TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @ClayTravis
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
I knew Alec Baldwin’s wife had to be awful when she pretended to have a Spanish accent and changed her name, but my god, what a total bitch. https://t.co/3WPepEkYHX
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a raw and real show where we took a lot of chances. We're going to see how it feels to have it out there. We'll see where it leads us and if people like it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Ilaria show. No. No. I I think we're gonna see, you know, it's we're gonna see how it feels to have it be out there. This is great.
This is You're a winner. Oh my god. When I'm talking, you're not talking. Oh, sorry. No.
When I'm talking, you're not talking. This is why. Yes. We'll have to, like, just cut him out of the show. Now, if I mean, I think it's this is a a really raw show and it's very real and we took a lot of chances.
And, you know, I think that it's we'll see where it leads us. We'll see what it feels like to have to be out there and then we'll see, you know, if people like it. That's when I
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Helicopter and plane crash in DC. Video here. Pilots can respond, but how is this possible? https://t.co/OiTsLCDWJa
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Joy Behar says Elon Musk supported apartheid in South Africa, later comes back on show, says she has no idea if that’s true and asks Elon not to sue her. https://t.co/U87ehBu44Y
Video Transcript AI Summary
I don't think that we ever wanted the responsibility of the job. He's not bright enough to handle it, but Elon Musk butters him up, stroking his ego, so he gets to nap.
And to think, this guy wasn't even born in the US. He was born in South Africa under apartheid, so he has that mentality. As I understand it, he was pro-apartheid.
And now he's a naturalized citizen. How did he even do that? Did he come over the border legally?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think that's true. I think that's true. I don't think we ever wanted really the responsibility of the job. He he's not really bright enough to handle the job. And and Elon Musk kisses his butt and strokes his his tiny ego or big ego, whatever it is.
And and he doesn't get to do he can take a nap while the guy was not born in this country, who was born under a apartheid in South Africa. Mhmm. So has that mentality going on. He was pro apartheid as I understand it. He's a naturalized citizen.
Right. He's a naturalized citizen. Now he's a naturalized citizen. Oh, really? How did he do that?
Did he come over the border legally?
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm not sure if Musk was pro-apartheid. He grew up while it was happening, before Nelson Mandela fixed things. I don't know for sure where he stood. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. He might have been young at the time. So, Elon, please don't sue me! It feels like others can say anything they want, but we have to be extra careful. That's why this show is so important.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Say that now I'm getting some flat because I said that, Musk was pro apartheid. I don't really know what for sure if he was. He grew up at that time when, apartheid was in was in full bloom before the great Nelson Mandela fixed that. He was around at that time, but maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. He might have been a young guy too.
Might have been. So don't be suing me. Okay, Elon? They're allowed to say any lie they want, but we have to be really strict. That's why this show is important.
Yeah.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Joy Reid, fired today by MSNBC, said Joe Biden recovering from covid was the same as Trump surviving an assassination attempt. https://t.co/5hY8UnlU3L
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump, an elderly man, was oddly given nine seconds for a photo op during an active shooter situation. Considering that, if the 81-year-old President Biden, who currently has COVID, recovers in a few days, wouldn't that send a similar message? It would show his strength, especially since he is older than Trump, in overcoming an illness that was once deadly for his age group. If Biden recovers and resumes rallies, it should have a similar impact. While not the exact same incident, it's still an elderly man recovering from an illness, which should convey a message of strength and resilience.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Question that I have on that. These two men are both elderly. Donald Trump is an elderly man who, for whatever reason, was given nine seconds to take a iconic photo op during an active shooter, situation. Weird United States is 81 years old and has COVID. Should he be fine in a couple of days, doesn't that convey exactly the same thing?
That he's strong enough, older than Trump, to have gotten something that used to really be fatal to people his age. So if he does fine out of it and comes back and is able to do rallies, isn't that exactly the same? It it should. I mean, it's not exactly the same. It's not the same incident, but it's all it's an elderly man coming through out of an illness.
It should.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
In December of 2020 Joe Biden said you wouldn’t see any pre-emptive pardons in his administration. All Biden did was lie for four years: https://t.co/kuOwf9aXmg
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump is reportedly considering preemptive pardons, raising concerns about the precedent it sets and how it affects perceptions of the U.S. as a nation of laws. This approach to pardons and policy-making via social media will not be part of our administration. We will adopt a fundamentally different approach to the justice system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump is, reportedly considering a wave of of preemptive pardons. Does this concern you, all these preemptive pardons?
Speaker 1: Well, it's, it concerns me in terms of, what kind of precedent it sets and how the rest of the world looks at us as a nation of laws and injustice. You're not gonna see, in our administration that kind of approach to pardons, nor are you gonna see in our administration, the approach to making policy by tweets. You know, it's just gonna be a totally different way in which we approach the justice system.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Kamala is confronted by 60 Minutes on if allowing illegal immigration to quadruple on her watch was a mistake. Gets asked three times, responds with nonsense. This interview is ending her campaign: https://t.co/VUlYFczisw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that an historic flood of undocumented immigrants crossed the border during the first three years of the administration, with arrivals quadrupling from the last year of President Trump. The speaker asks if it was a mistake to loosen immigration policies. The other speaker responds that the policies proposed are about fixing a problem, not promoting one. The first speaker reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The other speaker claims that they have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half, as well as the flow of fentanyl by half, but that Congress needs to act to fix the problem.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been covering the border for for years. And so I know this is not a problem that started with your administration.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: But there was an historic flood of undocumented immigrants coming across the border the 1st 3 years of your administration. As a matter of fact, arrivals quadrupled from the last year of president Trump. Was it a mistake to loosen the immigration policies as much as you did?
