Clay and Buck

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

Download
Now

: :

1x 1.2x 1.5x 1.8x 2x

Hour 2 - Culture Wars Thursday - Dec 18, 2025 • 36:52

Hour 3 - Dealing with Holiday TDS Thursday - Dec 18, 2025 • 36:52

It's a Numbers Game: Why Scripture, Sacraments, and Community Matter in Catholic Life Thursday - Dec 18, 2025 • 44:25

Normally Podcast: Susie Wiles, JD Vance, and Media Meltdowns Thursday - Dec 18, 2025 • 27:9

The Karol Markowicz Show: The Death of Clickbait? Culture, AI, and Human Connection with John Hawkins Wednesday - Dec 17, 2025 • 24:1

Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Dec 17 2025 Wednesday - Dec 17, 2025 • 48:30

Hour 1 - Vanity Unfair Wednesday - Dec 17, 2025 • 37:4

You’d Have to Be Crazy to Charge Trump Over These Documents

26 Aug 2022

BUCK: Clay, I would just say couple things. One, to me, the idea that they could even consider bringing a criminal charge against President Trump right now is crazy. The problem, though, is that I think some of these people are crazy.

CLAY: (laughing)

BUCK: I think they actually have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So that’s why, I don’t underestimate their willingness to, especially what we’ve seen with the Russia collusion mess and the two impeachments over what, right? Remember they impeached Donald Trump twice. For what again? Does anyone remember? The second time it was because he asked a question about Zelensky — before the whole Russia invasion, of course — about Hunter Biden.

Who is corrupt and who they were covering up the corruption for and how they have done everything they can, including Facebook suppressing the story about Hunter Biden. So we sit here and say, where does this really go next? Do you think there’s a possibility that they just used this as almost like an early October Surprise where they’re gonna say, “Trump is so corrupt,” and they keep talking about it and leave it at that? Because it energized the base so much for Trump.

CLAY: Yeah, it’s such a good question ’cause you have to try to put yourself in Merrick Garland’s head. And to me the Bush administration takeaway is, there’s nothing to January 6th. And let me explain what I mean by that. Maybe they’re going on a fishing expedition hoping, using the National Archives dispute as a pretext to be able to go into Mar-a-Lago and look for documents that don’t actually deal with a dispute with the National Archives and they’re hoping there’s some smoking gun in there related to January 6th.

Doesn’t seem like it to me. It seems like Merrick Garland is getting all this pressure, and the way that he alleviates the pressure is by having a raid on Donald Trump, which is unprecedented, over these documents, which is ultimately not that significant, and that this is his release valve. I’m just trying to think through it. Let me also point this out, Buck, ’cause I’m glad you mentioned the impeachment. The allegations that came from Russia collusion, impeachment 1, and impeachment 2 — let’s just focus on those three — are actually really significant.

And not that they were substantiated, but the significance of them. Russia collusion. Trump was working with Russia, and that changed the outcome of the 2016 election. That’s a big allegation. And if it were true, it would be a big crime. Impeachment 1: Trump tried to get the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of his chief political rival improperly. Again, if it were true, it’s a big deal. Impeachment 2:

Trump tried to lead an insurrection to overthrow the United States government and a duly elected president who would replace him. This was a default coup. Those are three really big stories. They’re not true, but they’re really big criminal allegations. What we’re talking about right now, Buck, is Trump kept documents from when he was president instead of giving them to the National Archives. The first three here are monster potential stories. The fourth is, like, he kept a library book too long.

BUCK: Right. What is more likely, that there is an effort by the apparatus, the Democrat Party, the federal deep state bureaucrats, to just do everything they can over and over again to defeat Donald Trump, or destroy Donald Trump, or that after three huge swing-and-a-miss situations —

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: — they finally now just happened to stumble upon the one thing that Trump has gone too far, the walls are closing in? We heard that for years.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: These people are out of their minds. And now on this issue, I mean, I’m looking at them; it’s so crazy that I can’t dismiss possibility. You know what I mean? And I know that’s a cognitive dissonance there, right? But it’s such… It would be so insane to bring a federal criminal charge against President Trump over this, for all the reasons you’ve laid out, that he could have declassified these, that they didn’t actually fall into anyone’s hands, that he didn’t actually personally compile these boxes they can’t be there was a legal process. You go through this whole thing.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: You say, they’re really even considering it? But I want to remind everybody of something. They used national security bureaucracy and the little mechanisms therein as weapons in politics all the time. Remember there a special counsel — no one even thinks about this one in your name — looking into the leak of a CIA officer’s identity? They knew very early on it was a mistake. It was Richard Armitage who didn’t mean to, but he did it. But they kept going. Why did they use the investigation? They thought they could get either Karl Rove or maybe Dick Cheney. They got Scooter Libby — not on actually outing anybody — on, they said, lying about a conversation he had two years previously. Clay, this is what libs do because they’re crazy.

CLAY: And if they are truly crazy, and if we’re in Merrick Garland’s head, they likely, Buck, have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Al Capone. And they may be trying to do, in their mind, the equivalent of getting Al Capone for tax evasion is, “Oh, Trump’s done so many awful things, but we’ve got him on document storage issues. We’ll throw the full weight of the federal government behind him on this because we believe he’s so corrupt and venal in other respects.”

Sen. Johnson Reacts to News on Mar-a-Lago Raid, Zuckerberg

26 Aug 2022

CLAY: Joined now by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and we got a lot to get into with you, Senator. Let’s start here. The affidavit, redacted substantially, is now out, and it appears — at least based on all of the evidence out there — that this is almost entirely a dispute over Trump having documents that the National Archives does not believe he should have access to. Given that fact — and again, we’re just going off what we can see — it makes it appear even more outrageous that AG Garland decided to do this inside of the Biden Department of Justice. Is that your take as well, based on what you’ve been able to see from the affidavit?

SEN. JOHNSON: Yeah, from what we can tell, you guys are saying, they redacted about 57% of the main body of the affidavit first 32 pages. I thought the most interesting part of it was really the exhibit that had the letter from Trump’s attorney where he pretty well laid out that the president has absolute authority to classify documents and that presidential actions involving declassification are not subject to criminal sanction. (laughing) That’s what I’ve always thought. It’s like, “So, what is this all about?”

President Trump, as he’s leaving office, has all these papers and just says, “All this stuff is declassified and I’m taking it with me,” I just view that as pretty much end of story. You also have told the fact that it’s being stored in Mar-a-Lago. Mar-a-Lago is completely guarded by Secret Service. Where is the national security interest? Where is the jeopardy to our national security in that scenario? And there really is none — and I was listening to your program earlier.

From what I can tell, our government so overclassifies material, and generally not for national security purposes, but primarily to reduce embarrassment to the agencies for the actions they’ve taken to hold up to public scrutiny, and that’s what I’ve always thought this was about. You know, I subpoenaed the FBI. We didn’t get the good information. We got some pages of information, but nothing really damaging to the FBI.

President Trump was trying to declassify. He did declassify documents at the very end of the administration would have been responsive to our subpoena. We never have ever seen one page of that information. And my guess is some of those are the documents we’re talking about that just might have some embarrassing information to the FBI. Now the FBI is in possession of those again and we’ll probably have a very difficult time ever getting those back.

BUCK: Senator Johnson, it’s Buck. You know, we’ve seen the story about a whistleblower allegation — speaking of the FBI and whether we can trust it and what it’s up to, whistleblower allegations — from within the FBI about the Hunter Biden investigation. You’re all over this. What can you tell us about it?

SEN. JOHNSON: Well, first of all, I want to thank those whistleblowers. And we just need a whole lot more. So we had a whistleblower come to Senator Grassley’s office talking about how the FBI had a scheme starting in August 2020 to downplay the derogatory information against Hunter Biden for the purposes of deep sixing the investigations. Now we have whistleblowers coming forward to my office. And to quote, you know, one of the whistleblowers:

According to new whistleblower allegations, local FBI leadership told employees, “you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop.”

