Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wikay F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody. Recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: this show is being pre recorded in honoring of the
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King Junior Holiday, and so I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring back to the show my friend Kaivon Shroff, who
Speaker 1: is a Democratic commentator and all around ivy leaguer when
Speaker 1: it comes to political science, to give us some insight
Speaker 1: into his thoughts on where he thinks that the Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to be in twenty twenty three. We go
Speaker 1: off on a conversation largely around how this is a
Speaker 1: prime opportunity with Democrats in the minority in the House.
Speaker 1: And again, folks, only by four votes are they in
Speaker 1: the minority in the House. But this is the prime
Speaker 1: opportunity for Democrats to hone their messaging. And we talk
Speaker 1: about the real start contrast between Kevin McCarthy's acceptance speech,
Speaker 1: if you can call it that, after fourteen failed vote
Speaker 1: attempts that becoming Speaker of the House, which he has
Speaker 1: hollowed out because of his decision to give away everything
Speaker 1: including the kitchen sink to the far right, reaching quote
Speaker 1: unquote freedom Caucus and the speech that was given by
Speaker 1: incoming Minority Leader Hakim Jefferies. And so, one of the
Speaker 1: things that you've heard me talk about regularly on woke
Speaker 1: F is the inability of Democrats to have a cohesive
Speaker 1: national messaging strategy that has us distill the very complicated
Speaker 1: policies and ideas that we try and put forth for
Speaker 1: the American people in something that is easily digestible. Now, look,
Speaker 1: we know that hate is readily easily digestible. We also
Speaker 1: know that the truth need not get in the way
Speaker 1: of a good story as it pertains to the far right.
Speaker 1: But with Democrats in this space, have an opportunity because
Speaker 1: here's the thing, we know, no policies are going to
Speaker 1: be put forth. You could barely get a speaker chosen
Speaker 1: with the first four days of Republicans supposed to be
Speaker 1: wielding the gavel, let alone any major legislation. I mean,
Speaker 1: one of the first things that Kevin McCarthy talked about
Speaker 1: was defunding the IRS and more investigations into the federal government,
Speaker 1: none of which is going to do anything for the
Speaker 1: average American. So what does a messaging strategy look like
Speaker 1: by Democrats? What does it mean to consistently over the
Speaker 1: next two years, remind the American people who is actually
Speaker 1: voting for their best interests when it comes to lowering
Speaker 1: prescription drug prices, when it comes to looking at infrastructure,
Speaker 1: when it comes to our public school situation in terms
Speaker 1: of oh, I don't know, changing up full on curriculum
Speaker 1: to make sure that we continue with the white supremacy
Speaker 1: propaganda that we instilling young people instead of teaching them
Speaker 1: the truth. When we look at all of these things,
Speaker 1: we know that it is Democrats that are fighting for
Speaker 1: the American people and Republicans that have aligned themselves with
Speaker 1: our foreign enemies, looking at you Russia, looking at the House,
Speaker 1: Republicans deciding that they don't want to continue to help
Speaker 1: Ukraine continue their fight for democracy and against Putin because
Speaker 1: you know, putinist Trump's BFF. So I think that there
Speaker 1: is a major opportunity in the coming two years of
Speaker 1: the circus that we are in for for Democrats to
Speaker 1: really set an agenda, a stark agenda and clear narrative
Speaker 1: that shows the American people who the adults are in
Speaker 1: the room. So, coming up next my conversation with Kaivan Shroff. Folks,
Speaker 1: I am really happy to welcome back to woke f
Speaker 1: Kaivan Streff, who is a Democratic commentator and has is
Speaker 1: a cleated with Harvard Law, MPP from the Kennedy School,
Speaker 1: NBA from Yal Sam political science from Brown University. He
Speaker 1: is an all around IVY leaguer and one of the
Speaker 1: smartest people that I follow on TikTok, who puts out
Speaker 1: some of the most thoughtful videos. So if you're not
Speaker 1: following him on TikTok, you should cavan. Happy New Year
Speaker 1: to you, Happy New Year. Agreed to be here, Happy
Speaker 1: New Year, Same Republican bullshit. So I want to start
Speaker 1: off with, you know, essentially getting your thoughts on how
Speaker 1: you believe if you think I'll say this, if you
Speaker 1: think that the first couple of weeks of this new
Speaker 1: year are in how Republicans antics on the House floor
