← The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
Loading summary
Transcript79 lines
- [00:00]
Clay Travis
This is an iHeart podcast, Guaranteed Human.
- [00:05]
Buck Sexton
Friday, February 6th. Kick off the Winter Olympics in style with the opening ceremony from Italy, featuring a special performance by Mariah Carey. Celebrate the greatest athletes from around the globe as they come together to go for gold. The opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics.
- [00:27]
Clay Travis
Ilia Malinin, redefining this sport.
- [00:30]
Buck Sexton
Friday, February 6th. NBC and Peacock.
- [00:35]
Clay Travis
No time for full TV shows. TikTok has endless short dramas you can watch anytime. Fast paced, easy to follow and hard to stop. Download TikTok now and start watching. Welcome to today's edition of the Clay.
- [00:52]
Travis and Buck Sexton show podcast. Welcome, everybody. Friday edition of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, also known as Clay and Buck to many of you across this land. We got a lot going on. It's a Friday, but it's very cold in some places. People are glued to their screens, their TVs, their radios, if they're in the car, if they're at home listening right now to the president signing, as we speak, executive orders in the Oval Office, including an executive order launching an Indy car race in D.C. oh, that's so cool. It is cool. It's fascinating, isn't it? Whether it's the ballroom or the Indy car race, or perhaps even the MMA fight on the 250th anniversary of our nation's founding, which I believe that is also going to be a thing that happens with all of that going on. President Trump deciding to just do cool stuff. You can actually just do cool things as president that everyone could go, oh, wow, look at that. So we will discuss, we'll give you more of this.
- [02:00]
The.
- [02:00]
We've got a whole, a whole bunch of folks who are in the Oval Office right now, so there'll be some, some sound bites as we need it. But if you're really into Indy car racing, Clay, when was the last time you watched an Indy car race?
- [02:13]
I went to the Indianapolis 500.
- [02:16]
I should have known. Of course, he's like, what do you mean? I was in the pens. I was helping change the oil.
- [02:21]
You know, I did, I rode the track at the, at the Indy 500, which was really cool. I'd never been before. I got to ride around and I got to say, anyway, so not, not to big time it, but it was, it was pretty awesome.
- [02:37]
And do you know that I get, I get hate because whenever I go to a sports thing now, I usually am tagging along to one of your sports things and people say that I haven't, like, earned it by going to much lesser games. So now people get mad at me. They're like, you just go to the national championship game.
- [02:51]
Julie Kelly
You're.
- [02:52]
Clay Travis
It's like, I'm sorry I didn't go to the little league games too. Like, what do you want me to do? So anyway. But this is. It's. It's a. It's a high class problem. What can I tell you? Are you pulling something off the screen right now? Because we got to talk. Don Lamont. Don't worry, guys.
- [03:04]
We're getting to Don them. Don Lemon. No, I'm just trying to check and see who's actually in the oval talking right now about all the different things that are going on.
- [03:13]
Sean Duffy, who's honestly one of just the nicest guys. He's so nice. Yeah, I'm a big. I like Sean Duffy. Really good dude. Transportation Secretary Doug Burgum, the Secretary of the Interior. Some dudes with white hair who I think are executives of sports and. Or media is my guess just based on looking at them and their suits. That's who I've got. But we've got Duffy talking right now, and we've got Burgum in there and Trump signing some EOs. IndyCar race in D.C. that's a, by the way, a great idea. Really cool. I mean, why not do some sporting events like this in DC they should do an F1 race in DC if they actually set it up properly, it would be really cool to do that.
- [03:53]
D.C. is actually a great place to have a race because the boulevards are so wide and were designed, you know, as you well know, before any cars existed, but modeled after great European capitals. And so it's actually the perfect place. I mean, they have the ability, I think, way better than most to be able to fit all this in. So pretty. Pretty awesome. Cool thing. But, yes, let's. It's Friday. We're going to have some fun with all of you. But the Don Lemon story broke this morning, and everybody has got so many takes now.
- [04:27]
I told Clay, I said, I actually have Don Lemon's phone number. Do I text Don Lemon and ask him for a comment on this? I'm not. I'm not sure. I think he'll probably. If he hasn't blocked me. Well, I've never. Haven't texted him in, like, 10 years. But if he hasn't blocked me, I don't think he'll respond. He might respond with something colorful. He's. He knows that I am not a fan of his work. But we'll see. I'm thinking about it. I usually don't antagonize people that I have their personal phone number. I'm not trying to antagonize. I really do just want a statement. Like, I want to know, and maybe he wants to share it. But I'm. I'm thinking about it. And in the meantime, let's just set the table, my friends. Attorney General Pam Bondi put this out on X. It's amazing. Now X is basically replaced. Remember the old days when the White House would just, like WhiteHouse.gov would put out a statement and everybody would have to repaste? It just comes out on X now. But Attorney General Pam Bondi, at my direction, early this morning, federal agents arrested Don Lamond Trahern Jean Cruz, Georgia Fort and Jamail Lidell Lundy in connection with the coordinated attack on city's church in St. Paul, Minnesota. More details soon. Clay, there is, oh, my gosh, a lot of left wing lunatic anger in the air right now over this one. We will give you more on the Don Lamont arrest from the media, but for right now, your top level reaction, sir, to journalist in quotes, Don Lamond, now a national communist hero.
