Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Aug 5 2025

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show – Daily Review (August 5, 2025)

Overview In the August 5, 2025 episode of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, hosts Clay Travis and Buck Sexton delve into the latest developments surrounding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) grand jury investigation into the Russia collusion probe from the Obama era. The episode also touches on ongoing subpoenas related to the Epstein case, legal complexities surrounding presidential immunity, and broader implications for political accountability. Interspersed with light-hearted banter and listener interactions, the hosts provide an in-depth analysis of these high-profile legal matters.

---

1. DOJ's Grand Jury Probe into Obama-Era Russia Collusion Investigation

Discussion Points:

• Initiation of Grand Jury: Clay Travis introduces the topic by highlighting the DOJ's move to empanel a grand jury to investigate officials from the Obama administration involved in the Russia collusion probe.

• Statute of Limitations Concerns: Buck Sexton references an interview with Miranda Devine, who raised concerns about the statute of limitations potentially hindering criminal charges related to actions from a decade prior. Buck states, “The statute of limitations issues that clearly would come up in some cases because five years… ten-year statute of limitations also applies to some things” (02:15).

• Jurisdiction and Grand Jury Location: A significant portion of the discussion revolves around where the grand jury will be empaneled. Buck emphasizes, “if they did a D.C. based grand jury, I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration getting indicted… virtually zero” (03:18). He speculates that the grand jury might be located in South Florida, similar to the Mar-a-Lago raid, but acknowledges the challenges this poses.

• Presidential Immunity: Both hosts discuss the concept of presidential immunity, asserting that Obama would be protected under the same legal principles that shielded Trump. Clay firmly states, “There’s no chance in my mind, zero. Obama’s going to face any indictment” (06:49).

Notable Quotes:

• Clay Travis: “The statute of limitations issues that clearly would come up in some cases because five years… ten-year statute of limitations also applies to some things” (02:15).

• Buck Sexton: “If they did a D.C. based grand jury, I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration getting indicted… virtually zero” (03:18).

---

2. Epstein Case and Subpoenas to Former Officials

Discussion Points:

• Subpoenas Issued: Buck Sexton outlines that Representative James Comer has issued subpoenas to numerous high-profile individuals, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, multiple Attorney Generals, and other key figures connected to the Epstein case.

• Skepticism About Outcomes: Both hosts express skepticism regarding the likelihood of additional charges emerging from these subpoenas. Clay asserts, “Yeah, no. Not going to happen” (37:59), while Buck adds that it’s more probable that Jelaine Maxwell might be pardoned without further convictions.

• Civil Settlements vs. Criminal Charges: Buck contrasts the significant civil settlements paid to Epstein's victims with the lack of corresponding criminal prosecutions, highlighting a disconnect in accountability.

Notable Quotes:

• Buck Sexton: “Paulenschutz... Everybody probably shouldn't get their hopes up too high. The statute of limitations is going to be a problem once they get into court” (18:16).

• Clay Travis: “They got a lot of money, so that's part one of it” (43:01).

---

3. Legal Complexities and Procedural Challenges

Discussion Points:

• Conspiracy Charges Difficulties: Buck questions the feasibility of charging a grand conspiracy encompassing Russia collusion, the Mar-a-Lago raid, and other related investigations, comparing it to separate conspiracies like bank and boat robberies.

• Preservation of Legal Integrity: Both hosts emphasize the challenges in proving criminal charges due to the intertwined nature of political motivations and legal procedures, suggesting that many efforts may be more about political maneuvering than genuine legal accountability.

Notable Quotes:

• Buck Sexton: “In order to have a conspiracy and argue that it's an ongoing conspiracy, I actually think there are different crimes and I think they have beginning and end dates” (09:26).

• Clay Travis: “It's an eye for an eye approach, which, by the way, I understand” (24:50).

---

4. Presidential Immunity and Legal Precedents

Discussion Points:

• Application to Obama Administration: The hosts discuss how presidential immunity, as established by Supreme Court precedents, would protect Obama-era officials from criminal charges related to the Russia collusion investigation, similar to protections previously discussed regarding Trump.

• Hypothetical Scenarios: Clay and Buck explore hypothetical situations where presidential actions outside official duties (e.g., ordering an assassination) would fall outside immunity protections, but they agree that most actions related to surveillance and intelligence would remain protected.

Notable Quotes:

• Buck Sexton: “Obama is going to be protected by presidential immunity the same way that Trump was protected by presidential immunity” (06:49).

• Clay Travis: “No, it’s not going to happen… He has Immunity while he’s president and trying to prove something after” (07:38).

---

5. Listener Engagement and Perspectives

Discussion Points:

• Caller Insights: Several listeners contribute their perspectives, reinforcing the hosts' skepticism about the DOJ's intentions and the effectiveness of pursuing old conspiracies. For instance, Mike from North Carolina underscores the improbability of prosecuting Obama officials due to legal limitations (18:12).

• Public Perception and Accountability: Buck and Clay discuss how future indictments might be perceived by the general public, especially those who have been long-supportive of conservative viewpoints, fearing that these legal actions are politically motivated rather than based on substantive evidence.

Notable Quotes:

• Caller Mike: “The statute of limitations is going to be a problem once they get into court because they don't believe that the recent acts clause in the conspiracy will hold up” (18:16).

• Buck Sexton: “They’re completely blind, shocked out of nowhere, like lightning, that this could occur” (27:41).

---

6. Epstein Case Developments and Future Expectations

Discussion Points:

• Potential Pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: The hosts speculate that Ghislaine Maxwell might be pardoned to compel her to testify against other individuals, though they express doubt about the credibility and consequences of such a move.

• Impact on Victims and Justice: Clay addresses the significant civil settlements reached by Epstein's victims but questions why there hasn't been corresponding criminal accountability, suggesting a possible deliberate oversight.

Notable Quotes:

• Buck Sexton: “I could question whether all these things are connected… I think connecting all of those issues to argue it's one grand conspiracy is actually a challenging legal proposition” (09:26).

• Clay Travis: “They allowed all of them to come forward, tell their stories. And nearly $500 million in settlements from Epstein's estate and other banks that had advised him were paid out” (41:03).

---

7. Conclusion and Future Outlook

Discussion Points:

• Limited Impact of Current Investigations: Both hosts conclude that while the DOJ's actions are gaining attention, they are unlikely to result in substantial legal consequences for high-profile individuals from the Obama era or further accountability in the Epstein case.

• Political Ramifications: They anticipate that ongoing legal battles may serve more as political exercises rather than achieving genuine justice, potentially exacerbating political tensions and fueling further distrust in the legal system.

Notable Quotes:

• Clay Travis: “As long as it's within the system and you can justify it, I think some people want to see that” (12:44).