Speaker 1: their decision to want to gut the Ethics Committee and
Speaker 1: create what HACKEM. Jeffries, minority leader has referred to the
Speaker 1: Insurrection Protection Committee in its stead. What do you make
Speaker 1: of how Republicans are setting the tone for the next
Speaker 1: two years. You know, I think they're really failing to
Speaker 1: set a clear tone and unfortunately, I mean well fortunately
Speaker 1: for the country. But we've seen, you know, just total
Speaker 1: chaos under McCarthy short tenure so far. Let's see how
Speaker 1: long it lasts. But I think he's gotten so many narratives,
Speaker 1: especially the George Santo's narrative, that have really sort of
Speaker 1: taken away the opportunity to set a clear agenda and
Speaker 1: define what they want to do. At the same time,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit of letting them off the hook
Speaker 1: because I doubt they have a real credible agenda and
Speaker 1: so it's very hard to permeate that. And I think
Speaker 1: it's a good time actually for Democrats obviously on messaging,
Speaker 1: because we would rather have won the House. But it's easier,
Speaker 1: I think, when you're in the minority to constantly be
Speaker 1: you know, criticizing and holding those who do have control accountable.
Speaker 1: And there's going to be a lot to say about
Speaker 1: this really corrupt regime that is in power in Congress.
Speaker 1: Right now. Let's talk about George Santos for a minute.
Speaker 1: So glad you brought him up, because it's like every
Speaker 1: single day there is another unearthing of another lie that
Speaker 1: this man has told. And you know, I'm from Long Island,
Speaker 1: I'm from Eastern Long Island. So from Suffolk County, and
Speaker 1: he represents parts of Nassau County, and the New York
Speaker 1: Republicans have called for him to step down. They say
Speaker 1: that he is an absolute distraction, that he does not
Speaker 1: have the capability to be able to do the job right.
Speaker 1: You have reporters hounding him this week and his response saying,
Speaker 1: the constituents put me here, and I won't leave unless
Speaker 1: I have one hundred and forty two random people tell
Speaker 1: me that life totally archery. Yeah right, And I was like,
Speaker 1: I got you know, I got one it as well
Speaker 1: on jan and forty two people telling him to step down.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about basically who George Santos is
Speaker 1: and how Kevin McCarthy as speaker, because he's so desperate
Speaker 1: for votes, refuses to acknowledge that this man is just
Speaker 1: corrupt and a grift. Absolutely, and I think, honestly we're
Speaker 1: going to find out soon enough, but probably guilty of
Speaker 1: at least one or more crimes. And I think it's
Speaker 1: a very unique and great challenge for McCarthy to have
Speaker 1: to deal with because it really calls out that yes,
Speaker 1: he's an extreme example, and yes they needed the votes,
Speaker 1: but I think there's another reason that McCarthy and others
Speaker 1: in GOOP leadership aren't going after him, it's because where
Speaker 1: do you draw the line. I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: caucus full of liars and sort of close to criminals,
Speaker 1: if not criminals. So you know, I think it's hard
Speaker 1: for them to come out and criticize somebody, even such
Speaker 1: an egregious case, because then the next one and the
Speaker 1: next one, and gates and right, like, we're right, you
Speaker 1: draw once you've opened the doors to all these sort
Speaker 1: of bad actors to be leaders in making our laws. Now,
Speaker 1: I think it is a total crock to say that
Speaker 1: this guy was elected and he's going to serve and
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. This is not who voters elected. Voters
Speaker 1: elected a complete lie, a mythical individual. Nobody voted for
Speaker 1: George Santos or whatever his name is. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that that is a reasonable, you know, response. It's ludicrous,
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. I think it kind of
Speaker 1: worked better on some of the more chaotic figures like
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, where yeah, like I guess she was
Speaker 1: elected by you know, the constituents in her district, and
Speaker 1: that's who she is. She is crazy, but it's it's
Speaker 1: a very different case. Yeah, And I think that that's right.
Speaker 1: I think you make a good distinction, which is that
Speaker 1: you know, and remember, there were calls to take Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green out of the off of the ballot in
Speaker 1: her district. There were calls and they lost, right she
Speaker 1: obviously she stayed on the ballot, she was able to run.