Speaker 1: It's a long standing problem, and solutions are at hand. And from day 1, literally, we have been offering solutions.
Speaker 0: But what I was asking was, was it a mistake to kind of allow that flood to happen in the first place?
Speaker 1: I think the policies that we have been proposing are about fixing a problem, not promoting a problem. Okay?
Speaker 0: But the numbers did quadruple.
Speaker 1: And the numbers today, because of what we have done, we have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half.
Speaker 0: But should
Speaker 1: you have done that? The flow of fentanyl by half, but we need congress to be able to act to actually fix the problem.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
NFL players, coaches and media aren’t allowed to use Twitter while the Eagles and Packers play in Brazil because Brazil has banned free speech, banning the use of Twitter in the country. The NFL, which claims to support human rights, has been silent: https://t.co/AIH45laUAD
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a substantial component of the left wing in America that is in favor of banning speech. The speaker's first published work was a defense of the First Amendment in the GW Hatchet. Now, supporting free speech has become a right-wing idea. The best cure for bad speech is more speech. People determining what is misinformation often end up being wrong, like CNN and MSNBC on the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The speaker believes in robust, uninhibited debate and that the cure for false speech is more speech. The NFL is playing a game in Brazil, where free speech is restricted. The speaker believes the NFL should support free speech around the world, but doesn't think individuals in uniform at work should make political statements. The speaker suggests the NFL should pull the game out of Brazil and put it back in the US to show they believe in free speech. The speaker believes the NFL is committed to money, not principle.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is really important. Where we are sitting right now, there is a substantial component of the left wing in America that is in favor of banning speech, restricting speech, not allowing the full flow of ideas. And, actually, as I'm speaking to you here Wednesday, I just spoke this morning at, George Washington University, actually, across the street from my dorm room when I was a freshman back in 1997. And, it was interesting. I mean, that's now been, what, 27 years ago that I was a, a freshman in college, which is crazy for me to think that it's been that long since I was living, in that dorm.
But the first thing that I ever published in my entire life was a editorial in the George Washington University Hatchet. It's excerpted and put in my new book, but, also, you can Google it. It shows up still, on the archives, and it was a defense of the first amendment. So 18 year old Clay Travis wrote a letter to the editor in the GW student newspaper. It was first thing that was ever published under my name, and it was the defense of the first amendment.
And I would encourage you guys to go back and read it. It kind of was a left wing idea at that point in time in 1997. Now free speech and supporting it has become a right wing idea, and I was thinking about that in the context of Brazil doing its best to ban Twitter and x in the context in which the United States, certainly is having its own free speech, debates, but there has been a massive groundswell of support for the idea that if you don't like someone's opinions, they shouldn't be able to share them, and the best way to, restrict information is censorship. I actually disagree completely, and I got asked this question when I was speaking today. How do you handle things that are untrue?
And I mean things that are factually untrue, not opinions, but facts. And I said the best cure for bad speech, and bad speeches in quotation marks, is more speech. I believe that, if you have someone trying to determine, what is misinformation, what is disinformation, they often end up being wrong, and I'll give you a couple of examples. CNN just rehired Brian Stelter. Rachel Maddow is probably the highest paid person at all of MSNBC.
Joe Scarborough makes a ton of money. They were all wrong about the Hunter Biden laptop, and we've played some of these clips, and I've shared them on social media. In fact, we shared the Joe Scarborough one last week, but Brian Stelter on CNN lectured his audience about Russian disinformation having to do with the Hunter Biden laptop. And it turns out they're wrong, and, and that is factually inaccurate. And they told their audience that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, that it was made up, and now we, all are aware that the Hunter Biden laptop was actually a 100% real and that the FBI knew that the laptop was a 100% real when the New York Post story came out in October of 2020, and it was censored.
Rather than censor, I think we should have robust uninhibited debate in the United States. And someone said, well, what if things are wrong? And I said, the cure for false speech is more speech. It is people being called out for their inaccuracies and allowing the truth to eventually rise. And I'm gonna believe that for the rest of my life.
I'm gonna fight for it for the rest of my life, and I think it's an interesting time for the NFL because Friday, they're gonna be playing a game in Brazil between the Packers and the Eagles. And to me, the Packers Eagles game in Brazil when players are not allowed to tweet, when media that's covering it is not allowed to tweet. I actually think it would be beneficial if the NFL came out and said, we support, the right of free speech around the world. And, and it's easy for the NFL to decide that they're gonna take a stand for social justice in the United States where to a large extent, there are no consequences to putting end racism in the end zone or deciding that you want to be politically active, but many people in Brazil are being silenced. And players and coaches and executives and media that are covering this game, in theory, are subject to the same restrictions of free speech, as as, as all of the Brazilian citizens are.
And I just think regardless of what you believe, I will fight forever for your right to say it, And I wish the NFL would, in a clear, full throated process, say, we support the right of Brazil's citizens to have uninhibited rights of free expression, such as the first amendment, enshrines in the United States. Now people immediately say, oh, well, you didn't support Kaepernick. Yeah. I don't support individuals in uniform at work being able to make political statements, and I think you can leave aside the NFL. If you worked at McDonald's, I think you should get fired if I order a Big Mac and you say, hey.
Meat is murder. Or if you work at, at at Walmart, and I'm going through the checkout line, and at Walmart, you tell me what your opinion is at a on abortion and try to get me to, to endorse your opinion as I'm just there to buy products. Same thing if you're a FedEx delivery driver, UPS, or United States Postal Service. I don't think you should be showing up with a Kamala or Trump, t shirt on. I think that would be bad for the company.
