Speaker 1: Native Land Pod is a production of iHeart Radio and
Speaker 1: partnership with Recent Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome Home, y'all.
Speaker 1: This is episode eleven of Native Land Pod and where
Speaker 1: we give it to you here straight, no chaser. We
Speaker 1: are your political group chat Tiffany Cross and Welcome home y'all.
Speaker 2: What's going on? Coh a group chat now though, Yeah,
Speaker 2: wead a political group chat. That's how we talk like.
Speaker 2: People feel like they're part of the conversation.
Speaker 3: I thought we were in I thought we were in
Speaker 3: a living room on a couch, and then everybody else
Speaker 3: is kind of just you know, in the room with us.
Speaker 2: Well, we are an actual group chat. I gotta walk around.
Speaker 1: We're back too, I get that too. We are so
Speaker 1: we do for the viewers. We do have an actual
Speaker 1: group chat. Where is the three of us and we
Speaker 1: talk all day throughout the week.
Speaker 2: But when we are here on this.
Speaker 1: Podcast, we want you to feel like you're part of
Speaker 1: our political group chat. Sou they're really I mean you guys,
Speaker 1: tell me if you disagree. There really is no difference
Speaker 1: in what we talk about or how we speak on
Speaker 1: this podtrasts versus when we're.
Speaker 2: Not on screen.
Speaker 3: I used a couple of ninjas.
Speaker 1: I might throw a tantrum here in there if angel
Speaker 1: I will say this, If Angela does throw a tantrum,
Speaker 1: it is on our.
Speaker 3: Behalf, usually in advance of one of them.
Speaker 2: That's how I feel. I've never felt don't you and
Speaker 2: don't do that? Yeah, exactly. I love you, guys, exactly.
Speaker 1: On this week's episode, we're going to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about political violence. This ain't nothing new to black folks,
Speaker 1: but a lot of folks were talking about it, and
Speaker 1: so we went a weigh in with that as well,
Speaker 1: but also a more important issue, we're going to take
Speaker 1: a deep dive into you guys. Remember how Republicans were
Speaker 1: patting themselves on the back talking all about the First
Speaker 1: Step Act. Well, this week the Supreme Court felt a
Speaker 1: fatal blow to a key piece of the First Step Act.
Speaker 1: And we're going to get into that on this show.
Speaker 1: And what would we be without your viewer questions? So
Speaker 1: we're going to be tackling all your viewer questions. I
Speaker 1: can't wait to hear them. We'd like to be surprised,
Speaker 1: so we hear them in the moment. And I know
Speaker 1: many of you have been waiting with baited breath for
Speaker 1: my take on March madness.
Speaker 2: Don't let you down.
Speaker 1: We are going to get into that as well, and
Speaker 1: the words of Migos, let's walk it like we talk it.
Speaker 2: Give me that beat.
Speaker 1: Before we kick off this week's show, I do want
Speaker 1: to turn it over to my amazingly brilliant colleague, Angela,
Speaker 1: who is so smart off the dome. But she does
Speaker 1: have something that she wants to address from last weeks show. Angela,
Speaker 1: what you got?
Speaker 2: I messed up, y'all. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: So last week we were in this very heated discussion
Speaker 4: about executive powers to pardon. There are many states where
Speaker 4: the executive does contain that power to pardon individuals, but
Speaker 4: in Georgia, they do have a five member board that
Speaker 4: is appointed. My nose is about to run in this moment,
Speaker 4: but I'll get through this. And it's not because I'm
Speaker 4: crying because I'm wrong, although that is likely as well.
Speaker 4: But they have a five member board. They are appointed.
Speaker 4: They can determine men that someone should be pardoned, but
Speaker 4: it is only after they serve a portion of their sentence.
Speaker 2: So I apologize for the misinformation.
Speaker 4: We definitely try really hard to be factually accurate, So
Speaker 4: I apologize for that we are moving right along.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Tony flat.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll just say this, You're a brilliant, brilliant person,
Speaker 3: and I appreciate your willingness to clarify this. But you know,
Speaker 3: for the viewers, I just want you to know we
Speaker 3: deal with a lot of this stuff. As we're in
Speaker 3: the conversation. I can't predict what Angela is gonna say
Speaker 3: or Tip's gonna say, and so it requires really being
Speaker 3: at the ready. But apology accept it if that's what thinks.
Speaker 4: You know what Andrew for that, I just want to
Speaker 4: send you some level.
Speaker 2: Think.
Speaker 1: Okay, can I just tell them you they keep harassing
Speaker 1: me because you guys can't see this, but on their
Speaker 1: when they make a heart motion with their hands, they can't.
Speaker 1: They won't see it on this feed like all these hearts,
Speaker 1: all their hearts.
Speaker 2: Come through on their screen.
Speaker 1: They can do fireworks and I have a pre gentrified
Speaker 1: version of our feet and I don't have any of
Speaker 1: these effects, and they keep going it in my face
Speaker 1: and their big fancy gingrified penthouses of what they do.
Speaker 2: Poorly resource speed.
Speaker 1: I ain't got no fireworks, no hard We'll put this
Speaker 1: up on a social clip. So y'all can see what
Speaker 1: I'm talking, but I'm left out anyway, Moving right.