Speaker 1: And so these people knowingly are electing a QAnon conspiracist liar,
Speaker 1: right like, somebody who lies about reality, because that's not
Speaker 1: where she's operating. I think that George Santos, to your point,
Speaker 1: is a completely different case because his constituents have no
Speaker 1: idea who they voted for, right like at all. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the questions that I have, you know, as
Speaker 1: somebody who is so studied in our political landscape and
Speaker 1: climate and government, is this where do you think that
Speaker 1: where was the breakdown in oppositional research from his opponent
Speaker 1: and just Democrats in general, like every seat mattered, and
Speaker 1: what was what has been said was, oh, well, this
Speaker 1: wasn't a high profile you know, k Like, this wasn't
Speaker 1: a high profile election. It wasn't a high profile seat.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, but in such a narrow win that
Speaker 1: Republicans had every seat did matter. So where was the
Speaker 1: breakdown in research here? Right? No? I mean I think
Speaker 1: there was some democratic opa research here, but and a
Speaker 1: little little bit of local news coverage. Actually, once people
Speaker 1: part of the story, they looked back and saw, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: some people did sort of mention this. But I think
Speaker 1: it really speaks to and it's an indictment of our
Speaker 1: national media framework once again, where certain like how is
Speaker 1: this this is a critically important story and but four
Speaker 1: three or four weeks of time could have totally changed
Speaker 1: the results yea, the power of Congress really, and somehow
Speaker 1: it was missed. But you know, we got the New
Speaker 1: York Times today giving Kelly and Conway a platform to
Speaker 1: plug Trump, Like is that really what the New York
Speaker 1: Times should be doing? Yet they missed this story. And
Speaker 1: so I do think, you know, there's this competition at
Speaker 1: the local level and national level in media, and we
Speaker 1: are seeing sort of and continue to see. Really this
Speaker 1: is a decades long problem, the decimation of local news yea,
Speaker 1: and very much competition from national players. But then they
Speaker 1: dropped the ball on stories like this, Like I don't
Speaker 1: think could possibly argue this was not under the purview
Speaker 1: of the New York Times to cover. Do you think
Speaker 1: that Santos last the year? Do you think, you know,
Speaker 1: just just in your prediction, in your like shaking of
Speaker 1: the crystal ball, do you think that he makes it
Speaker 1: through even one year of his two year term? Or
Speaker 1: do we see indictments? I mean, he's being investigated by
Speaker 1: both the New York the Nassau County DAH and the
Speaker 1: federal government. Totally. I mean, I think it's laughable because
Speaker 1: another response of McCarthy was sort of, oh, if he
Speaker 1: did anything wrong, he'll face ethics. But as you pointed
Speaker 1: out when we opened the ethics, he's in Congress, so
Speaker 1: that's that's comical. But um, I think, yes, I don't
Speaker 1: see him lasting the year if there are indictments that
Speaker 1: come down at the same time. And I think we're
Speaker 1: all a little tired of this, but we've seen how
Speaker 1: long this process of investigations can be, so I really
Speaker 1: think it's going to be tied to that. And once
Speaker 1: there are criminal charges or more, um, you know, it'll
Speaker 1: be a different story and a harder to defend and
Speaker 1: maybe a little easier for some Republicans who are uncomfortable
Speaker 1: with what's going on to speak out. But you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not too hopeful that course correction here, Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not too hopeful either. I mean, I won't hold my
Speaker 1: breath because I don't want to pass out. But um,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things that I think is,
Speaker 1: you know, was really eye opening. I'll say this, for
Speaker 1: the fourteen failed votes that McCarthy had for speaker took.
