Speaker 1: Native lamdpod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 1: Hello everyone, Happy Tuesday. Welcome home. This is another edition
Speaker 1: of a solo pod with me your host, Angela Rai
Speaker 1: for Native lamppod. I am excited to be with you
Speaker 1: all today to get into a very very pressing question,
Speaker 1: which is are we in a constitutional crisis? And is
Speaker 1: Donald Trump stage and a coup? So I'm going to
Speaker 1: point to a couple of things that i think are
Speaker 1: important as we consider this very important question. A lot
Speaker 1: of people are asking, a lot of folks are panicking
Speaker 1: about it. Hi, I'm people, And one of the things
Speaker 1: that has been really pressing for me is the fact
Speaker 1: that on Sunday I was at church. I should have
Speaker 1: been just panished to discernment, but I'm being very honest
Speaker 1: with y'all.
Speaker 2: I was at church.
Speaker 1: And there's a tweet that comes across from jd Vance,
Speaker 1: who of course is y'all's vice president, and jd Vance
Speaker 1: tweeted impertinent part.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to reflect on this one portion.
Speaker 1: Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate powers. Judges
Speaker 1: aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate powers. Now, some
Speaker 1: of you might be saying, Okay, that's his opinion, find whatever,
Speaker 1: But he goes on to tweet things to share information
Speaker 1: that supports this very asinine point that judges aren't allowed
Speaker 1: to control.
Speaker 2: The executive's legitimate powers.
Speaker 1: Now, what is really in question here is not that,
Speaker 1: because we know we talk about every single solopod basically
Speaker 1: there are three co equal branches of government, at least
Speaker 1: right now, there's the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branch. Now,
Speaker 1: we have always talked about a system of checks and
Speaker 1: balances and that is entrined in the Constitution. And what
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is essentially trying to do. You would say, hey, actually,
Speaker 1: there's this idea that we have. This says the executive
Speaker 1: actually has a little more power and surprise, that is
Speaker 1: in Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: We'll get into that in a little bit.
Speaker 1: But first I want to use as a basis for
Speaker 1: my question for my reason for panic, this court case
Speaker 1: that is before the United States District Court of Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: That case, as many of you all may know, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna hold this up so you can see I believe
Speaker 1: in documents. So this court case was brought by twenty
Speaker 1: three different states attorneys general where they sued because they
Speaker 1: sued the Trump administration, the treasurer, the treasurer, the Secretary
Speaker 1: of the Department of Treasury, the acting Secretary of Health
Speaker 1: and Human Services, the acting Secretary of Education, etc.
Speaker 2: FEMA, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: In this case, they've alleged that the federal government is
Speaker 1: exceeding the executive brings, exceeding its powers by freezing federal funding.
Speaker 1: A judge by the name of John J. McConnell, Junior,
Speaker 1: agreed with these twenty three states, including the District of
Speaker 1: Columbia attorney's general, saying, you know what, let's have a
Speaker 1: temporary restraining order on what the Trump administration is doing.
Speaker 1: Let's temporarily stop this funding freeze, allow this funding to
Speaker 1: go forward so that we don't have these issues in
Speaker 1: the country putting a lot of people in harm's way.
Speaker 1: So the judge issued this temporary restraining order after the
Speaker 1: attorneys general filed their case filed their suit. On January
Speaker 1: twenty eighth, the Trump administration comes out and many of
Speaker 1: you all remember the Press secretary says, well, we are
Speaker 1: rescinding the O ANDB memo that issued this funding freeze.
Speaker 1: But we're not going to freeze what we're actually doing,
Speaker 1: causing a little bit of confusion, given people reason for pause.
Speaker 1: And then what you saw after that was that funds
Speaker 1: were frozen. You heard about it in community health centers.