Speaker 5: Along, China now is building a couple of massive plants
Speaker 5: where they're going to build the cars in Mexico. And
Speaker 5: think they think that they're going to sell those cars
Speaker 5: into the United States. You're going to not hire Americans
Speaker 5: and you're going to sell the cars. Now, We're going
Speaker 5: to put a one tower on every single car that
Speaker 5: comes across the line, and you're not going to be
Speaker 5: able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now,
Speaker 5: if I don't get elected, it's going to be a
Speaker 5: blood bath for the whole that's going to be the
Speaker 5: least of it. It's going to be a blood bath
Speaker 5: for the country that'll be the least of it.
Speaker 1: All Right, So the reason why we're playing that sound,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you guys heard this sound a lot in
Speaker 1: the echo chambers, and we wanted to weigh in here
Speaker 1: because political violence is definitely not something that's new to
Speaker 1: our community.
Speaker 2: But you know, Donald Trump's.
Speaker 1: People have said that he was talking about the economy
Speaker 1: when he says that, But why might we think that
Speaker 1: he was inciting political violence? And we're not here to
Speaker 1: say what he was saying we want you all to decide.
Speaker 1: But the reason why we might think that, take a
Speaker 1: listen to some of his previous violent rhetoric.
Speaker 5: I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself or
Speaker 5: if other people will. Maybe he should have been roughed up,
Speaker 5: because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing. If
Speaker 5: you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock
Speaker 5: the crap out of him, would you, seriously, I'd like
Speaker 5: to punch him in the face. I'll tell you try
Speaker 5: not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you
Speaker 5: in court.
Speaker 6: Don't worry about him.
Speaker 5: In the good old days, this doesn't happen because they
Speaker 5: used to treat them very, very rough, and when they
Speaker 5: protested once, you know they would.
Speaker 3: Not do it again.
Speaker 6: So easily we've become weak. We become weak, and you
Speaker 6: know what, the audience swung back, and I thought it
Speaker 6: was very very appropriate. The audience hit back, And that's
Speaker 6: what we need a little bit more of now.
Speaker 5: Part of the problem, and part of the reason it
Speaker 5: takes so long, is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: I don't know if I would have done well, but
Speaker 5: I would have been out there fighting folks. I don't
Speaker 5: know if I would have done well, but I would
Speaker 5: have been boom boom boom up beat.
Speaker 7: Do you plan on paying for the legal fees of
Speaker 7: this older gentleman in North Carolina who sucker punched the protester?
Speaker 7: From what I understand, he was sick sticking a certain
Speaker 7: finger up in the air, and that is a terrible
Speaker 7: thing to do, and in front of somebody that frankly
Speaker 7: wants to see America made great again. It's possible you
Speaker 7: could help him with legal fees if this man needs it.
Speaker 7: I've actually instructed my people to look into it.
Speaker 1: Yes, I want to think Mashable offer that clip as
Speaker 1: they collected the various times that Donald Trump actually has
Speaker 1: unquestionably call for violence. So, Andrew, you were a candidate,
Speaker 1: you were on on the trail, Come on, what do
Speaker 1: you make of this kind of the response necessary?
Speaker 3: Could you imagine if I was running for governor to
Speaker 3: state of Florida and just sort of let it flip? Now,
Speaker 3: I get he may have meant something different in one context,
Speaker 3: But but you just showed the video Mashable. You know,
Speaker 3: Mashable's video of repeated times. I mean, I remember back
Speaker 3: in twenty sixteen, the brother walking up those stairs and
Speaker 3: the dude, oh, the guy coming, Jimmy just laying in
Speaker 3: one on him, and then Trump, you know, take it easy.
Speaker 3: But if you got to go to court, you know
Speaker 3: you're in the in the video, I'll defend you. Yeah.
Speaker 3: The truth is all his supporters have been the ones
Speaker 3: defending him in court and all of his legal fees.
Speaker 3: But the political violence that this man insights, I can
Speaker 3: understand how it could very easily be construed that, you
Speaker 3: know that he's saying that if he loses the election,
Speaker 3: it'll be a blood bath, and that relating to something
Speaker 3: like a January sixth style deal. Now, I also received
Speaker 3: that that wasn't the context of at least a sentence
Speaker 3: at that time. But in truth, y'all, this guy, he
Speaker 3: signals to us every day how dangerous he is. And
Speaker 3: I'm just not sure what infuriates me is I'm no
Speaker 3: longer surprised by anything he does. I am, however, dumbfounded
Speaker 3: how it is that his supporters are so irresistibly unmovable, unshakable,
Speaker 3: and dying in their loyalty to this dude.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not surprised, honestly, And my issue with this
Speaker 1: Angela is you worked on Capitol Hill, so you know
Speaker 1: there are over thirty law enforcement agencies here who you
Speaker 1: know addressed January sixth. That is not the case for
Speaker 1: municipalities across this country. So we talked about Governor Gretchen
Speaker 1: Whitmer in the attempted kidnapping plot against her before. We
Speaker 1: know political violence all too well. You know, from the
Speaker 1: summer of nineteen nineteen the state sanctioned violence. So this
Speaker 1: is not something when we hear this kind of rhetoric,
Speaker 1: it makes me nervous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there are several things.