Speaker 1: It took four days and fifteen votes for McCarthy to
Speaker 1: have this hollowed out speakership. Can you speak to some
Speaker 1: of the concessions that were made and why he is
Speaker 1: now considered one of the weakest speakers in history. Well, exactly,
Speaker 1: That's what I was going to say, is he's basically
Speaker 1: speaker in name only, and the concessions, as I think
Speaker 1: everyone's predicted for years seeing this slow moving train wreck
Speaker 1: of the GOP Congress, is that they basically cowt out
Speaker 1: to every demand of the most extremist members of their caucus,
Speaker 1: and those people are have every incentive to continue to
Speaker 1: create chaos at every turn. It's paid off for them, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: and I think we're going to see more and more
Speaker 1: of it. And I think what was particularly alarming about
Speaker 1: the fifteen votes. Is I think if you a decade
Speaker 1: ago said oh, this like sort of technical things happening
Speaker 1: in Congress and they're going to go through multiple rounds
Speaker 1: or a bunch of days, and it's going to go
Speaker 1: into the weekend, nobody on Earth would be really caring
Speaker 1: or watching that much. And suddenly you had everyone watching, right.
Speaker 1: And my concern with that is that there is almost
Speaker 1: this reality TV payout where you know, good attention intention
Speaker 1: It allowed those people to kind of totally own the
Speaker 1: narratives and the media and write like, who knows fake conversations,
Speaker 1: have real conversations, but kind of play to a public audience.
Speaker 1: And we saw this little from Democrats too with Katie
Speaker 1: Porter and her book, but you know, it's just a
Speaker 1: totally different level. And I do think the incentives are off.
Speaker 1: And what was really interesting is obviously the c SPAN
Speaker 1: cameras kind of had a little bit more control of
Speaker 1: what they wanted to do. And I came across a
Speaker 1: piece and I'm blanking on the author, so forgive me,
Speaker 1: but basically saying, yeah, actually, this is terrible because we
Speaker 1: don't want this sort of false sense of like, oh
Speaker 1: now the cameras can do whatever they want, and there's
Speaker 1: more accountability when it's really just feeding into again that
Speaker 1: national media ecosystem that's really trying to create reality TV moments,
Speaker 1: and that's not really accountability. It's really giving attention seekers
Speaker 1: a channel to seek that attention and have an impact
Speaker 1: in a really bad way. You know, I'm so glad
Speaker 1: that you brought up the cameras because I was going
Speaker 1: to be remiss in not asking you your thoughts on
Speaker 1: that physical altercation that we saw on the house of
Speaker 1: the floor at the floor of the house. Never in
Speaker 1: my life, right, never in my life have I seen
Speaker 1: in American politics. Now we've seen this play out. We've
Speaker 1: seen a playout in Parliament. We've seen a play out
Speaker 1: in other countries where they literally have gone fisticuffs. We've
Speaker 1: never seen this in America. Haive on, what was your
Speaker 1: reaction to that, to that clip and to I mean,
Speaker 1: I my mouth felt. I was stunned. It was honestly,
Speaker 1: it did remind me and I might be getting this wrong,
Speaker 1: so forgive me my APUs history teacher, but I think
Speaker 1: there was like one example of some guy, like very
Speaker 1: early on, beating somebody else with a cane like either
Speaker 1: in the house or the Senate. So I have to
Speaker 1: look that up after this, but I'm sure, but it
Speaker 1: really reminded me of that, and I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: to your point, like we have not seen this in forever,
Speaker 1: but this really is who the Republican Party is. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a pro violence, pro insurrection party. These are
Speaker 1: a bunch of frat guys that you know ended up
Speaker 1: in Congress. Let's be honest about that. I mean they
Speaker 1: have no policy positions and they're not very thoughtful now
Speaker 1: care about their constituents. All they care about is you know,
Speaker 1: straight rich white guys and how they can protect that
Speaker 1: group of people and you know, hold onto powers. So
Speaker 1: of course you see this sort of ludicrous behavior. I
Speaker 1: mean it was just such you know, and I've said
Speaker 1: this so many times on this show, and obviously, like
Speaker 1: you also went into politics. There was such an esteem
Speaker 1: that I held when I worked on Capitol Hill, like
Speaker 1: I would see these members, it was it was it
Speaker 1: was a kin. I would tell people if you were
Speaker 1: in Hollywood and you're seeing like the directors that you
Speaker 1: love and the writers that you love, like walking the
Speaker 1: halls and the actors and the actresses, there was this
Speaker 1: air of like, oh, my goodness, I'm walking the halls
Speaker 1: of history and to watch it devolve into like you're
Speaker 1: into a frat house, into just like this, this horrible, tacky,
Speaker 1: trashy behavior. I just it's it has brought the air
Speaker 1: and the esteem and any bit of regalness that our
Speaker 1: government had is now just in the sewer. And I
Speaker 1: don't think that folks recognize how that damage will affect
Speaker 1: us for decades to come, what that has done to
Speaker 1: to our faith right in these systems and in these people.