Read more about these revelations and my letter to the DOJ IG here:https://t.co/qn4zSj7pAU pic.twitter.com/bfi2PkX5G8

— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) August 25, 2022

FBI leadership told employees, quote, “You will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop,” unquote, and the FBI is, quote, “not going to change the outcome of the election again,” which of course by, you know, their efforts to suppress that information. It could have been derogatory to somebody who was not running for office, had he absolutely interfered in the election one more time and in this case made sure that Donald Trump wasn’t reelected. I can’t imagine. Quite honestly, you combine that — their scheme quarterback to downplay the derogatory information on Hunter Biden, even going so far as go to Facebook and tell them to basically censor as well.

I went to Twitter. I don’t know. I haven’t heard that yet out of Jack Dorsey. If you combine that with the 51 former intelligence officials that also covered up for Hunter Biden by saying that the laptop had “all the earmarks of a Russian information operation.” No, I’m sorry, gentlemen. That letter you wrote, that was an information operation, and that had far greater interference — interference and influence — on our election than anything Russia or China ever could have hoped to accomplish.

CLAY: No doubt. We’re talking to Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and you’re referencing some of the responses. I mean, we are, Buck and I, both super fired up about what Mark Zuckerberg said on the Joe Rogan podcast, where he effectively said one reason why we were acting as we did in the wake of the Hunter Biden story coming out from the New York Post was because we had been told that Russian disinformation was coming. And so, Senator Johnson, to me, it doesn’t look like there’s any doubt now that the FBI actively colluded with Big Tech companies to try and ensure that Donald Trump was not reelected in 2020. When you saw that interview with Mark Zuckerberg, is there any other conclusion that can be drawn based on what he said?

SEN. JOHNSON: No, and an even stronger piece of evidence: Both Senator Grassley and I were given an unsolicited briefing coincidentally on August 6th of 2020 when they were apparently engaged in this scheme to downplay information, unsolicited briefing. There was no new information in it whatsoever. None. We were asking, what’s the purpose of this…? (crosstalk)

CLAY: Sorry to cut you off, Senator. Explain what you mean by “unsolicited briefing in August.” The FBI contacts you and says, “We want to meet with you,” and tells you what?

SEN. JOHNSON: Again, we go down into the secure briefing room, and I was actually pulled away from walking back to my office going to a vote. I had no idea this was gonna happen. We got about five FBI briefers there. Again, this is what’s been… They end up leaking this to the Washington Post to smear me, by the way, basically saying we’re a target of the Russian disinformation. This in the midst of our Hunter Biden investigation. Now, we had been told repeatedly.

We’d been accused falsely of soliciting and disseminating Russian disinformation by Democrats who created intelligence product had a classified leak that to the media. So this was not news to us at all. We were being incredibly careful. Our report was based on U.S. documents, U.S. persons. So we did not need this briefing. And then when we asked for, “Well, was there new intelligence”? There was none. So we asked them, who directed this briefing? And they kind of looked at each over, “Uh, you know, agency decision.” Okay. There are people in the interagencies.

Who directed this briefing? Two years later we still don’t know. We sent multiple letters. Just sent another letter to Christopher Wray, to Merrick Garland. Who directed this briefing? We still don’t know, which makes me highly suspicious. So why’d they give us that briefing? Were they also trying to warn us away from issuing our report? I mean, I knew it was a setup ’cause I knew they were gonna smear me, and they did in May of 2021 when they leaked the fact of that briefing to the Washington Post. So no. I’ve been targeted by FBI operations. So I don’t trust ’em any further than I could throw them.

BUCK: We’re speaking to Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Senator, where do you think this is going? We’ve had really top legal analysts who think that it’s still likely — they’ve come on the show and said it’s still likely — that President Trump could face an actual prosecution over this. We’ve had others who say, probably not. Where do you think this is all going?

SEN. JOHNSON: Well, to me it’s completely political. The FBI, now we have all kinds of proof that they have been politicized at the top levels. I am very glad that we have whistleblowers, people inside the agency that have integrity and they’re coming forward. The only way we’re gonna restore the credibility to the FBI and Department of Justice, federal health agencies is if we have whistleblowers telling the truth, exposing it to hold people accountable and we can restore these agencies. But we need that kind of information. But my concern is the media is in the tank with these guys.

And so they can get away with so much. They just get away with it. They operate with impunity. No matter how much we’re outraged by this and how obvious the corruption is to us, it’s not to the American public because the media backs them up. And this cover up for them. Here’s a classic example. The whole Russian hoax. The media… The members of the media that pushed that, they know who gave them the false information. Why have they never revealed those sources that gave them false information on the Russian hoax? Because they’re complicit and they’re also corrupt.

CLAY: Amen. We need to make sure that you’re back reelected. You’ve got a massive reelection coming up in November. How can people out there who enjoy hearing you on our show, who appreciate the fight that you are putting out for truth, justice, and everything else associated with it — how can they — help and ensure that you’re back come November?

SEN. JOHNSON: RonJohnsonForSenate.com. They’ve already spent more than $50 million lying about me, distorting everything I said. Plus, you’ve got the media try to take me out as well, and that’s priceless. So RonJohnsonForSenate.com. I’m gonna need a lot of help. This is razor close. (crosstalk)

CLAY: Razor close. Yeah, we’re gonna be up there. We still need to talk to your crew, come up and do a show from Milwaukee. We’ve got the biggest audience on radio in the entire state, and we want to make sure that we mobilize everybody there to make sure that you’re back come November.

SEN. JOHNSON: You guys doing a great job. I appreciate the opportunity.

CLAY: For sure. That’s Ron Johnson. Go support him. We’ll be up there at some point to do a show with him.

Merrick Garland Painted Himself Into a Ridiculous Corner

26 Aug 2022

CLAY: We are breaking down here on this Friday edition of the program the just released redacted affidavit to justify the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. I would say 50 to 60% of this document is completely blacked out. We are discussing the parts of the document that we can see. Buck, based on everything that I am reading — and again this has just come down in the last 20 or 30 minutes; so, we’re reacting in real time to it — this effectively is — we talked about Merrick Garland being painted into a corner.

There is no dispute that I have seen that Donald Trump had access to all of these documents legally when he was president of the United States. The dispute now seems to be, did he have the ability to keep these documents? And, if not, was his keeping of these documents such a significant deal that there can be criminal charges brought against him? Absent, Buck, absent any suggestion or evidence that Trump was somehow trying to sell these documents or that there was in some way a threat of him — it’s basically committing espionage, right?

Like, “hey, oh, Saudi Arabia, do you want to see what the new fighter jet looks like? Give me $500 million and I’ll give you those documents.” Absent something like that happening, which so far there is zero evidence of it, and I think would have already been leaked to the New York Times or the Washington Post, friendly media to the Biden administration, Merrick Garland is faced with a ridiculous choice that he has put himself in, which is either acknowledge that ultimately, we got these documents back. There’s no issue. We think maybe there were crimes committed over storage but we’re just gonna move on.

Or he’s going to charge Donald Trump with improperly storing government documents, which, to me, would be a complete political gift to President Trump because it would confirm in many of our minds what we already suspect, which is there has been a rig job designed to try to get Donald Trump since he announced that he was running for president. And ultimately all they could get him for was improper storage of potential government documents. That’s my big-picture analysis of this, Buck. What would you add that you’re seeing as you’re reading through this with, to be fair, a substantial national security background and lots of experience dealing with redacted documents and top secret and classified documents in your career?

BUCK: One of the up sides of radio is you do get the occasional commercial break, right?

CLAY: Yeah.

Here is the affidavit for the Mar-a-Lago raid. This really appears to be a dispute between Trump and the national archives over the storage of presidential papers. It’s staggering to me Biden’s AG would stage a raid over this dispute. Insanity: https://t.co/ju1aXiOrte

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) August 26, 2022

BUCK: So, I read the whole thing which was made easier by the fact that there are whole pages that are basically redacted. So, while 38 pages it’s really more like reading, you know, 15 pages. Some things that stuck out to me, Clay. And of course, talk about reading between the lines, I mean, that’s exactly what you’re doing here ’cause there are lines that are blacked out all over the place. You gotta read, really, between the redactions. They say that they found in the 15 boxes of information that was initially transferred to the National Archives 25 documents marked top secret, and then a larger number of confidential and secret level documents. Confidential and secret, for anybody out there, is generally not really — I mean, it is covered under law, but it’s usually stuff, especially the confidential level. I mean, there’s a lot of stuff that you’ll say, should this even be classified? Probably not.