• Buck Sexton: “There is no overarching opposition to him outside of the existing court systems” (48:32).

---

Note: This summary excludes non-content segments such as advertisements, intros, outros, and unrelated banter to focus solely on the substantive discussions presented in the episode.

Transcript

[Clay Travis]

This is an iHeart podcast. Welcome, everybody. Tuesday edition of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show kicks off right now. And we've got a lot to discuss, including the referral to the DOJ of those names from the Russia collusion soft coup attempt of years past and now the impaneling of a grand jury. A grand jury is now in the mix on this. We shall give you the latest on it and where we think this is going. Prosecutors are starting that grand jury probe into the Obama era officials of the Russia collusion investigation. Interesting note, Clay. You know, I talked to our friend Miranda Devine on also our friend legitimately, these are friends of ours, are also our friend Will Cain's show yesterday. Were you on Jesse last night? Was that right where I see you were somewhere. You, Hannity, you were in someone's show last night.

[Buck Sexton]

Oh, God, I don't even.

[Clay Travis]

I don't know one of them.

[Buck Sexton]

I was on. I was on what? I don't know, Will. I was on Will show too.

[Clay Travis]

Oh, okay. Will show. I saw a clip. Okay. There we go. Yeah. So, yeah. But any point. Point being we're talking about this. Clay is. Clay is omnipresent. You know what I mean? Those jackets that he wears, you guys have demanded more.

[Buck Sexton]

I'm on. Fox News has got me basically on somewhere. So when you asked me, I was like, I couldn't even remember there for a sec where I was on America's Newsroom this morning.

[Clay Travis]

Okay, I saw you there and then your real show. My point being he's talking about the Pambandi stuff. I'm talking about the Pambani stuff. Everybody's talking about what's going to happen here in this Russia era. Russia collusion investigation. And part of it is I spoke to Miranda Devine on Will's show and she said something I thought was interesting and maybe we should ping Miranda to come talk to us more about this because she raised this and I hadn't heard this before. So I'm just putting this out there. You know, that's the thing. You get to do a hit with some, some great people. You know, a hit is a r shorthand for TV appearance, if anyone's wondering and you sometimes will even learn things in the process. She said, Clay, that the statute of limitations issues that clearly would come up in some cases because five years, five years. When you're talking about something happened 10 years ago, that's not a tough call. Ten year statute of limitations also applies to some things. Federal crimes that would have run. But if the conspiracy was continued and there was cover up and it even endured during some of the Trump years and beyond, perhaps into the Biden years that would. Now, I hadn't heard this before, but she, she indicated this on tv, that that could be a part of all of this because short of that, I look at this, Clay, and I say I don't understand what the statutory framework would be for the charges yet. I'm not a lawyer, but Clay's a lawyer. We're going to get into this. I think the grand jury probe into Obama officials is an interesting step. I am still not convinced it is likely that any of them will face, even with a grand jury looking at them, criminal charges. But I'm certainly open to and no, I could be wrong. What do you see? Given where this is right now, there.

[Buck Sexton]

Are so many different angles that you can analyze this report from. The one that I think is paramount and matters more than anything else is where is the grand jury going to be empaneled? And I haven't heard this widely discussed because to me it's the only thing that matters. Because if they did a D.C. based grand jury, I think the odds of anybody inside of Obama's administration getting indicted for anything related to Russia, collusion or virtually zero. And so I think you would have to find a hook to move the grand jury out of D.C. and put it somewhere else. Now, what I've heard being discussed is because of the Mar A Lago raid, maybe the grand jury is going to be empaneled in somewhere in South Florida as the Mar A Lago case was. Here is the challenge with that.

[Clay Travis]

You think I could put on like one of those glasses with mustache outfits and be like, hello, fellow citizens, put me on this grand jury?

[Buck Sexton]

Well, it would be funny because in theory you could be impaneled as a South Florida resident on one of these grand juries. But I imagine that you would be stricken from the jury pool quite quickly.

[Clay Travis]

I would imagine so, too. Yes.

[Buck Sexton]

But here is the challenge. So one, everything else, all I think that matters is where's the grand jury located. Two, is there a, is the grand jury, if it were located in Florida, is that a valid grand jury? And that's where you try to argue, oh, this is all part of one grand conspiracy to get Trump and it includes even the Mar A Lago investigation and raid from the FBI. I would imagine that almost immediately you would see where the grand jury is located as a major part of any defense that was offered. And remember, this became an issue because initially Jack Smith tried to impanel the Florida classified documents case in D.C. and then up at the last moment and recognized that he had a jurisdiction issue, a venue issue, and he suddenly moved it to South Florida. This is me being a legal nerd and telling you where this case is headed. Part of me wonders, Buck, whether this is partly just a exercise in following through on promises. And if the jury declines to indict politically, the Trump team can just throw up their hands and say Democrats won't indict Democrats for committing crimes. We did everything we could in this case. And, and then they think they win politically because it retains the, the, the issue here, but they did everything they could do. From a legal process perspective, does that make sense? And by the way, we can take calls on this because I know it's complicated. Um, but I, I think you've got. The number one question that has to be resolved is where is this grand jury going to be? And for those of you out there that don't know, usually indictments are handed out by a grand jury. And if you have a grand jury in D.C. that is 96% or 95% or whatever the heck the percentage is, maybe 97% inclined to favor Democrats. I don't believe they're going to indict Hillary or former Obama officials. Continue.

[Clay Travis]

If it's in D.C. there's, there's no, there's, I would say no chance. I mean, which is when like 99%.

[Buck Sexton]

No, that's just a political move because they can say we took this to the grand jury, but the D.C. grand jury would not indict. Um, remember, I give credit to the president cuz he's also said this, but we were the first show that I heard even talking about it. Obama is going to be protected by presidential immunity the same way that Trump was protected by presidential immunity. And there are people out there that will tell you that that's not true. And maybe you listen to some of them. I believe they are wrong and I believe they are getting you fired up with the idea of, oh, Obama's gonna face charges. Obama, I would be stunned beyond belief if he faced charges. And if he did, he would immediately defend himself by saying, hey, the same Supreme Court precedent that applied for Trump related to 2020 also applies for me.

[Clay Travis]

There's no chance in my mind, zero. Obama's going to face any indictment. I'm just being honest with all of you. I don't think anybody should think that that's going to happen. It's not, it's just not going to happen. He has Immunity while he's president and trying to prove something after. And people can write in, well, what if we find something? Well, you know, what if a million different things you could say. But the reality is that's not I think going to now showing doing what Tulsi Gabbard has done and showing the way that the Obama officials were clearly being disingenuous and dishonest in all of this is important for people to see. The other problem is with a lot of this stuff you're going to run into anytime it's an interpretation of analysis, trying to say it's criminal is going.