- [06:04]
Okay, so my. My biggest takeaway is, and I think it's important, and you're not hearing any of the discussion surrounding this at all. A grand jury indicted Don Lemon. So this was not some sort of grand executive decision by Pam Bondi or anybody in the Department of Justice. The grand jury in a blue state, Minnesota, determined that there was probable cause that Don Lemon had committed a crime and issued an indictment for which he was arrested in California. No one is talking about this. Everybody is skipping right over it. I know it's a little bit of a legal, procedural nerd take, but a grand jury had to indict Don Lemon. The President of the United States did not wave a magic wand. Pam Bondi did not wave a magic wand. This was necessary to happen in order for him to be arrested. Okay, that's point one. I think that's significant. Point two, this is the best thing that's ever happened to Don Lemon in his entire professional career.
- [07:09]
I know.
- [07:10]
And so everybody is exalting out there who dislikes Don Lemon and everything else. If I had been asked, if I had been asked, Clay, how is this going to play out? Is this going to be beneficial to Republicans? Is this? Or is it gonna be beneficial to Democrats and to Don Lemon personally? It's gonna be the best thing that ever happened to Don Lemon's career. And let me say this, Buck. If you or I got arrested for something that we did that we could argue was in any way related to journalism by a Democrat president. It would be the best thing that could happen to our careers too. Because nobody loves their profession more then journalists love to argue that they have the most important profession on the planet. And so the regular journo crew is going to line up behind Don Lemon. I do not think we are gaining a massive beneficial outcome personally from Don Lemon being arrested. You tweeted this too. I think we're in similar cahoots on this. Look, some judge is going to dismiss the indictment, going to say that Don Lemon is, you know, is. Is not going to be held accountable for this. He's never going to prison. He's never going to jail. They're not putting him in solitary confinement. I understand the perspective under which people want there to be accountability. I'm not diminishing that. I'm just saying the practical impact of this, I think, is more negative for Trump and the DOJ than the benefit that is gained by indicting Don Lemon. And I'm not even going into the particulars of did he or did he not commit this crime? Because I think it's likely that he did. I'm just saying the consequences for him will be incredibly beneficial and the negative impact of this will be very minimal. And I don't like that balancing of the equation, if that makes sense. How would you take it? That's my big picture, you know, legal and political sort of analysis writ large.
- [09:15]
Well, Lawyer Clay, I think, did an excellent job there, Counselor. I think that Vanderbilt Law School education has suited you well today. I think that that's all accurate. Look, there's a case to be made for many of you have been making this case as well, that the process is the punishment. We're just here to warn you that this process will probably be very short lived. Therefore, the punishment will be very short lived. And actually, the payoff for Don Lemon is likely to be immense for his. What does Don Lemon want? Don Lemon was making millions of dollars a year when he was at cnn. And my sense is, you know, he's got a house in the Hamptons, he's got a fancy place in New York. You know, he's got plenty of money. He wants to be back in the game. He wants to be the center of attention. You know, this is a guy, I don't think he has any kids. I think he is married, but I don't think he has any kids. I think this is a guy who. There's nothing better for him in this moment. In time than everybody talking about him. And I can tell you he loves attention. I know Don Lemon. He loves attention. So this is unfortunately going to, I think, play into his brand in a big way. However, I see the other side of this too, which is the administration's got to try because he, I think he did break the law. Clearly. So did a grand jury. As you pointed out, so does the doj. I don't think you're allowed to just go along with some gang of maniacs and disturb and menace a church service. And by the way, I don't think you should be able to do that. And any church, the most left wing, you know, trans flags on the outside, you know, non denominational church in the middle of Portland, Oregon, or you know, like a pretty conservative, you know, old school Latin mass Catholic, just like I don't care. I don't want anyone to be able to do that. You don't have a right to do that. It's not free speech. So I do understand bringing the, or pulling the levers that are there to try to get some kind of a punishment. I think we're just realists here. But Clay, we'll see. We'll see. There are some federal Trump judge Fredly appointed Trump judges who maybe could be in the mix here. I think there are, there's one or two in Minneapolis. So also goes to remind everybody how the judge appointment thing is so important, it's so critical. Sometimes we talk about it. I think it sounds a little like to people because we're sitting here and we do politics for a living. But trust me, whether you get an Obama or Biden appointee or a Trump appointee, if you go before a court in civil or criminal court, Clay, it makes all the difference. It really does. With, with what kind of law you're being presented with.