CLAY: And they aggressively would be more likely to label something confidential than not —

BUCK: Yeah. Overclassification in the federal government means that confidential and even at the secret level is often information that most of the people listening to the show, if they saw documents marked — depends. There’s millions and millions of pages of this stuff. But most of the time you see they’d say, that doesn’t seem that secret to me.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: It depends, though. If the source and method is compromised, that’s where it gets a bit tricker. Sources and methods are what the intelligence community always has to protect. They go into an explanation in the affidavit of HCS, FISA, ORCON, and NOFORN which is different designations for classified information. 25 top secret documents in 15 boxes of presidential records does not seem to me like a very… You know, it seems to me like obviously these would be things that if they were legitimately classified at that level, it was an accident that they were brought or Donald Trump decided that these are declassified when he’s president.

Now, there’s supposed to be a procedure for that, but they do make a case here in some of the legal correspondence between Trump lawyers and the National Archives. They make the following claims. One, that the president has total, absolute authority. This is in a letter, May 25th, 2022, from one of his lawyers, Jay Bratt, the president has absolute authority to declassify these documents and cites the statutory authority for that and then presidential actions involving classified documents are not subject to criminal sanctions. So, he’s essentially saying the president can take whatever documents he wants.

There’s actually no criminal liability here. That’s the case that the Trump lawyer is making which is an interesting one. The other thing, though, Clay that this will… I’m gonna throw the ball back to you here for a second. They had a privilege review team that the set up and deployed here because they knew in the search for records, they were taking legitimate presidential records that Trump has a right to keep. They have seized boxes full of that now and also attorney-client privilege information. Now, they set up the privilege review team in this affidavit to tell us all, don’t worry. Whatever Trump and his lawyers were talking about or anything like that, you can trust that we would separate that out, and that won’t be in the custody of the DOJ now. That’s where I start thinking January 6th, fishing expedition, what else do they have in store? So, that really stuck out to me.

CLAY: That’s why Trump is asking for a special master to review all of these seized documents. And for those of you who don’t know, the Trump legal team has filed saying, “Hey, we need effectively a third party to be reviewing what the National Archives is trying to take into their possession. What I just come back to again and again, Buck, is, ultimately is the first prosecution of a former president in the history of our nation brought by, even worse, his top political rival, as he prepares to run against potentially that man, is it gonna be over improper storage of presidential papers?

BUCK: Can I add one thing to this? ‘Cause you’re setting it up entirely properly. I would just put one more little piece into the puzzle. After the clear precedent was already set by the DOJ in the previous election of, this president, Donald Trump’s, chief political rival, 100% violated the Espionage Act, did so repeatedly, did so with top secret documents, did so with special access documents, did so in a way that was reckless and that was intentional and was not an accident, and she wasn’t the president.

She had no — the secretary of state has no declassification authority. They came out and said, “Sorry. She’s too important, so we’re not gonna prosecute her, Hillary Clinton.” In that context, they’re really thinking about bringing… Clay, it’s hard to fathom that they would really bring an indictment based on this, and I am not naive. I know how dirty they play. I know. But they gotta understand our side will completely lose their minds, and rightly so.

CLAY: Well, and I think it would play strongly to Trump politically. I think, honestly… Again, this is assuming there’s not some smoking gun, crazy allegation that’s redacted in here. But, Buck, don’t you feel like that would have already been leaked to the Washington Post and the New York Times if there was some… If they said, “Oh, we think we got a video of a Saudi Arabian sheikh showing up at Mar-a-Lago and Trump secretly trying to pass him the documents to decide how you get…” I mean, if any of that stuff existed, it would have been on the front page of the paper already.

BUCK: There’s also mentioned specifically in the affidavit of handwritten notes by the president containing classified information. Now, this is exactly what I was saying before. This gets into a very murky area. First of all, if the president writes it down and the president says, this is not declassified, who could possibly override that? Let’s think this through for a second. How you have separation of powers, this is executive branch information. How is somebody going to override…?

When I was classifying things in the CIA, I was doing so as an executive branch employee on behalf of the president of the United States. Yes, there are statutory considerations set forth by Congress, but ultimately the actual execution of the documents is all in the presidential purview. So, if President Trump wrote something up by hand and he says, “I’m taking this with me. This is not classified,” are we to believe that there’s some other…? What is that other entity that says, “Oh, no, this is classified”?

CLAY: Yeah. And here’s the other thing I would point out, Buck. To my knowledge there has been no suggestion that Trump didn’t have lawful access to all of these documents when he was president. Okay? I think that’s —

BUCK: The president can see anything.

CLAY: Anything.

BUCK: I was told this when I was in CIA — just so you guys all know — Clay, I did a couple of Oval Office briefings for George W. Bush —

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: — they’re like, if he asks you something, the quickest way to get fired is to say, “I don’t know if you’re cleared for that.” The president is cleared for everything on the planet.

CLAY: Okay. So, he has access to all of that. And then you’re telling me that on Inauguration Day of his successor, documents that he’s written on, documents that he has taken from the White House office, he doesn’t have access to them anymore. And this is where these crimes that would be alleged or charged or indicted for are only in response to a Presidential Records Act that I believe was passed, Buck, in the wake of Richard Nixon and did not take effect until Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980. The point I’m making here is, to my knowledge, there has never been a prosecution for anyone under this statute — this Presidential Records Act statute particularly.

BUCK: Yes.

CLAY: So, if there was a decision… Because prior to — and this is my understanding; I’m not a presidential scholar. But my understanding was, prior to this, everyone pretty much kept their presidential papers. So, if Ulysses S. Grant is writing his memoirs, he’s in his office going through all these other documents that he had. Everyone kept their documents until Nixon obviously was forced out and there was fear over him; and so, this new law was passed.

The reason why I bring it up is, it’s not only unprecedented to charge a former president with a crime, not to mention from the opposing political party as he prepares to potentially run against the guy who is your boss — all of that is unprecedented — but you’re also prosecuting under criminal statutes that are based to a large extent on presidential records acts under which no one has ever been prosecuted before. So, I guess what I’m building here, Buck, is, for everybody out there listening, you have an unprecedented potential charge being brought against the president.

And when I say “unprecedented,” I mean it literally has never happened before — and then you are building your unprecedented charges upon an act where no one as president has ever been charged under this act and, relatively speaking, it’s new in nature, it’s only existed to a large extent for 40 years. So, it’s double unprecedented acts for this to be occurring. It is staggering to me that Merrick Garland could even consider doing this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BUCK: Taylor Budowich, who is a spokesman for President Trump, put out the following: “The release of a heavily redacted, overtly political affidavit only proves that the Biden administration is desperate to cover up their unprecedented, unnecessary, and un-American raid against President Donald J. Trump. This is a grave travesty. And what is unredacted only further supports President Trump’s position. There was no reason for a raid. It is all politics.”

The release of a heavily redacted, overtly political affidavit only proves that the Biden administration is desperate to cover up their unprecedented, unnecessary, and un-American raid against President Donald J. Trump. 1/2

— Taylor Budowich (@TayFromCA) August 26, 2022

Clay, one part of this that has to be added into the discussion I would be, if it were so sensitive and it were such a risk to national security, why did it take months? Why was it okay to go back and forth with lawyers? Trump said 15 boxes. It’s not like he said, “Molon labe my documents.” Anyway, I thought that was good. You know what I’m saying.

CLAY: I think that’s a fantastic question. And if they now have the documents, what crime is there, right? So, the crime is not that he has the documents. The crime is that he had it for 18 months. But if it was so significant to national security, why did he keep them for 18 months, why did the National Archives not know it? And again, I just keep coming back to this question: Is the National Archives really the place where every important, secure classified document is kept? Like, that seems crazy to me. I can walk into the National Archives, as I have done — history nerd brag here — and request that they bring documents out for me to review —

BUCK: You may be the only person I know who’s actually hung out in the National Archives.

CLAY: I know.

BUCK: It’s a baller move, Clay. It’s quite a flex.

CLAY: The chicks, you know, when you walk into National Archives; you walk out, they’re just throwing their bras at you. It’s like —

BUCK: Hey, baby, I’ve got my own National Archives pass. You want to go party?

