Clay and Buck

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

Download
Now

: :

1x 1.2x 1.5x 1.8x 2x

Weekly Review With Clay and Buck H1 - Vanity Unfair Saturday - Dec 20, 2025 • 37:4

Weekly Review With Clay and Buck H2 - Thank You, Clay & Buck Audience Saturday - Dec 20, 2025 • 36:37

Weekly Review With Clay and Buck H3 - Georgia, You Should be Furious Saturday - Dec 20, 2025 • 36:50

The Karol Markowicz Show: Boca Raton’s Growth, Leadership & the American Dream with Mayor Scott Singer Friday - Dec 19, 2025 • 16:15

Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Dec 19 2025 Friday - Dec 19, 2025 • 1:2:25

Hour 1 - What a Year! Friday - Dec 19, 2025 • 36:47

Hour 2 - Just "Don't" Do It - Lessons from Nike Friday - Dec 19, 2025 • 36:41

If the Prime Minister of Finland Wants to Party, Let Her

18 Aug 2022

BUCK: I did want to take a moment to just give a little hat tip to the prime minister of Finland, who is once again in the headlines. And a lot of the ladies right now are like, wait. What? For guys listening to this who have been looking at the news today are saying, “Oh, yeah. The prime minister of Finland. Out partying, apparently.” Clay, we are not a puritanical world anymore. I think if a prime minister wants to go out, have a little dance party, if she’s like 30 and the prime minister, she should be allowed to.

CLAY: I feel like we need a hottest leader of all-time rankings. The prime minister of Finland, what is her name? Do we know?

BUCK: Sure. I’ll look it up.

CLAY: She is good-looking even for a normal person, right? Like, there’s politician good-looking —

BUCK: Not political hot? Is that what you’re saying?

CLAY: I would say you and I are —

BUCK: Sanna Marin.

CLAY: Sanna Marin. I would say you and I are radio show host good-looking, right? Like —

BUCK: I’ll take it.

Finland’s Prime Minister @MarinSanna is in the headlines after a video of her partying was leaked today.

She has previously been criticized for attending too many music festivals & spending too much on partying instead of ruling.

The critics say it’s not fitting for a PM. pic.twitter.com/FbOhdTeEGw

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 17, 2022

CLAY: There’s a lot of dudes who do — and women — who did radio, and they do radio for a reason. Like, I used to say back in the day when I did sports, if you went into the press box, this was not a really good-looking collection of people, by and large. I’m decent looking for a sportswriter. I think I’m decent looking for a radio host. This woman is smoking hot for the leader of a country.

BUCK: The second Wayne’s World movie there’s actually a radio joke where this guy, they’re looking for the radio host named Handsome Dan, and they have some male model guy walk in, and he’s actually just doing the, “Hey,” on the radio. And then Handsome Dan walks in and they obviously — he’s like a comedian, they make him look pretty — you know, radio, we’re not generally known for our abs here. I’m just gonna say it.

CLAY: Yeah, I will say that.

BUCK: But Sanna Marin, she’s got a future in politics, probably in Hollywood, Instagram influencer. But I’m surprised in Finland. Isn’t this one of these countries where they’re like, oh, it’s all very free and, you know, footloose and fancy are?

CLAY: Well, I think initially it was because she wasn’t complying with some covid policies, right? She was out partying late, and evidently even in Finland where everybody’s super, you know, relaxed and laid back, they were upset that she was saying, you know, this covid policy doesn’t make sense. I want to go out and drink and party. And I think you could say, well, does the leader of the free world need to be out drinking and party all the time. That’s one of my favorite Trump quotes ever. He said, “I don’t drink at all. Can you imagine if I did drink?” You know, which is actually really funny.

BUCK: She’s 36 years old, the leader of Finland, which is obviously now joining NATO; so got that going for it, which is nice. And she’s been spotted clubbing in Helsinki with friends early in the America for hours, Clay, without her official phone. Just in case — I don’t know — like, the Russians invaded or something? I mean, what’s the big concern? I think she should be allowed to go out at 2 o’clock in the morning and party a little bit. Finland’s small enough where they could find her if they needed to, you know what I mean?

CLAY: I think NATO would find her. And it is interesting that they are joining NATO. And yeah, we’ll see. I’ll check my mentions, people say, why would you even mention the attractiveness of Finland’s prime minister? And I would just say, well, she is good-looking. Are we supposed to pretend this is not the story? The reason why people care, I think, really about her out partying all the time is because she’s good-looking.

BUCK: One thing that is unspoken in the world of politics in America and all over the world, at least in Democratic and free societies, being good-looking, period, is helpful in politics. Being a good-looking woman also helpful in politics. Just a fact. It’s just the truth.

CLAY: There’s all the talk, remember, Buck, over the years about privilege. There’s obsession, you know, white privilege. You got certainly we’re here in Salt Lake City.

BUCK: Hot privilege is a whole other level,

CLAY: Hot privilege is highest privilege out there. I think it’s hot privilege, number one. I think athlete privilege is number two. ‘Cause athletes can basically get away with anything if they’re good enough at their sport. Really good-looking people can get away with — they don’t even realize how much they’re getting away with. And I think it’s hot privilege, one. Then athlete privilege. And then we can argue about how the ascendancy goes from there.

BUCK: So you’re up on the politics of Finland right now, folks, which I know is very — again, I think a lot of ladies listening are like, “Why are they wasting our time with this?” But for a lot of the gentlemen listening, particularly the single ones in their thirties and forties Webster, they’re saying, “Prime minister of Finland. Respect.” So there’s that going on for us, which is nice.

Judge Orders Parts of Mar-a-Lago Affidavit to be Unsealed

18 Aug 2022

CLAY: The judge has already issued a ruling, and I am reading directly from some of that ruling. And the headline — this is from NBC News right now — the judge has ordered portions at least of the Mar-a-Lago search affidavit to be unsealed. This is a big deal. Here’s quotes from his decision, Buck. “On my initial careful review, there are portions of it that can be unsealed.” This is magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart. He is the judge who allowed this warrant to be issued which allowed the raid to take place at Mar-a-Lago. The top government lawyers had argued that this could not be released in any way because it would jeopardize the investigation. The judge said he would, quote, “Give the government a full and fair opportunity to make redactions,” ordered those redactions to be returned to him by next Thursday. He said he would review their request and then either order its release if he agrees with the redaction or hold a closed-door hearing with the government if he disagrees with the moves that he is making. That is the big decision here that has just come down.

BUCK: So I know how this is gonna go. Anyone want to skip to the end of this? Here’s what’s gonna happen, having looked at lots and lots and lots of classified, in my years at the agency, and then also the redactions process. Judges tend to be very deferential to the government when it comes to what is considered secret and sensitive and classified. So here’s how this will play out.

They’ll release this affidavit and there will be some generalizations in there, “super-secret important stuff needed to be found at Mar-a-Lago,” and then it will be blacked out, blacked out, blacked out, and then “more super-secret information we were looking for regarding,” blacked out, blacked out, and here’s what they’re gonna say. Oh, look, the Democrats will claim that this justifies the search, that this was all done on the up and up. And people on the right are going to say, “I don’t trust that they’re actually redacting things that would really hurt national security if it was known.” Remember, it’s not the actual documents. It’s what kind of documents, basically, they’re looking for. That’s what the expectation is here. I also want to know, is there anything relating to January 6th that would be in this affidavit? So, Clay, the plot thickens, but this also extends. This keeps going. This is not going to solve it even when they release it.

CLAY: Yeah. And here’s what I would say, Buck, that is maybe a little bit of an interesting angle here that isn’t being talked about a great deal. All of the news media is actually on Trump’s side here wanting this affidavit to be released. So New York Times, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, all of these places that ordinarily would be lined up against Trump.