I think they should try to serve everybody. But outside of work, I I don't think there's anything wrong, with anybody at advocating for any perspective they have outside of uniform at work, and I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with companies expressing support for basic human rights around the world, and potentially, as Armando Salguero wrote, the NFL wants to be so outspoken, and many American sports leagues want to be so outspoken. I mean, heck, Major League Baseball pulled the all star game out of Atlanta. The NBA pulled the all star game out of Charlotte over individual state laws, and they're going to play a game in Brazil where the country is now restricting the overall right of free speech of its citizens, I think that's wrong. And, actually, if I were the commissioner of the NFL, I would, I really believe this, pull the game out of Brazil and put it back in either, in either Green Bay or in Philadelphia and allow that game to be played in the United States and say the NFL believes strongly in free speech.
Now a lot of people are gonna then immediately say, well, you didn't believe that Kaepernick had the yeah. I mean, Kaepernick took a knee, and, and it was bad for the NFL's overall brand. I don't think the NFL players individually should be taking stands. I I had some fun with this, but it it always blows up in people's faces. People who said, oh, Colin Kaepernick should be able to take a knee during the national anthem, and he was allowed to do so.
And I said, okay. What if Colin Kaepernick was taking a knee because he doesn't think gay marriage should be legal? Do you think that would be good for the NFL? Do you think it would be good for the NFL for every player to take the national anthem based on their individual political beliefs? People immediately get quiet.
Most of the time, when people talk about free speech, they talk about free speech that they agree with. To me, the foundational principle of free speech itself is the right for all citizens to speak, which is what Brazil is taking away. So, I think it would be a strong moment for the NFL. I don't think they're willing to do it, and, I think that's because, by and large, the NFL is not actually committed to principle. They're committed to money, and that's fine.
If you're committed to money, more power to you, but don't lecture me about anything other than your sport itself anywhere in the future. So I'd encourage you guys to go read Armando Salguero's tweet. Sorry. His article that is up on OutKick, I have tweeted about it. I think that you guys will, will appreciate that article.
It's smartly done, intelligent, from the perspective of Armando Salguero, who, by the way, knows a bit about the restrictions of freedom because his family is Cuban, and he has dealt with that, and the rat the rise of left wing communism and what it can do to freedom, which seems to be frankly occurring in Brazil, certainly has happened, in Venezuela, many other countries out there in Latin America, which is why so many people to a large extent are trying to come to America, because of the freedoms that we have here.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
The wheels officially came off when @KJP46 refused to address reports that a Parkinson’s expert has visited the White House eight times in the last eight months. What a dumpster fire this is: https://t.co/8pZuHaOZu7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker repeatedly refuses to disclose the name of the president's neurologist for security reasons. They confirm that the president has seen a neurologist three times during his presidency. Despite being pressed for details, the speaker maintains that they cannot reveal names due to privacy concerns. They emphasize that the president's medical information is comprehensive and in line with previous administrations. The speaker stands firm in their decision not to disclose specific names, regardless of the pressure they face.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We provide to all of them. That's a very basic direct question. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Hold on. Hold on. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Wait a second. 8 times or at least once in regards to the president specifically. Hold on a second. You should be able to answer by this point.
Wait. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. Wait a minute.
Come Ed, please. A little respect here, please. So every year around the the president's physical examination, he sees a neurologist. That's 3 times. Right?
So I am telling you that he has seen a neurologist 3 times while he has been in this presidency. That's what I'm saying. I am telling you that he has seen them 3 times. That is what I'm sharing with you. Right?
So every time he has a physical, he has had to see a neurologist. So that is answering that question. No. It's not. No.
It is. It is. You're asking Kevin Kinnard. I just and I also said to you, Ed, I also said to you, for security reasons, we cannot share names. We cannot share names.
You cannot share names. We have to we have to others he would have met with. We cannot names in regards to If someone came here in regards to We cannot share we cannot share names of specialists broadly. From a dermatologist to a neurologist. We cannot share names.
There are security reasons. We have to we have to protect I understand that. I I hear you. I hear you. I hear you.
I cannot from here confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy. I think they would appreciate that too. We have to give them motion of the darker. We have to keep their privacy. It is public.
I I hear you. I am I I guys. Guys. Guys. For me.
Guys. Answers the question. Hold on a second. There's no reason to get back and go back and forth with me in this aggressive way. Missed around here about how information's been shared with the press corps on him.
What do you missed about? Oh. What do you missed about? Everything he just asked about. What do you and then every time, I come back and I answer the question that you guys asked.
Incorrectly. You don't have to come back and clean up the answer. The question incorrectly. That is not true. I was asked about a medical exam.
I was asked about a physical. That was in the line of question that I answered. And I said, no. He did not have a medical exam, and I still stand that by that. Matter of fact, the president still stands by that.
He had a verbal check-in. That is something that the president has a couple times a week. A couple times a week. Now in regards to doctor Kevin Kinnart. And I am telling you right now that I am not sharing confirming names from here.
It is a security reason. I am not going to do that, Ed. It doesn't matter how hard you push me. It doesn't matter how angry you get with me. I'm not going to confirm a name.
It doesn't matter if it's even in the log. I am not going to do that from here. That is not something I am going to do. What I can share with you is that the president has seen a neurologist for his physical 3 times, 3 times. And it is in the reporting that we share a comprehensive reporting.
But a matter of fact, it's more than what the last guy shared, and it is in line with what George George w Bush did. It's in line with what Obama did. And so it is comprehensive. It is out there. I just read a quote from it, but I am not I am not going to devolve somebody's name and or confirm someone.