Speaker 1: You've seen it now with farmers, including the guy that
Speaker 1: voted for Donald Trump and saying you had time to
Speaker 1: do his research. You're starting to see this stuff come
Speaker 1: out where they actually did freeze funds, which means they
Speaker 1: did not comply with the core order. So on Monday, sorry,
Speaker 1: on Friday, these attorneys general come back and say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're flagging for y'all. We need emergency relief. They are
Speaker 1: not complying with this core order. The judge rules on Monday.
Speaker 1: That's what this is, that they in fact are accurate
Speaker 1: and that the federal government is not complying with the order.
Speaker 1: So let me read to y'all what is supposed to
Speaker 1: happen when the federal government, visa be the executive branch,
Speaker 1: does not comply with a federal court order. Again three
Speaker 1: quote equal branches of government judicial, legislative, and executive. So
Speaker 1: the executive branch is not complying with this order from
Speaker 1: judicial rimps.
Speaker 2: That's what he says.
Speaker 1: It is a basic proposition that all orders and judgments
Speaker 1: of courts must be complied with promptly.
Speaker 2: This is on page two of the order.
Speaker 1: Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse
Speaker 1: to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt criminal contempt
Speaker 1: even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. There's several
Speaker 1: other pieces that we can point out to the defendants who,
Speaker 1: in this instance are is the Trump administration argues that
Speaker 1: they're just trying to root out fraud. The judge throws
Speaker 1: that argument out and says, that is way you guys
Speaker 1: are operating way far beyond the scope of ruling out
Speaker 1: and rooting out fraud.
Speaker 2: So alas here we are. So, now, what makes this
Speaker 2: a constitutional crisis?
Speaker 1: You're saying, Ah, you know, Donald Trump is gone Trump,
Speaker 1: He's you know, of course he's gonna say he's not
Speaker 1: gonna comply. What makes this a constitutional crisis? So glad
Speaker 1: you asked so again, there is a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 1: The judge has ruled once after the case was filed
Speaker 1: on the twenty eighth rule twice Monday saying no, not
Speaker 1: so much. You're not doing what you're supposed to do,
Speaker 1: and failure to comply means you're held in criminal contempt
Speaker 1: of court. So what happens if they still don't unfreeze
Speaker 1: the funds, Well, that means that the executive branch is
Speaker 1: deciding that they don't have to listen to what the
Speaker 1: judicial branch is saying. Now, the Trump administration is said
Speaker 1: that they are appealing this order to the First Circuit
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals, and right now, I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you it's not going to go in their favor. There
Speaker 1: is not a single conservative judge on the First Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals. And then after that their next stop.
Speaker 1: And this is what I think makes this a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: It is the Supreme Court. Now what makes this the
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis? Article one, section nine, clause seven of the
Speaker 1: United States Constitution gives the power of the purse.
Speaker 2: To the legislative branch.
Speaker 1: That means the legislature decides how money is spent, how
Speaker 1: money is let out the door, whether or not resources
Speaker 1: are spent at all. They determine if there's a freeze. Right,
Speaker 1: So when we talk about government shutdowns, that's two sides
Speaker 1: not agreeing. Until we can agree, nothing's moving. That's a
Speaker 1: federal funding freeze in effect. Right here is the primary issue.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has decided that sure, and the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has decided sure. The power of the purse to spend money,
Speaker 1: and we talked about this a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: belongs with the legislature. But the power of the purse
Speaker 1: to save money, to stop spending money belongs with the
Speaker 1: executive branch. That is not true, but that is how
Speaker 1: they're reading this. And what I think is scary about
Speaker 1: this is that this was all addressed in Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, along with more than two two thirds of
Speaker 1: the executive orders and actions that Donald Trump's administration has
Speaker 1: taken on so far. Two thirds of those can be
Speaker 1: found in Project twenty twenty five. So now when you
Speaker 1: take in a consideration that they're through Jdvans on Sunday
Speaker 1: saying you ain't the boss of me, and then you
Speaker 1: know the judge had to come out and say, not once,
Speaker 1: but twice, there's a federal federal funding freeze, bro. Or
Speaker 1: you're unfreezing this federal funding freeze, bro, We're not doing this.
Speaker 1: The fact that they're not listening to that.