[Buck Sexton]

To be very hard.

[Clay Travis]

Even if anybody should have known. I mean, you saw this with the FISA warrants they ran against Carter, against Papadopoulos, Carter Page, FBI stuff. They can say, well, maybe it wasn't a lock, but we thought that this was good enough that we should use our authority for the following reasons. Now there was that one guy who lied. Now we're going back into the. This is a thing I've been covering for a decade, right? So I got to go back in the memory banks here. There was that lawyer who lied and changed evidence so that they could get defisa on. I think it was Carter Page and remove that he had been in good standing with the intelligence community previously, something along those lines. He was prosecuted and nothing actually ended up happening to him. So just remember, I mean he did not get punished at all. So it's. This is a challenge. And it was in D.C. this is the point. It's in D.C. to Clay's point, if they bring it in South Florida or somewhere else, then things can get a little bit spicier. That could be a little bit more interesting.

[Buck Sexton]

Here is another legal weeds analysis. I question whether all of these things are connected. So in order to have a conspiracy and argue that it's an ongoing conspiracy, I actually think there are different crimes and I think they have beginning and end dates. I think that what happened with Russia is one crime, right? The Russia collusion, the hoax, everything associated with that. And it lasted for several years. And I think that is one thing. I actually think that's different than the Mar a Lago raid and also the 2020 investigations and all those things. So I think connecting all of those issues to argue it's one grand conspiracy is actually a challenging legal proposition. Because usually, and I'll just give you an example, if you and I buck engaged in a conspiracy to rob a bank and then the bank robbery ended up happening one day and that was a finite finished scenario. And then we engaged in an additional conspiracy and we decided to steal a boat. I would argue that those are, you know, hopefully we don't do either of those things, but I would argue that those are two distinct crimes. And our partnership, even though we're involved in the same thing, would not necessarily be a conspiracy because they have an open and shut closed date. I think that's going to be a challenge to argue that all of this is interconnected matters because that would then give the. That that's the hook that allows the jurisdiction to be outside of DC because otherwise I think most people would say, yeah, the Russia collusion case should be D.C. and, and by the way, I think the 2020 investigation into the election would be D.C. but mar a Lago is different. So I see those as distinct.

[Clay Travis]

I also think part of the frustration, and that's why I believe it's necessary for us to all set our expectations within what is likely. Like I said, I could. Pam Bondi, there could be an announcement, There could be a press conference in a couple of, in a couple of weeks, whenever, hey, you know this guy, that guy who worked for Obama is facing falling charges. I'm not saying that's impossible or not on the table. I think it's highly unlikely. But I think that part of the frustration and it's unlikely for procedural reasons. Right. I don't, I don't need anyone to email me and remind me I lived, eat, ate, rather ate and breathed Russia, collusion, conspiracy for years of my life. All right? Doing a solo radio show before I teamed up with Clay. This was day in and day out, they were spying, they lied. There's nothing with Russia. So trust me, I'm well aware of all the nasty and evil things they did. But we have a system, and within that legal system, there are some challenges to going after these individuals even knowing what they did. Now, I think part of the frustration on this, Clay, is we've all seen that when the shoe is on the other foot and when Democrats are in a position to do so, whether it's the Mar A Lago raid or the FISA warrants or the special counsels or the impeachments or the four criminal prosecutions or all the. They abuse their authority in bad faith as a political weapon against their opponents. And the real question for maga, I think, in this moment, for everybody who supports the president, is do we play within this system as boy scouts, no offense, Boy scouts, or do the brass knuckles come out in what we can justify, what we can get away with justifying we do through the system instead of operating in the best possible faith within the system. I think that's a real discussion or a real thought process that's going on here. Meaning, you know, do you bring a charge even if you know you can't prove it, but because you're going to make them lawyer up and mess them up and the process is the punishment. That remains to be seen.

[Buck Sexton]

I think that's important, too, because you could get indictments, and then the indictments are the underlying crimes are going to be litigated for years. Remember, they got indictments on all the Mar A Lago raids. And then before Trump won reelection, the judge down there tossed that entire case, I believe, In July of 2024, if I remember correctly. So my concern would be, just because you get an indictment doesn't mean that you've got a valid upstanding going to with withstand all of the criminal challenges that will be coming. So this is complicated. We'll take calls. We're not talking about what should necessarily happen as much as the challenges that have to be followed in order to put something in place. I think beyond a shadow of a doubt, they have to do it in Florida if they're going to even hope to get an investigation indictment.

[Clay Travis]

And I also think that as all this unfolds, I get it. A lot of people want an eye for an eye attitude now that Trump and his team runs the system. It's an, you know, we used to say, I'll just point this out, conservatives, Clay used to be, we don't want the other side to get canceled. We just don't want anyone to be canceled. You know what? That didn't work until all of a sudden you had the Bud Light effect. Until you had people that were suffering consequences for their, their bad actions. They kept doing it and doing it and doing it. An eye for an eye within the system. As long as it's within the system and you can justify it, I think some people want to see that. And that's where a lot of the frustration comes. And I'm aware of that. All right, look, every day, thousands of women across our nation are contending with an unplanned pregnancy with so few options in front of them. At least that's what they're told. But thanks to preborn, there are options. There's hope. The preborn clinics offer life and support for that child and that mother, and they have a level of understanding and compassion for pregnant women that is just so incredible. And it's saving so many lives day in and day out. Over 350,000 babies have been saved through this life giving work. Mothers like Valeria who thought she didn't deserve to have a child until her search led her to a Preborn Network clinic. Now she has a beautiful baby daughter. This is happening every day. That's why your support is so critical. Just $28 a month can save a life. That's the price of a preborn ultrasound, which they give to any pregnant woman who walks in for free. They introduce mother to child through that ultrasound and then the conversation about life becomes so much easier. Dial pound250 say the keyword baby that's pound250 say the keyword baby or go to preborn.com buck preborn.com Buck.

[Buck Sexton]

Saving America 1 Thought at a Time Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

Let's be real. Life happens. Kids spill, pets shed and accidents are inevitable. Find a sofa that can keep [e-mail] Starting at just $699, our sofas are fully machine washable inside and out so you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry free living. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics, they're kid proof, pet friendly and built for everyday life. Plus changeable fabric covers let you refresh your sofa whenever you want. Neat flexibility. Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space, whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment. Plus they're earth friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers. It's time to upgrade to a stress free mess proof sofa. Visit washablesofas.com today and save that's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Clay Travis]

We're talking about the empaneling of a grand jury to look into the Russia collusion conspiracy that has spanned a decade now and was really the original ultra dirty trick used against Trump to try to stop him before MAGA could even get going. It was meant to, you know, smother MAGA with a pillow. It was really an insidious effort using the media elements of the deep state within the intelligence community and yes, the White House in the control of the Obama regime at the time. And we're just trying to tell you where this stands now and where it's likely to go. And with that in mind, let's dive into some of these emails and some of these calls. Clay, we have Mike In North Carolina. He's a caller. Right. Let's hear from Mike. What's going on?

