Buck Sexton (9:38)
I mean, this is crazy. This is why I give credit and I am optimistic that when this trial takes place that we are going to be able to hear more and see more of what motivated this assassin. And the Washington Post had a story that was out that I thought was significant and worthy of discussing the Washington. Let me read some of this. This Tyler Robinson, this far left wing activist who killed Charlie Kirk based on all the evidence and this is the Washington Post profile that they did surrounding this alleged assassin who will be standing trial soon. A few times I'm reading from the Washington Post, when he was drunk, Robinson would joke about right wing politicians saying like that guy's going to catch a bullet one day. No one took it seriously. And they would say he would say it when he was drinking. He reacted to Trump being shot by celebratory joke. And they said that he increasingly and his roommate were angry about right wing politicians and an anti trans sentiment. In Utah. They show the roommate asked friends whether they wanted to attend an anti Trump protest after the 2024 election. The roommate viewed Trump's election, I'm reading from the Washington Post as a loss for trans rights and was distraught. More than once the person said he saw Robinson cradling his sobbing roommate in his arms. This is the trans roommate, I believe. This is the man who identified as a woman. I sometimes get crossed up on this team. I believe that's true. Correct me if I'm wrong. In February, the roommate was furious when people came over to watch a basketball game, NBA game, according to people who were there. One of the visitors said something about trans athletes and how ridiculous it was for trans athletes to be competing. And the roommate interrupted him and shouted repeatedly to shut up about that. And all the room went quiet before play eventually resumed. And also this person says Robinson and the trans roommate, the killer, the alleged assassin, would complain about right wing figures in the news, including Trump. So again, the motivation here I think is very clear. I also understand the desire among many to believe that there is something larger in play than just one person can get a rifle and go end the life of somebody as significant as Charlie Kirk. And thankfully we dodged this with President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13. But it's I Think beyond the pale. To suggest that someone at Turning Point was involved in trying to encourage the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I mean, that is, I think, absolutely a crazy loony Ben take. And one of the things that I think is very challenging in modern media is there are very few consequences for crazy opinions. And actually, we've created a media ecosystem that can reward crazy opinions. And I think that's something that is going to be important to grapple with in the years ahead. How do we reconcile when people say things that end up not being true? And I'm not talking about just getting predictions wrong. We get predictions wrong on this show all the time. Those of you who've listened to this show for a long time know that, for instance, I said we were going to have a red wave in 2022. Didn't materialize. I was wrong. I came on, I said I was wrong. You know, we got a red wave in Florida, we got a red wave in New York. It didn't happen in other cities and states. And then in 2024, we did get a red wave, and it brought President Trump in. And so you could feel the building of the red wave. I was just early in my forecast. I think, honestly, the Dobbs decision muted what would have been a red wave in 2022. That's my opinion. I think that abortion got out a lot of Democrats, and it forestalled the red wave until 2024. And by the way, you can argue that if we had gotten a red wave in 2022, Joe Biden would have stepped down then and said, I'm not running for reelection. But the Democrats would have had a full primary, Republicans would have had a full primary, and we wouldn't have ended up with Trump versus Kamala. We may have ended up with. I think Trump still probably would have won the overall Republican nomination, but who knows who the nominee would have been for Democrats? I don't think it would have been Kamala. And so you get things wrong. That's part of this business. It's hard to forecast the future. Nobody is perfect at it. But when you say things that are able to be proven incorrect, what is the metric under which there are consequences for that? I think it's something that in the world in which we live, it's very hard for me to sue, for instance, because somebody defamed me, because I'm a public figure. So if you go on social media at any moment, people are saying awful things about me. They're saying awful things about Buck, they're saying awful things about many different people in public life. And because the standard is so substantial for a public figure to be able to sue, we almost have created a world where you can say anything about anyone. And if they are a public figure in the United States, it's almost impossible for there to be any form of defamation that is recoverable. And so that actually leads, I think, to an incentives culture where you can say awful things about whoever you don't like. Awful, untrue things, not opinions. Right. Me saying I think Tim Walls is an awful, awful governor and was an atrocious vice presidential candidate and didn't actually appeal to men at all. And Democrats made it a tremendously boneheaded decision there. That's all well intentioned. I believe everything I just said. But if I took the next step and said I think Tim Walls is, you know, he's a drug dealer, that would be totally made up. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever to support it. But I don't know that Tim Walls could sue because he's a public figure. And the standard of public figures is you can basically say anything about them and there are no consequences. I think this is going to become more and more challenging in a social media age. It's something that I spend a lot of time thinking about, and this is me going down into the weeds legally. But the New York Times v. Sullivan standard when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment and how that is implicated, it doesn't really fit the modern era in which we live. It's an outdated policy precedent from the 1960s that I don't think fits the modern reality of media in 2025 and 2026. Something to think about, something to put a pin in it. I don't even know how many Supreme Court justices really get this. Several of them have started to say, hey, you know what? This idea of Times v. Sullivan needs to be modified. Clarence Thomas has talked about it. I think it's a huge deal. I think it's a substantial story that is going to be generationally important in the years ahead. But just putting a pin in it. Wanted to to play that cut and use it kind of as a jumping off point to talk about public commentary and what the standard should be when it comes to what is said and what is not. Look, Buck learned a lot from his time in D.C. between that entering the media, he's connected the dots on how quickly political power can turn into financial power. Insiders have always had a head start until now. It's one of the reasons he started writing a weekly E newsletter called Money and Power. Money and Power gives everyday Americans access to the kind of fast moving intelligence that used to stay locked behind closed doors. The team he works with writing Money and Power monitors DC for every policy leak, spending bill and executive order because all of those can create a chain of reaction in the markets worth billions of dollars Right now. You can join this Money and power newsletter for 82% off the regular price. Go to join buck.com that's joinbuck.com get your first alert before the next policy shock hits paid for by Paradigm press. That's join Buck.com news and politics, but also a little comic relief. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcast.