I'm not going to do that. That is as is privacy for that person. I'm not gonna do that. It doesn't matter how hard you push me. It doesn't matter how angry you get with me from here.
I'm just not gonna do that. It is inappropriate. It is not acceptable.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
After four days of debate criticism, Joe Biden Ron Burgundy’d it and reads “end of quote” from the teleprompter during a four minute speech after which he took no questions. https://t.co/1KBOho85DX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sotomayor's dissent: President acting like a king above the law threatens democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sotomayor's dissent today. She hears what she said. She said in every use of official power, the president is now a king above law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent, end of quote.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Nashville’s skyline in 2015 up top vs Nashville’s skyline in 2024. Pretty wild. This pic has gone viral. Tennessee, Texas and Florida are going to explode in population over the next 25 years thanks to no state income tax and being red states. Money and talent is pouring in. https://t.co/K3IPHWVcBG
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
This is really good. @billmaher defends western civilization, which is the single greatest thing to ever happen to humanity. Watch it: https://t.co/mdu9zbF5nm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Israel is often criticized by progressives and academics, but it embodies many liberal values such as individual liberty, scientific inquiry, rule of law, religious freedom, women's rights, human rights, democracy, trial by jury, and freedom of speech. The irony is that marginalized people benefit from Western ideals, not in spite of them. The woke movement fails to recognize this and supports Hamas, despite its lack of laws against sexual harassment, domestic violence, and child marriage. Israel was not colonized by Jews, but established through a United Nations vote. Western civilization, despite its flaws, has contributed to the progress of free societies and the recognition of individual rights. Other cultures have also committed atrocities, but the West is unfairly singled out.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And finally, new rule for all the progressives and academics who refer to Israel as an outpost of Western civilization like it's a bad thing. Please note, western civilization is what gave the world pretty much every goddamn liberal precept that liberals are supposed to adore. Individual liberty, scientific inquiry, rule of law, religious freedom, women's rights, human rights, democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech. Please, somebody stop us before we enlighten again. And since one can find all these concepts in today's Israel and virtually nowhere else in the Middle East, if anything, the world would be a better place if it had more Israels.
Of course, this message falls on deaf ears to the current crop who reduce everything to being only victims or victimizers. So Israel is lumped in as the toxic fruit of the victimizing West, the irony being that all marginalized people live better today because of Western ideals, not in spite of them. Martin Luther King used Henry David Thoreau's essay, Civil Disobedience, to help shape the civil rights movement. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes its core to Rousseau and Voltaire. Cleisthenes never showed up for a sexual harassment seminar, But without him, there's no democracy.
The cop who murdered George Floyd got 21 years for violating his 4th Amendment rights, an idea we got directly from John Locke, who no one in college would ever study anymore because he's so old and so white and so dead. So Western. Yes. That's how simple the woke are. It's never about ideas.
If it was, would they be cheering on Hamas for their liberation liberation. To do what? More freely preside over a country where there are no laws against sexual harassment, spousal rape, domestic violence, homophobia, honor killings, or child marriage, this is who liberals think you should stand with. Women there should be so lucky as to get colonized by anybody else. And for the record, the Jews didn't colonize Israel or anywhere ever, except maybe Boca Raton.
Gaza wasn't seized by Israel like India or Kenya was by the British Empire, and the partitioning of the region wasn't decided by Jews, but by a vote of the United Nations in 1947, with everyone from Russia to Haiti voting for it. But apparently, they don't teach this at Drag Queen Story Hour anymore. Now it is true that for too long, we didn't study enough Asian or African or Latin American history. But part of the reason for that is, frankly, there's not as much to study. Colleges replaced courses in Western civ.
Boo. Eye roll, dead white men. Am I right? They replaced that with world civilization classes, which is fine in theory, but what it meant in practice is you read queer poetry of the African diaspora instead of Shakespeare. And I'm sure there's value in both, but as usual, America only ever overcorrects.
And so we're at this place now where the words Western civ became kind of a shorthand for white people ruined everything. But they didn't ruin everything. No. They didn't live up to their own ideals for far too long and committed atrocities, but people back then were all atrocious. Not just the white ones, depending on who had the power.
But it was the western enlightenment that gave rise to the notion that the law of the jungle should be curbed. Henry David Thoreau, John Stuart Mill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 3 named dudes. It was all about renamed Jews. Renamed Jews like that were the OG social justice warriors. The ideas that came through Athens, Rome, London, Paris, and, yes, Philadelphia, are what make life good for most people in free societies today, that the individuals have value, and even the powers that be must submit to the rule of law, that punishment should not be cruel and unusual.
The accused, people get a trial, that there is such a thing as a war crime. Why is it that every other culture gets a pass, but the West is exclusively the sum of the worst things it's ever done. You think only white people colonized? Historians estimate that the very non Western mister Genghis Khan killed 40,000,000 people, and that was in the 13th century. He single handedly may have reduced the world's population by 11%.
On the other hand, he kinda made up for it because he was such a prolific colonizer of vaginas, that today, an estimated 16,000,000 people are his direct descendants. So stop saying Western civilization like it's a contradiction in terms. It's not. You're thinking of moderate Republican.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
The front pages of the @washingtonpost @nytimes & @WSJ all uncritically spread Hamas propaganda that hundreds died in a hospital explosion. Our media is fundamentally broken. https://t.co/6KUhSwTOQ7
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
This is airing on @espn right now. Athletes are the new slaves and contracts are the new slave chains.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker compares contracts in the modern world to a form of slavery. They explain that signing contracts binds individuals to a certain way of life, and breaking those contracts can have severe consequences for their livelihoods. The speaker suggests that athletes, in particular, are like modern-day slaves because their families and friends rely on their contracts for sustenance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's almost like the contracts, you know, or the new slave change. Right? So, you know, you have to sign this contract and sign this document and sign this document. It's like, you're bonded to this. And then if you break that, that's your livelihood.