Speaker 2: JD.
Speaker 1: Bans told y'all that they weren't going to listen to that.
Speaker 1: And then so that means there's this blatant disregard for
Speaker 1: what the constitution says. And then there's a violation of
Speaker 1: a core order that we just talked about. And then
Speaker 1: when you consider that the Trump administration has fired several
Speaker 1: inspectors General, which are the internal watchdogs for all of
Speaker 1: these government agencies. And then you take in a consideration
Speaker 1: where he initially froze federal funding and how, and then
Speaker 1: you take into consideration the number of civil service protections
Speaker 1: that have always existed across multiple administrations for federal government employees,
Speaker 1: and that there's been this blanket, blanket attempt to fire
Speaker 1: to have them kind of be bought out. A judge's
Speaker 1: ruled against that, but again, if they're not going to
Speaker 1: comply with court orders, America, you in danger, girl, You
Speaker 1: in danger. And so this is what we have to
Speaker 1: wrestle with. There are five or six things happening simultaneously
Speaker 1: that signal that we're in a constitutional crisis. And I
Speaker 1: don't and and I want to just stop here for
Speaker 1: a moment to acknowledge.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to.
Speaker 1: Figure out what we thought was going to happen with
Speaker 1: a lawless president. This man has several convictions. This man
Speaker 1: has run his companies at least allegedly if you believe
Speaker 1: the cause of actions that weren't even allowed to go forth,
Speaker 1: and some of the ones that were in a very
Speaker 1: fraudulent manner. Even with Tis James's successful suit against Donald
Speaker 1: Trump Civilly for fraud.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to figure.
Speaker 1: Out why any of us, I'll say us to be
Speaker 1: nice today would have thought he would do anything different.
Speaker 1: Like a criminal gone crime, a lawless man is gonna
Speaker 1: be lawless. And so it's so interesting that these are
Speaker 1: the folks who call people illegal when they in fact.
Speaker 2: Are the illegals.
Speaker 1: So, in the most simple terms, what I can tell
Speaker 1: you is, when one branch of the government chooses to
Speaker 1: blatantly ignore and disregard another coequal branch of government, you
Speaker 1: have a constitutional crisis. So we're not upon a constitutional crisis,
Speaker 1: We're not around the corner from a constitutional crisis. We
Speaker 1: are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. So what
Speaker 1: are my fears now? So again I talked about already
Speaker 1: that the First Circuit Court of Appeals is governed by
Speaker 1: most part judges who were not There's no conservative judge
Speaker 1: on that bench there and I don't want to call
Speaker 1: them liberal, but they are left leaning. There's not a
Speaker 1: conservative bench. So Donald Trump and his administration are most
Speaker 1: certainly going to appeal to the Supreme Court. And this
Speaker 1: is what has me worried. Too many members of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court are supporters of, either proactively or indirectly of
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation, the same Heritage Foundation whose president said
Speaker 1: that their role now will be to institutionalize trump Ism.
Speaker 1: He didn't say democracy, he didn't say preservation of American
Speaker 1: liberty and freedom, he didn't say any of that. What
Speaker 1: he said was that their role now is to institutionalize
Speaker 1: trump Ism. And that is a direct quote. So the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is upholding that same standard when you go
Speaker 1: to whether or not they would find that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: could be criminally responsible for any of his actions taken
Speaker 1: as a president. Even the fact that it was limited,
Speaker 1: The fact that that question had to go before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and that there was any discussion of that
Speaker 1: demonstrates to you where this court really falls. So before
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court before including in the case where they
Speaker 1: determined if the upsitting president can have criminal immunity. They
Speaker 1: dealt with this doctrine called the unitary executive theory. Unitary
Speaker 1: executive theory essentially vests all power, all executive powers, into
Speaker 1: the hands of the president. So the entire executive branch,
Speaker 1: the only person that can make decisions be held responsible
Speaker 1: all of that is the president. Now, that would be
Speaker 1: great if they held him accountable at the times where
Speaker 1: he breaks the law because he's an illegal, but they're not.