- [11:49]
Yeah, 100% it does. And by the way, we'll open up phone lines because 800-282-2882. I do think the significance here again is that a grand jury indicted him and that he likely committed a crime. But the, this is a play that, that sometimes makes sense in all facets, but particularly given the guy's last name is Lemon, sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's a cliche. To me, the juice isn't worth the squeeze here. And by the way, for people out there who say, oh, this is a First Amendment, you, the lack of ability to understand content based restrictions on where you can actually protest it blows my mind. You don't have a right to March into private locations and. And scream your First Amendment rights. You don't have the right to walk onto somebody's front lawn of their house and stand there on their front porch screaming your political opinion. Um, and so, to me, there is no First Amendment issue here in what Don Lemon did. I'm sure that he's going to try to wrap himself in the First Amendment and defend himself that way. And lots of journalists dream, Buck, of actually being the target of people in power. So this is not only Don Lemon's fever dream, this is the fever dream of every journalist in America to be arrested in a manner like this where they can drape themselves in victimization and get all their name in the headlines. Don Lemon is gonna end up making way more money about this. You tweeted that he might end up getting a job on msnbc. It wouldn't stun me at all. This is the greatest thing that could happen to Don Lemon's career. Uh, by the way, President Trump is taking questions right now live on cnn. I'm sure he'll be asked about this, and that will per further this story. There's also, we should mention 3 million pages of Epstein files that have been released today. Both Buck and I would be stunned beyond belief if there's anything of any substantial nature in those 3 million pages. But it is worth mentioning for everybody screaming about the Epstein files. Three million more pages, thousands of videos, all of that stuff being released as well. And anyway, we'll continue to take your calls, and we will react to everything and allow you to react to everything. But this, to me, again, I just think the juice not worth the squeeze. I think Don Lemon benefits more than anyone in the Trump administration or anyone who believes in the Trump administration's perspective, which you and I clearly do. Benefits.
- [14:34]
Talk to anyone who's had their identity stolen, and they'll tell you it feels really violating. Their world stops. They're trying to figure out what happened and how to stop the damage. It used to be somebody might pickpocket a wallet and use the credit cards, but that was Identity Theft 1.0. Identity Theft 2.0 is much more complex, and we are all at risk because of cyber hackers. Cyber threats are everywhere. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for identity threats. And if they see evidence that your name and identity are being used without your permission, they notify you immediately. If you do become a victim of identity theft, you get your own restoration specialist at LifeLock who will fix identity theft, guaranteed. Or your money back. Not only that, but your protection is backed by LifeLock's million dollar protection package. Join now save 40% off your first year with My Name Buck. When you sign up online or over the phone, Whichever's easiest, call 1-800-LIFELOCK or go online to lifelock.com and use promo code Buck for 40% off terms app.
- [15:41]
Buck Sexton
Friday, February 6, kick off the Winter Olympics in style with the opening ceremony from Italy featuring a special performance by Mariah Carey. Celebrate the greatest athletes from around the globe as they come together to go for gold. The opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics. Ilia Malinin, redefining this sport, Friday, February 6, on NBC.
- [16:08]
Clay Travis
And Peacock, Friday edition. A lot of you weighing in on a variety of different topics. One that I think is potentially transformative in terms of what it could mean for the House of Representatives, for what it could mean for our country, for what it could mean for the incentives that are out there when it comes to illegal immigration is the fact that in our census we count illegal immigrants for purposes of allocating House seats. That sounds very nerdy. I understand for many of you, but in a 5050 country, it is a huge benefit for the Democrat Party and means that they have several more House seats than they otherwise would we bring in. Now, Missouri Attorney General Katherine Hanaway, who is involved in suing based on this as it pertains to census allocation. Did I do a good job of explaining that? Take a step back and you know, you're talking no pressure to millions of people out there right now. What should our average listener know about why this matters to them in a simple way of explaining it?
- [17:14]
Katherine Hanaway
Well, first, Clay and Buck, I just want to say thanks for having me on. I haven't been on your show before. I really appreciate the opportunity. Yeah, this is I think the most significant election lawsuit filed in probably a couple of generations. Because if we win, not only will 11 House seats be reallocated from places like California to places like Missouri, but with those House seats also go electoral votes. And the other thing that goes is any federal assistance, because federal assistance, all those dollars that flow from the federal government to states is based on census data. And right now were counting illegal immigrants in the census. President Trump tried to put an end to that in 2020 while he was still in office. But then when Biden won that election, he reversed it and counted illegal immigrants in the 2020 census. We're saying we should go back, take them out of that census and certainly should not count them in the 2030 census.
