CLAY: I am reading right now from CNBC. This news has just broken in like the last 10 minutes or so. “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court…” A lot of people are like, “It must be election related.” (chuckles) No, not election related. “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned Bill Cosby’s sexual assault convictions, and has barred all further prosecution.”

Bill Cosby, 83 years old, will be released from prison today. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court overturned his conviction, finding two things. One, there was an agreement with a previous prosecutor which prevented Bill Cosby from being charged in this case in the first place — which is what Bill Cosby’s lawyers argued from the moment, Buck, that these charges were brought.

They said: No, no, no. We had a previous agreement that made these charges not permissible. “They also reviewed two aspects…” I’m reading from CNBC here, a story that they have up. “They also reviewed two aspects of the case that Cosby’s lawyers had challenged. The first involved the judge’s decision to let prosecutors call five other accusers in addition to the woman who was accusing Cosby,” and the trial judge allowed that to happen.

And they also said, again, that “the agreement was with the former prosecutor that he would not be charged in these cases.” So, Buck Sexton, this is a pretty significant story, I think, because Bill Cosby was one of the primary figures who got all wrapped up in the #MeToo universe.

And now 83-year-old comedian Bill Cosby — at one point, maybe the most beloved dad in all of America, certainly in the eighties and the nineties for those of you out there who remember The Cosby Show as the cultural force that it was. Bill Cosby had that beloved status stripped off him as he was paraded through the courts and eventually convicted, and now he’s gonna walk out of prison a free man.

Now, some people are gonna say, “Okay, what can happen now? ” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled. Theoretically, the United States Supreme Court could get involved in this case. That would be the next iteration. I would be very surprised if they take this case. It will be interesting to see what the state of Pennsylvania decides. That’s a pretty big blockbuster, right? I don’t think anybody had on their radar, “What’s gonna be the top news story of the day?” Bill Cosby walking out of prison.

BUCK: You remember for about a 12-month period or so, #MeToo was one of the biggest stories in America, that whole moment where we were told that there was gonna be justice brought against sexual predators, basically. I mean, that’s really it. But then it was also people who were guilty of sexual harassment, right? There was this whole scale.

At the very top you had Harvey Weinstein and you had Bill Cosby and people that were accused of and convicted of — although now obviously Bill Cosby’s conviction vacated, but convicted of — serious sexual crimes, and then it went all the way down to people that, you know, had made a comment or said something on Twitter that was sexist 10 years ago, right?

There was this whole scope of what #MeToo really meant. But I think that part of this… As you read out why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did this, part of this is there’s a reminder that our system is not supposed to change any of the things that it’s doing. We’re not supposed to be able to stack the deck even when we think we’ve got someone who’s a really bad person, a really guilty person, whatever the case may be.

You shouldn’t have politics driving changes to get an outcome that you want. And in that politically heightened moment, perhaps, it seems — I mean, I’m assuming based on what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court here has done — they felt like there were irregularities in the process which now can result in a situation like this. And I’ll just tell everybody…

You know, we haven’t talked about it yet here, but Derek Chauvin, who was found guilty of the murder of George Floyd. You know, he got a 22-plus-year sentence and is also about to have a plea deal, they believe (this is reportedly reached) on federal civil rights charges. This doesn’t count as, you know, double prosecution.

The state and the federal government can both bring charges for essentially the same conduct but under different jurisdiction. So, Clay, as part of that Chauvin has to recite, they believe, why he did what he did and then to allow him to only serve his 20-plus years in prison, and not do a federal sentence on top of that as well. Now, when you look at what you usually get for manslaughter, it’s not 20-plus years plus federal civil rights charges.

I mean, they’re throwing the book at this guy and then some. And whatever one thinks of the outcome of that case in terms of innocence or guilt, the system has to withstand political pressure. And it looks like in the Cosby situation there may have been people in the prosecutorial side who were too aggressive in trying to get a certain outcome.

CLAY: Not only that — and I think what you said is well said — there are many people, probably, out there, some of whom are defense attorneys (I have worked as a defense attorney) who know and have seen that people are not all treated the same. Right? Very often prosecutors want to make a name for themselves by going after the biggest possible target. Martha Stewart is an example. Remember the insider-trading case?

BUCK: Do you know who pushed that against her, by the way? Fun fact, by the way. James Comey.

CLAY: Oh, really.

BUCK: If you’re wondering what a headhunting, chase-the-headlines jerk that guy’s been forever, he was the one. In fact, Rudy Giuliani — who was at the U.S. attorney’s office Southern District at the time — told me, “This is outrageous. You’re gonna go after her for not actually doing insider trading, but being scared and saying the wrong thing about speaking to her broker?”