Speaker 4: One is anytime I hear him say anything that sounds
Speaker 4: remotely violent, it just is very triggering because to your point,
Speaker 4: I did work on Capitol Hill, and on January sixth,
Speaker 4: I was frantic trying to find all my loved ones,
Speaker 4: my people, my chosen family on the hill. And I
Speaker 4: think if you don't have that context and you don't
Speaker 4: know what it's like to you know, I can't find Latrese,
Speaker 4: who worked for the Speaker.
Speaker 2: I haven't talked to Hope.
Speaker 4: I'm texting Congressman Thompson and Congressman Carson and Congressman Batty
Speaker 4: and Vince to make sure you know every not Vince,
Speaker 4: Vince wasn't there yet, but making sure everyone was good.
Speaker 2: It was Kyle.
Speaker 4: And the other thing that I would say is it's
Speaker 4: maddening to me that folks think, like, oh, he's a
Speaker 4: good guy, we just take it out of context. He's
Speaker 4: been doing this since he you know, got a full
Speaker 4: page I add out in three New York papers against
Speaker 4: then what was the Central Park five, but now we
Speaker 4: know them as they exonerated five, including a New York
Speaker 4: City council member. He's been doing this, calling for the
Speaker 4: death penalty, you know, calling Colin Kaepernick s ob like.
Speaker 2: These are the things that he does, and he functions
Speaker 2: as his own wing.
Speaker 4: Of Russian disinformation and misinformation by like tapping on the
Speaker 4: pressure points that exist that are divides between us and them.
Speaker 4: And I think that is what makes me upset. The
Speaker 4: other thing that's really frustrating is, as you know, we
Speaker 4: started this show with a fact check, Donald Trump is
Speaker 4: allergic to facts. He speaks and whatever he let's come
Speaker 4: he allows to come out of his mouth, he just goes.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 4: And the folks who are beholden to him, I'm not
Speaker 4: talking about the people that are on the fringe. But
Speaker 4: like his D hive, right right, like his D hive,
Speaker 4: he is going in and they are like, yeah, let's go. Well,
Speaker 4: here's the thing. He called for a hundred percent tariff
Speaker 4: in that clip clip that's just as violent as the
Speaker 4: bloodbath portion. Why because most industrial goods have a tariff
Speaker 4: of two percent. One hundred percent is unreal. And he
Speaker 4: sells people on a dream that he has no intention
Speaker 4: of ever seeing come to pass. And in fact, when
Speaker 4: he gets there, you're going to be You're the pawn.
Speaker 2: Now you're gonna be the one on.
Speaker 4: The chopping block. And that is the part that's most frustrating.
Speaker 4: He will say whatever is necessary. We've talked about it
Speaker 4: on this podcast. Yeah, that they that they didn't pay for,
Speaker 4: that we would have had to pay for. It's all
Speaker 4: of these things, and it's really really frustrating to watch.
Speaker 4: But I think our responsibility is to ensure that even
Speaker 4: when he's out here saying the dumb stuff that ends
Speaker 4: up getting his crew all hype, we still got a
Speaker 4: responsibility to play the full thing. And even with the
Speaker 4: full thing, it's not better. There's no such thing as
Speaker 4: one hundred percent tariff, Playboy, you.
Speaker 3: Know, what that, Tiffany, Well, I think that the scary
Speaker 3: part because you said it sort of scares you, and
Speaker 3: I guess all of us none of us are surprised.
Speaker 3: We know what the man does. What does scare me, though,
Speaker 3: is I'm looking at a hearing on television right now
Speaker 3: where they're going after the Biden, you know, son again
Speaker 3: and are attempting now to use the lovers of government,
Speaker 3: the lover the lovers of power to track down their
Speaker 3: political opponents. And they have co conspirators who are willing
Speaker 3: to tote that water on Capitol Hill. I'm talking about
Speaker 3: real consequences if you refuse to go and test before Congress.
Speaker 3: The fact that this man is in you know, the
Speaker 3: Trump guy's going to jail down here in Florida. Navarro
Speaker 3: is going to jail down in Florida. Can you imagine
Speaker 3: what they could do if they had a president and
Speaker 3: even a slim majority or just a slight minority in
Speaker 3: the Congress, How they can weaponize our tax dollars and
Speaker 3: the institutions of ultimate power in this country to go
Speaker 3: after people who they don't like for no reason at all.
Speaker 3: That scares me because I've been on the other side
Speaker 3: of that that frightens me because it has the veneer
Speaker 3: of legitimacy when all it is is a hit job,
Speaker 3: a government.
Speaker 2: Sanctioned hit job, but not that you're paying for.
Speaker 3: And we're paying for it, and the person, the people
Speaker 3: who find themselves in the cross hair, they pay for it,
Speaker 3: doubly right. They don't get to see the redeeming value
Speaker 3: in that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think what you both have brought up too
Speaker 1: are really interesting points, Angela from a policy perspective and
Speaker 1: yours Andrew from this a political retribution perspective. And mind
Speaker 1: that I'll punctuate actual physical, bloody violence. Do you guys
Speaker 1: remember when a bunch of black folks got so sick
Speaker 1: of living in this country and being oppressed by four
Speaker 1: hundred years, and they got so upset that they stormed
Speaker 1: the capitol and tried to take over and overthrow a
Speaker 1: whole I don't remember that either, because we have never
Speaker 1: done anything like that. And when angry conservative whites are mad,
Speaker 1: it is a danger to us. All we can look
Speaker 1: at just there's a theory that everything repeats itself every
Speaker 1: hundred years, and we look at the violence in nineteen nineteen,
Speaker 1: the summer of nineteen nineteen, what happened to black neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: black folks, and and you can look at Tulsa, Angela
Speaker 1: and I are friends with Do Mario. Those black folks
Speaker 1: in the Greenwood district weren't bothering anybody, they were just
Speaker 1: living and it was anger for that. So for me,
Speaker 1: I'm literally even though I still haven't thank you, but
Speaker 1: I take your points on policy and political retribution, but
Speaker 1: I am literally concerned just about throwing knuckles about violence industrys.