BUCK: But this is for their business model, right? It’s a huge story.

CLAY: Correct. But that is kind of an intriguing angle here. And I will just say this. This magistrate judge has come under a lot of heat. The best way for him to relinquish the heat himself personally is by publishing the affidavit.

BUCK: The former Epstein defense attorney, now judge guy, is coming under heat?

CLAY: Now all of a sudden judges being under heat is unacceptable. We talked about this earlier in the show. The AP came out with a story saying, “Oh, right wing activists are targeting justices with rulings that they don’t like.” And a lot of people out there were saying, “Yeah. You mean like when a left-wing activist do assassinate Brett Kavanaugh?”

BUCK: It’s not even just the assassination attempt, obviously, that’s something worth reminding everybody of.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: It’s that essentially the entire Democrat Party was supportive of the explicitly illegal intimidation protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices in the run-up to the Dobbs decision after a leak. By the way, how is that Supreme Court leak investigation going, everybody? What a shock. You mean that they’re not just getting right down to about to have it right away? They don’t want to out one of Sotomayor’s clerks? ‘Cause I think we all believe that’s probably who was engaged in it. We don’t know for a fact, but likely.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: One of the liberal judges. You could pick one if you like. Point is, they have a very different feeling about judges when they don’t like them. And this is something you have to remember about Democrats. The central principle is they have no principles.

CLAY: Alan Dershowitz, timing on having him on the first hour of this — if you did not — if you’re just getting in your car right now and you for some reason missed our conversation with Alan Dershowitz, you need to go listen to that on the podcast. You need to go check out ClayandBuck.com. You can go read the transcript yourself if you don’t have time to listen to it. Buck, Alan Dershowitz has been one of the few attorneys that has stood on principle throughout the Trump era. And he’s no fan of Trump individually.

BUCK: Voted against him twice.

CLAY: Yeah. He hoped to get to vote against him again. But the principles that he is standing in favor of, i.e., the constitutional republic upon which our country is based, his prediction that Merrick Garland is going to come out and issue a James Comey-like statement where he castigates Trump for his behavior as it pertains to these documents but it says they’re not evidence, like James Comey did for Hillary Clinton, if that happens, left wingers in this country are going to lose their mind, because he is the new Robert Mueller.

Now Merrick Garland is their savior. He’s gonna hold Trump accountable. Use the analogy of Lucy and the football. If he comes out and eventually says, “Hey, Trump behaved in a way that I wouldn’t advocate for but it’s not a crime,” they’re gonna lose their minds. My concern is after the warrants were granted and the raid, I’m worried that he’s not gonna have the spine to be willing to do that.

BUCK: Well, you also have to look at the reality here is the Democrats continue along this trend of wanting to imprison their political opponents.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: This has become normalized for years. This isn’t just a Mar-a-Lago raid. This goes back to Russia collusion. Because of their Trump Derangement Syndrome and their obsession with the massive lie that Donald Trump worked with Vladimir Putin to steal — which, when you say it out loud now, doesn’t it sound like something a crazy person would say?

CLAY: Yes, it does.

BUCK: Worked with the Kremlin to steal and election? How exactly? How is that going to work? Oh, with some Facebook ads that said mean things about Hillary? Guess what. There were a lot of those out there already. But what you see here is that they don’t care about any of the constitutional principles involved. They just want to lock up their political opponents. Maybe if they had better arguments, maybe if they had better ideas for how to improve life for people in this country, for how to make this a more prosperous and law-abiding country, they would feel like they wouldn’t have to keep trying to throw people in prison. Wasn’t it Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the KGB for a while, said, “You show me the man, I’ll show you the crime”? That’s what they’re doing with Republican after Republican. I’ve gone down the list before.

Dershowitz Dismantles the Deep State’s Unlawful Assault on Trump

18 Aug 2022

CLAY: We are joined now by legendary — I think it’s fair to say legendary — lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who has talked about basically everything under the sun. He is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, number one New York Times best-selling author, written 50 books. His latest, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity is Worth the Consequences is out now. Would encourage all of you to check it out.

Professor Dershowitz, I just want to dive in, big question here for you. And I’ve seen you discuss this a lot on Fox News. But based on everything that you have seen so far — and I know we’re waiting to see what’s gonna happen with the affidavit and whether it’s going to be released — did attorney general margin of error never make the rightly decision to sign the warrant leading to the warrant application that led to the raid at Mar-a-Lago?

DERSHOWITZ: Based on what I now know, he made the categorically wrong decision based on his own principles. He said at the statement that the Justice Department generally prefers less intrusive methods, uses them whenever possible. A subpoena had been issued, there had been negotiations, all the Justice Department had to do is enforce the subpoena, go to court and say, “Your Honor, we haven’t been able to reach a resolution. There’s a subpoena out there,” order them to bring the boxes in tomorrow, then you go through them, and you decide which documents classified, declassified, privileged. That’s the way it should have been done.

Now the affidavit, when it’s released may show, you know, that there are dead bodies lying around. And, you know, nuclear codes lying around. I don’t think so because if there were, there would have been much greater speed, even when they got the search warrant they waited a couple of days before they did it and before they implemented it.

BUCK: Professor Dershowitz, are you of the mind — I know right now there’s the hearing underway on on the Mar-a-Lago raid affidavit. Is your expectation that it will be released? What are the considerations that the court has to make here? And assuming it is released, what are we looking for? I mean, what are some of the things that you’re gonna be looking at in terms of the next steps?

DERSHOWITZ: Here’s what the judge ought to do. Whether he’ll do it or not, I don’t know. I don’t know the judge. He ought to call the government and say, look there’s a presumption in favor of transparency, in favor of public disclosure. If you think there are any things in the affidavit that require secrecy because of ongoing investigations, the burden of proof’s on you. Show me. Which sentence, which words, which paragraphs? And I’ll redact them and then we’ll produce the rest of the affidavit that’s unredacted. I don’t know whether the judge is gonna do that. He may just say no, I’m gonna keep it secret and then possibly there could be an appeal by the media. Remember, there’s a media that are involved as well as Trump.

Look. I have a policy that I’ve had for years. And I write it in my book The Price of Principle. If you have two sides to a dispute and one side says, “Produce everything, no secrets, produce everything,” the other side says “Hide everything, no production, hide everything,” I generally believe the side that wants everything out and I don’t believe the side that wants secrets. I’ve had a lot of experience with the government’s claiming secrecy and crying woke and it being false, starting with the Pentagon Papers case. I was one of the lawyers in the Pentagon Papers case, and the government represented to the Supreme Court that if the Pentagon Papers were revealed it would pose a great danger to American national security. They were revealed and nothing happened. And since that time I’ve been very skeptical of government claims of confidentiality and secrecy, and I think the burden of proof should always be on those who try to keep things secret.

CLAY: We’re talking to Alan Dershowitz. You’ve been very strong on this, and I appreciate it. I know it hasn’t necessarily endeared you to left-wing —

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, boy.

CLAY: — East Coast friends and family, I’m sure.

DERSHOWITZ: Yeah.

CLAY: But you stood on principle over — principle over, you know, the expediency of politics. And I just want you to expound upon this idea. If what Merrick Garland did — he is the head of the Department of Justice for the chief political rival of Donald Trump, and he is investigating Donald Trump, we never occasion I’m a lawyer too, Professor. We’ve never seen anything like this. I’m stunned. I think you’ve said it. I’ve said it on this show. I’m stunned that no one is asking, how is Merrick Garland even able to lead this investigation? Shouldn’t he have to recuse himself, in your mind? And if the precedent is you can investigate the chief political rivals of your president, aren’t we going to see this but go and spin in so many danger directions on a national perspective?