CLAY: Yeah. Well, this is to me emblematic of why many lawyers are sometimes skeptical of charges and allegations, right? The most, I would say, stunning prosecutorial overreach that I have seen in my life is the Duke lacrosse case, right? Where you had the narrative there: Privileged lacrosse playing, private school white kids alleged to have raped a black, single mother stripper. And you had power and prestige on the side of the Duke lacrosse case, and this Michael Nifong, I think was his name —

BUCK: Yup.

CLAY: — the prosecutor in that case, decided that he wanted to strike a blow for racial justice, even though the stripper — Crystal Mangum, I believe, was her name — was a total liar. I believe, in fact, that she is now in prison for murder, if I’m not mistaken.

BUCK: Yes, that is correct. She went on to kill somebody, which is also a reminder that even in those politically sensitive cases, they should have considered bringing false-statement charges against her because she was a liar.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: You brought up Nifong, who is just a horrifying disgrace all of human being, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case. There was a moment — and this has been, you know, written about extensively, and it just also goes to the Democrat social justice mind-set here of, you know, if you have to just make an example of a bunch of innocent people for the broader narrative of racial justice, go for it.

CLAY: Right.

BUCK: That’s the way very view it. That’s how Nifong viewed it. He actually had one of the kids accused miles away at an ATM machine, and when that came out, the family thought, “We’re okay.”

CLAY: That they’d drop the charges.

BUCK: No, he didn’t want to drop that charge. He didn’t move an inch on it, and it was a reminder to everybody that prosecutors, there’s very little oversight on politicized prosecution. And so it’s something, that if you’re looking to see what branch of the government can ruin your life the fastest unjustly? Oh, it’s prosecutors. I mean, the IRS may be number two, close, but it’s prosecutors.

CLAY: And also, the importance of having the resources to fight a case. Right? To me, what I always said is the Duke lacrosse case, we know that it was a prosecutorial disaster because they could afford good defense attorneys. And now, again, if you’re just tuning in and hearing, Bill Cosby’s conviction for sexual assault was overturned. He is now reportedly going to walk out of prison a free man today.

And, significantly, as a part of this Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which just came down, Buck, they’re not allowed to prosecute him at all for these charges going forward, either. So, you know, sometimes when you overturn a case — I’m sure people out there have heard of this — there can be something wrong with the case, but the overall charges underlying, you can get a new trial and bring those charges.

According to what I am reading right now, the case against Bill Cosby is dead; it is gone. They are not able to bring new charges against him. So you mentioned the Derek Chauvin case, for instance. What his attorneys have been arguing for is because of the settlement with the civil case. I’m sure there were decisions made from a witness perspective about what evidence was introduced and whatnot. You would be seeking a new trial, not that all charges be thrown out forever. Here, Bill Cosby is being 100% vindicated in the fact that these charges should ever have been brought against him in the first place.

BUCK: Well, at least from the reading of this that we have based on the news stories, it seems that they’re admitting that there was some misconduct within the system.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: That’s obviously a far cry from Bill Cosby didn’t do terrible things. They’re not saying that Bill Cosby — and correct me if I’m missing something in this breaking story. They’re not saying Bill Cosby didn’t do it.

CLAY: That’s right.

BUCK: That’s not what’s being said.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: They’re saying Bill Cosby was essentially, you know, fed into the system here; and because everybody wanted to get him — and I think that there was the #MeToo angle of it. There’s also, you know, Bill Cosby, his protection as somebody who would have been liked nationwide changed a bit when he started to become a little bit more vocal on some actual conservative issues, believe it or not.

So there was a greater political desire, I think — or, you know, there was a sense — that the machine really needs to get this guy, and he didn’t have any of the protection that he might have in the past just from people liking him and him being such a cultural icon. But he may very well still have done the things that he was convicted. I mean, it looks, based on the evidence, it seems like he certainly did. But the system overstepped. I mean, this is enormous, for heaven’s sakes.

CLAY: It’s a massive story. Really the way to convey it I think for people to understand it easily is effectively — and I want to make it clear, I haven’t read it. We’re live on the air, so I haven’t read the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. But based on what I have been able to read so far, effectively what they’re saying is that there is a double jeopardy in play here.

In other words, he had already, in a previous prosecutorial settlement, had these charges taken off the table based on what he had agreed to in the past. So, to your point, it doesn’t mean that he might not have drugged women. It doesn’t mean that he may not have committed sexual assault, but that that was previously covered under prior negotiations. And he is expected, by the way, to be picked up by his publicist in the next couple of hours and officially walk out of prison a free man.

BUCK: Totally free.

CLAY: Totally free.