don't think anybody
calls it anymore really that, but it is the worldwide
Web Federalist dot Com. Great work there, including what we're
(00:22):
about to talk about. Sean, Thanks for taking a break
from what you're doing to chat with us. What's going on.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Well, thanks for having me back. It's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Let's dive into this. Matt Shelby, because so d and
I Gabbard. I sat down with her and we had
a discussion in DC about a month month ago about
a lot of things, and certainly one of her mandates
is to clean up the deep state mess that was
well really the rot that spread from the top down
(00:52):
in places like the CIA. She has released information about
the soft coup attempt or, like I said, the non
violent coup attempt maybe a better way to put it
against Donald Trump. You are following very closely now, you
and Molly Hemingway, your colleague at the Federalists, have been
on this for a decade. Now, what is new and
(01:13):
important that has come out. We're going to walk everyone
through this because the Russian of the media, obviously they
were in on the collusion, right, I mean, they were
in on the whole foax, the fraud. What is new
that people need to know about now?
Speaker 2 (01:26):
So I think to understand the importance of the new developments,
I think it's important to take a step back and
look at what they were trying to do with the
Russia collusion hoax back in sixteen and seventeen and eighteen,
and there were two main pillars of that entire hoax.
One of them was that Donald Trump personally colluded with
(01:48):
Russia and Putin to steal the election from Hillary, that
he was an agent of Russian and that he was
working with them. That was the whole Steele dossier. That
was the bulk of the Mueller thing. We know that
with bank that was bunks for a long time. But
before they could even get to that phase of the operation,
they had the first point, which was the claim that
(02:09):
Russia meddled in our election in twenty sixteen for the
purpose of helping Donald Trump, because Putin wanted Trump to win.
That was injected into the bloodstream, and that was necessary
to be there for people to believe that Trump colluded.
But what we learned last week from the document releases
from TULCA Gabbard is that that claim was a lie.
(02:29):
The CIA knew it was a lie. Obama and Brennan
and Comy were all told it was a lie from
their own experts, and they went ahead with it anyway.
They cooked the books, they fabricated evidence, they ignored the experts,
and they put out this bogus Intel Community assessment claiming
that Russia had interfered for the purpose of Donald of
(02:51):
helping Donald Trump win. And that was a lie.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
All right, Sean, thanks for coming on with us. Thanks
for also sharing a great hometown or our family town
right now. I'm sure you saw that the state of Tennessee,
according to CNBC, was the worst place in America to live.
And I think I speak for everyone out there when
I say, yeah, you're right, it's awful. Please don't come here.
But you're running the Federalist, and I bet you get
(03:17):
asked this question a lot, and it's the number one
question I get asked as in regards to this story.
Let's pretend you had a magic wand and you were
able to dictate policy from this point going forward, as
it pertains to what happened with Russia.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
What should happen?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
In your mind if you had that magic wand and
you were able to direct policy, what do you think
will happen? What is the significance, in other words, going forward,
not looking back, looking forward prospectively as to what should
happen and what will happen here?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Garding two things, if I could may wave a magic wand,
I'd make two things happen. Number One, Comy, Brennan, Clapper,
mccab struck would all go to prison because somebody has
to pay a price for the crimes they perpetrated against
the country.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
At none of them. They would be charged with a
crime if you were able. Okay, that is a concrete action.
That's good. Okay, what else?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And then the second, so that we're going to put
that in like kind of the law enforcement accountability for
the fraud bucket. The other bucket is we have to
make sure that something like this never happens again. And
there was actually a recommendation which was a really good
one in the document that came out last week which
was a declassified hipsy report and investigation of the ICA
(04:34):
and then recommendations on what to do with it. And
I think this business where you had these political appointees
going in and cooking the books and saying, you know,
we don't care if you don't think it's true. We
called it, John Brennan said of the Steel Dotsier accusations
when told they were not true and not corroborated, But
don't they ring true? There has to be a way
(04:57):
to remove that type of political cre option from the process.