That's your life. So we didn't lose flags. Athletes are literally the new slaves because we need this. Our families, our friends depend on this contract to eat.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
This morning a Democrat operative said @RobertKennedyJr’s presidential campaign was a “stain on the Kennedy name.” I’m sorry, didn’t Ted Kennedy kill a completely innocent woman?! I went off. Enjoy:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker, who has a personal connection to the Kennedys, expresses concern about RFK Jr.'s anti-Semitic remarks, which have hurt JFK's grandson and tarnished the family name. Another speaker points out that RFK Jr. spreads misinformation about vaccines, Wi-Fi, and antidepressants, despite scientists debunking these claims. However, the second speaker argues that RFK Jr.'s opinions, although controversial, do not compare to the stain on the Kennedy name caused by Teddy Kennedy's involvement in the death of a woman. They criticize the outrage directed at RFK Jr. while no one publicly condemned Teddy Kennedy's actions. The second speaker dismisses the criticism of RFK Jr.'s presidential campaign as a joke.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm from Massachusetts and, without saying how, my family knows the the Kennedys. I went to the compound when I was a kid. Yeah. And the the Kennedy family is a very close family. They're a very protective family and they're a very protective family not only of its members but of its name.
And one of the problems is not what RFK Jr. Is saying about, vaccines to start. It was the anti Semitic rhetoric that came out that was hurtful to that young man, JFK's grandson, whose father is Jewish. He and his sister, his mother, you know, although not still married to their dad, married a Jewish man. And, this this is a stain on the name.
Things that are coming out of his mouth are the stain, on the name. Right. Also, they're largely very strong supporters of the Democrats, the Democratic Party and our Democratic president.
Speaker 1: Alright. Well, I knew JFK Junior. I interviewed Ted Kennedy when he had his losing bid president, but this isn't about being a bad candidate. Lots of bad candidates out there. It's about saying vaccines cause autism, Wi Fi causes cancer, Antidepressants cause mass shootings.
You seem to kinda like RFK Jr, Clay, but lot of scientists say he is spreading things that are not true.
Speaker 2: Okay. Leslie said she was he was a stain on the Kennedy name. I mean, Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and managed to continue to serve in the Senate for decades at Chappaquiddick. So I don't know. I mean, you might disagree with RFK Jr's opinions on anything under the sun as you just laid out.
And that's fine. That's how the marketplace of ideas work.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: But so far as I'm aware, He hasn't killed anyone. So if you're gonna talk about somebody being a stain on the Kennedy name, I think you'd probably have to start with Teddy Kennedy.
Speaker 0: And I haven't
Speaker 2: heard anybody come out publicly and say, oh, the innocent girl that my uncle killed deserved better. Yet they're Set because RFK Jr. Is saying things they don't like while running for president? Give me a break. This is a joke.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Trump indictment aims to criminalize a legal theory pursued by his attorneys. However, it's based on already reported allegations. The legal theory was significant enough for Congress to close the vice president loophole. If any conviction occurs, the Supreme Court may strike down the indictment. Debating legal theories is common in law practice and education.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Here is the full Trump indictment. Just read it quickly. Appears to be a recitation of already reported allegations. Clear intent to criminalize a legal theory that Trump’s attorneys pursued. Garbage indictment. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_1.pdf
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Remember, Trump’s legal theory on January 6th while aggressive and expansive was legally significant enough that Congress voted to close the vice president loophole after Biden’s inauguration. This indictment is a clear intent to criminalize a legal theory. Prediction: It will be struck down by Supreme Court if any conviction occurs. And that’s if it ever goes to trial at all.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Citing lawyers and others who disagree with other lawyers about a legal theory as evidence that a conspiracy existed is breathtakingly insane. Many novel and untested legal theories are attacked as unlikely to succeed. Any lawyer who has ever practiced law has been involved in vigorous debate about what a court is likely to do with a novel argument. Hell, this is the entire basis of law school itself.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Holy hell, the White House press corps just savaged KJP on the Biden crime family. Watch this. Any coverage coming at all @nytimes? https://t.co/DqehVquKi2
Video Transcript AI Summary
The press asks about Hunter Biden attending the state dinner and whether the president would have invited someone with legal issues. The spokesperson avoids discussing the topic, stating that it is common for family members to attend White House events. When pressed further, the spokesperson deflects the questions and refers to the White House counsel and the Department of Justice for more information. The press continues to inquire about the president's involvement and the spokesperson reiterates that nothing has changed and directs them to the White House counsel for any further statements. The spokesperson does not confirm whether the president was present with his son on a specific date and refers all questions to the White House counsel.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: His son Hunter to the state dinner last night. I'm wondering if you could take us into the thinking and decision making of why the president decided to
Speaker 1: I'm just not gonna get into family discussion, personal family discussion. As you know, Hunter is a son. I'm just not going
Speaker 0: to get into this. If Hunter Biden wasn't the president's defense. Would he have invited someone who had just reached the plea agreement with federal prosecutors?
Speaker 1: Well, a couple of things. Again, that's his son. It's a piece of family member. It is not uncommon for family members to attend events at the White House. You could look at past presidents.
I'm sure you have. So that is not uncommon. As it relates to anything, related to, to Hunter, I'm just not going to respond to it from here.
Speaker 2: Can I follow-up on that?