Speaker 1: And I mean, like, who is going to have the
Speaker 1: institutional knowledge to put things back together? Because to your point,
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone or most people that want to
Speaker 1: do good work and want to contribute to our democracy
Speaker 1: see that it's a viable path to do so. So
Speaker 1: they're not going to go there. Um so where are
Speaker 1: they going to go? Probably to the private sector or
Speaker 1: something like that. I meanwhile, you'll have sort of the
Speaker 1: worst group of people doing these things and staffing up
Speaker 1: these offices, and those will be the people around until
Speaker 1: something major changes. Yeah. It just it really, you know,
Speaker 1: aside from the side show and the circus and we
Speaker 1: kind of laugh so that we don't cry, It is
Speaker 1: kind of heartbreaking, right for those of us who really
Speaker 1: believe in public service, who really believe in the ability
Speaker 1: of government to better the lives of everyday Americans, and
Speaker 1: then to watch it turn into a trashy reality TV
Speaker 1: side show is really it is heartbreaking. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say about it. As you
Speaker 1: as we watched, um, you know, finally Kevin McCarthy take
Speaker 1: the speakership after fourteen failed votes. We watch him give
Speaker 1: his speech, which was just breathless in its inability to
Speaker 1: read the room. Then we, in contrast, watch Hakeem Jeffries.
Speaker 1: I want to get your your response in thoughts to
Speaker 1: Hakeem's jeff Jakeem Jeffreys ABC's of Democracy. I love that.
Speaker 1: I love that. I actually thought it was so clever.
Speaker 1: At first, it was like, is it a little corny?
Speaker 1: And it is a little corny, honest, but it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: Like it was so wholesome. But it was actually so
Speaker 1: on the mark too, Like it came in a package
Speaker 1: that was very presentable and sort of unassuming, but if
Speaker 1: you look at the words used and the comparisons drawn,
Speaker 1: it was so clever and it was an easy thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, obviously we were talking about TikTok. You know,
Speaker 1: it was an easy thing for people to clip and share,
Speaker 1: so that was genius too. So it was a great device,
Speaker 1: I think, and it really introduced him in a tone
Speaker 1: that is going to allow I think McCarthy to make
Speaker 1: the biggest fool of himself because he wasn't going out right.
Speaker 1: He didn't come with, you know, too much harshness or
Speaker 1: like energy to start with. I think we'll probably see
Speaker 1: a little bit more of that as things get more
Speaker 1: and more sort of aggressive with this new Congress. But
Speaker 1: you know, it kind of was a totally open, neutral,
Speaker 1: like yes, going to call out facts and be president
Speaker 1: in this reality. At the same time, you know, I
Speaker 1: think he said, you know, like let's disagree without being disagreeable.
Speaker 1: It's not my personal favorite mantra, but I would think
Speaker 1: it serves in some cases, like perhaps this case on
Speaker 1: his first speech sort of on a supernational stage. How
Speaker 1: do you think that How came Jeffreys as minority leader
Speaker 1: and this new leadership team are going to be able
Speaker 1: to take on um these kind of weaponized, violent, volatile
Speaker 1: Republicans in the House. How do you see this, this team,
Speaker 1: this group playing out differently than Pelosi did for you know,
Speaker 1: for for for over a decade. Well, I think it
Speaker 1: ties back to one of your earlier questions today, which is,
Speaker 1: now Democrats have this moment. Right under Pelosi's leadership, they
Speaker 1: were actually racing against the clock to get as much
Speaker 1: done as humanly possible, and they did a lot. They
Speaker 1: did alish a massive amount. I think everyone is impressed
Speaker 1: with Biden's sort of first term on that aspect, and
Speaker 1: he obviously owes a lot of credit to Pelosi for that.
Speaker 1: Now they're in the position of really getting to lean
Speaker 1: into narrative and communication and story because it is going
Speaker 1: to be harder for Democrats to push things through Congress.