- [18:22]
Clay Travis
So what in terms of the statutes and appreciate you being with us here. Attorney General Hanaway, what is the language that governs here? Who should be counted? I mean, we need to get in. Clay's excited. I'm asking some pretty nerdy legal questions here. What. What tells us, you know, because to me it sounds like, well, if you're counting illegals, are you also in a place like New York City, you going to count every tourist visa? Are you going to count every. Like what?
- [18:50]
Like what.
- [18:51]
What is the statutory dispute here as it pertains to who actually is supposed to get counted?
- [18:57]
Katherine Hanaway
Yeah, so it's actually the 14th amendment to the US constitution says that persons shall have the right to vote and shall be counted in order to determine how many congressional districts there are. Persons is then defined by later case law to mean permanent, permanent legal residents of the United States. So no one who's here on a temporary visa, no one who's a traveler, no one here who is here illegally. And during Jimmy Carter's administration, he just unilaterally told the Department of Commerce to start counting those illegals in the census. Thank goodness we have a president now who wants to reverse that. But we want to make it stick through a court decision, because as we know, he won't be president forever. And so we want to make this permanent.
- [19:47]
Clay Travis
Okay. The biggest challenge, as you know, but I bet most of our audience knows, and if they don't, they're going to know now is getting the Supreme Court to take a case. Right. They take a tiny percentage of the cases that are actually sent to them. A lot of times they take circuit splits. That is when some of the different circuits out there render different decisions. You are filing to try to get this case in front of the Supreme Court. How would you assess your chances to. Of getting this case in front of the Supreme Court? And what does the law suggest to you they might do if you were able to get it to them?
- [20:23]
Katherine Hanaway
So this is going to be really in the weeds, but I'll try and keep it as high level as possible. When President Trump in 2020 said, we're not counting illegals in the census, two state attorney generals, one from California and another from another liberal state, sued to enjoin his action and were successful until it went all the way up to the US Supreme Court. While the court didn't take the case, they reversed those injunctions. So we don't have a big written opinion on it, but we do have an indication from the court that they don't believe that the states should be able to enjoin a president who is doesn't want to count illegals in the census. So that's our best indication of how the modern court will go. The older court decisions are very clear that only permanent legal residents of the United States should be counted.
- [21:20]
Clay Travis
What's the time frame in your mind? Obviously, the 2030 census is the next time that this will be, you know, truly out there. But simultaneously, the Supreme Court, and this also goes into a little bit of the weeds, is expected to give a ruling on majority minority districts and whether they are able to exist. That could be very impactful. In terms of the midterms coming up, what's the timeframe in your mind of this analysis, particularly when it comes to who should be counted for purposes of the census?
- [21:55]
Katherine Hanaway
Well, we have actually asked as one of the things we're asking for as relief that the $0.20 2020 Census be recalculated to exclude illegal immigrants, which if we could get it on a very expedited track, would mean it would have an effect in this election cycle. I think that's overly optimistic. I think it's more realistic that this case will get to the court in time for the 2028 elections. We are we've actually filed a friend of the court briefing in the Voting Rights act case that you just referred to for majority minority districts. I'm very optimistic that the court's going to decide that case, the right which should be helpful in redistricting some of these congressional districts that were gerrymandered for the sole purpose of making sure that they were majority minority districts.
- [22:53]
Clay Travis
And Ms. Attorney General, what do you think about just switching gears a little bit, but staying within the Supreme Court and important cases that are coming up here, the birthright citizenship issue, I just was wondering if you could speak to that. I'm not sure if you filled filed an amicus brief on this or how involved you've been as ag but what what is your view as it pertains to the birthright citizenship issue?
- [23:16]
Katherine Hanaway
You know, the history, case law and Constitution are a little bit less clear on this issue. I don't have a very strong sense of how that case is going to come out. Obviously, it's a critically important case to the extent that we have people who are coming illegally into the country for the sole purpose of giving birth and creating citizenship. It is a very serious issue that I hope the court is going to take up and resolve once and for all.
- [23:52]
Clay Travis
These are all super important cases and I think a lot of people aren't in the weeds and understanding exactly how this is going to play out. But you mentioned it. If you go back to 2020, this would be utterly important not only for the 2026 elections, but if you could get a readdress of the 2020 census with only counting citizens, then the 2028 electoral college map would potentially change. This year, you think is optimistic, but it wouldn't be too optimistic to think that if you won, we could have a different map in 2028 than what we had in 2024.