Speaker 1: They're talking about vesting more power in the president, that
Speaker 1: the president should have more authority. They didn't think that
Speaker 1: when Barack Obama was in office, now did they. So
Speaker 1: this to me is dangerous because what that essentially means
Speaker 1: is that the independents that have traditionally been in spaces
Speaker 1: like finance, in media, in elections, like we have some
Speaker 1: commissions that have been set up and they are bipartisan
Speaker 1: by design to be another very important phrase here today,
Speaker 1: y'all check and balance for the administration. Those things are gone.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump just appointed himself to be the chair of
Speaker 1: the Kennedy Center. Like right, Like, I mean, there's no
Speaker 1: neutral arbiter of facts and neutral arbiter of what is
Speaker 1: right and what is wrong if Donald Trump can just
Speaker 1: insert himself and as king over all these things. So
Speaker 1: it also will impact prosecutions, and we saw that just
Speaker 1: recently with Donald Trump saying, you know what, as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, we're just gonna throw out all these
Speaker 1: charges against Eric Adams.
Speaker 2: There's no more neutrality in any of that.
Speaker 1: Now. It is just up to this president because of
Speaker 1: the unitary executive theory, which I think is very harmful
Speaker 1: and I think puts America in a tremendously compromising position.
Speaker 1: So I know y'all are like, Okay, well, now that
Speaker 1: you spread all this great doom and gloom, where do
Speaker 1: we go from here? Well, what I think we have
Speaker 1: to be mindful of is this the time is now
Speaker 1: to fight, The time is now to spread correct information,
Speaker 1: to let people know that if you upset Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: if you hurt his feelings, if you insult him, that
Speaker 1: your livelihood is on the line. And not just your livelihood,
Speaker 1: but your freedom is on the line. We have to
Speaker 1: treat a dictator like he's a dictator. And I think
Speaker 1: that what we have to acknowledge is that at some
Speaker 1: point some articles of impeachment need to be drafted. I
Speaker 1: would say that point is now at some point the
Speaker 1: challenges around unitary executive being made into the arguments by
Speaker 1: these twenty three Attorneys general before the Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court have to be addressed. I'm concerned
Speaker 1: because if John Roberts is even on this nonsense, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know who our fourth and fifth votes would
Speaker 1: be on the Supreme Court, but you would think that
Speaker 1: there would be some desire, some willingness to preserve democracy.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you all if you all are thinking about
Speaker 1: this in any similar way, what has been jarring for
Speaker 1: me is knowing democracy is fragile, knowing that it's compromised,
Speaker 1: knowing that it is so far from perfect, but seeing
Speaker 1: how easily it can be destroyed. It's something that I'm
Speaker 1: really wrestling with, and I think, if we're honest, institutionalists,
Speaker 1: even in the House of Representatives, even in the United
Speaker 1: States Senate.
Speaker 2: Are struggling with this.
Speaker 1: I built my career on underunderstanding how the law works
Speaker 1: and strategizing politically to advance causes that would impact people
Speaker 1: who look like me for the most part, and now
Speaker 1: most of that playbook doesn't work. And so what I
Speaker 1: think you're seeing, I know people are like, well, why
Speaker 1: aren't people fighting back, why aren't our members responding wires?
Speaker 1: It is because folks are flabbergasted, like we all knew
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five was going to become a thing,
Speaker 1: like nobody ever. Well, some people believe that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: when he said this isn't my plan, I don't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with this, despite many of the people
Speaker 1: who wrote it having been associated with the Trumpet administration
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen and then now many of them going
Speaker 1: back into the administration. Many of us knew that, but
Speaker 1: I don't know that we knew we were going to
Speaker 1: be overwhelmed by so much information so quickly. And I
Speaker 1: don't know that many people believe that he would just
Speaker 1: blatantly ignore a court. But to this, I would say
Speaker 1: to the Department of Justice under the Biden administration, under
Speaker 1: the leadership of Merit Garland, this is your fault, bro,
Speaker 1: straight up, Like you didn't have the courage to challenge
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, to prosecute him when you could have, and
Speaker 1: now we got to deal with this dictator.