CLAY: Sex-appeal incarnate. But you would have a ton of people, Buck, who would have access to these documents inside of the National Archives —

BUCK: Only if they… I mean, there’s a classified, obviously, storage section, but if you had a clearance.

CLAY: Right. But they’re going through all of the documents that Trump sent back, the 15 boxes to say what’s there. It just feels like a library book that was kept too long, and now you’re gonna charge somebody with a felony over it who wants to run for president?

Clay and Buck Break Down the Mar-a-Lago Affidavit

26 Aug 2022

BUCK: We’ve got the Mar-a-Lago affidavit. Clay and I are both staring at it right now. It just got released, and it is very thoroughly blacked out. It is 38 pages in length. And, Clay, let’s just work through this, you and me together, for everybody across the country in some phases here because we are able to do a quick scan of it. And then there are also at the end seem to be correspondence between Trump — looks like Trump lawyers — and the National Archives on this or the government on this. Here’s what we’ve got. Introduction and agent background.

This is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and it says, “Affidavit in support of an application under Rule 41 for a warrant to search and seize. The government’s conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records. The investigation began as a result of a referral the United States National Archives and Records Administration sent to the DOJ on February 9, 2022.

“This referral stated that on January 18, 2022, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, NARA, National Archives and Records Administration,” I guess we’ll just call it NARA, “received from the office of former president Trump 15 boxes of records which had been transported to Mar-a-Lago — the premises is a residence and club — and then after an initial review of the NARA referral, the FBI opened a criminal investigation to, among other things, determine how the documents with classification markings and records were removed from the White House and came to be stored at the premises,” Mar-a-Lago in this case.

Okay, Clay. Let’s stop. We’ll go back into this, right? So, there’s the national security redaction component of this, which I can speak to you from experience, and there’s the legal bringing an affidavit forward, justifying the warrant. So we can handle different pieces — or bring two pieces together here onto this. But I think the biggest takeaway for everybody is, this really does seem to just be about classification and documents and the storage thereof.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: And there was an ongoing legal process about what should be returned and what should be kept in former presidential custody here. What are you seeing?

CLAY: Yeah. So, it’s 38 pages, the affidavit, which I think is significant. It’s not like we’re dealing with a three-page affidavit.

BUCK: It could be very… I thought it was gonna be pretty short, but it’s not.

CLAY: Yeah. 38 pages. I went through all 38 pages rapidly, just scanning. About half, I would say, maybe 60% of this overall document is redacted, and as I was reading the unredacted aspects of this, I think the most significant fact is much of this has already been reported because of Department of Justice leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post. So I would say here, this is, based on what we can see — again, there could be redacted elements here — almost exclusively an investigation into documents that ended up at Mar-a-Lago that the federal government believes should be in possession of the National Archives.

And let me just say this, Buck. CNN had a story yesterday. I don’t know if you saw it, but they actually specifically referenced the Kim Jong-un letters that the National Archives was requesting. And they said, “Can you please FedEx these to us?” This from the National Archives. You are an expert in documents, classified, Top Secret, all these things. Does it feel like this is extremely important if the National Archives would allow Donald Trump to FedEx these documents?

BUCK: Yes.

CLAY: Could you FedEx documents?

BUCK: That’s an excellent point. And depending on the level of sensitivity of documents — and I dealt with law enforcement sensitive documents too, which is different —

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: — and there’s a whole —

CLAY: You would get in trouble if you were FedExing regularly, like, classified top secret documents of incredible importance to the government?

BUCK: I sat in the cafeteria once at Langley with a female colleague who could not stop crying because she thought she had misplaced — inside of Langley — a Top Secret document.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: So, yes, you would not… Turns out she actually found it. It was like stuck behind a page in office, but she was completely freaking out. She’s like, “Did I leave it in my car?” You know, she was absolutely apoplectic, freaking out about it. And the notion that you would… Let’s just say, here’s the thing. They could classify… Classification has to do with the sensitivity of the information, but also generally it’s really about how the information was acquired, a lot of the time.

So you can have, because of the acquisition of information, the actual data gathered could be, you know, what some foreign terrorist had for lunch that morning, but how we got the information, meaning does somebody have his phone tapped? Did somebody, you know, break into his email? Whatever. How you get the information can be about the sensitivity of it. But also, there are disputes even within, you know, if a president’s having a conversation with a head of state, is this information that is necessarily sensitive, or is this information that the parking lot could then decide unilaterally to say, “Look, this is what we talked about,” right?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: If he sits with Kim Jong-un, you might have somebody in that room who says, “Well, I’m gonna mark this top secret because it deals with the sensitivity of, you know, red lines around nuclear weapon use.” And it might have been Trump saying, “If you nuke us or try to, we’re gonna obliterate you.” Like, that’s not something that’s a surprise to anybody, but you might have that marked at a very high classification level. If the president then walked out, Clay, and said, “This is what I said to Kim Jong-un, “ that’s his prerogative as the commander-in-chief, right? So to your point about FedEx, if it were super-secret stuff, if it were like the schematics for the F-22 Raptor, which is the most amazing plane platform really in the world, fighter plane, you would not FedEx that. No, you would not.

CLAY: Would the National Archives even get super-secret, Top Secret government documents?

BUCK: Honestly, I thought the National Archives… Here’s the thing.

CLAY: That’s what I’m saying. Why would you want it?

BUCK: If this stuff was so sensitive it should be in the custody of the originating agency.

CLAY: Right.

BUCK: So it should be with the NSA. It should be with the CIA, the DOD.

CLAY: Just give you an example, if we had, for instance, an assassination plan that the CIA had tried to put in place with Soleimani, right, when he’s killed in Iran, do we want the National Archives to have those documents, wouldn’t that information about how that raid was conducted…? I’m just asking that question for everybody. Let me just also hit this, Buck, because the probable cause I think goes into the essence of this. I’m reading from page 7 and 8. This really does appear to be entirely a dispute between the National Archives and Donald Trump.

BUCK: Yes, and the National Archives is… I just want to be clear. I Googled this. And this is from Archives.gov. As I said, the joke was always it was internal Archives, not the National Archives, but if someone got sent to the Archives, it was like this person is… It’s like when Milton Waddams gets sent down to the office in the basement.

CLAY: Office Space, yeah.

BUCK: It’s like you don’t want to get sent to Archives. The Archives and Records Administration is “an independent federal agency that preserves and shares with the public records that trace the story of our nation, government, and the American people.” So that, to me, leaves two things as possibilities. You’re either keeping it at the Archives — I’m just reading the mission statement — ’cause I never thought of the National Archives once when I was in the CIA. Like, this is not something we were talking about or thinking about.

CLAY: Do you think of it as like a super secure place? Because I don’t.

BUCK: No. Absolutely not. Unless Nicolas Cage is dangling from the ceiling trying to steal Constitution.

CLAY: (laughing)

BUCK: So the National Archives is supposed to share information with the public, or they’re supposed to preserve information. But why would you have the National Archives preserving something that is super sensitive? That doesn’t make any sense.

CLAY: That’s my question in general.

BUCK: Why? If this was a danger to fall into mean hands, wouldn’t it be kept with the originating agency and not with NARA? The National Archives doesn’t know the full sensitivity. The National Archives doesn’t know really what the CIA —

CLAY: This is my question for you from the get-go. And when I read that CNN story and they were like, “Hey, just FedEx it to us,” and again I’ll hit you with the probable cause. CNN reported that the National Archives told the Trump people, “Hey, just share the tracking number with us and send it via FedEx,” and I’m thinking to myself, no slight upon FedEx. But if it’s really that important to national security, would the National Archives be, like, “Hey, just go ahead and put it in the FedEx box”?

But I’ll read this probable cause document — page 7 and 8, give you a little bit all of sense; it’s not redacted, obviously — when we come back. But just in the back of your mind I want you to think, does National Archives trust FedEx enough that the documents are so secure there that they can’t… They’re worried about it falling into enemy hands and there’s nobody in spy agencies elsewhere who could track a FedEx package? I just… This doesn’t ring true to me.