- [24:33]
Katherine Hanaway
That's exactly right. And part of the reason we wanted to take the lead on this case is that we think that the judges in the Eastern District of Missouri right now are really strict constitutionalists, originalists who are going to enforce the U.S. constitution. And it might be the best decision venue in the country for this case right now.
- [24:55]
Clay Travis
This is outstanding stuff. We appreciate you reaching out, coming on and telling us this story. Please keep us updated when or if you are able to get this case to the Supreme Court. And we're wishing you the best of luck.
- [25:07]
Katherine Hanaway
Thanks so much. Have a great weekend. Really appreciate the time.
- [25:11]
Clay Travis
That is Missouri Attorney General Katherine Hanaway laying out. Look, that's you might you make it basically legal credit for, for the details there. But it is very important. Very, very important.
- [25:22]
Hugely consequential decisions and cases that she was laying out. But also you saying her name made me think of another Catherine. Catherine o'. Hara. Did you see this?
- [25:34]
Yeah, I just saw this news just happened. A lot of people are not going to know Catherine o' Hara's name necessarily, but they're all going to have seen her.
- [25:41]
Kevin McAllister's mom from the movie Home Alone. She unfortunately just passed 71 years old. She was, she was actually a great comedic actress. I would argue. She's in so many she's fabulous in a lot of movies. Really, really talented, kind of, I would argue, underrated. Although everyone will know her as Kevin McAllister's mom from the Home Alone movies.
- [26:04]
And Home Alone is one of those movies that if you have kids buck your as your son gets older. One of the best things and I know a lot of parents out there know exactly what I'm talking about is being able to sit down with your kids and watch these 1980s era movies that many us grew up watching. I think Home Alone came out in like 1990 ish, something like that. It is, it holds up so well. It is still your young kids today will sit and watch Home Alone and they will like it as much as you did when you were a kid or as much as you did when you were a parent and you took them to see it. It is an iconic holiday classic that she did great work in.
- [26:43]
And producer Greg is asking how does Catherine o' Hara compare to Natalie Portman? Doesn't compare because Catherine o' Hara actually had talent as an actress and as a comedian, whereas Natalie Portman was just advanced for no apparent reason. And we're all supposed to think she's so beautiful and so great. Just saying. I'm just here speaking truth.
- [27:03]
Our friend Alexi Lawless texted me and he was like, you are 100% right about Natalie Portman. So I'm out of his mind. And he's coming.
- [27:11]
You might see him. We're going to have this.
- [27:13]
You guys, you guys are having a brunch. I was going to say you might have to, you might, might have to cancel the, the, the meeting coming up this weekend in Miami because Alexi's got the right taste here.
- [27:23]
I don't know what happened. It used to be like the maxim Hot 100. You know, like we used to all. We used to live in a country where we knew who the hot chicks were. And now you guys have just been, we've been fed slop. Nonsense.
- [27:34]
Speaking of slop and nonsense, I was going to have some fun with this. Twin Peaks has joined Hooters or going to a break here. But the restaurants are under siege. Buck, I thought this was still America. We come back. We'll take some of your calls. We'll continue to follow all these stories and our friend Julie Kelly is going to join us at the top of the next hour to talk about this Don Lemon arrest in the context of Jan.6. A lot of legal related details today in the program. A lot of you are going to be able to to say you've got law degrees after today's program if you're paying close attention. But I want to tell you, we got super bowl coming up next week. I'm going to be in California next week. Common land in both LA and San Francisco. And I'm going to be giving you a pick for prize picks. Over a hundred million people are going to watch the super bowl next week. A lot of you are going to play games. The square game. What's the score going to end up? A lot of you will be making bets on the game. I think nearly $2 billion forecast to be bet on the outcome of the Super Bowl. You can play along and have some fun. All you have to do is pick more or less when it comes to overall performances out there in prize picks@prizepix.com all 50 states. California, where I'm traveling to Texas, where we're going to be going to in a few weeks. Florida, where Buck is Georgia, everywhere, all 50 states. If you're feeling left out, you can play along. Alabama prizepix.com Code Clay that's prizepix.com Code clay. You can get hooked up right now with a phenomenal offer. You play $5, you get back $50. All you have to do is pick more or less two or more players. I'll give you a pick, maybe multiple picks for the super bowl and all of you can play along and hopefully we will win like we won last weekend in the NFC championship game. That is PricePicks.com Code Clay prizepix.com Code C L A Y.
- [29:41]
We are joined by our friend Julie Kelly. Now Substack is declassified. Kelly is excellent. I'm a subscriber. Julie, thank you for being back here.