And it's interesting. For a long time we kind of
were led to believe that all the experts agreed on
the ICA, that they all agreed that Russia was doing
this to help Trump. And the reality that we learned
was that the experts were saying, no, that's not true,
and it was the Democrat political appointees who demanded that
(05:19):
it go in and be released.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
So what would you like to see now from the
DNI in terms of either further transparency and or actions
from within the IC The intelligence community sean to deal
with this at those levels, Right, there's the accountability and
there's preventing this from happening in the future. What do
you think we should see from D and I Gabbard
(05:43):
U and Dcia Ratcliffe, the Director of Central Intelligence to
get to those two goals.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Well, I think they've done a great job so far.
You know, Ratcliffe, to my understanding, was trying to get
these documents out back in twenty twenty before the election
and was stymied by then CIA director Tina Haspell, who
It's interesting she was running London's office. Is the station
chief back when some of the original you know, hoax
(06:13):
intel that became the basis of Crossfire Hurricane came through
the London embassy. I would like to know more about
her role. I would like to know all the intel
that was used. I would like to know all of
the people who touched the lies, who signed the affidavits
for the fights of warrants. I think we need complete
and total transparency and openness about every single aspect of
(06:35):
how that hoax was run from the beginning. And luckily,
so far, it seems like Ratcliffe and Gabbard are on
the same page there. I'm thankful that they have been
as forthright as they have been.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Also, the Obama factor in all this. You know, the
names that you're talking about here Sean Brennan Clapper right.
Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence. Brenner was the
Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan had been Obama's counter terrorisms
are in the White House previously. Obama, though, is very
clearly implicated in this too.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Now.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Clay and I have talked about how he was the president.
The Supreme Court's weighed in he's not going to face charges.
But I do think it's important for people to understand
that this wasn't the IC independent of the White House
under the Obama administration. The collusion included the collusion of
Obama and his top people in the IC to try
(07:28):
to essentially hobble the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Yeah, and I think that's a tricky one.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
You know.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Number one, we had the kind of presidential immunity thing. Obviously,
a president can't go out and like pop someone in
the head and be like I can kill whoever I
want on president. There's limits to it, clearly, But the
Supreme Court has ruled that the president has a wide
latitude to execute the authorities of his office. I actually wonder,
(07:57):
in looking what happened, if there is a better case
to be given that Obama's probably not going to get
hauled into a court and have cuslam on him. Might
it be better to look at what Brennan and Komy
and Clapper did and in the things they did in
response to Obama saying get all the intail. Might it
be a better option to look at what they did
and say, you know what, they actually defrauded Obama. He
(08:20):
told them to get this info with the expectation of
what he was going to be given was accurate, and
instead they all got together and colluded and conspired to
give him bogus intel and to defraud not just the
American people, but the commander in chief and President of
the United States as well. I wonder if that might
be a better tack to take going forward.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
I think that's a super interesting idea. We're talking to
Sean Davis. You can check him out at the Federalist.
Does great work there. Okay. I mentioned if you had
the magic wand a lot of this audience, and I
would put myself in this category is very skeptical that
anybody in a position of power in the Democrat Party
is ever going to be held accountable for anything that
(09:02):
they have ever done. And I think this is where
a lot of the frustration, Epstein, everything else comes you
are Grandma who walked in the Capitol Jan sixth, Merrick Garland,
the Biden DOJ. I mean, they will manighacally focus on
it to the extent that they're going to do a
pre morning raid to arrest you for trespass on that day. Meanwhile,
(09:24):
you got all these different alleged crimes being committed by
people in positions of power on the left in the
Democrat Party. What do you think the chances are if
you were handicapping right now, Sean, that there will actually
be charges brought. I'm not even talking about convictions. I'm
just talking about charges brought against any of these individuals
related to what they did surrounding the Russia collusion.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Lie.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Yeah, that's a hard question because you know, I'm not
involved obviously in like the internal discussions about those types
of charges. I think they're far better now than they
ever have been, just kind of reading between the lines
and things we've seen and heard from Ratcliffe, from Gabbard,
from Bondi. Bondi forming these DJ task forces to go
(10:09):
after the Russia hoaxers is opposed to doing a special counsel.