BUCK: Doesn’t make any sense. Another question. I’ll just put this out there; we can come back to it later . Why did Trump…? Assuming he wanted these boxes or anyone around him wanted these books, why? ‘Cause I do have people that have raised with me the possibility that he wanted custody of some documents relating to Russia collusion and the lies therein?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: And he wanted that and maybe wanted his people to be able to go through it so that when he runs again, he can actually be the one who would have custody of documents to say, “We can prove it; we know that they colluded”? Anyway, that’s a theory.

CLAY: No, I think that’s a fantastic question.

BUCK: It’s a theory. It is not proven. But I do think, why do you want these boxes? I didn’t want to keep anything when I felt the government.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

CLAY: Probably 60% of this affidavit justifying the raid on Mar-a-Lago is redacted. So we can’t analyze or discuss that in any kind of significant way. But under the probable cause section, this is a little bit of detail, Buck. I’m gonna read from it. On February 9, 2022, they say that they got 15 boxes of this material from Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and it says, and I’m reading directly from it, “A preliminary review of the 15 boxes indicated that they contained newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and ‘a lot of classified records.’

“Of most significant concern was that highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly (sic) identified.” The archivist of the United States… Again, this is the National Archives said that they were upset about what they had found in those documents and wanted to have access to other of those documents. And then there’s tons of things redacted which presumably is a recitation in some way of what those documents that were classified might have contained. But again, Buck, based on everything that is in this 38-page filing that we can read, it appears this is entirely a dispute between Trump and the Archives.

Now, it’s also possible that this was used as a mechanism by which to enter Mar-a-Lago and they actually were serving for other things as a part of this search, right? We know they took, for instance, the passports which they weren’t entitled to. Maybe there are some other documents that they were in an effort trying to obtain. But to me, the idea that you would break 240 years of precedence of not doing an FBI raid or a criminal raid on the former president for this is, frankly, staggering to me.

BUCK: There’s also the problem here of the “trust us” line with all of this.

CLAY: Yeah. Certainly.

BUCK: Meaning the FBI, the DOJ are telling us all, “Look, the stuff that they have is super sensitive in a real way. Trump didn’t — even though he was president and commander-in-chief when he took the documents, or when he set them aside — have the right to declassify them,” which that’s also a point of contention, and ’cause I do know… I mean, we use talk about in the CIA, presidents, whether by custom, whatever else you want to say, we called it “real time declassification,” which is when a president walks out and says, “Yeah. That drone strike that just happened? We called for that,” at a press conference or whatever.

That, you know, could have been marked the top secret until that moment and then when the president comes out and says it, no one’s… He’s the commander-in-chief. It’s executive branch information. He has that prerogative. And they’re asking us to trust them that this isn’t overclassified information, meaning stuff that is marked sensitive but really isn’t. I mean, where I used to get my cheeseburger at lunch was classified in the CIA. I mean, they just… They would overclassify all the time. Is it stuff that actually we would read and say, “Uh, you really shouldn’t have that at Mar-a-Lago under the circumstances”?

I find that very hard to believe, and they’re saying, “You’ve gotta believe us,” because we can’t see. All the blacked-out stuff in the affidavit — and there’s a lot of it — is what this actually pertains to, what kind of information we’re talking about here. If it’s stuff about Trump’s state of mind or his conversation on a phone line with a head of state, probably not a big deal at all. If it’s, for some reason, the crown jewels of the intelligence community, that would be not so good. They’re telling us basically that’s what we’re looking at here, and I don’t believe ’em.

CLAY: I just am thinking here, it is staggering. We talk all the time about threats to democracy because that’s the number one thing that Democrats want to make the entire Trump regime and in fact the justification for why Biden’s in control now. How is raiding your top political opponent and the guy that you just ran against for the first time in American history not the largest direct threat to democracy that any of us have seen in our lives, Buck?

BUCK: Absolutely. A hundred percent agree. I would also throw into the mix here, Clay, if this is all true — they found the documents, they found these things — charge ’em. Let’s see what you’ve got, right? Like, they’re forcing themselves into a corner here because they’re making this claim, they’re going to this extent. So how can they not charge him? Right? I mean, it’s like, where does this leave us? It’s either they say this is so important; so sensitive they had to do what you said, which is very destabilizing, or it’s not. So what are they gonna do?

CLAY: Let’s talk more about this at the top of the next hour because I think that there are kind of painted into a corner —

BUCK: Yes!

CLAY: — to your point, and I don’t know how you get out of that corner, which is why I’m so stunned Merrick Garland did this.

Zuckerberg Admits Big Tech Rigged 2020 Election on Orders from FBI

26 Aug 2022

BUCK: There was this interview on another very widely listened to show, Mr. Joe Rogan’s program, involving the CEO of Facebook — the chairman I believe as well — Mark Zuckerberg. And let’s just let you hear what he has to say about the 2020 election and the role that Facebook played in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

If the libs want us to stop questioning elections, they should stop stealing elections https://t.co/t6QmJ0WhZW

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) August 26, 2022

BUCK: Couple things here. One is that we already knew that they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story before — and remember, they suppressed it, everyone, under the false claim that it was false information that it was misinformation. So they were wrong. I believe they knew they were wrong. They didn’t care. It was to protect the Biden regime to be. And, Clay, the other part of this is, they were responding to the FBI saying, “Watch out for election misinformation!” I’d be willing to bet that the only election misinformation the FBI was pressuring Facebook about somehow hurt Republicans and helped Democrats.

CLAY: Well, the FBI is rigged against Donald Trump. And they rigged the 2020 election to get Joe Biden into office. Let’s just be straight and clear about what happened here. They knew the Hunter Biden laptop story was coming out. They had been in possession of the Hunter Biden laptop, should have well known that it was accurate, and that there was no way the Russians could have manufactured disinformation like this. What, did they kidnap Hunter Biden and make him record crack usage and prostitute videos for years and then put it all…?

I mean, again, this is not hostage videos, okay? If you have seen any of this stuff on the laptop, the idea that this was Russian disinformation vanished almost instantaneously for almost all of the videos and all of the evidence that is there. Okay, let’s start there. But this is direct putting their thumb on the scale to change the outcome of an election. Because they go to Facebook and they say basically, “Hey, beware, there’s Russian disinformation that may be out there,” knowing that this story from the New York Post is being worked on, so that they can curtail its distribution at the time that it was released.

And you put that in conjunction with all the other Big Tech companies which probably got the same warnings from the FBI. Buck, I think it’s probably gonna come out that, what was it, the 51 national security advisers who signed that letter saying, “Hey, this looks like Russian disinformation”… I kind of think the FBI may well have briefed them also. We know the FISA warrant was a lie that was used to spy on Donald Trump and his campaign.

This Mark Zuckerberg statement to Joe Rogan is a smoking gun that the FBI is out to get Donald Trump. And I think it directly implicates the raid, the affidavit that we are going to see hopefully in short order some details. We’ll know exactly what is out there. But this proves, to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rig job was in effect. Mark Zuckerberg is even admitting to it now. And it should be a monumental story right now. Most people in the mainstream media, by the way, Buck are not even gonna talk about it. We played that audio for you.

BUCK: Yeah, of course.

CLAY: Many people are gonna ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

BUCK: If they want us to stop objecting to election theft, I think they should stop stealing elections.

CLAY: (laughing) Yeah.

BUCK: That’s my basic premise. I think if they want us to stop having discussions about lack of trust in elections, they should stop destroying the trust that people can have in elections. And things like this, I understand, there’s what’s legal, and there’s what holds a country together too. Right? I mean, you could claim that a private — which is, of course, what they would say. “Oh, Facebook is a private business.” It’s the public square. Meanwhile, cable news and radio have all kinds of regulations, federal regulations especially around election issues.

CLAY: Oh yeah. We can’t even use certain words. We couldn’t run for political office and be on the radio.

BUCK: And yet when it comes to the social media giants because they have a built-in ideological advantage for the left, they want no restrictions right now. And, by the way, if they do start regulating them more, they will just try to regulate them in favor of the left. So they do not want a level playing field. We all know that. That’s very obvious. But, Clay, they were willing to believe that Donald Trump… They were willing to believe the dossier, which talked about Russian prostitutes doing things…

CLAY: Golden showers, yes.