- [29:52]
Julie Kelly
Hey guys, thank you for having me on. What an interesting turn of events today.
- [29:58]
Clay Travis
Yes, you could certainly, you could certainly put it that way. Don Lamont has been taken into custody for charges. Before we get into the we're going to ask you clearly about the J6 parallels in the defense here. And you know those cases and how they were treated as whether they were journalists or not, in detail. And we want you to share that with this audience. But just what's your first 30,000 foot overview? Don Lamont in custody reaction Julie, given that you've been following this case closely.
- [30:28]
Julie Kelly
I mean, I really have to commend Attorney General Pam Bondi and her team for pursuing this grand jury indictment. Despite the active and politically motivated involvement and obstruction by at least two judges in the district of Minnesota, the Chief Judge Patrick Schlitz and of course the magistrate Judge Doug Nico, whose wife is the top aide to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. So they kept pushing, even though both of those judges tried very hard to prevent these, these indictments and cases from moving forward. So this is a big win, especially given the political climate in Minnesota right now to get a grand jury indictment on those two counts. Conspiracy against rights, violation of the Faith Act.
- [31:17]
Clay Travis
Okay, few people know about Jan6 charges more than you. We've talked to you about Jan6 charges for five years. Basically now since we started doing the show, you've been coming on with us. I did a grok search. I remember talking about it with you a bit on, hey, how many people alleged that they were journalists or they were doing documentary film or basically they were there to chronicle what was going, not as direct protesters. And Grok said eight defendants had tried to cite journalism as some form of defense from a variety of different right wing news organizations. I didn't hear anybody on the left, New York Times, cnn, msnbc, the usual suspects who were all screaming First Amendment for Don Lemon. Now, saying anything about those people who were charged, what can you tell us about how that defense was used and who was charged and what the impact was when it was tried to be cited as defense in the Jan6 cases?
- [32:21]
Julie Kelly
Correct. So that is accurate. There are eight. There were eight who were charged who in varying degrees took, you know, the defense as independent journalists. Most people are very familiar with Steve Baker, who was not at the Blaze at the time, but was an independent journalist covering the events. Of course, he was charged with those four common misdemeanors, as was Owen Schroueer at infowars. I just posted that criminal complaint by the Biden DOJ and Chris Wray FBI and they fully acknowledged that Owen Schroyer was a host for an infowars show. And that did not protect him from also being charged with for federal misdemeanors and also took a plea deal and the DOJ wanted him in prison for six months. He was sentenced to 60 days in prison. So yes, of course, and all of these news organizations and press or advocacy organizations, they all endorse that either with their silence or by covering what was happening to them without any sort of question as to the rights of independent journalists. So here we have Don Lemon very clearly on video working with these well known agitators dating back to the George Floyd riots, these alleged journalists, but of course they are activists, working with them before the storming of the church, being involved in the storming, confronting, getting in the face of the pastor, who apparently these activists, these rioters, I guess we can call them church rioters, were trying to hunt down as an alleged ICE agent and then later bragging about how not only they had successfully terrorized these worshipers, families with young children, but also that one reason they did it is because the people in that church had demonstrated something along the lines of white supremacy. So he was not there as a journalist. Obviously we know his political affiliations and he was part of that unconstitutional and now illegal demonstration.
- [34:37]
Clay Travis
Speaking of Julie Kelly here, go check out declassified on her substack. And Julie. So to me we know there's a lot of double standard stuff. We talk about that and clearly the J6 defendants were treated, I mean they were treated like they were people colluding with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or something. I mean, they were treated absolutely horribly, in some ways worse actually than people who are. And I know because I was involved in counterterrorism investigations or terrorism investigations, so it was grotesque. What happened to them did in those cases. You mentioned someone who worked for the Blaze, but I was a Blaze reporter, so that hits home. I mean, years ago, so I would have thought of myself as First Amendment covered as any journalist I know you said he wasn't there, but clearly that's what he does for a living. He's a reporter. What were some of the. If there were any tests, thresholds, red lines that were set up by the prosecution as why These individuals on January 6th were part of the mob versus. You see what I mean? Like, how do they. Or was it just they were there and they didn't even get into those kinds of details? Was it, you know, if you, if you crossed over the barrier, if you were cheering people on, do they get into the specifics as to what went beyond journalism, or was it just J6 bad, throw you in the dungeon?