[D]

Hey fellas, thanks a lot. You guys are doing a great job.

[Clay Travis]

Thank you.

[D]

Almost a 50 year veteran of law enforcement. I've got lots of contacts that are federal prosecutors that have wrote that have risen to just about the highest position short of Pam Bondi's office. And I've discussed this whole issue with them and it's not good. So everybody probably shouldn't get their hopes up too high. The statute of limitations is going to be a problem once they get into court because they don't believe that the recent acts clause in the conspiracy will hold up. They don't think that they can use it. RICO is going to be lacking the myriad of minor crimes. Minor, but the lesser crimes and wire fraud is probably going to get a real tough one to do too. The good point is, is that perjury will definitely be in play because once, once the conspiracy and the lies came out, they continue to push it while under oath. So that's a good thing.

[Buck Sexton]

Thank you for that. Thank you for the call. Let me, let me dive into this a little bit, Buck, and I'll start in reverse because he finished with perjury. Perjury is really hard to prove. It is just really hard to prove, especially if you're dealing with someone who is actually smart. And I'll go back to, you know, that depends on what the meaning of the word is is. For those of you who remember the Clinton era, you know, remember when, well.

[Clay Travis]

He committed perjury, but that's okay. He actually committed perjury. Right.

[Buck Sexton]

But the way that he would answer questions, he said, you know, there is no relationship there. There are lots of angles where you're able to dodge around. The only reason, by the way, Bill Clinton got caught for perjury, correct me if I'm wrong, is because Monica Lewinsky saved the dress and they were able to prove, yeah, I did not have.

[Clay Travis]

A sexual relationship with that woman. I mean, he was, he was a liar. He committed perjury. Black letter, clear, obvious perjury. But I could give you.

[Buck Sexton]

But only I think because she kept that dress, if that dress had not existed, I think it would have been hard to prove. It would have been a he said, she said. And it would have been hard to prove whether or not Monica Lewinsky was being honest or he was, I will.

[Clay Travis]

Say, a great example of somebody who has not faced any charges and will not face any charges despite being a liar. But he's a creature of the bureaucracy is Fauci. Everything he says, he goes, you know, the data was coming from multiple sources. And I looked at this and I looked at that, and it was complicated. And it was. If someone can turn your brain to mush with kind of vague non answers on, it's very hard to get them with perjury unless you have a thing. I brought this up in the context of counterterrorism cases. Why did guys who were, and it was guys who were raising money for Al Qaeda or, you know, bought a weapon illegally for a guy who was an Anwar al Awlaki sympathizer, things like that, why did they get nailed on perjury charges? Because they would. The investigators, usually FBI. The investigators would sit down with them and ask them answers to questions they already knew and hammer them on a few times. And. And they didn't realize because they didn't have a lawyer with them. It's very illegal to lie to the FBI about whether you bought explosives material for somebody or something like that. Right. So even if you couldn't prove the criminal terrorist conspiracy, you had them dead to rights on the lie, and then they end up pleading and they take five years or, you know, seven years with the terrorism enhancement, something like that. You're not going to get that with these guys. This is, you got to remember, you know, I know that we think of them as, as bumbling buffoons and they are at some level, but they're also creatures, Clay, of the intelligence community and the bureaucracy. People like Brennan and Clapper. They've been mumbling through testimony for as long as I've been alive. This is what these guys do. So thinking that they're going to say, you know, oh, I'm telling a big obvious lie. You can prove, maybe you get them on this, but very unlikely you haven't. We haven't got them on it yet.

[Buck Sexton]

I would also. Usually perjury has a very set statute of limitations and much of the testimony relating to Russia collusion, I believe, would be past the perjury.

[Clay Travis]

It's all five years. It's all that perjury is all five years. And I just say this, people are saying now, put them through the process and get them to lie. They don't have to testify. Everything will be through lawyers. They're not more. They're not. I mean, I say things sometimes like they're, you know, there's different levels of moron, but you're not going to get John Brennan to perjure himself when he doesn't even have to testify about One of these matters, you know, this is. We just need to keep this in the realm of, of reality a little bit. That's, that's what I think is important. I mean, people, by the way, a lot of people calling in Clay, they, you know what? And this, this I get. They just want the process to be the punishment.

[Buck Sexton]

I understand. Let me say this, by the way, on the conspiracy element. When I was in criminal law class, we had a great professor, Don hall, and he used to say, this is the reality inside of criminal prosecutions. They will say, boy, we don't have him on hardly anything. Let's just get them on a conspiracy. Right? So this is a very broad based charge. My concern on the conspiracy, again, this is where we started the show is how do you locate the conspiracy charges in Florida? The only way to do that with the Russia collusion case is to argue it's one grand conspiracy. I think that's a very hard putt to sink. So my concern is getting Russia collusion charges to me would almost certainly require a D.C. grand jury, which I don't think a D.C. grand jury is willing to indict. So you have to get it to Florida, but then you get the challenge of is the conspiracy actually the appropriate venue in Florida. I understand this is complicated, but I'm trying to tell you where we are headed from a legal process and procedure, and this is why it's complicated. Now, to your point, Buck, some people are just like, screw it, bring the charges, get the story out there. Who cares what happens?

[Clay Travis]

This is the eye for an eye approach, which, by the way, I understand. Like, I'm not, I'm not discounting it. I'm just saying that that's a different thing than, I think we'll be able to take this all the way, get criminal convictions that will be upheld on appeal and that people are going to go to prison. That's a different thing than screw it, let's just make these guys pay whatever price we can. We know that they're scumbags. That's also, that's also a valid philosophical position. Um, let's get Roger in Astoria, Queens. What's going on, Roger?

[D]

Hey, guys, you just stole my thunder there. Oh, what I was going to say is, what I was going to say is I think it's. What's going on now is a success. You know, you've got Obama, you've got Comey, you got Brennan. And to them, their egos are so large that, you know, they want to be thought of as gods. And this is Bringing them down. This is showing the people just, you know, what type of political hacks they were. And, you know.

[Clay Travis]

Yeah, that's the. Thank you, Roger. This is the political. Yeah, this is the political accountability part of it, which I think I do think is important and valid. So thank you for calling in on that. I think that's clay. I think that's real. The more people know how gross and underhanded these efforts were, it stays with them longer. And some of these people still think they should have a say. I mean, certainly Obama does in our public, public discourse and in national elections.