DERSHOWITZ: I completely agree. That’s why there has to be structural change in the Justice Department. Right now the attorney general has two conflicting jobs. They’re totally inconsistent. One job is to help the president get reelected, to be the legal adviser, basically, to the incumbent president, to be loyal to the president, loyal to the party he represents, the Democrats, and do everything he can to try to help the president get reelected. That’s one job. The second job is to be completely nonpolitical and make decisions involving prosecution that are based on the merits without any consideration of the political advantage to one side.

Now, you know, I know Merrick Garland, I supported him for the Supreme Court. I think he’s a decent guy. Nobody can perform that magic trick of, on the one hand being nonpolitical, on the other hand, being loyal as a cabinet member to this administration. You know, almost every other European country breaks up the two jobs. There’s one job, minister of justice, you’re the advisor to the prime minister, adviser to the king, adviser to the president. And the other job is director of public prosecutions, usually a civil service job, former judge, they decide matters of who gets the president or not, in a nonpolitical way. That’s the way it should be in the United States. Garland cannot perform this job. No attorney general can. And it’s a deal flaw in our system.

BUCK: Speaking with Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. He’s got a new book out, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity is Worth the Consequences. Go pick up a copy today. Professor, I’ve spoken some people including former attorney general who believe that it is likely, not certain, but likely that there will still be some charge brought, some criminal charge against former president Trump. Do you also view it as likely? And , one way or the other, if it did happen, what do you think that looks like? How does that go?

DERSHOWITZ: Based on the evidence we now have seen, I think it’s very unlikely. I think Garland would not want to divide the country even further by bringing a close case, a close case, case involving classification, any close case against the president. However, if he finds smoking guns, if he finds Nixon-type crimes, that’s another matter. In order to bring a charge, the criteria I would have is that basically it has to be so clear that Republicans would join him, as they did when Nixon got forced to resign. The Republicans were on the side of his resigning. That’s not the case today. Today there’s been division along partisan lines, and I don’t think that the attorney general will want to divide the country even further, even further by indicting the future nominee of the opposing party. You really have to have the strongest possible case for that.

Now, you know, people today are willing to do anything to get Trump. Take, for example, my former colleague, Laurence Tribe, professor at Harvard Law School, who said on CNN that he was urging his former student, the attorney general, to prosecute Donald Trump for attempting to murder, attempting to murder Vice President Pence. Now, that is the single stupidest thing I’ve ever heard a law professor say in the 60 years I’ve been practicing law. But he is adored by the left because he’s trying to get Trump. And if you try to get Trump, that trumps everything. Trump trumps the Constitution, Trump trumps civil rights, Trump trumps civil liberties, Trump trumps equal protection, due process. If you’re trying to get Trump, you’re excused.

I’ll give you another example. The daughter of the former president of the United States, John Kennedy’s daughter, Caroline Kennedy, was seated next to me at a dinner party. And she said to me, “If I knew you had been invited, I would never have come.” In other words, she’s saying she wouldn’t want to be in the same room with me. She’s the ambassador to Australia from the United States. She’s supposed to have sit in the same room with the heads of China and North Korea, and she can’t sit in the same room with a man who exercised his constitutional rights to defend the president. I wish she had read her father’s book the Profiles in Courage. Maybe she’d have a different view. It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. You mention the word “Trump,” and people just go crazy. They lose their bearings. They become Donald Trump. They become Caroline Kennedy. And it’s very, very dangerous to civil liberties.

CLAY: We’re talking to Alan Dershowitz. You mentioned that you know Merrick Garland and found him to be a reasonable person.

DERSHOWITZ: That’s right.

CLAY: In fact you even supported his potential ascension to the Supreme Court. I don’t think he’s gonna charge. But the decision to even sign off on these warrants was a massive step from a president — precedent-setting perspective. What is going on with him? How would you psychoanalyze — you said he’s got an untenable position. I think that’s likely true. But if he’s supposed to be so moderate, reasoned, and rational, this decision to grant the warrants and sign off on this application seems to be the opposite of that. And once the train starts moving, Professor, and you’re saying, “Oh, we’re raiding Trump,” everyone out there is saying, “Well, you now have to charge him because you did the raid.” How does he stop this sort of crazy train that he has allowed to be unleashed and not charge him?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think he can. I think he can say the way Comey said with Hillary Clinton, I’ve done a thorough investigation, I’ve looked at everything, I’ve conducted a search, I’m not apologizing for that. But based on everything we’ve gotten and the search, I still criticize Trump for not disclosing and not providing the material to the Archives, but there’s not enough here to prosecute. That’s what he should do based on the current information.

CLAY: What do you think the time frame on that would be?

DERSHOWITZ: Huh?

CLAY: Yeah, what would be the time frame on making a statement like that, in your mind?

DERSHOWITZ: Months. Probably toward the end of the year is when he would —

CLAY: And what —

DERSHOWITZ: And that’s, you know, not too — you know, that’s after the midterm elections. I don’t know if you’d do it before or after the midterm elections because, just like Comey’s statement probably had an impact on the 2016 presidential election, anything he says could have an impact on the midterm elections.

So far I think that if they were trying to achieve a political goal, it’s backfired. I think this has helped Trump. I think it’s hurt the Democrats. I’m a liberal Democrat. I voted twice against Donald Trump. One of the reasons I don’t want him to be disqualified from running a third time is I want to exercise my fundamental constitutional right to vote against him. I am not a Trump supporter. I’m a supporter of the Constitution. The Constitution is on Trump’s side. And so I’m supporting Trump constitutionally. But, you know, the folks in Martha’s Vineyard and the East Coast don’t seem to understand that. They go back to the days of McCarthy where you associate a lawyer with the lawyer’s client, and that’s just —

BUCK: Just one or more for you, Professor Dershowitz. Should there be a special counsel appointed around Hunter Biden, not just ’cause of the hookers and the drugs and the illegal firearms — alleged illegal firearms possession issue, but the buying off access to his father who was then vice president and now, of course, president, the paintings that are going for hundreds of thousands of dollars; how can this DOJ in any capacity oversee a fair investigation of the sitting president’s son?

DERSHOWITZ: That’s a very good point. I generally don’t favor special prosecutors because they put a target on the back of the individual and then decide whether there’s enough evidence to get him. But I think in this case if you’re gonna have special prosecutors, this sounds like a good case for a former judge, highly respected, nonpartisan to be looking at the evidence.

Some of the evidence that you mentioned probably would support state prosecutions rather than federal prosecutions. But still there’s probably enough there to look into federal prosecutions. Look. I hope he’s not guilty. I don’t like to criminalize political differences. But the same rule has to apply for Democrats and Republicans, for a former president, future president, or the son of a president. We can’t have different rules for different people.

CLAY: That leads me to this one quick question for you. How do we get back to normalcy? You pointed out that it used to be that who you represented as a lawyer wasn’t a sign of your fit or awful opinions yourself. It was understood. John Adams represented the Boston Massacre defendants, right? Nobody was suggesting that he was on the side of the British. But to your point, everyone has gone insane, it feels like, in the legal profession over Trump.

DERSHOWITZ: Yeah.

CLAY: How does normalcy return?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, that’s the last chapter of my book, The Price of Principle. I think normalcy returns by having programs like yours, speaking out, letting the truth come out, letting things like the affidavit be made public so people can judge for themselves, and a sense of tolerance, people talking to each other.

You know, I used to debate William Buckley all the time on television, and I debated him in front of thousands of people at Harvard. And we fought like children but then we had a drink together. He called me his favorite liberal, and he was my favorite conservative. Today, I couldn’t have Lincoln-Douglas debates. Half the country would say we believe Lincoln, you don’t want to hear Douglas. And the other half would say we believe Douglas, we don’t want to hear Lincoln. And that’s the fault of universities. Universities don’t want to confront students with any point of view other than ones they already agree to.

Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard in an interview today said that the new McCarthyism has infected universities. They don’t allow contrary views to be presented. In fact, if you demand meritocracy today in a university, it’s called a micro, you know, sin, basically, aggression.

CLAY: Yes.

DERSHOWITZ: You can’t have meritocracy. Well, Martin Luther King talked about the day that his children will be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin. And so that’s meritocracy. But you can’t say meritocracy on university campuses today without getting into trouble.

CLAY: I appreciate everything you’re saying, everything you’re doing. I think your voice is an important one. And I appreciate the fact that you’re willing sometimes to lose some friends and colleagues who may have loved your work for years to stand on principle over the passions of the moment. Thank you for coming on with us.

DERSHOWITZ: They take it out on my wife, they take it out on my children, just the way it happened during McCarthyism. And that’s unacceptable and intolerable in America.

CLAY: Amen. And you’re gonna be — they love to talk about the right and wrong side of histories. I’m very confident, Professor Dershowitz, that you are going to be on the right side of history in the decades to come. Thank you, sir.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.

Tom Homan: The Mexican Cartels Control Our Southern Border

18 Aug 2022

CLAY: We’re joined now by Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, of course, ICE, worked in border security and immigration enforcement for 35 years, Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Tom, we appreciate you making the time for us. Has the border ever been as bad, in your 35-year knowledge of the border situation, than it is today?

HOMAN: No, this is the worst it’s ever been. And not even close. By far. The last year they had 1.7 million illegal entries. And that was a historic record. We’re at two million already. We got two months left. We’re gonna end this year about 2.4, 2.5. The new historic record blowing away last year’s record; so it just keeps getting worse.

BUCK: Tom, it’s Buck. What are the front line Border Patrol agents telling you they’re facing now? And also what does their leadership from D.C. tell them about the situation? I mean, there must be at some level a recognition that there’s no effort made whatsoever from this Biden White House to try to push back on this tidal wave of illegal immigration in the country. So what are the rank-and-file being told by D.C. leadership at ICE, at Border Patrol? What are you hearing?

HOMAN: They’re not being told anything. I mean, Border Patrol agents — that’s why you see these videos being leaked of the secretary having town halls — you notice he isn’t having any more of those — because the Border Patrol, they’re frustrated. They’re saying, the secretary of Homeland Security comes here for a town hall, and get in an argument because we’re not allowed to do our jobs and we got a crisis at the border, we don’t have enough resources to handle it, they just want to hear, what’s the plan? What’s the strategy? The secretary’s gonna make a trip down top the border, explain to ’em, what is your strategy? What is your plan? What’s the administration going to do? ‘Cause these agents are just working their butts off every day, 24/7, with a record number of migrants that has taken up to 70% of them off patrol, into facilities to change diapers, make baby formula, make hospital runs, make airport runs.

These guys can’t do their job. And all they want’s an answer. What is the plan? What is the strategy? How we gonna secure the border? Are we not gonna secure the border? The administration doesn’t talk to ’em so let the men and women of Border Patrol, the men and women of ICE, they’ve lost confidence in the president, they lost confidence in the secretary of Homeland Security. They feel they’ve been abandoned by both of them — and they have. So the Border Patrol and ICE morale is in the toilet. You know, I’m proud that they get up and go to work, you know, do what they can, but they’re not allowed to do their job, up hold the oath they took, it’s terrible.

CLAY: Tom, it seems clear that the cartels are also flexing their muscle in a way that we have never seen before. Fentanyl shipments continuing to roar across the border, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, in addition to our own border security being as you said weaker than we’ve ever seen in 35 years, have the cartels’ power on the southern side of this border ever been higher than it is right now?

HOMAN: No. The Mexican cartels control our southern border. I’ve had several chief patrol agents tell me directly they have lost operational control of our southern border. They cannot contain what’s coming through, as evidenced by the nearly 900,000 got-aways since Joe Biden come president. These are got-aways that are filmed, sensor, drone traffic. These are people that enter the countries illegally and Border Patrol couldn’t arrest them because they didn’t have the resources to do it. So, you know, one chief patrol used the term “Broken Arrow.” That’s the term he used to me. He was overrun, we can’t contain it.

So Mexican cartels are powerful. They’re making more money right now than they’ve ever made. They’re making record money with alien smuggling, they’re making record money with human and sex trafficking and women, they’re making record money on drug smuggling. When you got up to 70% of Border Patrol agents off the line, they’re moving massive amounts of drugs. That’s why you see so many overdose deaths of fentanyl. DEA says 95% comes across the southwest border. Why? Because up to 70% of border agents aren’t on the line. So, you know, the cartel’s having a field day. And that’s why you’re seeing so much violence in Mexico right now. The cartels are fighting each other for control of the border.

BUCK: Speaking to Tom Homan, former Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director. Tom, you know, we’ve been talking today about how Republicans — it’s not enough to point out, although it’s a necessary, really a precondition for the debate, the failures of this Biden administration, specifically on the border. But fixing this. What does fixing this situation look like? I mean, if someone made you — and I know a guy who just might at some point — border czar and you were in charge of restoring law and order down there, what would that look like? What needs to happen?

NEW: CBP reports 10 people on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) were arrested by Border Patrol at Southern border in July.

There have now been 66 TSDB hits so far in FY’22.

That’s more than double the previous 5 years combined.

FY’17-FY’21 TSDB hits: 26@FoxNews

— Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) August 16, 2022

HOMAN: We’d dust off the Trump policies and reinstate them in one day. And we’d get control of the border in 30 days. We would reinstate Remain in Mexico, full throttle. We would reinstate Title 42, full throttle. We would reinstate the 3rd country agreement. So if you’re escaping, you know, so-called asylum from Honduras, you get to Mexico, guess what? You get asylum in Mexico ’cause you’ve escaped that so-called fear and persecution. We would continue building the wall. We would stop catch-and-release. We’d detain those we had to detain, they would be detained. And we would remove people, they get the remove order.

It’s been done. We had the border the most secure it’s ever been, and more work to do. We had to fish the wall and two other things — I read a lot in the paper right now, people say, well, obviously the walls don’t work ’cause you got record illegal immigration. Well, you’re a moron because — second question would be, “Where are they coming in? They’re coming where there isn’t a wall. So we continue building a wall. We dust off the Trump plans and put it in place, we get the border under control within 30 days, if not sooner. We had the president — where the president would be, hopefully it would be Trump, call Mexico and say you’re gonna do this, you’re gonna do that, or I’m gonna tear up the hell out of you. You wouldn’t be sending money to Central American countries like it’s been done, like the Biden administration is doing. We’ve done it for decades. It don’t work. What President Trump did is says, hell, I’m not giving them a dime. Matter of fact I’m gonna take money away if they don’t step up and do what they’re supposed to do. And that’s what he did.

He didn’t pay a bribe to these Central American countries. Whatever international aid you get from the United States, it ends if you don’t start doing what you’re supposed to do on your border. And it worked. So we just reinstated Trump policies and take a little further and we will secure the border.

CLAY: Outstanding stuff, as always, Tom. We appreciate your time. And we need to keep you on the show as often as we can to let people know what a disaster it is at the border. We appreciate everything you did to help make it safe there.

HOMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.

Brian Stelter and His Unreliable Sources Out at CNN

18 Aug 2022

BUCK: I have some big breaking news. You’re gonna see all day long is gonna result in a lot of tears, a lot of the drinking of soy milk, a lot of angry tweets. Brian Stelter of CNN, who, honestly, provided so much good content for right-wing commentary over the years, his show has been canceled at CNN, Reliable Sources, it’s gone, and Stelter is leaving CNN; so it really does turn out that my theory all along that he was Jeff Zucker’s Mini-Me, essentially, that he was a little version of Zucker doing what Zucker wanted him to do, looks like it is likely was the case ’cause they’re giving him the boot. Well, in a broader sense, Clay, this is not a surprise because CNN turned itself into an anti-Trump organ. There was no other purpose.