Speaker 1: You know, we should do a pod on many uh
Speaker 1: mini pot on gun ownership, maybe because I do worry.
Speaker 1: I literally worry if you're an elector in Colorado or
Speaker 1: if you're a ballot count in Georgia, like the two
Speaker 1: black women we heard testify, and you are getting confronted
Speaker 1: with actual violence, what do you do?
Speaker 2: How do you live your life? So it's very.
Speaker 3: N didn't even have to always come in physical form,
Speaker 3: right as we mentioned the violence, Yeah, the terrorizing of
Speaker 3: those women in Georgia, the terrorizing that happened here in Florida,
Speaker 3: where the governor decided to go after people who thought
Speaker 3: that they had their rights restored, and deputies government law
Speaker 3: enforcement showing up at three o'clock at three a m.
Speaker 3: In the morning, banging on people's doors like they just
Speaker 3: robbed the bank and murdered everybody in the bank when
Speaker 3: they took the money. No, they showed up, and they
Speaker 3: showed up at that time to terrorize people. This is
Speaker 3: what I mean by using the levers, the legitimate levers
Speaker 3: of power, the legitimate powers of the state, to then
Speaker 3: weaponize them and turn them on an individual or on
Speaker 3: a community for political purposes, for political gain. There was
Speaker 3: nothing to be reaped by what Dissentis did in this
Speaker 3: state other than to say, if you think you're going
Speaker 3: to have the nerve to go out there and register
Speaker 3: for your vote and then have the audacity to then
Speaker 3: go and actually cast that vote, man, let me tell y'all,
Speaker 3: I'll put the state on you. And that's exactly what
Speaker 3: that they've done. And it is fatis, it is violent,
Speaker 3: it's terror and it's and it's meant to be a
Speaker 3: shot over the bow that anybody who looks like you
Speaker 3: and thinks that they can perform the same way, let
Speaker 3: this serve as a lesson.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, that's exactly what it's meant to.
Speaker 1: That's actually how law enforcement inflated their numbers at the
Speaker 1: turn of the century, they were it was fine to
Speaker 1: be a black person, to hang a black person, to
Speaker 1: kill a person, but you had to be wearing a
Speaker 1: badge while you did it.
Speaker 2: That is state sanctioned violence.
Speaker 1: Speaking of that, I want to shift us to criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform. So don't go anywhere. We're going to take
Speaker 1: a quick break. On the other side of this break,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a deep dive into what happened
Speaker 1: this week that dealt a devastating blow to the First
Speaker 1: Step Act, and we'll have devastating consequences on millions of
Speaker 1: black votes. So don't go inwhere We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: So big news out of the Supreme Court this week.
Speaker 1: First hours, just hours after the Supreme Court gave Texas
Speaker 1: officials permission to pretty much jail and prosecute migrants who
Speaker 1: are crossing the Southern border, they were given them them
Speaker 1: who are crossing Southern border without authorization, and Appeals Court
Speaker 1: late Tuesday blocked the state from enforcing this very controversial law,
Speaker 1: which is you know, again, as black folks were all
Speaker 1: too familiar, it's almost borderline vigilante law. The law allows
Speaker 1: state officials to arrest and detain people they su expect
Speaker 1: of entering the country illegally.
Speaker 2: That's very subjective.
Speaker 1: Of course, this invites the inevitable racial profiling, as well
Speaker 1: as detentions and attempted deportations by state authorities, more state
Speaker 1: sanctioned violence, and in Texas, Latinos represent forty percent of
Speaker 1: the population. This is Republican Governor Greg Abbott run amok.
Speaker 1: You heard a lot of this in the news, rightfully,
Speaker 1: so this is a big law. But what you didn't
Speaker 1: hear a lot about is another ruling the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: issued which will have devastating consequences on many black folks.
Speaker 2: This is essentially a blow to the First Step Act.
Speaker 1: They essentially have taken away a judge's ability to override
Speaker 1: mandatory minimum prison sentences. Now as background, the First Step
Speaker 1: Act sentencing reform components would shorten federal drug sentences and
Speaker 1: expand the judicial what they call quote unquote safety valve.
Speaker 1: This is a provision that permits judges to deviate from
Speaker 1: mandatory minimums, use common sense essentially, and impose more lenient
Speaker 1: sentences in some cases involving none violent drug offenses. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court essentially did that, Angela, you pointed out this morning,
Speaker 1: we have quite an interesting person who led the descent
Speaker 1: on that and that.
Speaker 4: Is yes, Actually, the majority opinion in the Pulsifer versus
Speaker 4: the United States case was led by Alena Kagan, who,
Speaker 4: as you all may recall, was a Barack Obama appointee.