Speaker 1: But there's that opportunity then to show the country how
Speaker 1: diverse and awesome the people that we've elected to the
Speaker 1: party are, and to really call out the bad behaviors
Speaker 1: and maybe in a more sort of strident way, because again,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it's not realistic that
Speaker 1: too much is going to come through on consensus. So
Speaker 1: we'll see. I mean, maybe that won't be the case,
Speaker 1: but I highly expect it to be sort of a
Speaker 1: standstill with in terms of bi partisanship and so it
Speaker 1: kind of gives you this chance where you're basically getting
Speaker 1: to and it's not a nice phrasing maybe, but to perform,
Speaker 1: right like, they're going to get to perform now for
Speaker 1: the next two years and create the best show possible.
Speaker 1: And do you know, hopefully what frankly, Republicans are pretty
Speaker 1: successful at, which is getting that intention and getting those
Speaker 1: narratives out there. Now, Democrats are in a position where
Speaker 1: they can kind of keep you know, poking the bear
Speaker 1: and seeing what they can you know, drive attention around,
Speaker 1: and I think that will be successful, especially you know,
Speaker 1: I think people are concerned if you ask, you know, who,
Speaker 1: if not Biden would run in twenty twenty four, which
Speaker 1: I don't really honestly think is a productive question, but
Speaker 1: they reflect on sort of is there a deep bench
Speaker 1: for Democrats? And I think absolutely, especially from some of
Speaker 1: the governors we're seeing. But we're also going to be
Speaker 1: able to see over the next two years hopefully if
Speaker 1: done well, you know, emphasis on some great members of
Speaker 1: Congress that we have to offer who can be future
Speaker 1: leaders of the party. So I think now is a
Speaker 1: real time to focus on connecting with the American people.
Speaker 1: Last question for you is this you know, I think
Speaker 1: that a lot of Americans. I think the midterm election
Speaker 1: showed that more Americans care about preserving our democracy than
Speaker 1: the mainstream media gave them credit for. They kept saying,
Speaker 1: you know, these are not the issues, it's the kitchen
Speaker 1: table issues. And I kept saying, well, if you don't
Speaker 1: have a democracy, you don't have a kitchen table. So
Speaker 1: I'm confused about the other things that would be taking
Speaker 1: your attention. But you know, as we continue to look ahead,
Speaker 1: this year is kind of the march to the real
Speaker 1: beginning of the presidential cycle. As you have lifted up,
Speaker 1: what do you think about Americans attention and stamina as
Speaker 1: we head into the presidential And you know, do you
Speaker 1: think what, if anything, can Democrats do? You were talking
Speaker 1: about messaging and narrative to ensure Americans that Democrats are
Speaker 1: the ones that need to remain to be in charge
Speaker 1: and remain in charge in order to get the job done. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I actually think it is sometimes helpful when you're not
Speaker 1: in power. It's easier to make that case because it's
Speaker 1: always easier to criticize than to do. And again with
Speaker 1: the caveat that Republicans don't really want to do anything productive.
Speaker 1: But I think that I appreciate Biden continuing to speak
Speaker 1: out about the decline of democracy because I think sometimes
Speaker 1: people are like, oh my god, not in another press
Speaker 1: conference about this topic like you did on jan six.
Speaker 1: But I thought it was great because you have to
Speaker 1: keep reminding people that this is a long term problem
Speaker 1: that we have. It's not just a drum problem. We
Speaker 1: now have an entire political party in the country that's
Speaker 1: really dedicated to destroying our democracy. And frankly, all the
Speaker 1: institutions you mentioned, you know, media saying what matters and
Speaker 1: what doesn't matter. I mean, media is an institution that's
Speaker 1: incredibly complicit in the decline of our democracy. So they're
Speaker 1: probably not the best source to go to in discussing,
Speaker 1: you know, the importance of democratic institutions. They are supposed
Speaker 1: to be one, and they are not fulfilling that commitment.
Speaker 1: So I think, you know, people understand that the bottom
Speaker 1: is close to falling out in this country. I think
Speaker 1: people are very afraid of increased chaos, potentially civil conflict
Speaker 1: growing more and more. I mean, even in New York
Speaker 1: we're seeing you know, Proud Boys and what doing extremists
Speaker 1: attack drag performers, because like Elon Musk and sort of
Speaker 1: other powerful people have just amplified this type of hate beyond.