Speaker 2: That blood is on your hands, seriously, and so you.
Speaker 1: Know Special Proxecutor Jacksmith saying he would have likely been
Speaker 1: convicted all of these things, these afterthoughts, James comey coming
Speaker 1: back around.
Speaker 2: Like to hell with all y'all, like this is all
Speaker 2: you're doing.
Speaker 1: And I think ultimately what really has to happen is
Speaker 1: white folks have to have a conversation with themselves about
Speaker 1: how badly they want to cling to power, even when
Speaker 1: it is toxic, even when it is abusive, and even
Speaker 1: when it means that you very well may not be safe.
Speaker 2: That is the day and age we're living in now.
Speaker 1: When you look at this court order from Judge McConnell
Speaker 1: from Rhode Island, he talks about the consistency of his
Speaker 1: ruling with the United States Constitution statutes, the Supreme Court precedent.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court may very well take out their precedent.
Speaker 1: They may say it's time for a new day, you know,
Speaker 1: and I think that that'll be really unfortunate. So this
Speaker 1: temporary restraining order that Donald Trump continues to violate, let's
Speaker 1: see how many instances I think there are twenty something
Speaker 1: court cases now, how many instances where they blatantly disregard
Speaker 1: the court. That is what puts us squarely in a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis. And that is where the people have to
Speaker 1: cry out. I keep telling you how to call your members.
Speaker 1: You have no idea how important that is. They might
Speaker 1: just need to know that there are people standing behind
Speaker 1: them who want them engaged in the fight, and that
Speaker 1: you're not going to leave them hanging, because ultimately, even
Speaker 1: though they're sworn in, they took a oath, they're still
Speaker 1: human beings, and human beings.
Speaker 2: Have blind spots. I know I have mine. We got
Speaker 2: to hold each other accountable. We have to fight together.
Speaker 1: That is what That is our least reasonable service, and
Speaker 1: that means not fighting each other. That means fighting along
Speaker 1: side one another to preserve our freedoms, even if we
Speaker 1: know that it means that we deserve much more freedom.
Speaker 2: So that is my.
Speaker 1: Podcast for today. I'm gonna see if there are any questions.
Speaker 1: There are some questions. So one question from wear of
Speaker 1: many hats, I like this name, what can the average
Speaker 1: American do when the checks and balances aren't checking or balancing?
Speaker 1: Call your members. You got to let them know what
Speaker 1: your expectations are. Be like when y'all drafting these articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment, though, you know, when are y'all going to
Speaker 1: the White House and telling them what really is about
Speaker 1: to go down. The questions are what legislation are you
Speaker 1: going to prevent from passing? Because it shouldn't be no
Speaker 1: business happening when I can't even give my government check.
Speaker 1: Those are the things that we have to do, Like
Speaker 1: your business is my business. And if I can't get
Speaker 1: my business done because the federal government ain't doing what
Speaker 1: I'm paying the federal government to do, y'all, don't let
Speaker 1: another point of business happen on the House floor or
Speaker 1: the Senate floor. Another question, and from Queen Bee of Swords,
Speaker 1: I just don't see how even with court orders and
Speaker 1: contempt charges, once they don't comply, who was going to
Speaker 1: enforce the law? Yeah, that is exactly what makes this
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis. Percy Miracle says Trump is doing what
Speaker 1: Eddie Murphy did and distinguished gentleman movie Trump exposing how
Speaker 1: politicians spend our money.
Speaker 2: And get and get kickbacks. For sure, they just.
Speaker 1: Got rid of some provision today that would prevent government
Speaker 1: officials from bribing foreign countries because of business reasons. So absolutely,
Speaker 1: what do we do about elon looks? Listen to the
Speaker 1: podcast from last week, please, and senators and congressmen are
Speaker 1: powerless right now. I don't see how a phone call
Speaker 1: would change with that. Again, I think that what we
Speaker 1: have to remember is that there are power in numbers.