BUCK: Indeed. And they said, you know, “Michael Cohen was in Prague!” He’s never even been to Prague; that’s been verified, full of lies. The top of the FBI was willing to believe this fanciful compilation of bullcrap which had no real sourcing to it whatsoever. It was an oppo document based on rumors, based on sources who were being paid to come up with something juicy to say about a political candidate. It had all the authority and honesty of going through, like, the comments section of some website, you know, scraping Reddit and saying, “What are people saying about this candidate?”

And yet, on the other hand, you have a laptop full of emails, videos, everything of Hunter Biden, and the same apparatus of national security wanted to tell us that that was the most intricate — and, really, astonishing — example of Russian disinformation in history. How is that…? Unless you are ideologically blinded, it is not possible to have made one choice and then the other and be an intelligent person, right? It’s just not possible. It’s just hatred of Trump that pushed the decisions.

CLAY: I want to see Mark Zuckerberg under oath talking more about this FBI briefing. And I want the FBI director to be under arrest talk about the briefing that they gave Facebook as well. And I just want more details to be out there, because, Buck, look, our audience knows about this. They are aware it. There are tons of people out there that I still think are in the persuadable realm that have no idea that the FBI was behaving in this way and naturally favor the FBI — and you know this, even as a CIA guy. I don’t know where it’s gotten into…

We’ve gotten lectured recently from Republicans, like Mike Pence came out and said, don’t say something bad about the FBI. I think Dan Crenshaw, other people. Look, the FBI historically has been a completely untrustworthy entity for many parts of American history. If you just study what J. Edgar Hoover did when he effectively turned the FBI into his own domestic spying ring and chose who to favor and who to disfavor, it’s not crazy to think that the same thing could be happening today. We know it’s already happened in the past! Like, why is asking those questions a threat to democracy? I think it’s embarrassing to that agree, and it’s reflective of historical lack of knowledge to even suggest that the FBI is above reproach.

BUCK: There’s a reason that in so many countries around the world if you look at it historically, particularly the last… The notion of the intelligence service, mostly a post-World War II era when it comes to MI5, MI6, all these different groups. They’ve existed in Britain longer than they have in other Western countries. But there’s a reason why if you look at Iraq, Saddam was the head of the intelligence service before he was the dictator. People who run the can think in the Soviet Union either end up dead or basically running things, right?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: The intelligence service can become very political. Federal police, which is really domestic intelligence, in most places. Here it’s not. We’re not supposed to have that. Like, Britain has MI5, which is domestic national security and MI6, which is its foreign arm. In other countries the Russians have the FSB, which is their domestic version, and the SVR, which is their foreign intelligence arm, the CIA. Here we have the FBI.

We have Homeland Security, but that’s an umbrella entity for a lot of other things. We don’t have technically a full-scale domestic intelligence agency, but we actually do, and it’s called the FBI. I mean, that’s what everyone’s seeing, and it’s used and abused in the same ways. So I think that people should be asking questions about that and also asking questions about why is it the job of Facebook to police speech? I think we should concede this.

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: Why are Twitter and Facebook, outside of the confines of very expressly and clearly forbidden — death threats, child pornography, things that we all understand and agree need to be illegal and policed, okay. But outside of what is a violation of law — you know, defamation, which is a civil issue, but still — why are they policing speech at all?

CLAY: Fantastic question.

BUCK: Why have we concede that they should be saying, “Oh, well, this isn’t…” Organizations like PolitiFact, they’re just the digital Stasi, man. They shouldn’t exist. This is crazy.

CLAY: We need to keep talking about this and hammering this home ’cause I think this story — and we’re gonna continue to wait for the affidavit to be released. We don’t know exactly when that will come down. We’ll give it to you the absolute moment that it does. We’ll break it down for you. But this is a monster story. When I saw the Mark Zuckerberg video yesterday, Buck, I was waiting for to pick up my son at a football game. I was sitting in the car old man style, dad style, and I watched that, and my jaw dropped, and that doesn’t happen that often. Just to see Zuckerberg admitting that the FBI came in with him and essentially rigged the election through the Big Tech companies, which I think we all suspected. But to have it said and stated so clearly as he did on the Joe Rogan podcast, it stunned me. It really did.

C&B 24/7: Clay & Buck’s Show Prep

26 Aug 2022

If the libs want us to stop questioning elections, they should stop stealing elections https://t.co/t6QmJ0WhZW

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) August 26, 2022

New York Sun: Biden Torches GOP on Student Loan ‘Forgiveness.’ Republican solons are hoisted on their own petards – Dean Karayanis

Daily Wire: Evidence Of FBI Meddling In 2020 Election Mounts After Zuckerberg’s Hunter Biden Laptop Revelation

Daily Wire: Zuckerberg: FBI Pushed Facebook To Crack Down On Misinformation Before Hunter Biden Laptop Story Was Published

FOXNews: FBI blasted after Zuckerberg revealed their warning ahead of the Hunter Biden laptop story: ‘Collusion’

FOXNews: Karine Jean-Pierre throws out rough $24B a year estimate for student loan handout plan: ‘We’re going to see’

So the FBI intentionally helped rig the election for Joe Biden by covering for Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election and is now raiding Donald Trump’s house. Seems like the FBI might be the actual threat to democracy here. https://t.co/QwU1R22jX5

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) August 25, 2022

Breitbart: FBI Sets Sights on James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas with Ashley Biden Diary Conviction

PJ Media: America Was a Better Place When the FBI Didn’t Rig Elections

New York Post: Rep. McCarthy blasts Big Tech after Zuckerberg’s NY Post-Facebook bombshell

UK Daily Mail: Biden accuses Trump and ‘extreme’ Republicans of ‘semi-fascism’: President tears into the ‘MAGA philosophy’ at DNC fundraiser in $3.1million Maryland home

UK Daily Mail: ‘I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans’: Biden tells crowd Trump and ‘extreme’ GOP are ‘destroying America’ and don’t care about inflation – before heckler is carried off by security for telling the president: ‘you stole the election!’

Tucker Carlson breaks down why Biden forgiving student loan debt is a bad idea, and who benefits. pic.twitter.com/I1w7LT5vv6

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 25, 2022

Daily Wire: White House Lashes Out At Republicans Over Student Loan Cancellation; Conservatives Fire Back

Breitbart: Democrat Raphael Warnock Boasts About Leading Charge to Cancel Student Debt: ‘This Is Only a First Step’

FOXNews: Flashback: Liberal media was enthusiastic over student loan handouts, but now may have buyer’s remorse. Figures on CNN, MSNBC, ‘The View’ and more touted loan cancellation

FOXNews: White House silent on whether tax increases are necessary to pay for $300,000,000,000 student loan handout

HotAir: Powell declares war on inflation, predicts “pain” ahead

The Biden administration is simultaneously saying the student debt policy is paid for and that they don’t know how much it will cost. This is completely impossible. Credit to the White House reporters asking these questions. Watch: pic.twitter.com/MqCuDmz78v

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) August 25, 2022

Daily Wire: Judge Orders Affidavit Behind Mar-A-Lago Raid Released — With Redactions

BizPacReview: Judge orders release of redacted affidavit used to secure search warrant for Mar-a-Lago raid

Karine Jean-Pierre is struggling to answer Don Lemon's question about what Joe Biden meant by Republicans being "semi-fascists."