If you were somebody who was watching CNN at all — and I will say, whenever there is an election where Democrats lose, throwing on CNN and really MSNBC is great fun because of all the gnashing of teeth and the weeping of tears. But CNN abandoned any pretense of being a journalistic enterprise so that all it really turned in every day was Brian Stelter like, (impression) “So is Trump going to create nuclear war or just give Putin the White House? We discuss today on Reliable Sources.” I mean, it turned into a parody of itself. But I wonder now with the ratings so far down if they realize they may actually need to pivot back to that or they will pivot back to that if Trump becomes the Republican or is going to try to become the Republican nominee, or are they gonna continue with what they’ve been doing, which seems to be a little bit of a housecleaning so they can at least get the facade going of a journalistic enterprise instead of a propagandistic enterprise. What say you, Mr. Clay Travis?

CLAY: I don’t like to tap dance when people lose their jobs because at some point one of us may lose our job. Everybody in media loses their jobs.

BUCK: I just want to do that to Stelter. I’ll send him a fruit basket.

CLAY: Brian Stelter was a perfect approximation of the pathetic collapse of CNN. As a news organization — let’s be honest. A lot of you out there who are around Buck and mine’s age remember when CNN let’s say during the Iraq war, do you remember when they had reporting from inside of Iraq, Bernard Shaw, remember the Scud Stud back in the day, when there didn’t — I gotta be honest with you — there did not seem to be a particular direction of CNN’s coverage.

And then when Trump ran for president and certainly when he was elected, CNN went completely off the rails and Brian Stelter — and I would think if Brian Stelter’s gone, you know who else should be thinking I’m not long for this network, Jim Acosta. If you were stridently anti-Trump in your behavior and in your coverage, it seems like Chris Licht, I believe, is his name, right, the new leader of CNN — is attempting to return CNN to some semblance of normalcy. And, Buck, you used to work there. And before Trump broke CNN’s brains within they were left-leaning, but they weren’t crazy. And it seems like he’s trying to eliminate the crazy. And I think Stelter was a strong example of the crazy inside of CNN.

BUCK: Yeah. Now if I try to go in there, it’s like, “Do you renounce Clay Travis and all association with Clay Travis?” ‘Cause Clay’s banned. Although I think your ban would probably go away now. I think CNN also it should be noted had to recognize that Republican lawmakers who know what time it is, who know what the deal is, stop going on, for the most part.

CLAY: That’s right.

BUCK: The people that are really in the fight, that are trying to advance the agenda against the opposition of the Democrat left just realized, why go to a place that’s a sham so that I can have tomatoes thrown at me on live TV for the amusement of delusional libs? So they decided that they weren’t gonna do — which is the right move. The new CNN boss has come in and said, “If you’re a lawmaker, we’ll have you on, we’ll ask you real questions.” This thing they used to do. I used to call it the CNN ambush, which usually involved Republicans, anchor who’s always a lib and then lib commentator, and then the whole thing is skewed so that you basically don’t get to speak and you just get attacked and then they cut to commercial. That was their favorite maneuver over there.

So that just goes to show you I think how far the media has changed. But also on the issue of Stelter, I’ve never even really met him, I don’t know him so it’s not personal or anything like that. He’ll be fine because the left is always fine. You get fired — look what happened. Chris Cuomo’s got a new job, they’re paying him millions of dollars, as if he’s the only guy who can read off of a prompter and be like (impression), “Hey, I like this Democrat Party,” like, everyone can do this. So this is what you see on the left — people on the right get fired and their lives are altered forever and they have a tough time paying the mortgage in a few months. People on the left just go from one — they fail up always, ’cause the apparatus is there to catch them. So I don’t really worry about left-wing media figures for a whole bunch of reasons.

CLAY: Yeah. And I think the other aspect to think about big picture in terms of media coverage, CNN is in a weird place because over half, basically, of the American population is served by Fox News. And people always say, “Oh, Fox News is so right-wing.” Now, if you look at the data on who watches Fox News, oftentimes Fox has over half of the news audience, more than MSNBC and at CNN combined.

In fact, more Democrats in some hours watch Fox News than watch MSNBC or CNN. That’s according to 25-54-year-old, maybe some of it’s hate watch. I think more likely they just approve of the coverage of Fox News because Fox News, to my opinion, covers what the vast majority of people agree with. MSNBC, Buck, as I’m sure you would acknowledge and all of our audience out there would acknowledge, is admittedly a far-left-wing news organization. What should CNN’s role be?

BUCK: Well, in a era where everybody with a smartphone is a videographer, an on the scene reporter, a correspondent, a live feed capable, commentary-able. You know, the notion of having a cable news network 24/7 that doesn’t have a point of point of view doesn’t make any sense.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: Right?

CLAY: Challenge.

BUCK: — point of view, what value is CNN really bringing? So I do think that will be interesting.

Polls: Trump Up Big in Ohio; Majority See “Invasion” at Border

18 Aug 2022

CLAY: Here’s good news on the Trump front. Polling came out in Ohio earlier today — or I guess it was late — late yesterday evening. Trump won Ohio by eight points in 2020 in the election. According to this most recent poll of the state of Ohio, Trump is now up 14 points in Ohio on Joe Biden head-to-head.

Now, some of you may say, “I’m not worried about whether Trump’s gonna win Ohio. That’s a state where certainly Republicans have been very strong of late.” But what I’m intrigued by is what we are seeing replicated nationwide right now, which is Trump surging by six or seven points, even in polls which have tends to be biased against Trump. If he’s up 14 in Ohio, he’s up in Wisconsin, he’s up in Michigan, he’s up in all these battleground states.

BUCK: As you know, he’s not on the ballots. That’s so this is the problem we run into, right? There’s the national political narrative, and then there’s the “Who wins Senate race X and who wins congressional race Y?” And this is where we’re starting to feel like there needs to be more momentum.

Clay, since you like polls, this was an interesting one and I think will transition as well into our next guest, Tom Homan. This is from NPR/Ipsos, okay? “More than half of Americans say there is an invasion at the southern border while more than one-third claim they are being systematically replaced by immigrants.”

This is from an NPR/Ipsos poll quoted in the Daily Mail. We’re gonna talk to a guy who is a true expert on the border, former immigrations and customs enforcement chief Tom Homan here in just a couple minutes ’cause, Clay, this is a — the elite media doesn’t give a you-know-what about this. A lot of the country cares a lot about the wide open, lawless border.

CLAY: The only way it’s even being covered is from Greg Abbott shipping people to New York City and Washington, D.C., which is turned into a very adroit political move. And as we continue to roll through here, we’ll talk about the border and what’s going down there because, of all the places that Democrats are underwater, the border is number one.

Don’t Be Like Mike: Hayden and Pence Become Tools of Democrats

18 Aug 2022

BUCK: We’ve got a little more on in law enforcement angle to discuss with you right now where first of all, the CIA director, former CIA director was trending on Twitter this morning. I said, “What happened now?
What did Mike do?

CLAY: Are you of the opinion, too, when you see someone that you’re kind of paying attention to that you know trending and you’re like, it’s probably not a good thing?

BUCK: Oh, yeah.

CLAY: For what we do, if I ever see your name or if I ever see anybody that I know’s name in media, I’m like, oh, somebody’s come after them. What have they done now?

BUCK: Yeah. The only way you’re gonna trend as a former CIA director right now is basically if you end up trashing Trump and Republicans — and sure enough, I was just a little underling at the CIA writing my memos in my cube — did deploy to a couple war zones but, you know, just as an analyst. And I was working for Mike Hayden at the time, as in he was the director at the CIA. He also was the director of the NSA. So he ran two of the three-letter agencies. He was an Air Force general, I believe, before that. And here is what happened. Here’s why he’s trending.