Speaker 4: The First Step Act was originally introduced as Criminal Justice Reform,
Speaker 4: bipartisan support. Even the Koch Brothers were on board with this.
Speaker 4: While Barack Obama served as our president, the bill did
Speaker 4: not see its way across the finish line, but through
Speaker 4: the efforts of folks like Hakeem Jeffrey, Cedric Richmond and others,
Speaker 4: this bill did pass Congress and was signed into law
Speaker 4: by Donald Trump. So Alena Kagan, and I'm happy to
Speaker 4: go into what the issues at point in at issue,
Speaker 4: what was that issue in this case if we want to.
Speaker 2: But yeah, she led the opinion.
Speaker 1: Well I just misspoke when I said leading the dissent
Speaker 1: majority of people at the majority opinion, Yeah, which you know,
Speaker 1: again we have to focus on judges the same way
Speaker 1: the right does.
Speaker 2: She was, you know, an Obama pointee, which is which
Speaker 2: is interesting. This is I first just want to make
Speaker 2: it clear to the viewers.
Speaker 1: If you guys don't mind how mandatory minimums impact our community.
Speaker 1: This is something that we really haven't heard a lot
Speaker 1: about since the nineties, and this is not the first
Speaker 1: time that's happened. So in May you may recall, and
Speaker 1: this is my challenge with the media. In May twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: Trump tweeted out that he may have secret recordings of
Speaker 1: his conversations with James Comey. James Comy was the former
Speaker 1: FBI director at the time who Trump had just fired,
Speaker 1: and so it was a flurry. The media just rushed
Speaker 1: all over this. This was breaking news all.
Speaker 2: Day for days.
Speaker 1: On that same day, then Attorney General Just Sessions rescinded
Speaker 1: an Obama era rule which told federal prosecutors to avoid
Speaker 1: charges for low level drug offenders.
Speaker 2: This is the.
Speaker 1: Challenge when the media does not there was no breaking
Speaker 1: news for that, even though this would impact tons of us.
Speaker 1: So I just am happy to have this discussion with
Speaker 1: you guys, because this is devastated Black people for generations
Speaker 1: when mandatory minimums were introduced in the eighties and ninety these.
Speaker 1: So Angela, if you do, if you're if you're available
Speaker 1: to break down the Pulsifer case and what was key
Speaker 1: at issue. I think that's equally important.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the main issue is the safety valve requirement. Pulsifer
Speaker 4: challenged whether or not the legislation meant and instead of or.
Speaker 4: And Polsifer's argument was that the legislation meant or these
Speaker 4: three conditions.
Speaker 2: It was or or or.
Speaker 4: So the conditions were the defendant does not have more
Speaker 4: than four prior criminal history points with an exception for
Speaker 4: points incurred from one point offenses his argument. Or the
Speaker 4: defendant does not have a prior three point offense his
Speaker 4: argument again, or the defendant does not have a prior
Speaker 4: two point violent offense. If you read those three conditions,
Speaker 4: they sound like ours. They don't sound like An's. Alena
Speaker 4: Kagan's opinion. The majority opinion decided that all of those
Speaker 4: are and so in order to qualify to be released
Speaker 4: from prison under the First Step Act, you would have
Speaker 4: all of these would have to be met. Every single
Speaker 4: one of the conditions would have to be met. They
Speaker 4: interpreted the legislation passed by the House and the Senate,
Speaker 4: the bill signed into lawn by Donald Trump, as these
Speaker 4: three conditions have to be met in order for you
Speaker 4: to be released from prison. So I just want to
Speaker 4: shout out in the defense because there's also a surprise
Speaker 4: in the descent.
Speaker 2: I apologize. There's also a surprise.
Speaker 4: Justice Soda Mayor expected Justice Katanji Brown Jackson expected Neil
Speaker 4: Gorsich led the descent, and that is a Trump appointee.
Speaker 4: And so I'm curious to understand why there was any
Speaker 4: descent here at all. That it's clear that if you
Speaker 4: take away the oars, then you take away the discretion
Speaker 4: of the judge, which is the entire point of the
Speaker 4: First Step Act Andrew.
Speaker 1: All fifty states in DC have mandatory minimum laws. This
Speaker 1: has also led to the overpopulation of prisons. Angelie, you
Speaker 1: know know the folks over at Rock Nation, they've done
Speaker 1: some great work on holding the line on Parchment prison.
Speaker 1: Great documentary by the way, You guy should check it
Speaker 1: out if you haven't. But this is let Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the name of the documentary, Exposing Parchment. Yes, so please
Speaker 1: check that out. It's an amazing guy. It's hard to
Speaker 1: get through, but it's necessary. But consider how they have
Speaker 1: funneled so many black people, disproportionately black men and boys
Speaker 1: into these prisons. This is a devastating policy that is
Speaker 1: bringing back. The pendulum is swinging and I'm concerned when
Speaker 1: you have somebody like Ron DeSantis heading a state, andrew
Speaker 1: about what happens in Florida, you just talk to us
Speaker 1: about people being arrested for voting.
Speaker 3: This is very and it's the truth is is that
Speaker 3: there are more dysanticists who don't get as much press,
Speaker 3: who are in these executive positions, really all across the country.