[Buck Sexton]

I also think this is important to build on what he said about the process and having some sort of public hearing on this and a reckoning, for lack of a better way to say it, you know, when Trump got charged, we told all of you for months, they're going to charge him. This is coming. We don't think it's legitimate, but we're laying out all of the different parameters associated with it on the left, if charges come down, does that audience have any idea that there's enough legitimacy for charges to be brought here? Because they've been told all of Russia collusion was true. They've been told. Everything that Tulsi Gabbard said is made up. There's no legitimacy to it whatsoever. You guys, meaning everybody listening to us right now, you were super well informed. We covered it aggressively on New York City, on Atlanta, on south Florida, on D.C. and we really kind of told you where we were headed, what was likely to come. I don't think any of you were shocked by what you saw transpire there. What is the average MSNBC viewer or New York Times reader going to think if suddenly indictments come down for lies associated with Russia collusion? I think that's a real. Now, they're probably going to say, oh, this is unprecedented. This is a precedent.

[Clay Travis]

They'll say it's invalid. But I think the point you're making is they will be completely blind, shocked out of nowhere, like lightning, that this could occur. Yeah, yeah, I think. I think that's right. Greg in Orlando, Florida. What's going on, Greg?

[D]

TRUCK driver. So my favorite time of the day is 12 to 3 here in Florida.

[Clay Travis]

But I love our truck drivers. Thank you, Greg.

[D]

No problem. What's that quote? All stares, love and war. I think it should be love, war and politics. I think we should go blow to blow with them. And if we can't get them legally, at least we at least try to get them on accountability a little bit more. And Like Clay saying, bring the light to what they're doing, more people will know. And if we can't get them legally, at least morally and ethically, people have a little bit bigger open eyes and realize what they've done. And remember that with future elections and anything else that comes up, I think.

[Buck Sexton]

That'S a great call. And I think that's really what you should expect and hope to have occurring here is just a public reckoning, even if we don't get a criminal court reckoning. Because I'm telling you, this is going to get bogged down, by the way, a lot of three and $4,000 an hour criminal defense attorneys in D.C. buck, that are just rubbing their hands with glee because they want charges to come down. Because you know who the real winner here is? Criminal defense lawyers. Because Democrats are going to pay them tens of millions of dollars in legal defense fees that all their rich benefactors, the Soroses of the world, are going to fund. And those guys are just like, it's bonus season, baby. I'm going to go buy a new house. I'm telling you right now. This exactly the conversations they're having.

[Clay Travis]

Ruth, in Cape Coral, Florida. A lot of Florida representatives, representation rather on today's show. What's going on?

[E]

Ruth, hi, good afternoon, Clay and Buck. Yeah, I was calling about presidential immunity, but before I get into my point on that, just want to make a quick observation about grand conspiracy. You were indicating that you felt that the parts of the grand conspiracy were all separate. But I think if they have evidence showing that the same people coordinated all these efforts.

[Clay Travis]

Just to be clear, Clay thinks that it's very hard to prove that I'm Buck, he's Clay. He thinks it's very hard to prove the grand conspiracy all ties together. So you're saying you think it'll be easier than he maybe thinks if they.

[E]

Have evidence showing that the same people perpetrated the conspiracy?

[Buck Sexton]

That is Ruth, my argument with that is, let me just say, like Barack Obama was definitely involved in the Russia investigation and collusion. I don't think Barack Obama was involved in the decision for the FBI to raid the Department of Justice. Right. So, yes, sorry to raid Mar A Lago. He was not in office at that point. So for him to be involved in that, I think it's hard to have conspirators that are part of a conspiracy for one conspiracy and not for another. And so I think it's separate.

[Clay Travis]

Ruth, you had another point, though. We got only about 30 seconds, but go for it.

[E]

Yes, I do I do. Okay. With absolute presidential immunity. There were two parts to that Supreme Court decision. One was absolute immunity. The other was presumed immunity, and they kicked it back to the lower courts so that they would have to determine which were official acts and which were not. But if you remember, it was one of the liberal justices, Ketanji, Brown, Kagan, or Sotomayor that said, oh, what if he ordered somebody to go out and kill somebody? You know, blah, blah, blah.

[Clay Travis]

So you're saying that this wouldn't be covered under official acts?

[E]

I am saying yes. I am saying they have some emails right now, as far as I understand, that the Russians had hacked into either the DNC or Hillary's computer that show that Obama and Hillary knew that they were contriving the Russia conspiracy. And that is not an official presidential.

[Clay Travis]

Yeah, we'll see. We'll see. Thank you. Thank you, Ruth. I don't think that there's any Obama emails, or he's like, hey, those fake emails, let's pin them on Trump. Now. I'm not saying that he didn't do it. I'm just saying I don't think there's any emails that will show it with that level of clarity. Here's the problem, Clay. Any conversations that Obama as president at the time is having with the FBI director, with the CIA director, any of that is going to be considered under his official duty in terms of decisions made within their purview of surveillance, of contact with the press, all of that, you're never going to get around that.

[Buck Sexton]

What Ruth said is there was a hypothetical. My recollection is, what if the president just decided he wanted to assassinate someone? Could he.

[Clay Travis]

If the president killed a maid in the Oval Office because he was in a bad mood, that's not an official act. That's clearly not covered. But talking to the FBI director about surveillance, that's going to be covered.

[Buck Sexton]

Or ordering Seal Team 6 to take out somebody in a foreign country, arguably that's within the presidential provinces, too. Right. So I think Obama just. You got to take him off the table. It's unlikely to happen.

[Clay Travis]

I know. It's the people don't. You know, I get it. It's frustrating to hear, but I'm just telling you the truth. And Clay sees it the same way. If we're wrong, we will show up on the air and Mayor Culpa and, you know, we'll take our lumps. Look, part of my health journey has involved this right here. I'm holding up on the video. You can see chalk daily. I've got it in my hand here. Boost free and total testosterone. Contains 400500 mega milligrams rather prima v shilajit and supports lean muscle mass. This stuff is awesome. I take it every day. I've got it here on my desk. Doing the show. Proper supplementation along with diet and exercise is critical for your health. And chalk is there for you. The male vitality stack, by the way, that's where I would start. It helps with so many things. Energy, drive and yes, boosting Testosterone. Go to chalk.com today, see what they've got. Choq.com get set up like I am. Massive discount when you use my name Buck as your promo code. Go to chalk. Choq.com use promo code Buck.

[Buck Sexton]

Patriots radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Clay Travis]

Clay, have you heard of the Rio Reset?

[Buck Sexton]

Sounds like a trendy new workout, Buck.

[Clay Travis]

It does, but it's actually a big summit going on in Brazil. The formal name is brics, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. But they've just added five new members.