“Former CIA Director Michael Hayden on Wednesday agreed with a British journalist’s contention that Republicans were more ‘nihilistic’ and ‘dangerous’ than extremists groups and dictatorships around the world.

“‘I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career,’ tweeted Financial Times columnist Edward Luce on Thursday. ‘Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.’

“Among those who agreed with Luce’s contention was former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who tweeted: ‘I agree. And I was the CIA Director.'”

Couple things here. First of all, there are plenty of people who are world class jackasses who have had very fancy jobs, very against a titled in government. It means nothing. Want everyone to understand this. Prestige bias is real, meaning, oh, well, that person has an MD, Ph.D., MA, MPH, MPC, LMNOPQRS; so I better listen. No, false. They may be a total moron who got the job for reasons that have nothing to do with competency or judgment. Start with that.

Can’t you just feel all the healing, Clay? Remember we were told there’s gonna be all the healing by Biden? But you and I as Republicans, more dangerous than Al-Qaeda, more dangerous than the head choppers of ISIS, sir. Kim Jong-un’s nukes have got nothing on us because we think that men can’t become women. Et cetera.

CLAY: This is, Buck — I gotta say, when we finished show the, the first hour, what did I say? I said Democrats are better at getting Republicans to talk about the topics that they want, Democrats do, to be talked about, than Republicans are. I think you have to admire it. Democrats attack far better than Republicans do. And I’ll just give you an easy example. And part of it is because they have the media in their back pocket and on their side. But also I think a lot of Republicans are afraid of what we just talked about. “Oh, I might trend,” if I say something that is negative. And this is why I think Ron DeSantis and, frankly, Trump, I think Trump changed Republican politics in many ways because he was so combative.

I’ll give you an example right now — I’m watching the Karine Jean-Pierre come out and talk at the White House press conference, and I think we have this audio of Mike Pence coming out and saying conservatives can’t say “defund the FBI.” A tiny percentage of conservatives are saying it. We’ll talk about it in a sec. But, Buck, listen to this audio from Mike Pence. This is going to run like crazy. It is going to take root, the idea that every Republican wants the FBI disbanded because some people have made that argument. Listen to this.

Pence: “Calls to defund the FBI are just as wrong as calls to defund the police.”
pic.twitter.com/46XwI3hF1Y

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 17, 2022

PENCE: I also want to remind my fellow Republicans, we can hold the attorney general accountable for the decisions that he made. Attacking rank-and-file personnel at the FBI. (applause) The Republican Party is a party of law and order. Our party stands with the men and women who serve on the thin blue line at the federal and state and local level. And these attacks on the FBI must stop. Calls to defund the FBI are just as wrong as calls to defund the police.

CLAY: Okay. I don’t disagree with anything Mike Pence said there. The problem is as soon as he said that, Buck, you know it’s gonna become a huge talking point. The White House is already saying, Joe Biden disagrees with calls to defund the FBI just like he disagrees with calls to defund the police. And so this is going to take root, the idea that every Republican wants the FBI to be gone. No.

Look. I speak, I think, and I think you do too, Buck, for the vast majority of the reasonable, rational people. What we want is for the attorney general who is the top law enforcement official in the land not to be investigating Joe Biden’s primary political opponent and trying to knock him out politically. That’s different than saying the entire FBI shouldn’t exist. But soon it’s going to become a default talking point of Democrats that all Republicans want the FBI gone.

BUCK: It’s also very different. I actually do disagree a little bit with Mike Pence here insofar as, one, don’t help the enemy right now, sir.

CLAY: That’s what he did.

BUCK: Don’t help the Democrats with the lies and the — ’cause no one’s really saying that — when I say no one, no person of following and —

CLAY: No statewide elected official in the entire Republican Party.

BUCK: But I mean do I think that there should be an absolute housecleaning of the FBI, where effectively certainly anybody who has any kind of a political appointment began to also a lot of senior officials should be cashiered? Yes, I do. Do I think that everybody who made every decision at the CDC, for example, should be fired and there should be a radical rethink of that organization?

CLAY: They should all be —

BUCK: Yes.

CLAY: — replaced by the Great Barrington Declaration signees.

BUCK: Yes, I do. Do I think that there should be far greater accountability and the only way to get that with a lot of federal organizations is to cut them down to size dramatically? Yes, I do. And also, we all understand this, right? You defund the police, you get mobs beating people to death in the streets in cities across America, full of criminals who have been arrested dozens of times. You know, you start cutting back on the funding for the FBI — there are a lot of other federal law enforcement agencies. There’s the ATF, there’s — Fish & Game has its own SWAT teams, a lot of federal law enforcement.

CLAY: Do you see the video of the IRS enrollees?

BUCK: People also forget that the Secret Service has, as a part of its mission investigating —

CLAY: Counterfeit.

BUCK: — counter — thank you — currency issues. So there’s a lot of federal law enforcement agencies out there. Point here being, though, the FBI being used as a weapon of one political party destabilizes the entire government, in a sense, it destabilizes the trust of the American people in this, and it comes after what we saw with Russia collusion. This is not a first offense for them. This is not the first strike. And so that’s why, yeah, I mean, we should be more careful with language when we say things, okay, “Defund the FBI.” Well, what are you gonna do with federal law? Because without federal law enforcement, you don’t have federal law. You know, for example, what we have at the border. Federal laws that aren’t enforced ceases to be real. So I think that Mike Pence is unfortunately playing into the hands of the other side at a time when that’s very unhelpful. And why is it that we always have to calm everything down. You ever notice that?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: Calm your side down. They have their leftist lunatics burning down police precincts. They had BLM and anti-Trump terrorizing not in rhetorical terms, my own neighborhood in a presidential election year. Was anyone going around to Nancy Pelosi, “Do you condemn it?”

CLAY: They were bailing them out.

BUCK: Nancy Pelosi was kneeling with a kente cloth around her neck. That remember?

CLAY: Oh, yeah. And, Buck, it’s not only that. I mean, think about the — we got the hearing going on for the affidavit. I was reading yesterday the AP said, oh, there’s dangerous attacks now from the right wing on federal judiciary over the decision to grant the warrant to raid Mar-a-Lago.

Excuse me. Just the last couple of months someone showed up at Brett Kavanaugh’s house trying to assassinate him. They shared widely all of the addresses of conservative Supreme Court justices and said, go show up outside of their homes and scream and yell and protest. And they didn’t enforce the law to prevent that from happening in Maryland or Virginia. And suddenly again it goes to the point, what they are so good at, so good at, Buck, is deciding what they want the story to be and then, through a disciplined fashion, delivering it over and over and over again so that they direct the direction that every discussion takes place under.

BUCK: And also — I’m gonna say this too — it may not be that popular with everybody, but I think it needs to be said. Because we as conservatives, as people that believe in law and order, not just as some general principle, I want people to be safe, and I want us all to be obeying the same rules and laws ’cause it makes us a better society, right? Everybody’s subject to the same rules and laws. But the thing of, well, “I don’t blame the rank-and-file,” yeah, of course. You shouldn’t be, you know, yelling at some random FBI agent and certainly shouldn’t be threatening anybody who had nothing to do with the Mar-a-Lago raid. That’s insane, and it’s insane, illegal, and counterproductive on every sense. But we just went through a year, Clay, where people lost their jobs in the military because they didn’t want to get a shot.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: We went through — and a lot of those people, it was solely on principle. It wasn’t even they were worried about their health. They were saying, I’m sorry. This is tyrannical. They were right, by the way. This is tyrannical. I’m not gonna get the shot. I’m gonna lose my job as a nurse, I’m gonna lose my job as a cop, I’m gonna lose — and by — we did — I advocated for them. I said, “Look. I can’t tell you to do that one way or the other, but I want you to be able to feed your family, I want you to be able to keep your career going. I’m not gonna speak hypocritically about this.” How many FBI agents, in all the Russia collusion stuff, in everything we’ve seen with Mar-a-Lago, how many have said, I’m out. I can’t do this anymore. Really?