I think is a really good idea. These task forces
have traditionally been used by the federal government to get
cooperations from all the various agencies and were a major
tool used against the mob, against racketeering, against organized crime
early on, which is something you have to kind of
(10:30):
look at. You have to look at an organized conspiracy
in order to get around a lot of these statute
of limitations that you have. But I think it's important
to look at what happened like J sixers. These were
people who were put through the ringer, They were bankrupted,
their families were terrorized, they were eventually pardoned. Why is
the right not putting the left in the people who've
(10:51):
done far, far worse things to this country and far
greater crimes. Why are they not subjecting them to the
same punishment by process that the left is doing. Because
if anyone has ever been involved in any sort of lawsuit,
criminal or sibyl, they'll tell you it's awful, it's miserable.
It SAPs you of all types of energy and focus.
And what I don't understand is why is Congress in
(11:12):
their Oversight Committee not doing the exact same things to
the left. Why is DOJ not doing the exact same
thing to the left that they did to our side
for eight years, because I do think the process is
the punishment, and our side was terrorized by the process
for eight years, and it's about time to the other
side gets a turn in the barrel if we're ever
going to get to a point where people decide we
can't do this anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Last question for you, a little bit quick here maybe
on the answer, and I know it's not a topic
that necessarily lends itself to a rapid answer. If the
Trump team we're listening right now, and I think there's
probably a decent chance that some of them are, what
advice would you give them on what they should do
for the Epstein controversy at this point?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Oh man, that's thirty seconds.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Yeah. I wish they would just release everything. I get
why that is difficult. They've got an appeal with Glene
Maxwell going on now, there's a lot of victim right stuff.
I wish they would release everything, and if the conclusions
are different than what people are expecting, walk us through
why that is what they looked at. I just think
openness and transparency is the most important antidote here, and
(12:18):
I think it got oversold very early on by some
people in the administration, and that caused them a lot
of problems and they're now having to make themselves out
from that.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
I know, I said last question, but I'm actually curious.
You run a digital media site. I sold one several
years ago. Can you tell a difference in the ad
market in Trump two point zero compared to Trump one
point zero? Does it feel fairer to you based on
the business that you run?
Speaker 2 (12:45):
It doesn't to me. We were targeted for extinction by
the Biden admin and the entire left wing censorship industrial complex.
They trey to get a blacklisted from Google, from Facebook,
they went after all the major ad players, got us
blacklisted there. I said, no, we have not seen any
difference yet, but it's because of the damage that was
(13:05):
done to us by our own government and our own
tax dollars illegally was pretty significant, and so I haven't
seen a big change in the ad market yet, at
least for us.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
That's something we should have a longer form discussion about sometime.
Sean Davis is the Federalist, because I do think that's
a story that a lot of people don't understand how
aggressively the Biden team went after Digital Truth tellers, in
my opinion, to try to bankrupt them, and most of
that story really hasn't been told to a large degree.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Appreciate the time, Sean.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Thank you both. Take care.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Good work at the Federalist.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
I want to tell you, speaking of good work, last
week we had steaks in the Travis household. They were phenomenal.
They were from good ranchers. The last time that I
was with Buck down in Miami, lovely wife Carrie, she
made us steaks and they were from good ranchers. We
love this company. They are doing fabulous work. I was
up at the ND five hundred with the founders of
(14:01):
this company, with Ben and his wife Corley. They have
four young kids, and they wanted to have American made products,
American grown products that were free of harmful antibiotics, free
of all of the sort of antigens that get put
in unfortunately into a lot of the meats, the preservatives,
everything else. This is all American raised cattle from American farmers,
(14:26):
chickens raised right here at home. No antibiotics, no added
hormones in these proteins. You're gonna love them, whether it's steaks, burgers, chicken,
whatever you like, whatever your kids like sent straight to
the home when that box arrives. I guarantee you're going
to be excited. In fact, got young kids. My kids
love the chicken nuggets. They are fabulous. Right now, when
(14:48):
you subscribe, you get your pick of free meat for life.