[Buck Sexton]

Smart move to stick with bricks. We know what happens when acronyms don't end. They confuse everyone.

[Clay Travis]

Well, that's an understatement. BRICS is a group of emerging economies hoping to increase their sway in the global financial order.

[Buck Sexton]

Now that sounds like the plotline of a movie. I'm listening.

[Clay Travis]

Philip Patrick is our Bruce Wayne. He's a precious metal specialist and a spokesman for the Birch Gold Group. He's on the ground in Rio getting the whole lowdown on what's going on there.

[Buck Sexton]

Can he give us some inside intel?

[Clay Travis]

Absolutely. He's been there since day one. In fact, a major theme at the summit is how BRICS nations aim to reduce reliance on the US Dollar in global trade.

[Buck Sexton]

Yikes. That doesn't sound good. We got to get Philip on the line, stat.

[Clay Travis]

Already did. And he left the Clay and Buck audience this message. The world is moving on from the dollar.

[Buck Sexton]

Quietly but steadily, these nations are making real progress towards reshaping global trade. And the US Dollar is no longer the centerpiece.

[Clay Travis]

That shift doesn't happen overnight, but make.

[Buck Sexton]

No mistake, it's already begun.

[Clay Travis]

Thank you, Philip. Protect the value of your Savings account, your 401k, your IRA, all of them, by purchasing gold and placing it into those accounts and reducing your exposure to a declining dollar value. Text my name, Buck to 98 98. 98. You get the free information you'll need to make the right decision. You can rely on Birch Gold Group as I do to give you the information you need to make an informed decision. One more time, text my name Buck to 9898 98.

[Buck Sexton]

We have been discussing the potential on the grand jury investig on Russia collusion. Lots of you still weighing in on that. We will continue to break down more on that as we move forward. But there also is additional ridiculous ongoing outcomes associated with the Epstein fallout. The Epstein continued investigation. So I figure we should represent. Go ahead and give you the latest on this as well. Representative James Comer has subpoenaed the following people. President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State, Hillary, former Secretary of State, obviously Hillary Clinton and others. Let me hit you some of these. Merrick Garland, James Comey, Bill Barr, Alberto Gonzalez, both. These are both Republican and Democrat Attorney Generals. Robert Mueller, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder. All of these people being called for deposition through subpoena. Bill Clinton October 14th, Hillary Clinton October 9th. And then basically every attorney general, it looks like nearly of the past 20 years, all of them being put under oath relating to the Epstein case. I guess the one detail that we really haven't talked very much about. We don't know what the only person ever convicted in the Epstein case, Jelaine Maxwell, told the Deputy Attorney General when she was interviewed. We do know that they have moved her from Tallahassee to a lower security prison in Texas. I believe that is the latest on Epstein. I don't know what the expectation is at this point, but they're going to put everybody under oath and probably ask them what they knew about Jeffrey Epstein. And that is now scheduled to be happening in September and October on Capitol Hill. What's your take on this, Buck?

[Clay Travis]

Not going to happen.

[Buck Sexton]

Meaning not. No additional charges are coming.

[Clay Travis]

Yeah, yeah, not going to happen. Should I start just saying it's going to happen just because people are going to get mad at me? Maybe I just started. It's all going to. The justice will be done. I mean, I just don't think that you're going to get these, these, the kind of people you're talking about. These names. Yeah, this is, it's just, I don't see it.

[Buck Sexton]

My, my concern on Epstein is I feel like we are trending towards a place where it's more likely that Jelaine Maxwell is pardoned and nobody ever goes to prison for anything related to Epstein. Then there are other people who are charged with crimes.

[Clay Travis]

What is the rationale for even a conversation about her being pardoned?

[Buck Sexton]

So it's a fantastic question and I Think what the pardon would potentially entail is, hey, we're going to pardon you from all crimes, and then we will bring you in and put you in front of Congress of a committee, and you will answer every question under the sun about Epstein.

[Clay Travis]

So, so I have a question about that rationale, which I think you've just established what it is. She didn't do that before. She was facing 25 years in federal prison, everybody. She wasn't willing to give up the goods to avoid going away for a few decades previously. Come on, everybody, let's, you know, let's, let's, let's be real on this one. Now all of a sudden, she's got all this stuff and she's gonna lay.

[E]

It all out there.

[Clay Travis]

The only, now, the only way, I.

[Buck Sexton]

Think you agree with me that that's the rationale for the only reason that there would be any reason to give her a pardon. The other one would be some people would say she did no crimes and she was the fall girl in this context, but she was convicted by a jury after a criminal trial of sex trafficking on behalf of Epstein. So you're then tossing the jury's conviction out the window and saying, oh, the jury got it wrong. If you are saying that she was the fall girl, as it were, for the larger Epstein crimes. Right. So this is something, Buck, that I think nobody ever mentions, and I do think it's significant. And we've talked about it on this program, and I haven't heard anybody else even talk about it. People say, well, what about all the victims? What about all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein? Don't they deserve justice? All those things I think are very true. Around 125 or 130 Jeffrey Epstein alleged victims in civil court sued and got paid almost $500 million. So it's like the civil cases settlements no one ever mentioned. So for people out there who say, wait, what about all these people that were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein? They allowed all of them to come forward, tell their stories. And nearly $500 million in settlements from Epstein's estate and other banks that had advised him were paid out. So I just think when you look at this larger mushroom cloud, Epstein is dead.

[Clay Travis]

We all agree on that. So then what is.

[Buck Sexton]

I don't think there's very many people who think Epstein still alive, although I do sometimes hear from people, you know, he's not really dead. I don't know what.

[Clay Travis]

I haven't heard that, but.

[Buck Sexton]

Oh, I've even heard it on the Internet.

[Clay Travis]

Yes. Yeah, yeah. I, you know, I just. The other thing is, if you have Ghislaine Maxwell and she's going to testify in some way, it would just, you know, what is. What is the process here through which she's going to say things about people that will then be considered. So is her word credible enough to indict or destroy a person? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. And we're going to believe that this person who has been convicted for sex trafficking, who then is pardoned on the idea that she's then going to tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's a tremendous amount of power you're giving this woman, then, to decide who gets destroyed and who doesn't, based on her word that they did something, that someone did something illicit as part of the Epstein ring. You see what I'm saying?

[Buck Sexton]

No, I totally get it.

[Clay Travis]

Yeah. So I just. To me, we've looked at. We went down this pathway and there was an opportunity for her to avoid any prison time, I would assume, or at least farce reduced from what she got if she would just name the names. And then there's the opportunity to go get evidence and bring indictments. But what is supposed to. I don't see how this is supposed to work, that you're going to. Someone's going to. Trump is going to pardon her, then she's going to come forward and she's going to say, ok, guess what? Epstein's the only person who committed any sex crimes. And then what?