Speaker 3: And while people like Donald Trump are loud and proud
Speaker 3: and big distraction, we sometimes those of us on the
Speaker 3: consumer side of the information, you know, we make it
Speaker 3: out to be about Trump did this, Trump did that.
Speaker 3: But please know that when these kinds of decisions come down,
Speaker 3: I attribute Trump to them as well. When we have
Speaker 3: governors who show out like Rohn de Santis does, he's
Speaker 3: as much of a threat to democracy as we deem
Speaker 3: Trump to be a threat to democracy. And this the
Speaker 3: decision here always causes me to think about, well, who
Speaker 3: are the bedfellows here? Who are the who are the
Speaker 3: people who stand the most to gain when you keep
Speaker 3: more people locked up and keep people locked up longer. Well,
Speaker 3: you got the prison industrial complex, the folks who are
Speaker 3: building these things, the caterers who provide the meals in
Speaker 3: these respective prisons. When you let when you let more
Speaker 3: people out and fewer people are serving crimes for what
Speaker 3: are most folks? And I believe you got sound from
Speaker 3: the Vice president talking about folks being criminalized in spending
Speaker 3: time in prison for marijuana. You've got folks spending time
Speaker 3: in prison who have never been convicted found guilty of
Speaker 3: a crime. In fact, in most local jails, in prisons,
Speaker 3: that's the majority population. They're awaiting their time before a
Speaker 3: judge and a jury. And while they're there, we're keeping
Speaker 3: somebody in business. So I always like to think, follow
Speaker 3: the money. Who stands to benefit Who at the intersection
Speaker 3: of this stands to benefit the most by putting more
Speaker 3: people in prison and keeping in prison, keeping people in
Speaker 3: prison longer, because certainly isn't it isn't the greater community,
Speaker 3: greater society, because the more person is in prison and
Speaker 3: for the longer period of time they come out, and
Speaker 3: they tend to re offend. Those who never make their
Speaker 3: way to prison. Yeah, don't come into contact for these
Speaker 3: petty violations as a young person. They don't return, right,
Speaker 3: they don't go back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's I was a big deal.
Speaker 1: In Maryland, Mosby and Baltimore stopped prosecuting low level crimes. Again,
Speaker 1: she was disrupting a system, and we've talked a lot
Speaker 1: about what happened to her. We'll have more on that
Speaker 1: at the end of the show, so stick around. But Andrew,
Speaker 1: I'm really happy you brought up Vice President Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: because I want to play two sound bites from her.
Speaker 1: The first, I think, if we're talking about this problem,
Speaker 1: it is important to highlight what the executive branch at
Speaker 1: different branch of government outside the judiciary, but what the
Speaker 1: executive branch has done to try to correct some of
Speaker 1: these things at the federal level. So let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to what she had to say at a roundtable
Speaker 1: she hosted this month.
Speaker 8: I believe that the promise of America includes equal justice
Speaker 8: under the law, and for too many, our criminal justice
Speaker 8: system has failed to live up to that core principle.
Speaker 8: And I say that with full knowledge of how this
Speaker 8: system has worked, including my experience as a prosecutor. The
Speaker 8: President and I have addressed inequities through implementation of long
Speaker 8: overdue criminal justice reforms. For example, we have at the
Speaker 8: fee level band choke holds, we have restricted no knock warrants,
Speaker 8: and created the first effort database to track misconduct by
Speaker 8: law enforcement. This is critically important that last piece. The
Speaker 8: first pieces may be obvious, but as we know, all
Speaker 8: too often we have seen examples of where a police
Speaker 8: officer has been found to have committed misconduct in one.
Speaker 2: Region, but then can move to another region.
Speaker 9: And that record does not follow that individual, and then
Speaker 9: of course the same behavior repeats itself. So the fact
Speaker 9: that we have made a commitment to having that kind
Speaker 9: of database is really very significant in the push toward
Speaker 9: ensuring that we have justice in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 9: We have also been focused.
Speaker 1: On re entry, reentry, reentryent right on target with you, Andrew,
Speaker 1: and in.
Speaker 3: The record, not following a mistake, not following you for
Speaker 3: the rest of your life. So take for instance, when
Speaker 3: I was in municipal government, and I know a number
Speaker 3: of them did this around the country and the President Biden,
Speaker 3: President Obama, Champion. This is the whole banning of the
Speaker 3: box right where you go in you apply for a job,
Speaker 3: you get measured on your merits. How do you stand
Speaker 3: up against the qualities and the qualifications that meet this
Speaker 3: particular job. We're not going to ask you about your
Speaker 3: criminal history on the application, because we're going to get
Speaker 3: you in there if you qualify to measure you against
Speaker 3: the position that you're applying for. And my city we
Speaker 3: did that, and then we looked at criminal history after
Speaker 3: a decision was made by the hiring person that that
Speaker 3: was the candidate they wanted, and so then they would
Speaker 3: look at the criminal history and determine if the crime
Speaker 3: that was committed is in squares with the person that
Speaker 3: I interviewed and that I measured from their employment contract,
Speaker 3: employment application, and make a decision that's full of more
Speaker 3: than just one bad decision that a person has made
Speaker 3: in their life, and and they're kicked out. And the
Speaker 3: problem with this, the at on the first Step Act
Speaker 3: is most everything that gets taken away from the individual
Speaker 3: as a result of having had a criminal offense, deal
Speaker 3: with their ability to live, to survive, food stamps, federal
Speaker 3: housing gets taken away. You can't get any federal subsidy
Speaker 3: for any of the food based programs that exist. You
Speaker 3: get unemployment, you get stricten from being able to compete
Speaker 3: for certain jobs. I understand the whole need for you know,
Speaker 3: you take to certain travel, you know, restrictions of that
Speaker 3: kind of thing. I don't get how you take a
Speaker 3: person who is getting out of the system, who's trying
Speaker 3: to make their lives better. What sens does it make
Speaker 3: to then restrict them from housing and restrict them from
Speaker 3: food support that they need to live, and then restrict
Speaker 3: them from the ability to work so that they can
Speaker 3: provide for themselves and they don't have to default back
Speaker 3: into a life of criminality. And I just think the
Speaker 3: system doesn't make sense because it says one thing on
Speaker 3: one hand and then erects law barriers preventions that keep
Speaker 3: you from doing the thing that we say we want
Speaker 3: you to be able to do, which is be upright,
Speaker 3: upstanding and provide for yourself.