Speaker 1: I just called in some way. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So but I mean so Kirby wouldn't answer James' question though. Are you gonna answer the discussion. Not a reasonable question to ask for the president of the United States to be involved as this message seems to suggest in some sort of a coercive conversation for business dealing by a son. Is that something if it wasn't, then maybe you should tell us.
Speaker 1: So here's the thing. I and I appreciate the question. I believe my colleague, at the White House Council, has answered this The question already has dealt with this, has, made it very clear. I just don't have anything to share outside of what my colleagues have shared, and so I would refer you to him and the DOJ. Just not going to comment from here.
I will what I can tell you is I know that My colleague has dealt with this. He he addressed this at the White House Council. I just don't have anything else to share. Discussions. I just answered the question.
Speaker 2: I just answered the question.
Speaker 0: Yes or no, was the president involved in
Speaker 1: the shutdown attempt? Steven?
Speaker 0: Yes or
Speaker 1: no? Steven? I just answered the question. I just said I just this isn't it's not up to you how I answer the question. I just answer the question by telling you my colleagues at the White House Council that has dealt with this, and I would refer you to them.
Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Jermaine, can you just remind us what your colleague said from the
Speaker 1: White defense counsel, so we haven't I would refer you to them and they will share their statement with
Speaker 2: you on audio. Your question is about your statements from that podium. You stated The president stands by his comment from the 2020 campaign that he never once discussed his son's overseas business dealings With his son. And you stood at that podium and you reaffirmed that. Do you stand by your reaffirmation?
What I will
Speaker 1: say is nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. Detail, and I will leave it there. Anything else, I will refer you to the White House counsel.
Speaker 2: This is not a change?
Speaker 1: I just answered the question. You you just asked me do does my statement change? I I just told you nothing has changed. That's answering the questions. Go ahead.
Go ahead. The president is
Speaker 2: there 2 days apart.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. Steven, I'm calling on your colleague right now. Go ahead. Thank
Speaker 3: you. To to follow-up on my colleague, is there anything that you can say with regard To this text message and what the president's son was alleging. Was the president there or not?
Speaker 1: I would refer you to my colleagues at the White House Council. They have addressed this, and I refer you to them. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Corinne, have you spoken to the president about this? Have you Ask him whether he was there with his son on July 30th?
Speaker 1: This is not a conversation that I've had with the president. Again, I would refer you to the White House counsel.
Speaker 4: Have that conversation with the president? No. Did the president speak with the attorney general at all? I can't
Speaker 1: I I I cannot say, if because the president, had had a conversation with the attorney general last night. What I can refer you to is the White House counsel's office as it relates to the, allegations. They've already addressed this. This is something for them to deal with. I refer you to the Department of Justice on anything else if you don't wanna speak to the White House counsel's office.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Rachel Maddow has told more lies on air in the Trump era than anyone in news. Good cut @RubinReport: https://t.co/91eDm9NK9d
Video Transcript AI Summary
As a news organization, we cannot afford to broadcast false information. Our goal is to bring you the truth. We understand the importance of preventing the spread of the virus and the effectiveness of vaccines. When a vaccinated person is exposed to the virus, they do not get infected and cannot transmit it to others. We constantly reassess our decisions to ensure we provide accurate information. By getting vaccinated, we can ultimately overcome this pandemic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things. We are here to bring you the news. It hurts our ability to do that if we live broadcast what we fully expect in advance to be a litany of lies and false accusations no matter who says them. Instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person, potentially mutating and becoming more virulent and drug resistant along the way. Now we know that the vaccines work well enough But the virus stops with every vaccinated person.
We take our responsibility seriously. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. We revisit decisions like this all the time.
Cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. We make the best call that we can in real time every time. That means The vaccines will get us to the end of this.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
This is the best video I’ve seen on @twitter. Watch it. Have any of these people apologized for being 100% wrong on covid and “the science?” Trust me, watch it: https://t.co/NnsmOCMMsT
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video emphasizes the importance of vaccination and the risks associated with being unvaccinated. It repeatedly states that no one is safe from COVID-19 until everyone is vaccinated. The speakers express frustration and anger towards the unvaccinated, suggesting they should be banned from certain places and denied healthcare. They argue that the unvaccinated are a threat to society and are responsible for the ongoing pandemic. The video also mentions breakthrough cases among vaccinated individuals but emphasizes that vaccination reduces the risk of severe illness and death. It concludes by urging people to get vaccinated and join the fight against COVID-19.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We wanna make sure that people can discern the truth from the misinformation, and we wanna make sure that everyone understands that no one's safe till everyone's safe. No one is safe. No one is safe. No one is safe.
Speaker 1: No one is safe. No
Speaker 0: one is safe. No one is safe. No one is safe. Nobody is safe. This is
Speaker 2: a post 9 11 axiom. Safer but not yet safe.
Speaker 0: No one is safe. No one is safe. No one is safe. No one is safe from COVID nineteen until everyone is safe.
Speaker 2: If the whole world isn't safe, none of us are safe.
Speaker 0: No one is safe.
Speaker 1: No one is safe. Nobody is
Speaker 2: safe until we're all safe.
Speaker 1: Health experts have been saying nobody is safe.
Speaker 0: Nobody is safe until everybody is safe. Nobody is safe. Science just clear. None of us are safe. There is no safety.
Speaker 1: No one is safe. No one is safe. No one is safe.
Speaker 2: No one is safe until everyone is safe. No one's safe.
Speaker 0: Nobody is safe. Safe. Nobody's safe.
Speaker 2: No one's safe. We'll never be safe. Until we're all safe. We are never gonna be safe.
Speaker 0: 99.5% of people are safe and will survive COVID nineteen. The only positive thing out of this is we should be able to manufacture a lot of seen 10. Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated. You don't have a choice. As long as not everybody is vaccinated, nobody will be safe.