Speaker 1: So I think people are incredibly nervous and they're willing
Speaker 1: to pay attention because they really feel their lives or
Speaker 1: at stick and they are. And then I think, second,
Speaker 1: it would be good to communicate the timeline a little
Speaker 1: differently to people because I think we keep focusing on
Speaker 1: the next benchmark, the next benchmark, the next benchmark, the midterms, election, whatever,
Speaker 1: and then there's up slightly positive outcome or we do
Speaker 1: a little better than we thought, and people are like, oh,
Speaker 1: not everything's better yet, right, This is going to take
Speaker 1: a decade or two to course correct. So yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's fits and starts, and I think every individual
Speaker 1: has to look at what they can contribute and also
Speaker 1: how they can stay in this for the law run.
Speaker 1: So focus maybe on their you know, own personal health
Speaker 1: and you know sanity as they do that. I know,
Speaker 1: for people like you and me were constantly thinking about
Speaker 1: these issues and getting every news update every second, that
Speaker 1: can be hard sometimes, you know. I mean I wouldn't
Speaker 1: not do it because I personally need to know if
Speaker 1: we're going to nuclear war, Yes, that's me, I think
Speaker 1: other people they would rather not know, frankly, so so
Speaker 1: I think that's my take on it, and I do
Speaker 1: think the messaging can be better, And I do think
Speaker 1: on one piece that I don't want to sort of
Speaker 1: kick off a whole new topic as we're rapping, but
Speaker 1: we talked about these investigations. Obviously there's some more on
Speaker 1: the horizon. I do think that the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: has done a really bad job communicating with the American people,
Speaker 1: And I think there's a lot of people that can
Speaker 1: criticize or support what Mark Garland's doing. It's a very detailed,
Speaker 1: specific process, so I don't think all the pundits out there,
Speaker 1: like no matter their experience, really can speak to it.
Speaker 1: But what we can speak to is what we've all seen,
Speaker 1: which is frankly, I think even the strongest Biden supporters
Speaker 1: or pro democracy people are frustrated at this point with
Speaker 1: what's been happening at the DOJ and the lack of
Speaker 1: clarity and communication about the process. What to expect if
Speaker 1: you can't communicate about something, why you can't communicate it,
Speaker 1: but just share that information so that people have that
Speaker 1: foundational trust because you can't do all this work behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, and then when you release the port the reports,
Speaker 1: you know, suddenly nobody believes in the process that you've
Speaker 1: conducted because it's taken years and there's been so much
Speaker 1: murkiness around it. So I think that is one thing
Speaker 1: that is so important. Yeah, and a final plus also,
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, this example makes it relatently clear that
Speaker 1: nobody cared about the status of Hillary Clinton's emails, none
Speaker 1: of which remark classified, and it really was a sexist
Speaker 1: attack under the guise of a national security issue, and
Speaker 1: it really cost her the presidency. And it's just an
Speaker 1: absolute disgrace. And I think the history books should absolutely
Speaker 1: get that right. Kive on if we will have history books,
Speaker 1: you know, that's something as well, you know, if we
Speaker 1: if we will have them. But no, you're absolutely right
Speaker 1: in terms of the transparency. Even if you can't, as
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, speak to the inner workings of
Speaker 1: how things are unfolding, you can bring some level of
Speaker 1: fifty thousand foot this is what we've been up to,
Speaker 1: this is what we're doing enough for the American people,
Speaker 1: to your point, so that when these reports do come out,
Speaker 1: it isn't just it doesn't just fall on non listening ears,
Speaker 1: and then people who are already concerned about transparency and
Speaker 1: concerned about corruption then don't feel like they've been brought along.
Speaker 1: So I think that even if it isn't the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice themselves, it is you know, someone in the
Speaker 1: administration being able to you know, give us the one
Speaker 1: on one class on how the Department of Justice moves
Speaker 1: even if it is and you know through examples from
Speaker 1: the past, and this is how we get to these points.
Speaker 1: But thank you friend for joining. Your first appearance this year,
Speaker 1: and I hope it will not be your last on
Speaker 1: Woke a F but we will definitely come back to
Speaker 1: you to see how how things continue to shake out. Kivan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for making the time for Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Always great to be back. That is
Speaker 1: it for me, dear friends on woke f as always,
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.