Speaker 4: But if the system were going to follow how it's
Speaker 4: set up to work, you know, going back to this
Speaker 4: First Step Act case with Pulsifer, it's a very easy fix.
Speaker 4: Congress can say to the Supreme Court what it intended
Speaker 4: by amending the First Step Act and clarifying that the
Speaker 4: end was in fact an ore. And while they're at it,
Speaker 4: it would be great if they could run that thing
Speaker 4: back eleven years and do voting rights, you know, like
Speaker 4: there's we've been waiting for them to revise and fix
Speaker 4: Shelby versus Holder since then, and we clearly need that
Speaker 4: because we see that the Supreme Court generally is not
Speaker 4: going to be on the side of the people, particularly
Speaker 4: those who find themselves the most marginalized, despite all of
Speaker 4: our significant contributions to the building of this country. So
Speaker 4: it is really really frustrating to see that you would
Speaker 4: take away the discretion of the judicial branch when you,
Speaker 4: in fact are writing the opinion for the judicial branch
Speaker 4: and putting folks who are non violent offenders, non violent
Speaker 4: drug offenses on their record, and this is what you
Speaker 4: just this is how you decide to come down on them.
Speaker 2: It's really it's appalling. Unfortunately.
Speaker 10: The other, of course, was the just really quick for
Speaker 10: Andrew Shelby the holder, was the twenty thirteen ruling that
Speaker 10: gut it section three of the Voting Rights Act that
Speaker 10: essentially anti history thank you four and five, but essentially
Speaker 10: gave states the control over how they oversaw elections.
Speaker 2: And that's how you got legislation like you can't give somebody.
Speaker 1: A bottle of water while they're waiting in line, which
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. Andrew, whatever you're going to say next, I
Speaker 1: want you to toss to a Vice President Harris a
Speaker 1: sound bite when you're done.
Speaker 3: No, let's let's let's let's hear from the Vice President,
Speaker 3: because I think she's really finding and seeding her voice
Speaker 3: more deeply, I think in this criminal justice reform, and
Speaker 3: she's got the kind of resume as a former prosecutor
Speaker 3: I think to withstand the kind of scrutiny that would
Speaker 3: normally come from I don't know an African American saying
Speaker 3: we need criminal justice reform.
Speaker 1: Well, they should talk about what they have done. And
Speaker 1: this is an area where this is something they haven't done,
Speaker 1: and I think they need to and it's the area
Speaker 1: near and dear to my heart hear.
Speaker 3: I know what this is.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: We have gathered.
Speaker 8: Today, however, to address specifically the injustices that we have
Speaker 8: seen in the federal marijuana policy. I have said many
Speaker 8: times I believe, I think we all bot this table
Speaker 8: believe nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.
Speaker 8: And what we need to do is recognize that far
Speaker 8: too many people have been sent to jail for simple
Speaker 8: marijuana possession, and the impact is such that in particular,
Speaker 8: Black Americans and Latinos are four times more likely, four
Speaker 8: times more likely to be arrested arrested for marijuana possession,
Speaker 8: and the disparity is even larger when you talk about
Speaker 8: the subset of black men and Latino matt.
Speaker 1: I gotta say, guys, this is a huge problem for me.
Speaker 1: I don't know why this is considered. Uh, what is it?
Speaker 1: Angela class It's a class a classy class a drug
Speaker 1: in the same category as Angela's fact checking me. But
Speaker 1: it's in the same category as heroin, as cocaine.
Speaker 2: I don't mind telling you, guys. If you met me,
Speaker 2: you already know this.
Speaker 1: I am a consumer of marijuana and marijuana products.
Speaker 2: I'm not a.
Speaker 1: Huge Some people go home and have a glass of wine,
Speaker 1: people go out, and you know, this is something that
Speaker 1: I do. And the fact that it has been so criminalized,
Speaker 1: but it's not even about me. Marijuana is legal in
Speaker 1: thirty eight states. It is revenue generating in many municipalities.
Speaker 1: It is California has is a huge tax on marijuana
Speaker 1: in California. But this is something to me that I
Speaker 1: think not be criminalized and I don't understand why it is.