She is so terrible at her job. If you can't even handle Don Lemon as a Democrat flack, you are beyond incompetent. pic.twitter.com/vUmI3h9IdX

— Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) August 26, 2022

Federalist: Ranked-Choice Voting Is A Nightmare — And It’s On The Ballot In Nevada

Daily Wire: D.C. Mayor Says Unvaccinated Students Are Banned From In-Person Learning Ahead Of School Year, No Alternative Provided

New York Post: Moderna sues Pfizer and BioNTech for patent infringement over COVID vaccine

Despite the guilty verdicts this week (thanks to actively biased judge) do NOT let Republicans ignore what happened here. 2 innocent men spent 18 months in jail after they were framed by same FBI covering up contents of Hunter Biden laptop:
https://t.co/iEIpuabpxu

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) August 26, 2022

Breitbart: Biden’s DACA Rule: Illegal Aliens with Criminal Records Not Disqualified from Work Permits, Deportation Protection

BizPacReview: Video shows immigrants brazenly taunting and attacking border patrol agents

California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom brags about being the “first jurisdiction in the world” to ban gas-powered car sales. pic.twitter.com/FgwnCd7e2s

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 25, 2022

New York Post: Kathy Hochul’s call for 5.4M Republicans to leave New York is dangerous and disgusting

Breitbart: Court Rejects Democrat Official’s Attempt to Keep 26K Dead People on Michigan Voter Rolls

UK Dail Mail: Gang of seven thieves calmly walk out of Lululemon in NYC with $30k worth of goods while security does NOTHING – as high-end stores in SoHo and West Village come under siege from looters

Joe Biden, whose entire campaign was based on unity, insults tens of millions of Americans: "I don't respect these MAGA Republicans"pic.twitter.com/FSLnIIZiNp

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 26, 2022

Daily Wire: Ancient Artifacts, Dinosaur Tracks, Nazi Ships Appear Around The World As Drought Causes Low Water Levels

Breitbart: Govt Energy Regulator Confirms Britons Will Be Hammered with 80 Per Cent Bill Hike

UK Daily Mail: Europe was ‘one step away from a nuclear disaster’ after Russian-held power plant was forced to be cut off from electrical grid and only back-up diesel generators prevented catastrophe

Even Obama economist Jason Furman is slamming Biden’s student debt debacle as a “bad idea."

“We really don’t need to be adding $500 billion of deficit spending for a purpose that frankly includes wealthy law students and business school graduates.” pic.twitter.com/X7PXw4pYGo

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 26, 2022

Buck on the Disgrace of Human Trafficking at Biden’s Open Border

25 Aug 2022

Buck appeared on Hannity alongside investigative journalist Sara Carter, who exposed the elicit trade in human flesh at the southern border.

Human trafficker tells Sara Carter there's 'no way back' from cartel's grip on US border

Join me tonight @seanhannity for Part Two of my interview and the horrors faced by children trafficked to the U.S. by the cartels. 9 pm EST #TheSaraCarterShow https://t.co/rTS4XXWfrI

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) August 26, 2022

VIP Video: The Absurdity of Novak Djokovic’s U.S. Open Ban

25 Aug 2022

The world’s best tennis player can’t play in the U.S. Open because he can’t fly to America without a covid shot. Watch Clay and Buck volley on the insanity of this policy.

Only C&B 24/7 members can watch this exclusive video.

If you’re not a member, sign up now. You can also use the special VIP email pipeline to Clay and Buck to share whatever is on your mind or take a deeper dive into the day’s top stories with Clay and Buck’s Show Prep.

Watch: Djokovic Out of U.S. Open Because of Idiotic Covid Rules:

Eli Crane, AZ Congressional Candidate: America First

25 Aug 2022

CLAY: We’re joined now by Eli Crane, former Navy SEAL, small business owner, husband, dad, and native Arizonan. Eli, the week after 9/11 you left school to join the Navy, five wartime deployments, three to Iraq as a sniper with SEAL Team 3. Tell me how this all came to be post-9/11.

I think another guy in Arizona did basically the same thing, Pat Tillman, who a lot of people know that story. How did you make the decision to leave University of Arizona, what has your life been like since, and what district are you running for so everybody listening to us in Arizona can make sure they vote for you?

CRANE: Hey, thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. So, I’m running in Congressional District 2 against the country’s most vulnerable Democrat, Tom O’Halloran. You know, like thousands of Americans, the week after 9/11 I actually decided to drop out of school, and I just really believe that it was my time to step up to this country. I know many men and women in generations before me did the same thing for this country to protect some of the freedoms and the prosperities that we have here.

WATCH our new ad, featuring former Navy SEAL Eli Crane.

“When things get tough, you want people who have walked through a storm. Who have been forged in fire.” pic.twitter.com/zTmnH8VKNQ

— Caroline Anderegg (@cfanderegg) September 10, 2020

And I knew that was a pivotal moment in our history, and I knew the next generation needed to step up. And I realized that I could go back to school at any time. So, I wanted to do that. I did that. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t make it through SEAL training my first time. I had to go back and do it a second time. But I’m grateful just that I got a chance to serve my country and serve with some of the finest men on the planet.

BUCK: Hey, Eli, the district you’re running it, I mean, obviously you’re spending a lot of time talking to the people, your constituents and figuring out what is top of mind for them. Clay and I have been discussing this. It looks like right now the polls aren’t quite as strong nationwide for Republicans in some of these races as we’d like to see them. The Red Wave is feeling more like it could be — at least some people think — a red ripple. I’m actually still pretty confident. What are people telling you? I mean, what are the top-of-mind issues for the voters that you’re speaking to in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional?

CRANE: Well, I think the economy and immigration are two of the big ones here. People also in this district and in Arizona generally are really upset and fired up about our elections as well. They don’t feel like our elections are tight or as transparent as the mainstream media would have us believe. You know, so those are a couple really big things right there that Arizonans, especially in this district, want to see turned around.

And the worst part about it, Buck, is I think we can all agree that when it comes to the border and also the economy it’s our own fault, it’s our own doing. And so that’s I think what rubs people the wrong way so hard is that they’re trying to struggle just to make ends meet. Make sure their kids can go to school. Make sure that they have gas in the tank and they can afford groceries. Meanwhile, this administration continues to promote bills and legislation and uncontrolled spending that continues to put us into a deeper and deeper hole.

CLAY: We’re talking to a guy who I hope all the voters out there are going to support, Eli Crane. Eli, again, I encourage everybody to support you. But you mentioned something that I wanted to unpack. You said you had to try twice as a Navy SEAL. This is grueling. This is unbelievably difficult. You made it as a second time. What happened the first time that you tapped out? And how tough was this? I know our audience loves the dedication Navy SEALs bring to bear. What was that training like for you? And why did you make it a second time after not making it the first?

CRANE: You know, it was brutal. And it’s designed to be that way and for good reason. And I think that’s why SEAL teams produce some of the best warriors on the planet. But for me honestly the first time I showed up I wasn’t as prepared as I could have been. You know, I wasn’t as mature as I could have been. You know, I was more focused on myself and staying inside my comfort zone.

And I wasn’t as quick to get out of my comfort zone to help one of my brothers when they were carrying more weight or when they needed help. And that’s something that the SEAL instructors, they’ll smell on you real quickly. Are you more focused on your own comfort or will you get outside your comfort zone to help one of your brothers in a time of need? And they have a bunch of different ways to expose that.

And I just wasn’t ready. I wasn’t mature enough. And I actually made it through Hell Week my first attempt in SEAL training, but they told you, young man, you’re not ready, and we suggest that you come back in a year. It took me two-and-a-half years to come back, but I’m grateful that they held the standards where they were. I’m grateful that I learned a tough lesson in life, and I’m grateful that I actually came back and made it through.

BUCK: We’re talking to Eli Crane. He’s running for Congress in Arizona. It’s Buck, Eli, and I’m just wondering what you think about the $3 billion I think it was yesterday that they just decided was gonna — additional $3 billion gonna — go to Ukraine. I mean, you know the face of warfare. You know what it’s like to be outside the wire and in a conflict zone. What do you think is going on over there?

Never before in our history. pic.twitter.com/Mv7IqLxxNi

— Eli Crane (@EliCrane_CEO) August 9, 2022

CRANE: Well guys, when I look at this issue like I look at every issue, I’m an America First candidate. So, I try and put that America First lens between everything I look at, and when I look at the war in Ukraine and I look at all the money that we continue to send over, I look and I see the fact that we still don’t have a southern border. We have people pouring over that border every single day.

We’ve got over $30 trillion in debt, people are really struggling just to make ends meet. And as an America First candidate, it’s not that I don’t have any sympathy or empathy for Ukrainians — or anybody else, for that matter — or want to see unchecked Russian aggression. It’s just that I have to ask myself, are we putting Americans first? And I don’t believe that we are. And so that’s something, when I continue to see us send more money that we don’t even have — we have to print this money because we already are, I think, $33 trillion in debt.

You know, it really bothers me, because we continue to spend money that we don’t have protecting somebody else’s sovereignty and border. Meanwhile, we have no sovereignty, no border down south. And that’s paying heavy dividends to communities and people all over this country when you see fentanyl pouring through that southern border, when you see sex trafficking pouring through that southern border, when you see MS-13 gang members coming through that border. You know, and I think that’s why we need America First candidates now more than we ever have just because of this country being on fire like it is.