That can be wagu burgers, hot dogs, bacon, chicken wings,
chicken nuggets. Whatever you want to sign up for. You
can get hooked up and right now, just to try out,
why not forty dollars off You go pick whatever meets
you like. They got salmon, they've got chicken, they've got steak,
they got everything under the sun, straight to your home.
(15:11):
American ranchers, American farmers. You are gonna love it. Good
ranchers dot Com is the website. Just go check it out.
It's really cool. Good ranchers dot com. If you got kids, grandkids,
you want them to eat healthy, you want protein sent
straight to the home. Good ranchers dot com forty dollars
off when you use my name Clay. That's good ranchers
dot com. My name Clay, forty dollars off. Plus you
(15:33):
get free meat for life the first time you sign up.
Check it out today. Good ranchers dot Com code Clay.
That's good Ranchers dot com code Clay.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Want to begin to know when you're on the go the.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Team forty seven podcasts Trump Highlights from the week some
days at noon.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Eastern in the Clanbug podcast feed.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Find it's on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcasts. Welcome back in Clay than Travis Buck Sexton Show.
Appreciate all of you hanging out with us as we
are rolling through the Tuesday edition of the program here
and Sean's perspective there, I think is really interesting because
(16:16):
and I'm sure you have felt this too, Buck, and
maybe we'll take some calls on this eight hundred and
two two two eight A two. I think what I
kind of sense is that there is a deep seated
distrust that anything consequential is going to happen for any
of this. And I understand why because you know, look,
(16:36):
I think the chances of Obama being charged, I think
Trump did a good job of tamping that down. And
you just heard Sean Davis talk about presidential a privilege,
uh and the ruling that came down from the Supreme Court.
But I thought his angle there, Buck, of Obama actually
being defrauded in some way by his intelligence agents. The
(16:57):
challenge though, and I want to get your perspective on it,
is I think again people think that there's one opinion
that comes out of the intelligence agencies, there's like a hundred.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
I appreciated Sean's outside the box thinking on that one.
But I mean, remember a week ago was the discussion
was will Obama face charges based on what D and
I gabberd was saying. So I don't think that exculpating
Obama is the way this is going to go forward.
I also don't think Obama's going to face charges, as
we said at the time, and I think you're going
(17:30):
to find out were right. I don't think any of
them are going to face charges, and that's just the
way it's going to be. But that doesn't mean we
shouldn't know the information and shouldn't have access to the truth,
because at least then it can be a political question.
There can be political consequences to keep these maniacs out
of power going forward, but that may be the best
we can hope for in the situation. Yeah, one question
(17:51):
for you when we come back, do you think that
the D and I release and all of the Russia
collusion controversy changes anything inside of the intelligence agencies going forward.
I'd be curious about that. In the meantime, none.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Of us want to think about needing to use self
protection devices, especially in our own homes. But here's a
sobering stat. Home invasions happen every thirty seconds in this country.
And while hopefully crime reductions are going to be going down,
home burglaries unfortunately continue to skyrocket. Are you protected inside
of your home? Because maybe it is a burglary, but
(18:25):
maybe it's just like.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Your situation is similar to mine.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
You got knucklehead teenagers who might be coming back at
any hour setting off the home alarm? What do you
have to protect you and your family? Non lethal basis?