- [35:59]
Julie Kelly
It basically the argument was because they were not credentialed. They were not credentialed and they were not with an established media organization. So you saw there were of course a lot of reporters and photographers, videographers who are on the grounds and inside the building. They didn't face charges because if you were on a so called credentialed media list, then you were fine. But if you weren't and you were there as an independent journalist, and I could tell you this, as someone who covered all of the court proceedings, I could not get press credentials at the D.C. courthouse. Of course, that's different than the Capitol because I was not aligned with a well known big name media organization. So they don't recognize independent journalists in the nation's capital. But of course, if you're Don Lemon, they do. But aside from even the First Amendment rights as member of the press, this relates to a much larger issue of First Amendment rights overall. We keep seeing this over and over, whether it's Renee Goode or Alex Pretty or any of these very aggressive and in some cases unlawful demonstrators, well, this is covered under their First Amendment rights. That was the complete opposite of how the Biden doj, Chris Wray, FBI, and all of these federal judges in Washington handled similar defenses by J6ers that yes, we were on government grounds, yes, we were yelling at police, yes, we were yelling about our lawmakers. That's our First Amendment right. No, no, no. Not for at least 1,600 of them. None of the First Amendment defenses were successful before D.C. judges over the course of four years. Now all of a sudden they see these same journalists who laughed off 1A defenses of J6ers overall and now are claiming that those rights are conferred to far more aggressive, violent and sustained demonstrators and protests in Minneapolis and elsewhere.
- [38:07]
Clay Travis
You know what? I think this is significant too, Julie, because again, this is just kind of my rudimentary analysis of precedent. Entering the Capitol where news happens every day to cover news, is much more defensible to me from a journalistic perspective, no matter which organization you claim to represent, than entering a church is right. And Don Lemon is not now affiliated with cnn. He's not now affiliated with MSNBC or the New York or any of these left leaning organizations. I would argue he's functionally equivalent to many of these right wing news organizations in that many of them are reporting as business people and journalists on their own. And by the way, this is becoming more and more common as people become independent and build out new independent brands. And so I actually think the Jan Sixers have a much better argument than Don Lemon did when you consider where he's going and the precedent set by January 6th on Capitol versus Church.
- [39:11]
Julie Kelly
Oh, absolutely, correct, yes. I mean, this was a Wednesday afternoon government taxpayer owned property outside and then of course inside where they're conducting business that of course any American is allowed to and certainly covered by the First Amendment to protest or even to try to interfere with. But this has, this is completely opposite of what we're seeing with these violent demonstrators in Minneapolis storming a Church in St. Paul on a Sunday, trying to hunt down an alleged ICE agent and of course terrorizing all of these families and committing multiple crimes. I mean, they're lucky this is all that they're going to get. And keep in mind the magistrate judge who's married to the Ellison aide, he declined those two face charges in the other three individuals who had been charged earlier. So they're still really getting a slap on the wrist considering what they could be charged with. But again, you know, when all this was happening in January 6th and some of us were saying the left and the Democrats are not going to like when these rules apply to them. Well, they laugh that off because no one ever thought that it would. But that doj, FBI, federal judges all set extensive precedent in case law. And how now one a what used to be First Amendment protected rights were completely decimated. What charges, what case law can be applied now that we're seeing this happen to them.
- [40:53]
Clay Travis
Julie, Buck and I both think, having analyzed all of this, legally, everything else, there's a difference between being able to indict someone legally and what the larger impact is going to be from a political perspective. Having analyzed all of this, do you agree with us that this is probably the best thing that could happen to Don Lemon, that he dreams of being a martyr in this context and that deep down he is ecstatic that this has happened?
- [41:20]
Julie Kelly
I think that's a very good analysis. You could see how he just keeps pushing the envelope, right? So he's also been with Mike Fanon on Capitol grounds. They got in the face of Nancy Mace a few months ago. So he keeps pushing and pushing. And you're right, I think that there is a big side of him that wants this. Now he's some journalistic martyr. But that will be cold comfort if he is convicted by Minnesota jury trial jury and he goes to federal prison for a few years. But aside from that, it really exposes a lot of these journalists, news organizations who, where we started, were completely silent when this was happening to independent reporters for January 6th. And now we see their crocodile tears over their alleged colleague Don Lamond.
- [42:09]
Clay Travis
Thank you, Julie. Have a fantastic weekend. We appreciate all the work you have been doing and are doing, and we'll talk to you again, I'm sure, soon.
- [42:18]
Julie Kelly
Thanks, Clay. Take care, Buck. Talk to you soon.
- [42:21]
Clay Travis
That is Julie Kelly putting in context.
- [42:23]
Sean Duffy
What is.