Normalcy We'll see only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population. So Get
Speaker 1: the fucking vaccine. You need to get vaccinated. Vaccinated. And if you don't, you are going to die. I know you're vaccinated.
You're the smart ones, but you know there's people out there who aren't listening to God and what God wants. You know who they are.
Speaker 0: The unvaccinated people. My message to unvaccinated Americans is this.
Speaker 2: If you are the unvaccinated, you are the problem. You'll
Speaker 0: fucking dead. I'm saying no. Blame. The only people that you can blame are the unvaccinated.
Speaker 1: Frankly, we can't trust the unvaccinated.
Speaker 0: They should not be part of Polite society. Lunatics who won't take COVID vaccines walking around lawfully unvaccinated are psychotic. If you're willing to walk among us unvaccinated, you are an safe. You have no right not to be vaccinated. You don't have the right to contaminate someone.
You can't go around pointing a gun in somebody's face, which is what it is when people are unvaccinated. They are all all idiots and losers. This is a real movement
Speaker 2: in this country against the unvaccinated. Jennifer Aniston is cutting non vaccinated people out of her life. Unrepentant, unvaccinated.
Speaker 0: They should be removed from the hospital. Those who refuse to be vaccinated should be denied health care. Vaccinated person having a heart attack, yes. Come right on in. We'll take care of you.
Unvaccinated guy, rest in peace, wheezy. You're
Speaker 2: Some doctors are saying they'll refuse treatment For people who'd scooned not to get the shot. Why are hospital and ICU resources going to them? Morons.
Speaker 0: You'll not get the shot. Vaccinated clowns. Idiots who think that they can do their own research.
Speaker 3: Don't do any of your own research.
Speaker 1: Doing your own research is associated with conspiracy theory safe.
Speaker 0: This go it alone approach doing your own research that can have serious consequences. You should get prison time for even questioning the vaccines. Can we all stop saying, I need to do my own research? That phrase, do your own research, 4 words, 4 little words that are hurting America. Doing your own research hurts America.
Everybody has a supercomputer in their hand that empowers them to do their own research, and that's the problem. You must not do your own research. There. I need to do my own research. I don't have never understand what that means.
I'm doing my own research.
Speaker 1: You can't do your own research unless you're a scientist. Safe. Come do your own research.
Speaker 2: Maybe you've told yourself you're planning it safe. You just wanna wait and see since this is a new vaccine. Now.
Speaker 1: Blow the up and get the vaccine.
Speaker 0: Unvaccinated people spread the virus. It's a vaccine, you dopes. Don't be a Get yourself vaccinated. That's just all there is pooped. There's no excuse.
No excuse for being unvaccinated. There's no rational and no emotional argument that adds up against getting your damn shot. There's a there's a
Speaker 1: But you made a conscious decision not to get the vaccine. I also have natural immunity. So for me, personally, safe. This vaccine poses a greater risk than a benefit. I'm also not a risk to any of you.
Let's look at the science.
Speaker 0: So we see that the natural infection is given greater protection or slightly greater protection done vaccination.
Speaker 1: This is a vaccine that was created to prevent severity of disease and to prevent hospitalizations, but the Steam does not prevent you from getting COVID and does not prevent you from transmitting Oh, my goodness. Reality out. We have seen that stuff. Come on. No.
It'll go to Fox safe till everyone's safe. No one is
Speaker 0: safe. Safe. When we've poked at, we'll be new. You're gonna be safe from the COVID infected you. Safe.
Speaker 2: The virus stopped with every vaccinated person.
Speaker 0: Do it so you stop spreading a terrible disease. And that seen. Our key goal is to stop the transmission so that you get almost no almost no, infection going on whatsoever. Expectation for vaccines seems as not to get infected.
Speaker 2: A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them.
Speaker 0: When the virus gets to you, you stop stopping. You're not gonna catch it. You're not gonna get sick. You're not gonna transmit it. The vaccine is absolutely bulletproof.
Speaker 1: Vaccines block you from getting and giving the virus. 100% effective in preventing COVID.
Speaker 0: The vaccine prevents you from getting infected.
Speaker 1: It is
Speaker 2: to keep you from getting it and then spreading it.
Speaker 1: We safe. Have the ability to stop COVID in its tracks.
Speaker 0: You're not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations. Quaidant tests positive for COVID nineteen. When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not gonna get infected. Doctor Fauci tests positive for COVID nineteen.
Speaker 1: Vaccinated people do not carrying the virus, don't get sick.
Speaker 0: CDC director tests positive for COVID nineteen. Seeing. Pfizer CEO test positive for COVID. Pfizer CEO test positive for COVID again. CDC director safe.
Test positive for COVID again. Fauci test positive for COVID again. Joe Biden test positive for COVID again.
Speaker 1: Cases up 258%, safe. The majority of these cases are among the vaccinated, and this area is the most vaccinated part of Massachusetts.
Speaker 0: So many fully vaccinated. People are testing positive.
Speaker 1: So people here are a bit angry.
Speaker 0: We are all really concerned about what this means long term. I was vaccinated, and I got COVID. Safe. Almost everyone we know with vaccinations had at least 1 bout of it. Our vaccines work better, then we could have possibly hoped they would work.
Speaker 1: We are not the problem. The problem are the unvaccinated.
Speaker 0: The unvaccinated threat. Unvaccinated people are a threat, a direct threat, a threat to all of us. Getting a risk to all of us.
Speaker 1: People have a right to be protected from the unvaccinated.