You need to check out Saber today. That's Saber radio
dot com, sab rradio dot com. We have every one
of these products. You're gonna love it. You can also
call and talk with them eight four four eight two
(18:50):
four safe. That's eight four four eight to four safe.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Welcome back into play and Block. We got a lot
of calls, a lot of talkbacks, tons of stuff to
dive into here momentarily, but Clay wanted to finish a
thought or lay out something having to do with the
intel community, the deep state, and all that before. So
if you're on hold, stay with us. We'll get to
you momentarily. I'll get some of your talkbacks as well.
But Clay, take it away while.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
I'm teeing it up for you, because we talked a
lot about this on the program Thursday Friday, as the
fallout of all the revelations of Telsea Gabberd really were unspooling.
And I'm curious from your perspective two things. One, I
do think this idea that there is one opinion. I
do think that you can hammer home that there are
(19:36):
hundreds of people working and they're fighting over what the
interpretation is. And I think there is the idea out
there that the intelligence agency has one opinion on an issue,
and I'd like for you to talk about how that
actually looks inside of an agency. Second part of this,
and I don't know the answer. I'm curious how you
would analyze this. Let's acknowledge that we think that this
(19:58):
whole thing was screwed up with Russia collusion. Has it
improved inside of the agencies? Is there something that is
going to be a positive of the mess that unspooled.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
So from your perspective on those.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Two, how would you analyze that multiple different perspectives, and
has anything change going forward?
Speaker 1 (20:17):
There's so many perspectives that you generally can't even get
agreement within an office on an issue, never mind across agencies.
So that's always going to be just the reality. And
I remember these are assessments, it's analysis. The intel community
is wrong a lot, even when there is some unanimity
on things. They you know, people they missed nine to eleven. Obviously,
(20:40):
they missed the fall the Berlin Wall. They missed the
reality of the Afghanic. Well, there's a whole bunch of things.
You can just point to plenty of intelligence failures because
really it's it's analysis about what's going to happen, right,
you're really talking about predicting the future. The intelligence community
doesn't put it forward that way, but we think that
this is what's going on and this is what's next.
(21:02):
Is a lot of they sometimes we call it opportunity analysis,
or they're just trying to trying to tell you what's
going to happen, and no one's good. No one can
predict the future. Really, as I always say, occasionally someone can,
but no one can with any consistency. So that's on that.
And then so that was the first part of it,
the multi and then you're asking about is it going
to get better? Is it going to change? There's the
(21:27):
accountability piece for people that were inside, who I think
now at least have gotten a public there's this sort
of public retribution against their reputations, Brendan Clapper and others.
But you have to change the culture of these places,
and that's a long term. That's a long term thing.
The intelligence agencies post nine to eleven got a lot
(21:50):
of people who were meat eaters, so to speak, who
wanted to go get bin laden, and a lot of
them left. You know, there's a lot of guys, guys
and gals who went in there to do the mission.
And I'm not speaking about myself here, but I certainly
know plenty of people that are in this boat. And
the bureaucracy took over and in the Obama years, they
(22:10):
just couldn't handle it anymore. So that's what I see
with that. And now let us let us dive into
some of these calls. And we've got Charles in Northampton, Pennsylvania.
What's going on, Charles.
Speaker 5 (22:26):
Yes, well, I was just thinking maybe we should look
at rather than putting people in jail, that we should
look for recovery of expenses for you know, court costs,
maybe slander and libel, loss of wages, emotional distress, you know,
(22:47):
the punitive damages, that kind of stuff towards and hit
Obama and the Clinton's and Comy clap or Brennan where
it hurts, which would be the money that they have
in the bank that they've accumulated over the last however
many years.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Charles, I'm not really I'm not really seeing. I mean,
in the case of the Obamas, they're worth over one
hundred million dollars. I mean, they could hire lawyers for
the next century and it wouldn't really affect them very much,
so I don't think. And and also they would have
Obama would have immunity in office as he was president.
You look at the others you're talking about bringing civil suits.