[Buck Sexton]

I just come back and again, I don't know why this. I think probably because it's sealed, but for everybody out there, because I do think this is the most compelling argument. If you're out there and you're saying, hey, what about all these people who were victims of Epstein? Do they not deserve justice? I think that's a very good.

[Clay Travis]

They got a lot of money, so that's part one of it. Yeah.

[Buck Sexton]

They got $500 million. I'm assuming all of that is sealed. But as part of the way that they distributed the $500 million, they had to determine why some people were paid some amounts and others were paid lesser amounts. Right. They didn't all get the same amount. So in theory, there was a culpability associated with that. And if there were criminal charges that could have come, they did a court investigation on the civil side that I would think would be accessible and able to be reviewed. And I can't imagine they just didn't charge people. So the reason why I bring all this up is it basically feels to me, you tell me if you disagree on this buck as we are now in the summer of, of Trump 2.0, Democrats really don't have anything to attack him on on the economy. They don't really have anything to attack him on on the border. They can say, hey, ICE is, you know, taking too many people out of the country, but that hasn't really worked. Crime is plummeting nationwide. I mean this is a very good thing. And so it seems like we're just engaged in a lot of legal procedural battles that is the Resistance 2.0. Epstein's part of them. There's punches being thrown on the other side related to Russia collusion. There's the ongoing battles over birthright citizenship and what exactly are the limits of the President's powers when it comes to tariffs. It feels to me, tell me if you're, if you disagree like every day when it comes to Trump opposition, it's just some federal district court judge or some older criminal related conspiracy examination that is largely being examined. Almost nothing is present day. Does that make sense? It's like we're relitigating all of the controversies of the Trump era now in real time and much of the actual work that's being done on a day to day basis isn't really being talked or acknowledged in any kind of substantial way.

[Clay Travis]

Yeah, I think part of this is because the Trump administration has been so successful so far that they've had to get very creative in the ways that they. Creative is a kind way of saying it. Attack the administration. I think also the administration stumbled here with the Pete, with the public relations aspect and the transparency aspect of promising big rep. We've gone over this a million times. Okay. Already the public relations component of the full, you know, the binders, the influencers, the big stuff is coming. It's on my desk and everything else. And then actually no additional charges and really no additional information is going to be released that there was a, that was a bait and switch and people recognize it as such. Whether, I mean, do you even think that these individuals are going to. Some of them. You're going to subpoena Loretta Lynch? I mean, what do you think is going to be said by her about this?

[Buck Sexton]

I, I just, I think they're all going to. Here's what I would advise. I mean I would tell them all to take the Fifth. I don't see how they gain at all by even answering questions.

[Clay Travis]

What I'm saying. Well, like so like Loretta lynch, like you're going to, you think she's going to sit there and be like, you know what, I was part of a big conspiracy to cover up the Epstein stuff because of the high level Democrats that were, you know, implicated in the, in the sex ring? No, it's not going to happen. So to your point, people are now doing things to do things. They're doing things to say I'm doing a thing. What is the end result of that thing going to be? Unless the people that they're subpoenaing are total morons, Nothing. That's what's going to happen.

[Buck Sexton]

Like do you think that Bill Clinton's going to say under oath, I love sleeping with 15 year old girls that Jeffrey Epstein provided for me? I think that's highly unlikely. Do you think that Hillary Clinton's gonna say, hey, we knew that there were tons of really powerful people who had relations with Jeffrey Epstein in some way and we covered up all their crimes. I suspect that they will have a written statement prepared by their $4,000 an hour attorney that represents whatever they want to put on the public record. They will read it and then they will say this is all I'm going to say. And maybe they fight whether the subpoena is even valid. By the way, every Attorney General, Bill Barr, you think Bill Barr was covering up Epstein related crimes? I mean they got every Attorney general, Democrat and Republican basically of the last 20 years and they're going to call them in and aggressively question them on Epstein. I mean I think Epstein was. To be fair, when you're the Attorney General there are so many cases that you are monitoring on a day to day basis that I bet Bill Barr spent like 0.1% of his time as Attorney general. If that relating to anything having to do with Epstein, that would be my guess. And so anyway, I think the result of the miscommunication is now that there is a flood the zone strategy where you try to get as much information out as you possibly can, but I just don't think there's much there there. But I do want to. I mean this is getting a lot of attention today. Comer has subpoenaed all these people and they're all going to be brought in over the next couple of months. And I imagine every day that they talk there will be in some way big stories about the fact that they're going to talk. And then I think that there's likely to be very little that is actually newsworthy that comes out of their under oath testimony. That's my prediction. Maybe I'M wrong.

[Clay Travis]

And we shall see. Perhaps something big breaks.

[Buck Sexton]

This is where I do think I never would have believed, Buck, that I would go to law school. And basically every case that now we just talk about is, well, that depends on what the courts are going to do. That depends on what the judges are going to do. This is basically Trump 2.0. There is no overarching opposition to him outside of the existing court systems. And I want to tell you as we go to, to break here, by the way, you guys are welcome to weigh in. I don't think there's anything else out there that we are missing. But I did want to hit both of these big stories because again, it is the DOJ grand jury relating to Russia collusion and the subpoenas going out relating to Epstein are receiving massive amounts of attention out there. But I don't know that there's some huge revolution revelatory moment that's going to come. But you guys are alleged to, you guys can dive in and, and figure out whether or not you think there's something that we're missing here. So 800 282, 282 in the meantime, I want to tell you all about Lifelock. Someone wanted to steal your identity, they wouldn't have to lift your wallet. They can get everything they need by hacking a database. Think of all the things you register for by online, like having a hundred wallets out there. As convenient as technology has made life, it's also got vulnerabilities. And it's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives. Just like it's important to remember, LifeLock's online identity theft protection is your best defense. They will detect and alert you to potential identity threats you may not spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name. If you become a victim of identity theft and you're a Lifelock member, you can rely on a dedicated US based restoration specialist to work to fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Become a Lifelock member. If you aren't already. Join now, say 40 off. Your first year with promo code Clay. Call 1-800-LIFELOCK or head to lifelock.com use my name Clay as the promo code for 40 off. That's lifelock.com promo code Clay want to be in the know when you're on the go? The Team 47 podcast Trump highlights from the week, Sundays at noon Eastern in the the Clay and Buck podcast feed. Find it on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

Time for a sofa upgrade. Visit washablesofas.com and discover Annabe where designer style meets budget friendly prices. With sofas starting at $699. Annabe brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation with a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly. Perfect for both small and large spaces, Anime is the only machine washable sofa inside and out. Say goodbye to stains and messes with liquid and stain resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy. Liquid simply slides right off. Designed for custom comfort, our high resilience foam lets you choose between a sink in feel or a supportive memory foam blend. Plus our pet friendly stain resistant fabrics ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years. Don't compromise quality. For price. Visit wood washablesofas.com to upgrade your living space today with no risk returns and a 30 day money back guarantee. Get up to 60% off plus free shipping and free returns. Shop now at washablesofas.com Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Buck Sexton]

Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Go subscribe to the YouTube channel. Go subscribe to the Clay and Buck podcast feed which has a collection of fabulous members and a larger network. And go to crockett coffee.com and sign up today. Use code book. You get an autographed copy of my book and these things are almost gone. And then we'll be into the new book season. Let's have some fun. I have not even heard this fully yet. I saw the the headline and I said, oh my goodness, this is going to be fun. Texas State Representative Jolanda Jones, who has fled the state to Illinois rather than half.

