Hour 1 - Clay vs. Buck on Alaska & Ilhan 

Clay Travis (0:00)

Welcome in Thursday edition Clay and Buck as we inch closer towards the overall midterms. Go vote. Buck and I are better humans than you, better Americans than you. My challenge, get your ballots in. Make it happen, get it done, get out there and make your voice heard. Okay, we got a couple of stories that I read in the New York Times and I couldn't believe that I was reading it in the New York Times, Buck. I want to start with what I think is the most significant as we come up on the midterms. And that is this. The Mary Peltola campaign has, based on the evidence here, clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, engaged in what I believe is criminal behavior.

They have abundant e-mails and text messages, making it clear that they hired an individual, paid him $87,000 to intentionally try to confuse the voters of Alaska. They're even on record mocking the fact that many Alaskan voters were confused.

And they even wrote things like, do we have a scheme for you? A consultant for the Peltola campaign said. A pollster on the chat wrote, one voter seemed like the perfect audience, quote, for our ballot strategy plan. They took advantage of a lot of Alaskans. I believe this is criminal. Now, I actually did some investigation into this.

And the case that we cited the other day, Buck, the Hillary Clinton guy who did the memes, that actually got tossed on appeal to the Second Circuit. And they said that the guy had the free speech rights. So that was a balancing act here. Here, I think the intent is so clear.

Because that guy argued this was me making humorous memes. The intent here is so clear. The payments and the involvement of the Peltola campaign and the Democrat Senate campaign committee, beyond a shadow of a doubt to me, establishes that this is criminal. Now, also, we'll get into this in a bit. Ilhan Omar, according to the New York Times, the New York Times suddenly doing actual journalism, a decade ago, Obama's Department of Justice determined that she likely married her brother but did not prosecute her for immigration fraud because they were concerned about the statute of limitations. That is the report that is in the New York Times today.

Now, Buck, your take on this, and I can be super lawyer if you want me to be, on why I think this is clearly criminal, the timing on this is such that it could be a major challenge, and I acknowledge that. But to me, the party, and this is not going to shock a lot of you, that has screamed, oh, we have to protect democracy, oh, election integrity is so important, has engaged in one of the most egregious frauds that I have seen, directly and intentionally perpetrated on a state that is trying to pick a senator in Alaska. So, we are scheduled to talk with Dan Sullivan at two, right on the third hour of the program today. We will get his direct latest on the ground report from Alaska. But Buck, I know you read it. This is a huge story. I just went on with Harris Faulkner, lead story on Fox News. What are your thoughts?

Buck Sexton (3:56)

First of all, I think that The New York Times certainly in the Ilhan Omar case, and I'm less convinced, although possibly in the Alaska case, is trying to get ahead of the story to shape the story before the whole thing completely explodes all over the Internet and everything else, meaning the New York Times is coming out with this story after the DHS raid on Ilhan Omar's home. The investigation is fully underway, and they have essentially come up with the talking point that you will hear endlessly from Democrats, which is that Obama's DOJ didn't bring this action or didn't prosecute this case of immigration fraud with Ilhan Omar because of the statute of limitations. Clay, a five second search can show anybody that the civil consequences, meaning denaturalization, there is no statute of limitations. So they can't lock Ilhan, to be clear, they can't lock Ilhan Omar up in prison for this, and they can't, everybody. We believe in the rule of law. But, but, they can take away her right to be in this country and remove her from Congress if she is found guilty under civil denaturalization procedures, which absolutely could happen. So they basically said, oh, we can't charge her criminally, so we're going to drop it. Okay, but if this is true, Clay, guess what? Ilhan Omar is not an American, and she's serving in Congress.

She is not an American serving in Congress. She is a foreigner who is serving in Congress. If this is true, it certainly seems like, by the way, this is true. That's point one. Point two on the Peltola thing and Alaska.