Bringing a civil suit is very expensive for the person
(23:25):
bringing it, right, So unless you're saying that you want
the federal government to sue them on what, I'm not
really clear on how this how this would go.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Clay, do you have a better picture of this. The
only thing thanks for the call. The only thing I
can think is that he's saying he wants Trump to
sue and try to hold these individuals responsible. Here's the challenge.
First of all, most civil suit basis for lawsuits the
statute of limitations has expired, so I don't know in
(23:55):
front of me right now. Usually why bowl defamation, slander
there's usually around a two year and individual states can differ,
but usually around to two year based. I also don't
think you could hit that hurdle when you're talking about
a president, a public figure. You have to prove actual malice,
You have to prove all that I mean this is
so the answer is no. I don't think you're going
to be able to get some kind of civil judgment
(24:16):
that that destroys these people that work. The people ask
all the time, can you sue? The answer is yes,
you can sue for anything. The better question is can
you sue and have any likelihood of success that is
significant in nature? For this, The answer I think is no.
And for people out there who are confused, he was
(24:37):
asking a question I think about civil lawsuits as opposed
to criminal culpability. The civil standard is lower and look,
I mean to your point, Buck, We've talked about this before.
Sometimes the process can be the punishment. So yes, there
are legal fees associated with this everything else. I just
I don't find that to be a very likely or
(24:58):
significantly like lihood of success on that angle.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Tim in North Indiana? What's going on? Tim?
Speaker 6 (25:07):
Hey fellows a great job. By the way, I had
two things I wanted to bring up, and now I'll
hang up and you guys can discuss the work. Is
One is the Rico statue. Is that something that could
be applied to these fifty one treasonous intelligence agents who
signed the fraudulent Crossfire hurricane affidavits? That's one.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Two.
Speaker 6 (25:30):
If there is evidence, hard evidence that Obama was involved
in that pole debacle after January twentieth, twenty seventeen, when
he's no longer in the White House, he doesn't no
longer have presidential immunity, could he be you know, held
to account on actions he performed after his term of office?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Wade, Tim, thank you for the question on the fifty
one intelligence officials. They they have a very straightforward defense
which is going to be very unsatisfying everybody to hear,
which is I was so dumb. I believed it. And
this is the problem, right, you can't prove that there
was a unless they were unless they were writing down
(26:15):
I'm lying about the you know, you have people to
prove that they knew what they were saying was not true. Uh.
And it's very easy for people to say, no, I'm dumb.
I believed it. That's it. So I think it's very
hard and Rico, as we saw with Diddy, Rico, you
want to use against mobsters and cartels and very limited
cases because once you start talking about racketeering and your
(26:38):
corrupt corrupt influence, it's very you know, you don't you don't.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
I know.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
They were going to try this against Trump in Atlanta,
and that was a that was a preposterous case. Okay, Yeah,
they couldn't even get that to first base. They couldn't
even get that thing. So so using Rico, I think
a lot of people like the Rico thing because they
saw it in the in the Batman Uman beginning.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Well, it sounds cool when you say you sound like
you're a super Look. I actually think he was asking
an interesting question on the back end, which is something
that the Supreme Court may have to apply. The fact
pattern of their prior ruling, the six' to three decision
on presidential. POWER i think you just mentioned That, Atlanta georgia.
CASE i, think for, instance The Supreme court really hasn't addressed.
(27:21):
THIS i don't think you can bring state charges against a.
PRESIDENT i think that that would be the president has federal.