[Clay Travis]

Yolanda.

[Buck Sexton]

Jolanda, Jo.

[Clay Travis]

Yolanda usually, I think is how you know, is it Jolanda?

[Buck Sexton]

According to our team, it is Jo Londa. So Yolanda is typically a, is typically a name that would be popular. But this, according to our team, is Jolanda. Maybe I'm maybe it's pronounced.

[Clay Travis]

No, no, you're probably right. You're probably right.

[Buck Sexton]

She has fled the state to protest redistricting in Texas. She says this is just like the Holocaust. Cut 29 and then integration happened and.

[F]

Everybody thought they accept us. They don't accept us. They are showing us who they are. We should believe them. And we better have the courage to stand up otherwise we will fall for anything. And in this country we will be defeated, deported. I mean, we will lose all of our rights. And if you think it can't happen, it can. And I will liken this to the Holocaust. People are like, well, how did the Holocaust happen? How was somebody In a position to kill all them people. Well, good people remain silent or, or good people didn't realize that what happens to them can very soon happen to me or somebody I love. And so you. And so even if you made it, man, you have an obligation to help people who can't, because God forbid they end up targeting you and your family.

[Buck Sexton]

So Joe Wanda, it is Joe, Joe Wanda, but with a J. Joe Wanda there saying, boy, if Texas redistricts, next thing that's going to happen is concentration camps. These people.

[Clay Travis]

How, how far are Democrats from. I had to wait in line at the DMV for too long. It's basically the Holocaust. I just want to know what is really the, like, what is the barrier? What is the, the, the, the, the level that you have to reach for a Holocaust comparison now. You know, they didn't have, they didn't have my favorite, you know, my favorite sneakers at the store I went to is basically the Holocaust. Yes.

[Buck Sexton]

I mean, that's, that's where we are. And this is what we were having jokes about. But no one in America, Jolanda included, as a general rule, has any knowledge whatsoever of history. So everything has got to be analogized to the Nazis.

[Clay Travis]

Imagine if I can, if I could. If I just. If I compared everything to, like, the, like. Imagine if I compared it to another genocide, you know, and it was like, oh, you know, this is. It's like the Cambodian. It's like the Cambodian genocide out here, man. Like, it's. I've had to wait, you know, 15 minutes for my, my takeout order. People would be like, you're a sick weirdo. Like, why would you, you know, it's nothing like the Cambodian genocide. Million people plus died, you know, brutal murder. But you can say you can do this thing now. Among, Among. I will say Republicans, don't, don't. I don't see this. I don't see our side going, oh, you know, I had to wait in traffic too long. It was basically the Holocaust. Like, Democrats will do this now.

[Buck Sexton]

Yeah, they totally do. And by the way, that is, as you were just laying out, that's their standard go to. Because we'll play tomorrow. They're still trying to call Trump Hitler, which is funny in and of itself, but I think representative of how they have continued to fail. I think we have a funny talk back here.

[Clay Travis]

We have a good talk. We got some good VIP emails. Do the talk back first. But I got some emails lined up for you of the sartorial variety.

[Buck Sexton]

Oh, no. Oh, no. What did we have we had somebody who wanted to talk about aa.

[Clay Travis]

That's one good one, I think. Hey, Clay and Bucks, Brian from Jacksonville, Love your show, but, man, today's not a good one. First hour and a half spent on two topics that are going to lead to nothing. Let's talk about something important like Sydney Sweeney's boobs. There you go.

[Buck Sexton]

We tried to try to break down the huge complexity. Russia collusion.

[Clay Travis]

You know, we got. We got all this, all this stuff last week about too much Clay boobs talk and now we get not enough boob. I don't know what to do. I'm trying to just keep it flowing, keep it moving.

[Buck Sexton]

I didn't even know we got any negativity about that. I got, hey, talk about boobs more. What do you got? Talk back on clothes.

[Clay Travis]

Oh, well, I got VIP emails on close. Melanie writes in. Saw Clay on the Will Kane show yesterday. I actually ran into the room just to see what he was wearing. Much better, exclamation point. So Melanie thinks you're taking notes and you're doing a good job, unlike Debra, who says, buck, I love you, but that pale yellow jacket looks terrible. It doesn't flatter your complexion. And ask your wife for color advice. You have a cool or maybe neutral skin tone and need more vibrant or cooler colors. Pale yellow ain't working. How about blues or greens? Love you, Deborah. Love you, too. However, it is a cream colored jacket. And I am here in South Florida, in Miami beach, no less, where we wear these kinds of jackets. And I don't want to always look exactly like the host because I have a closet full of navy blue jackets that I can wear. But, you know, sometimes we like to spice it up a little bit on the air. So I will take. How about this? I will take it under advisement and bless your heart.

[Buck Sexton]

I like the bless your heart. You're sounding very much like a Southerner here. I. Most people would just prefer that you only be a navy or black in this audience.

[Clay Travis]

I think I know, but that I know.

[Buck Sexton]

A disservice to the beautiful color palettes across the rainbow. Here is Josh in Oklahoma to climb. Close this out. More fun. What you got, Josh?

[Clay Travis]

This question is for Clay. Why do you decide to die on these hills? First it's the leaf blowers, then it's the flute players, and now it's the attractive Kamala Harris.

[Buck Sexton]

Take.

[Clay Travis]

I respect the fact that you stand by your decisions and you're not swayed by any opinion at all, but I just gotta ask, man, why the dedication to these things? I. I can't believe you're trolling with your Kamala take. I think. But you're not.

[Buck Sexton]

60 year old Kamala Harris is far better looking than the average 60 year old woman in America. Is this. I don't even understand. That's a crazy take at all.

[Clay Travis]

I don't even understand how we're still talking about this. How is this even getting anyone's attention out there? But here we are.

[Buck Sexton]

I am being super kind to the beautiful Kamala.

[Clay Travis]

This is an iHeart podcast.