Speaker 1: And if there was ever a place where you can
Speaker 1: make a difference by short sheer people power, it is
Speaker 1: within the United States Congress. What do I mean by that?
Speaker 2: This can all change with math?
Speaker 1: Once there is a majority agreeing on an issue, even
Speaker 1: if it's not all Democrats, some of those Republicans where
Speaker 1: in vulnerable districts come over. I know that we have
Speaker 1: a graphic that we're putting up shortly that tells you
Speaker 1: where all of those vulnerable Republican members are from, what
Speaker 1: districts they're from. When those folks start coming over, because
Speaker 1: their constituents are like, nah, we didn't sign up for this.
Speaker 1: We didn't vote you in for this. We voted you
Speaker 1: in for common sense solutions. We didn't vote you in
Speaker 1: to support a dictator. That math starts moving on to
Speaker 1: the other side. And so it is imperative, especially now
Speaker 1: because I think our window of time is short. We
Speaker 1: have to start getting those folks over quickly. Here's what
Speaker 1: I know doesn't work. You sitting around in dread definitely
Speaker 1: doesn't work. You sitting around frustrated that they're not doing
Speaker 1: anything and it's not the will of the people, but
Speaker 1: the will of the people hasn't been communicated to them.
Speaker 1: Definitely doesn't work. So what my idea would be with
Speaker 1: my members is, you make sure not another bill passes
Speaker 1: until Donald Trump complies with these core orders. You make
Speaker 1: sure that there is a crew working on articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment because this man isn't illegal and he shouldn't be president.
Speaker 1: You make sure that every nomination now on the Senate
Speaker 1: side is held up because why are we going to
Speaker 1: continue to appoint more people that are trying to work
Speaker 1: for a king and not for the American people. Those
Speaker 1: are the kinds of calls we can make and must make,
Speaker 1: and the numbers easy. It's two zero two two, two
Speaker 1: four three one two one. You don't just have don't
Speaker 1: have to just call the member who over who's over
Speaker 1: your particular congressional district. You can call others and say,
Speaker 1: I expect more from Congress. I'm calling out to Congress.
Speaker 1: I'm calling out to Maxine Waters and Jasmine Crockett and
Speaker 1: Andre Carson and how King Jeffreys and Stephen Horsford and
Speaker 1: Evett Clark. Who's the new chair of the CBC and
Speaker 1: Joyce Baty and all these other folks who might be
Speaker 1: like minded, but they might just need a word of encouragement.
Speaker 1: And so I would tell you the most important place
Speaker 1: to call, even if you want to courage your members
Speaker 1: but they're mostly aligned with what we're talking about today.
Speaker 1: Call the members who are undecided, who think their constituents
Speaker 1: might want to see this air of change that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is bringing in, but when they realize what all
Speaker 1: is at stake and how many people are being harmed,
Speaker 1: even if they weren't the direct target, but they're suffering
Speaker 1: no less, those are the people I would call. So
Speaker 1: again we'll put that graphic up. I thank you all
Speaker 1: so much for your time today. We will be on
Speaker 1: our podcast this Thursday. It'll be the three hosts, Native
Speaker 1: lampod Angela Raie, Tiffany Cross and Andrew Gillum and of
Speaker 1: course you all are always welcome. Please submit your questions
Speaker 1: to us on Instagram with a video. Let us know
Speaker 1: your name and where you're from. Check us out every
Speaker 1: single Thursday wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube,
Speaker 1: and of course I'm here every Tuesday answering questions and
Speaker 1: talking about the things that are keeping me up at night,
Speaker 1: and hopefully, very soon we will get some rest because
Speaker 1: justice will be served.
Speaker 2: All powers to the people, y'all.
Speaker 1: Welcome home. Native Lampard is a production of iHeartRadio in
Speaker 1: partnership with Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.