POWERS i don't think you can bring state charges like
they tried to Do Fanny willis In. Georgia that has
not gotten all the way to The Supreme.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Court is my.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Understanding someone out there can correct me If i'm. WRONG
i think The Supreme court only analyzed federal, charges those
that were brought Against trump And, florida those that were
brought Against trump IN. Dc they didn't go into The
New york state, charges and again that was a very
specific business related. Charge the question he's asking is how
far does presidential priv extend into the.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Future, Right so.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Let's say That obama is protected Until january, twenty twenty,
seventeen or whatever the date was When trump came into,
office and then he undergoes and continues.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
ACTIONS i think it Gets it's legally an interesting theoretical
but there's no you're not going to find some Post
obama presidency's smoking gun of him In russia collusion that
would still be admissible that. WAY i, mean this is
we're getting way down.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
Here they're asking, questions which are intelligent, questions AND i
think it actually becomes really. Interesting, buck when you were
OUT i talked about. This one of the challenges of
all these, cases and this is me being a legal
nerd is if the president has, protection which The Supreme
court has said to do his, JOB i don't understand
(28:47):
how you prosecute people underneath the. President if the president
has protection to do it and he authorizes someone underneath
him to do, it it seems really unfair to me
to charge an underling who is responding to a president's.
Act in other, WORDS i think the presidential immunity ruling
(29:08):
is actually not only going to protect the. PRESIDENT i
think it is going to go to secondary and maybe
even tertiary. Figures there you go using it very appropriately
if you remember yesterday's, CALL i think it is going
to be a blanket in many ways of protection that
extends from the president and basically descends. DOWNWARDS i think
(29:30):
all this is a challenge What buck AND i are
trying To none of them.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Are going to. Prison, Okay i'm just none of them
are going to, prison AND i don't even think they're
gonna get. Charged And i'm just telling you this BECAUSE
i don't want anyone to get your hopes. Up but
there's going to be more, accountability you. Know and If i'm,
wrong of Course i'll come out and, Say, wow they
Actually i'm. SORRY i don't see it. Happening AND i,
Remember i've been through. This i've been through this all
The benghazi, hearings you, Know TREY, goudi you, know, shouting
(29:54):
pounding the table and everything. Else the whole TIME i was,
saying no one's gonna get in trouble for. This know
what's going to Get trump telling you, SO i don't
think this is going to be something that ends the
way that a lot of people are. Hoping gary And,
Burlington Burlington, Junction. Missouri what's going? On?
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Gary?
Speaker 5 (30:12):
YEAH i was just wanting to talk.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
A little bit about.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
That play kind of answered my question there about this
blanket blanket pardoner or, whatever not, pardon but.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
You know WHAT i. Mean, Community, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:26):
Yeah AND i don't know why in the, world after
The democrats did what they did To, trump how come to.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Shoot don't fit the other.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
Side, well, again the problem that you run, against thank
you for calling, In. Gary the problem you run against,
here over and over again is, they even though we
know that for a whole bunch of, reasons they didn't
really believe the things that they were pretending to, believe
and they abused the, system their fallback is always going.
To this is the same thing With, comey same thing With,
brennan same thing with the fifty one intelligence, officials all this.
(30:57):
Stuff they'll just, Say, OKAY i was. WRONG i THOUGHT
i was defending the country AND i was. Wrong that's
not a. Crime now we can all say bull. Crap
we know you know you were, Lying but proving that
and fitting it into a statutory crime is the challenge.
Here those are different, things AND i appreciate the.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
CALL i DON'T i think people every, crime by and,
large there are some strict liability. Crimes every crime requires an,
act and then they call it an actisraya and then
A men'sraa mensrea requires. Intent and What buck is getting at,
is in order to prove beyond a reasonable, doubt you
(31:40):
have to be able to prove that they knew it
was a lie and that they intended to propagate a.
LIE i think What buck is hitting on is the
defense is going to be very strongly rooted, In, hey
we thought this was. True and that's WHY i was
asking him to, explain BECAUSE i do think this. Matters
there might be a thousand different opinions about What Vladimir
(32:04):
putin's health is right. Now inside of THE, cia there's
all these analysts working all the, time and they are
trying to look at whatever evidence we have out, there
and they're trying to, say, hey we think he's one
hundred percent. Healthy he's healthy as a, horse he's going
to live another twenty years and his reign is going to.
Continue somebody else might, say, HEY i think there's evidence
(32:24):
that he's been treated for some sort of serious health
related condition and his power is more tenuous than we.