CLAY: Not that many.

BUCK: Uh, zero. Zero right now. So I do think that’s pretty interesting. We’ve seen falsification of documents to get FISA. We’ve seen people in text messages colluding against the future president of the United States, the insurance policy between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Peter Strzok, who is now — guess where? — appearing on TV every five minutes to trash Trump as a law enforcement expert. Any FBI field agents say, “This is gross, I can’t be a part of this?” I’m just saying. Not a lot, as in zero.

CLAY: But get ready. Because of that Mike Pence quote and because of what we just saw happening in the White House, it would not shock me at all if you wake up tomorrow morning and you turn on your local news or you grab your local newspaper and there is a front-page story saying, Republicans want the FBI defunded and this is a major point of discussion going forward, and it allows Democrats to pivot away from their actual public pronouncements from many elected officials that the police should be defunded and say, we’re actually the party that supports law enforcement. That’s the pivot. That’s what they’re gonna say. That’s what’s coming.

I think that Mike Pence was very inarticulate in the way that he attacked his own party, his own party, over this, as opposed to just making his own statements of principle. And as a result, he has opened the door to a massive narrative pivot. Get ready for it.

Anti-Racism Turns to Racism in Minneapolis Schools

18 Aug 2022

BUCK: So Minneapolis public schools defending the policy that the teachers unions tried — Clay, I know you saw this.

CLAY: Yeah, we talked about it on Hannity this week. It’s crazy.

BUCK: Defending the policy to prioritize retaining educators of color when determining layoffs. So this is a straight-up, fire the white people first policy. That is what they were discussing here.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: Let’s describe what it is. It is, hey, we’re going to fire white teachers before we fire other teachers. And also there’s so many other fascinating components you have to think about. So if you are, you know, people often talk about, like, a “white Hispanic,” how does that factor into this? Or if you’re of, you know, two different heritages, how does that factor into this policy, they’re getting a lot of heat over this, but I do think it’s an important reminder that eventually anti-racism policy just turns into racism. It’s just a question of how far they push it. Anti-racism turns into what I believe Justice Alito referred to in a Supreme Court decision as the racial spoils system.

CLAY: Well, and this is why I believe this Supreme Court case this fall has the potential to be so transformative in so many different ways. Because what used to be sort of the affirmative action policies that only impacted white people, now Asians are getting wildly discriminated against when it comes to, based on the data that’s out there, applying to Ivy League schools, trying to get into elite public high schools, for instance. All over New York City that has been a major battle where you live. It’s been a major battle I know in northern Virginia where they have many different elite schools.

And this idea that minorities should get a benefit but now they’re slicing and dicing the minority population. Wait a minute. Asians are too successful; so they should be put into the white camp. And Asian people are saying, wait a minute. Many of these kids when you look at who’s going to the New York City public schools, many of them are sons and daughters of immigrants. That is it’s not as if they’re wildly successful economically. They are just committing themselves to the education system and scoring at very high rates which Buck, you know, was the original reason why the SAT and the ACT and all these nationwide testing services began, was because Jewish people were being discriminated against at Ivy League institutions, and Ivy League schools were trying to have as many white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the WASP population, as possible, and they wanted to be able to consider all applicants on an even playing field.

Well, now, Asians are rising up and dunking all over everybody else when it comes to academic achievement. And so these lawsuits, which I believe are ultimately going to succeed, are going to do away in a large measure with what’s going on here, when really, let’s be honest, the easy solution for teachers is you get to keep your job, whether it’s fair or foul, based on seniority, which is how most of this goes, right?

BUCK: ‘Cause being a good teacher, it’s not like you’re a hedge fund manager and you look at the percentage you’re up. It’s subjective who the best teacher. So I do understand why seniority exists even though —

CLAY: Which is fair across the board.

BUCK: Sometimes it means better younger teachers —

CLAY: No doubt that happens.

BUCK: — sick. You know what’s so interesting, though, you bring up how Asian-Americans are at the forefront now and quite literally in the Supreme Court sense but more generally in the fight against — let’s be honest — affirmative action has just turned into racism. It’s racism by a different name.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: And this is — and they expand it to certain groups and not other groups. And they decide that they’re going to be adding discriminate — groups that they say are marginalized. There’s no, like, referendum on this. It’s just left it, yeah, the left decides. On a per capita basis — percentage-wise, I should say, Asian-Americans are actually the poorest ethnic demographically in New York City, which is a shock to people. But Asian — and that encompasses south Asia as well as what we think of as east Asia and this country. There are a lot of Asian immigrants who arrive in New York penniless, basically, with not a dollar to their names. And they own businesses over time, and they send their children to first maybe city or community college, and then within a generation or two their kids are going to state college or even Harvard, right?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: There’s a very rapid ascent that occurs. And I know it. I’m familiar with it in these communities. I applied to, got into a school called Stuyvesant which is —

CLAY: One of the most famous schools for the elite in the entire country.

BUCK: I didn’t go ’cause I got a full scholarship to go to a Jesuit school so it was zero dollars or zero dollars, but the point is, this really harms the narrative of everything in this country is racist and white supremacy determines how the school system, particularly elite schools function because Asians are arriving here, Asian-Americans are sending their children to schools that are at the very top including Harvard, and it just doesn’t add up based on what the left says.

So this is what we’re up against, Clay. They don’t really pay attention to what the reality. Oh and at Harvard they were saying specifically that — this was in the documents that are in the Students for Fair Admission lawsuit. They kept saying that Asians — this is Harvard University — Asians lacked leadership qualities, which that kept coming up in the analysis in the admissions, to which a lot of people said, what the heck does that mean?

CLAY: Sounded like it was super racist, Buck.

BUCK: Sounds kind of racist, Harvard.

CLAY: And I think that this is going to be one of the most transformative cases that we have heard in a very long time when you contemplate what’s going to be happening in this case before all is said and done.

Mar-a-Lago Raid Puts GOP on Defense, Distracts from Biden

18 Aug 2022

CLAY: You mentioned the Trump tax investigation into his company and the decisions there. Major hearing today surrounding the Mar-a-Lago raid by the FBI. There is a hearing today on whether the affidavit, which was the underlying supportive evidence for why this warrant was granted in South Florida and why this raid happened is going to be heard today I believe at 1 Eastern; so in about 30 minutes from now, that will be ongoing. To update you a bit, way more intelligent than either Buck or I can do, we’ll be talking to Alan Dershowitz at the top of the third hour of this program. It should be an absolutely phenomenal discussion with him.

But, in the meantime, Buck, what’s intriguing here is it seems like we’ve got a little bit of a game of chicken being played from a legal process. You’ll remember that Merrick Garland came out last week, a week ago today, and said, oh, we want to unseal the warrant and allow you to know what exactly was seized from the Mar-a-Lago raid. And a lot of people said, “Well, there’s no way Donald Trump’s going to agree to that,” and Trump came out and said, okay, go ahead and do it. And, if anything, I would say the unsealing of that warrant has not really helped the Department of Justice in their argument, that this was an exigent circumstance and they a hundred percent had to run in, and we need to know, to have greater clarity about the rationale for this raid, what was in the affidavit.

The Department of Justice is saying, “No, no, no, you can’t release the affidavit.” Trump wants it released. Many different news organizations — New York Times, Wall Street Journal among them — are arguing, hey, we need to see the affidavit. The Wall Street Journal this morning, Buck, had one of their editorials in the newspaper saying it is imperative that this affidavit being released. I agree with them. What do you think about this battle?