BUCK: Eli, where can folks go to learn more about your campaign and help out?

CRANE: Thank you, Buck. I appreciate it. People can go to EliForArizona.com if they want to help us out. Like I said, we’re running against most vulnerable Democrat in the country, and so this is definitely a very winnable race.

BUCK: Well, Eli, thank you for your service, sir, and we will have you back when you are Congressman Crane. Looking forward to it.

CRANE: Thank you, brother.

Andy McCarthy’s Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Predictions

25 Aug 2022

BUCK: Mr. Andy McCarthy from National Review. We’re talking document redaction, affidavits. Take it away, sir.

MCCARTHY: You know, a couple things. One is, it occurred to me — even though this was just gonna be a big blackout thing — since they’ve been having this argument about special master, like Trump wants a special master to supervise the DOJ sifting through the privileged stuff, and DOJ doesn’t want that because they proposed procedures that they said, you know, protected those interests? I imagine they could… That’s the kind of stuff that they could reveal without… It wouldn’t tell us what we want to know, which is the probable cause and why did they think they needed a warrant?

But, you know, I could imagine they could reveal stuff like that without blowing anything in the investigation, like, without identifying witnesses and the like. And the other thing I would just say quickly is that I think we already know what the probable cause is here. You know, from the time this happened a couple of weeks ago ’til now, there’s been not only a lot of reporting — we got that letter from the National Archives dated May 10th earlier this week, which lays out a lot of what was going on up ’til that point.

Trump World’s Mar-a-Lago Offensive Backfires – my @NRO column … https://t.co/QhGFrZ2WCg

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) August 24, 2022

And we already know from a lot of reporting a lot of what happened afterwards. So I just, you know, I had to do a timeline for my own purposes this morning, and it was amazing to me how much we know that went on from the time Trump left office until they did the search, and I’d be surprised… Looking at that, you could see why they thought they had probable cause. I don’t see anything about obstruction in there. But looking at that, you could see why they must have thought they had probable cause on, you know, classified information and document retention —

CLAY: Yeah, Andy, you can understand why they might have thought they had cause. But this is still the president of the United States, former the president of the United States.

MCCARTHY: Yep.

CLAY: And when you were signing off on this as Merrick Garland, you are crossing the Rubicon. This has never happened before. It is truly unprecedented. Based on what the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported — and there have been fairly detailed aspects of this — I gotta be honest with you, Andy. I am stunned beyond belief that Merrick Garland would have signed off on this warrant and undertaken this sort of legal battle. Based on what’s out there so far, are you also stunned, or does it make sense to you?

MCCARTHY: I’m a lot less stunned than I was in the earliest days of this, and let me explain why. They find out in early 2022 that there’s, you know, the top, Top Secret stuff is there, including special access program stuff and, you know, sensitive compartmentalized, the very Top Secret stuff, right? And they have this back-and-forth about getting it back. The Justice Department refers it to — I’m sorry, the Archives refer it — to the FBI. This will eventually result in a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in June where the meeting takes place because they’ve done a grand jury subpoena.

But now this isn’t just like a friendly conversation anymore, right? They’re now starting to use criminal law, government evidence-collection methods. And on June 3rd they had this meeting, they give them a subpoena, and they not only give them more classified documents — which means they hadn’t, obviously, turned over all the classified documents at this point; so, to the extent that the FBI suspected that they had, that was kind of confirmation that they hadn’t.

But they also make them give them a signed document from the lawyers that says we have searched the place and there is no more classified information. So after that, they start to interview people at Mar-a-Lago and on Trump’s staff, and one of the things they do on June 22nd is issue them a second grand jury subpoena asking for the surveillance video, you know, the security cameras, which apparently go back 60 days at some parts of Mar-a-Lago. And now we have to refer to reporting rather than, you know, what the government is saying —

CLAY: So, Andy, let me cut you off here.

MCCARTHY: Yep!

CLAY: Can you come back and answer a couple more questions for us?

MCCARTHY: Yeah, absolutely.

CLAY: Okay. Here’s the question that we’re gonna lead with when we come back: Does Andy McCarthy think there are gonna be criminal charges brought against Donald Trump based on what he has seen so far in this case? We’ll talk about that next.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BUCK: We got Andy McCarthy from National Review. And, Andy, I just want to get right to it. It’s essentially the “where is this all going?” question with the Mar-a-Lago raid. Clay just asked you before the break: Are we heading toward criminal charges of some kind against former president Trump and where is this going?

MCCARTHY: I don’t think they want to charge Trump with document retention offenses. One of the reasons I say that is, ordinarily in a criminal investigation, when you’re ready to do search warrants, you do that at the end, and usually the searches and the arrests are done the same day, because if you have probable cause for a search, you have probable cause for an arrest. My sense is that they want the documents back.

I’m not so sure that they want to get into the whole morass like the first prosecution in history against a former president over document-retention offenses. Now, the classified information stuff is serious. It’s more serious than I would have thought it was at the beginning, and we don’t know what the instruction evidence is, which, you know, depending what their evidence of that is. They say in the warrant that they have obstruction evidence, we haven’t seen it; so I’d like to know what that is.

But I’ve always thought that they are trying to make a January 6th case on him because if they’re gonna do something as drastic as actually indict a former president, they want to make sure that it’s over something that’s very, very serious, and I think Garland knows that. So my sense is that part of the reason that they’re fighting about disclosing the affidavit is they were hoping to get the documents back and then this whole thing kind of goes away unless they can make a January 6 case. But I could be wrong.

CLAY: So how much politics do you think goes in to making a decision like this? And the reason why, Andy, I’m asking is, to me this has made Donald Trump politically stronger.

MCCARTHY: Yep.

CLAY: And part of being a prosecutor is understanding what the likelihood is of getting convictions, not getting convictions. As you well know, discretion sometimes can be the better part of valor. Wouldn’t you have to consider the politics almost more than you would the law here?

MCCARTHY: Yeah, I don’t see how you could avoid it, Clay, for a variety of reasons. Like, it’s always seemed to me stupid for Biden to act like, “Ohhh, I had nothing to do with this,” when, you know, in point of fact, like, in order for the FBI to get access to Trump’s records, Biden had to approve that under the Presidential Records Act. If Trump tries to prevent them from seeing it by asserting executive privilege, Biden had to weigh in on that.

So it wasn’t like, you know, he’s reaching out. He’s required by law to be involved in this. And what they’re saying is, the critical thing here is the national security information. National security is the president’s most important job! So, yes, it’s all tinged with politics, but, you know, sometimes that’s the job, you know?

BUCK: And if they don’t prosecute him, though, Andy — we’ve only but about a minute — I’m just wondering, doesn’t it look like it was really heavy-handed to send in the FBI there to get back the docs?

MCCARTHY: You know better than I do. It really depends on how serious that classified information is. I mean, they could have had really bad stuff down there that they shouldn’t have had and they needed that back. I don’t know.

BUCK: That’s a good point, Andy. I also feel like, why would Trump or anyone who works for Trump want that stuff? Like, there’s no value to such stuff for them to have.

CLAY: Also, for people to think about, why would it be important for the Archives to have it? Thank you for the time, Andy McCarthy.

Clay and Buck

DownloadNow

You’d Have to Be Crazy to Charge Trump Over These Documents

Recent Stories

Log In

Get Password Hint

Forgot password

You don't have a valid subscription

Your subscription was cancelled

Sen. Johnson Reacts to News on Mar-a-Lago Raid, Zuckerberg

Recent Stories

Merrick Garland Painted Himself Into a Ridiculous Corner

Recent Stories

Clay and Buck Break Down the Mar-a-Lago Affidavit

Recent Stories

Zuckerberg Admits Big Tech Rigged 2020 Election on Orders from FBI

Recent Stories

C&B 24/7: Clay & Buck’s Show Prep

Recent Stories

Buck on the Disgrace of Human Trafficking at Biden’s Open Border

Recent Stories

VIP Video: The Absurdity of Novak Djokovic’s U.S. Open Ban

Recent Stories

Eli Crane, AZ Congressional Candidate: America First

Recent Stories

Andy McCarthy’s Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Predictions

Recent Stories

Download
Now