Speaker 0: Maybe there should be laws that allow them to be kept out of the building. So at least, thankfully, they're not breathing same error. Their freedom to breathe will diminish. Start firing the unvaccinated. If
Speaker 2: you don't vaccinate, you'll be fired.
Speaker 0: Time to come down on the unvaccinated. They should be banned from the VA, banned from restaurants, banned from other businesses and colleges. Companies should not treat us as equal. Sedating people under arrest. It
Speaker 2: is the unvaccinated that has put America in the place that it is.
Speaker 0: We are losing freedom because people are unvaccinated. Forced to unvaccinated. I'm curious that the unvaccinated. Frustrated with Americans. Still not vaccinated.
Not to be vaccinated. Seems criminal. Suspects faced. Years behind bars for coughing on police officers. Freedom.
For them. Charged with terrorist threats. You have no individual rights when it comes to the vaccine.
Speaker 1: Really, you're killing other people.
Speaker 0: You're being attacked by unvaccinated. Unvaccinated who aren't wearing masks. It's the unvaccinated who aren't social distancing. It's the unvaccinated going to crowded indoor events. It is not your right as an American citizen to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection.
Don't screw you, Freedom. We can coerce you.
Speaker 1: You're not going to be able to travel severe. If someone in your family isn't vaccinated, should you ask them not to show up?
Speaker 0: Yes. You really shouldn't have anyone unvaccinated come to dinner. That's just a huge risk.
Speaker 1: If you wanna Come out into public. If you wanna live your life, you need to get the vaccination.
Speaker 0: It's time for people to see vaccination as literally necessary. You should have To show that you're vaccinated in order to go places. Unvaccinated. Can't travel to the US.
Speaker 1: If you're not vaccinated, you're not welcome.
Speaker 0: Our patience is wearing thin. Why hasn't the president focused more on taking the Unvaccinated. Refusal has caused all of us.
Speaker 2: Continued damage the unvaccinated are doing to themselves and the country.
Speaker 0: How come migrants are allowed to come into this country unvaccinated, but world class tennis players are not.
Speaker 1: You know
Speaker 0: And, back to our lead story, the pandemic of the unvaccinated. Fact is this is a pandemic
Speaker 2: of the unvaccinated experts. Call it pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Speaker 0: It's still a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The disease of the unvaccinated.
Speaker 2: It is the unvaccinated who are the problem. Period. End of story.
Speaker 0: The unvaccinated also put our economy at risk. This is a tyranny of the unvaccinated right now. The unvaccinated, not the vaccinated. Unvaccinated. That's the problem.
That's the pandemic. The unvaccinated. Pandemic of the unvaccinated. All this is a pandemic of the safe. The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated pandemic because the unvaccinated.
Speaker 1: When you get the vaccine, you will not die. That's right. That's right.
Speaker 0: It's a simple, basic proposition. If you're vaccinated, you are not gonna die. If you're vaccinated, you don't have a risk. It's as simple as black and white.
Speaker 1: You are not going to die if you are vaccinated. That's it. Full stop.
Speaker 0: You're unvaccinated, you're at risk. You're vaccinated. You're safe. A majority of Americans dying from coronavirus are vaccinated. COVID nineteen isn't the pandemic of the unvaccinated anymore.
We didn't really understand the fatality rate. You know, we didn't understand that it's A fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu is, although a bit different. We We have 2 Americas, an unvaccinated at risk America and a vaccinated America.
Speaker 1: I wear my vaccinated necklace all the time to Say I'm vaccinated.
Speaker 2: You, the vaccinated, are the last best hope to overcome the unvaccinated minority.
Speaker 1: I need you to be my apostle. I need you to go out And talked
Speaker 2: about it. We are seeking to enlist you in a benevolent conspiracy to join in the unfinished war against the sins of the unvaccinated. Native. And it's a war forever war. The war against COVID nineteen.
Speaker 3: The vaccine hesitancy on Earth 2 has the potential to compromise all of the hard fought progress that we've made here on earth one.
Speaker 0: This is the greatest threat to life that we have ever faced.
Speaker 1: Metropolitan areas are now banning all private gatherings. This bar owner arrested for reopening illegally.
Speaker 0: Unvaccinated. We are looking at a woman of severe illness and death. Death. For yourselves, your families. If the unvaccinated are not to blame, who is?
If only we had a vaccine against is. So part of preparing for hurricane season is to get vaccinated now. Everything is more complicated if you're not vaccinated in a hurricane.
reSee.it AI Summary
Left-wing media distorts reality by labeling me controversial for saying men who identify as women shouldn't play women's sports. However, a Washington Post poll shows that huge majorities of Americans agree with me. Sports fans, who understand the difference between men and women athletes, agree with me by even larger margins. Outkick is the only sports outlet that speaks out in favor of these vast majorities. People are sick of the woke bullshit.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
A good example of how left wing media distorts reality — I’m labeled “controversial” for saying men who identify as women shouldn’t play women’s sports, yet huge majorities of Americans agree with me according to @washingtonpost poll.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
This is also a perfect distillation of how out of touch @espn is with their audience when they praise Lia Thomas as a women’s sports hero. Sports fans, that is people who understand the difference between men and women’s athletes more than non-sports fans, agree with me by even larger margins on this issue. Yet other than @Outkick there isn’t a single sports outlet that will speak out in favor of these vast majorities. It’s wild. But clear evidence of why we are growing so fast and dominating. People are sick of the woke bullshit.
@ClayTravis - Clay Travis
Last January 60% of Democrats wanted to lock everyone who didn’t get the covid shot in their houses. Over 40% of Democrats wanted those who rejected the covid shot sent to quarantine camps. Over 40% also wanted anyone who criticized the covid shot fined & imprisoned. Over a…