Think somebody's going to be, right somebody's going to be.
Wrong but every spectrum of analysis is going to be
covered inside of. There AND i, think AND i was
of this opinion prior to understanding doing this. Show frankly
and spending a little bit of, TIME i kind of
(32:46):
had the Sense buck that the larger, world like there
was one. Interpretation i'm seeing now like every interpretation under
the sun basically is being written at THE cia every.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Day, yeah. Yep i'm a big believer in having your
body chemistry. Right over the past, year getting ready for
my son to be, BORN i DECIDED i had to
get into, shape had to shed some. LB's and there's
a TAKEAWAY i can give you all on this. One
you want to have the right, stuff the right supplements
for your. Body if your goal is to be, healthy
(33:18):
certain all natural supplements can really help you perform at your.
Best and that is Where chalk comes. IN i Take
chalk every. Day this is the same company That i've
been talking, about The chalk daily. SUPPLEMENT i also Love
chalk's chad mode to give me that boost of. ENERGY
i keep it on my broadcast desk here to remind
me to take it every. YEAR i, Mean i've Got
chalk right off. CAMERA i can't grab it right this,
(33:39):
second But i'll show it to you another. TIME i
take My chalk products every, day formulated with herbal. Ingredients for,
example their Male vitality stack includes a leading ingredient that
replenishes diminish theestosteron levels and MEN i have up my
tea levels in the last. YEAR i can tell you
substantially and it makes such a, Difference, guys such a.
Difference Chalk's Male Vitality stack can Rep LENIS testosn levels
(34:01):
by twenty percent in just three months. Time use my
Name buck as your promo code when you go To
chalk dot com cchoq dot. Com get a sizeable discount
on Any chalk subscription for. Life this is top, CLASS
i mean best in class kind of products From, chalk
so well, tested such high. Quality go check them out
(34:22):
chalkcchoq dot. Com use my Name buck for that big
discount on any subscription for. Life you can cancer subscription
whatever you, want but you're not gonna want to worry
about that once you see the, Benefits go to chalkcchoq
dot com and use my Name. Buck Today news you
can count on as some laughs.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Too claytravis At Buck sexton find them on the Free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your. Podcasts welcome back
In Clay travis Buck sexton show a lot of great.
Talkbacks you can always go talk back also on The iHeartRadio.
App we want us subscribe to The clay And buck
(35:03):
a YouTube. PAGE i keep talking about how YouTube audience
has just. Exploded more people watch videos of radio shows
now than actually listen to radio shows on. Podcasts we
are over ninety five thousand of. You i've been saying
the target is one hundred. K that is a respectable
(35:24):
number for us to hit on. YouTube see if you
can drive us over that number, today go search Out
Clay travis Buck. Sexton i'm asking all of you go.
Subscribe you'll see a lot of clips sooner rather than.
Later we hope to have all three hours of the program.
Up we love the five hundred and fifty FIVE amfm
radio stations in all fifty states where many of you
(35:46):
are listening right, now but we want to be everywhere
wherever the viewer and or listener may. Be and so
please go subscribe to The Clay travis And Buck Sexton.
Show PAM, aa let's listen To pam has got great
instincts as a.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Listener, Hey, CLAY.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
I just wanted to say THAT i had Known. BUCK
i listened to him for many years dating back to the,
place BUT i didn't know you at, all AND i
have grown to absolutely just love you to pieces for.
Real and whoever decided to pair you. Guys brilliant, Decision
so just wanted to throw that at.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
You our lovely Boss Julie, talbot WHO i had dinner
with last, night put us together and thank you for.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
That pam From, ALASKA i think you have incredible.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Taste when we come, Back, buck that's a perfect.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
Talkback it is stuck the. Landing ten out of.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Ten democrats have hit a thirty five year low in.
Popularity what's next The Wall Street journal. Poll we will
discuss all that final hour coming out with
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.