BUCK: I think this all boils down to one question, the whole thing: Who is willing to believe the Russia collusion playbook all over again? Who is gonna go for this a the second time? Fool me once — remember what Bush said, fool me once, can’t get — can’t get fooled again? You know, he kind of got stuck on that one.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: The truth here is that you’re seeing a lot of similarities between the early days of Russia collusion, the big lie they told about Donald Trump, and one thing that was so important to recall, you have to see the left’s tactics, right? You and I are dissecting the tactics they use, whether it’s legal or a media propaganda, information warfare, whatever you want to call it, day in and day out, that’s what we’re doing here. They had these big allegations: “Trump stole the 2016 election with Russia’s help!” That’s what they said.

CLAY: Yep.

BUCK: And then it was, oh, there’s this really damaging leak. And then they get people to say, well, based on this really damaging leak that is always absent the full context, you don’t actually see the full documents, based on all this, don’t you condemn this? And they start changing people’s minds. What they tried to, in essence, is push people into a collective illusion as quickly as possible. Because once they get them to go to the collective illusion of, “I guess Trump did steal the election in 2016 with Russia’s help.” Then there’s the ideological allegiance of, “Well, I don’t want to be the dumb guy who’s wrong on this one.” So they’ve got you, right? But the more information that came out, the more we saw the — you know, the thing about the pee-pee tape and, you know, the —

CLAY: The Steele dossier.

BUCK: Steele dossier, yes, thank you. It’s more fun to call it the other thing.

CLAY: The golden shower lies.

BUCK: Yeah. And anybody — I mean, it’s crazy to even talk about. The biggest news organizations in the country — I have not forgotten. I remember you, CNN. I remember you, New York Times, Washington Post. They were running with all this stuff like of course it’s true. Anybody who knew Trump was like, there is zero chance this stuff actually went down, zero chance. I mean, this is bonkers. And yet you see that they tried to get the narrative in place before the information came out.

I think you can expect exactly the same thing to continue to occur here because you’ll see a trend. I’m gonna go — you know, you like to bet. I wish there’s a way to bet on this. The trend will be the more information — actual information, not leaks, not news stories — the more documentation we have about the Mar-a-Lago raid, the more obvious it will be that this was trumped up, that this was exaggerated, there weren’t nuclear secrets. I mean, stop — a fundamental question I asked for Russia collusion from the beginning was, Clay, it didn’t even make sense. It’s a crazy idea. You’re gonna be in Putin’s pocket for all four years? He could dump you at any point in time by exposing this? It’s the dumbest plan — and, by the way, Trump told me this later on —

CLAY: Yep.

BUCK: — heard me say it. He said, “Russia collusion, it doesn’t even make any [bleeping] sense.” Totally true —

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: — actually, said that to me in the Oval Office a long time ago. And on this issue, why would Trump — why would Trump want to keep nuclear secrets, everybody in think about that. First of all, he has no idea what’s in the boxes. And second of all, why would he want that? It makes no sense. He’s not trying to sell nuclear secrets to the Chinese, libs. I’m sorry. Your stupid lies aren’t going to work on everybody. So that’s why I think this unsealing that’s gonna come, this hearing that’s gonna happen is so interesting. I think they’re gonna say no, and then I think there will be more pressure. I think eventually they’re gonna say yes. It will be redacted and we’ll say we need to see the redactions. What does that feel like? Russia, Russia, Russia all over again.

CLAY: — you can’t see the reactions because the state secrets are so important —

BUCK: Of course.

CLAY: — that if we reveal this, there will be major issues. And here is where this becomes a huge win for Democrats — I just gotta be honest with you.

BUCK: Ooh. Huge win for Democrats.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: Oh, gosh.

CLAY: Listen. Because we’re talking about defending Trump instead of attacking Biden.

BUCK: Well, this is the point.

CLAY: That is their play.

BUCK: Distraction and defense. They get that no matter what —

CLAY: They —

BUCK: Turns into distraction for us and defense that we have to go on instead of, “Hey, you know the Democrats elected a guy who’s visibly senile, failed on covid, and has made the economy much worse than any of us anticipated?”

CLAY: If the story is Biden, Democrats have a Red Wave that sweeps over them. If the story is, was a Mar-a-Lago raid justified or not by the FBI, many people go back to their respective camps. Buck, you know one of the biggest challenges out there? Getting people to change their minds. That’s why we’ve had so much difficulty in getting people to believe that masks don’t work. The data is overwhelming. But it takes so long to get people to come off whatever their opinion is. And Trump, to a large extent, is a known quantity. And so the usual suspects run to their corners and say, “Trump is the worst human being ever. He’s gotta be in prison.”

And then people like you and me, who I believe are logical and many of our listeners sit and look, but when we’re defending Trump, we’re not attacking Biden. And so the raid on Trump — don’t miss what’s going on here — it’s an offensive attack by Democrats, which forces us to get distracted into the defense of Trump as opposed to the prosecution of Biden’s failures as president. And that is what we are dealing with right now. Doesn’t mean these are not legitimate discussions we should be having. We certainly should. But the Democrats are controlling the narrative cycle based on their raid.

Browns QB Deshaun Watson Fined $5M, Suspended 11 Games

18 Aug 2022

CLAY: We are hanging out here at our affiliate in Salt Lake City, in studio together today and tomorrow. Appreciate all of you who listen all over the country, including in all — well, I should say all throughout the state of Ohio. We’ve got massive audiences all throughout the state of Ohio. We appreciate you there.

I want to hit you with a little bit of sports news because it’s probably going to be at the top of many different news angles today. Deshaun Watson, a quarterback now for the Cleveland Browns, formerly of the Houston Texans, before that played college football at Clemson, he has been suspended, he has agreed alongside of the NFL to a suspension of 11 games and a fine of $5 million, one of the largest suspensions and fines that has ever existed in the history of the NFL.

Buck, he was accused by 30 different women of sexual impropriety related to massages perform some of those women filed civil lawsuits, which has since been settled. No criminal charges were ever brought, but he has now been traded to the Cleveland Browns. He will be eligible to play after an 11-game suspension, that news coming down right about time we started the show today.

For those of you like me who are big NFL fans, who are football fans, who are big college football fans, this has been one of the looming stories that is out there. So just letting you know. I know a lot of you out there are big sports fans and have followed that story. As always, go to OutKick.com. They will cover sports, we will cover sports in a way that will not drive you insane. I still am involved in running that site, although Fox bought it from me. Okay. So legal issues. I’m assuming, Buck, you do not have a strong take to the Deshaun Watson suspension.

BUCK: I was unfamiliar with him and his career until about 30 seconds ago so.

CLAY: There you go.

Clay and Buck

DownloadNow

If the Prime Minister of Finland Wants to Party, Let Her

Recent Stories

Log In

Get Password Hint

Forgot password

You don't have a valid subscription

Your subscription was cancelled

Judge Orders Parts of Mar-a-Lago Affidavit to be Unsealed

Recent Stories

Dershowitz Dismantles the Deep State’s Unlawful Assault on Trump

Recent Stories

Tom Homan: The Mexican Cartels Control Our Southern Border

Recent Stories

Brian Stelter and His Unreliable Sources Out at CNN

Recent Stories

Polls: Trump Up Big in Ohio; Majority See “Invasion” at Border

Recent Stories

Don’t Be Like Mike: Hayden and Pence Become Tools of Democrats

Recent Stories

Anti-Racism Turns to Racism in Minneapolis Schools

Recent Stories

Mar-a-Lago Raid Puts GOP on Defense, Distracts from Biden

Recent Stories

Browns QB Deshaun Watson Fined $5M, Suspended 11 Games

Recent Stories

Download
Now