- [42:24]
Clay Travis
I. I don't. I would think that at a bare minimum, you would have to acknowledge the Jan.6 precedent on my trusty quad box. Zero mention of the Jan.6 precedents when it comes to charging journalists related to that in any way. So you're getting a little bit better legal training on this show. Go figure. Than you would most media out there. Save some money this year. Switch your cell phone service to Pure talk for just 25 bucks a month. Pure Talk will give you unlimited talk, text and plenty of data. Compare that to your current monthly cell phone bill from one of the big wireless companies. And if you're paying $100 or more every month, why not make the switch? Your cell phone service will still be on the same towers and the same network as one of the big wireless companies, and you'll still have great nationwide 5G service. The only difference, you'll be saving $600 to a thousand dollars a year, if not more. PureTalk American wireless company, one that supports our veterans and invests in the US only customer service team. So when you call, you're Talking to somebody right here in the good old usa. No contract, no cancellation fee. You can keep your same phone and your same phone number. All you have to do is dial £250, say the keywords Clay and Buck. You'll get 50% off your first month. Again, dial £250, say Clay and Buck. To make the switch to Pure Talk today. That's £250, say clay and Buck. Let's play a couple of cuts out here. 800 282, 282. Of things that we have talked about so far during the course of the week, Steve Forbes, kind of a guy, some of you will know, chairman, editor in chief of Forbes magazine, says we've talked about how did Elon Omar end up with the money that she claims to have? Steve Forbes says straight out, it's a money laundering operation. This is pretty aggressive guy who knows business. This is cut 31.
- [44:33]
Steve Forbes
The Biden administration examined, started examining her finances and that of her husband. And so, so surprise, surprised. Investigation went nowhere. But it's amazing how people can go into Congress and then become these entrepreneurial investing geniuses where they come in. She had under $1,000 of net worth and her husband didn't have much. And suddenly now they're multimillionaires. Is there a money laundering operation here? And in terms of the firms themselves, they have a sketchy background. That winery in California that she and her husband own, where did that come from? Where's the wine there? And nobody can seem to find it. So there's a lot of smelly stuff here. And that's why in the American dream, Herb Mare version of the American dream is the Al Capone version of the American dream, Tony Soprano version of the American dream. And that is steal it, steal it from the taxpayers. And so there's a lot of stuff here. And so when somebody cloaks themselves in the, oh, the American dream. And so you have numbers like this from minus 1,000 to 30, 40 million, you know something is not right.
- [45:34]
Clay Travis
The reason I wanted to play that, Buck, is Steve Forbes is not exactly known as a bomb thrower. So when he's going off on Elon Omar like that, I do think it raises a lot of questions about where her money is coming from. They've also looked into the equity investment fund that her husband runs and basically the location seems to be non existent. There's just a lot of questions here. One other thing, President Trump, we got a couple of cuts here. Let me hit a couple of these. In the White House earlier was announcing the IndyCar race. This was Sean Duffy saying, we're going to celebrate America's 250th birthday. I just thought this was cool. News cut 29.
- [46:15]
Sean Duffy
The president gave us all a directive, which I'm grateful for. We're going to celebrate America's 250th birthday. And he asked all of us to think outside the box. How do we make this historic and cool and let's all do this together. And he loves the country and loves the birthday. And so we at DOT were working on this concept. We didn't know at the same time Penske was broken on the same project too. And so we've come together and Doug.
- [46:40]
Clay Travis
Has been a wonderful partner.
- [46:42]
Sean Duffy
But to think, 190 miles an hour down Pennsylvania Avenue. This is going to be wild. The last time we had a race in the Capitol city, bud, was when 1801.
- [46:54]
Clay Travis
Thomas Jefferson with a horse race.
- [46:55]
Sean Duffy
A horse race in 1801, Mr. President. Now we're going to do it. A real race.
- [47:00]
Steve Forbes
That's so great.
- [47:02]
Clay Travis
That's pretty cool. I didn't know about the Thomas Jefferson horse race in 1801. That's before the Louisiana Purchase even occurred. That was a little bit earlier. In the Oval Office, we'll continue to break down some of these things, including, you know, what's some good news, Buck? Do you see age span hit an all time record in 2024 in the United States. The average lifespan ban not getting a ton of attention, but I thought that was pretty cool. May mention that before we finish out the week. Look. Failed storm response in parts of my home state of Tennessee, my home city of Nashville. It's been nothing less than shameful and unbelievable amounts of people, hundreds of thousands of them have been dealing without power just in my hometown of Nashville. All over the country, people have been dealing with power failures associated with this storm. Rapid radios makes sense. We got a bomb cyclone potentially coming in this weekend with east coast storm impacting many as well. Having rapid radios on hand can make all the difference in staying connected when everything's temporarily out of order. Right now you can get up to 60% off the most popular radios out there. No contracts, whole year of service included. Now's the perfect moment to experience why rapid radios are trusted by hundreds of of thousands of people. Great deal. Get prepared for catastrophe with rapidradios.com that's rapidradios.com.
- [48:30]
This is an I heart podcast. Guaranteed human.