Speaker 2: And there's yes, and I will say this.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people who work on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 1: a lot of people who worked in different administrations, and
Speaker 1: I know more who smoke than those I don't, and
Speaker 1: so even having it as its class, it's like you're
Speaker 1: actually eliminating a huge talent pool of people who you know,
Speaker 1: have to mark on the box that yeah, I smoke sometimes,
Speaker 1: and it's just not fair.
Speaker 4: It's schedule one ante, Yeah, schedule one, same as cocaine,
Speaker 4: heroin and others. I think the thing just to go
Speaker 4: back to what Kamalo was just talking about, Vice President
Speaker 4: Harris just talking about, she said, no one should have
Speaker 4: to go to jail for smoking weed, No one should
Speaker 4: have to go to jail for eating it, no one
Speaker 4: should have to go to jail for selling it. I
Speaker 4: think like this is like we're at a pin point
Speaker 4: now where we have to actually eliminate the disparities that exist.
Speaker 4: There are folks who caught cases for also selling weed,
Speaker 4: but now there are white folks who were able to
Speaker 4: build big brands I don't know, like medmen they're not
Speaker 4: a sponsor in this podcast, who are making handover fist
Speaker 4: in ways where folks sold a fraction of what they sold.
Speaker 4: And so my thing is you actually actually also have
Speaker 4: to go a step further. It's not just about the
Speaker 4: folks that smoke. It's the folks who were trying to
Speaker 4: make ends meet selling weed and now they're locked up.
Speaker 4: I would go another step further and say, if it's
Speaker 4: any non violent drug offender, including Mark Polsaffer from the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court case, they probably should be shouldn't be catching
Speaker 4: time like that, Like, we've got to figure out something
Speaker 4: else for folks who are non violent offenders.
Speaker 2: We really do. This is supposed to be about rehabilitation.
Speaker 1: This is where prosecutors play a key role. Because we've
Speaker 1: told you prosecutors decide what cases to bring, what charges
Speaker 1: to bring, or what charges to not bring. And I've
Speaker 1: heard from more than one prosecutor they say, look, if
Speaker 1: you don't have the drug kingpin, i'm arrested, then turn
Speaker 1: the person you have into the drug kingpin. Because they
Speaker 1: are politically ambitious people sometimes who are trying to inflate
Speaker 1: their own career and so they want to turn the
Speaker 1: little you know, double back boy into Avon Barksdale at times.
Speaker 1: And uh so we can't be mad at you know,
Speaker 1: black women who take up these roles and use that
Speaker 1: role to help eradicate the criminal justice system that has
Speaker 1: been very punishing towards life.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean and Angela, your point around the just
Speaker 3: just the contradiction that we have set up in the
Speaker 3: system where just because we've evolved as society now the big, big,
Speaker 3: big boxes that are coming in with marijuana that they're
Speaker 3: there there their penalty is profit. But for the for
Speaker 3: the folks who are in our neighborhoods and on the
Speaker 3: corners and are in many ways trying to to to
Speaker 3: get access to the basic means for survival for themselves
Speaker 3: and for the people who they love and care about.
Speaker 3: I know this because I had a brother and rather
Speaker 3: relatives who found themselves in that game. They're not only
Speaker 3: not out of jail, they're serving these sentences. They are
Speaker 3: scarred for the rest of their lives because they've always
Speaker 3: got to say that they've got this as part of
Speaker 3: their record as their background. And folks are making judgments
Speaker 3: about what they can and cannot do. No voting, no
Speaker 3: passports to travel internationally, no ability to serve on a jury.
Speaker 3: You got to go before this governor and ask for
Speaker 3: your ability to vote ever again, and your future not.
Speaker 4: Eligible for student aid either, I think.
Speaker 3: Student no federal programs whatsoever. So it's a walking, breathing contradiction,
Speaker 3: and the only difference between those folks in these.
Speaker 10: Is what.
Speaker 3: By and large largely the color of their skin. Who
Speaker 3: sits at the intersection of the impact, and we're carrying
Speaker 3: in our community a heavy burden that lasts a long
Speaker 3: as time.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you brought up a good point, Andrew
Speaker 1: about the jury pool, because then you consider how many
Speaker 1: people get eliminated from the jury pool, and that's how
Speaker 1: you have things like all white juries and certain municipals fo.
Speaker 3: To never get considered in right, they never get.
Speaker 2: That's what I mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, so you are really not judged by a
Speaker 1: jury of your peers if you're overly criminalized and then
Speaker 1: you know, summarily dismissed from participating in basic functions of
Speaker 1: society over a jay And in my gentrified ass neighborhood,
Speaker 1: I see white boys walking down the street all the time,
Speaker 1: puffing and passing all day long, and I just think
Speaker 1: about man thirty years ago, this would this would have
Speaker 1: been a huge challenge if these were black folks. There
Speaker 1: are people who serve gave up decades of their life
Speaker 1: for things like this.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I would just like to register my problem with some
Speaker 3: of the criminal justice reform as we pursue it. It
Speaker 3: seems like we only go in on criminal justice reform
Speaker 3: when it comes to the sentencing and when somebody then
Speaker 3: is incarcerated, conditions for incarcerations, so on and so forth.
Speaker 3: And my my critique is that the process of justice
Speaker 3: reform starts before that point. In the federal system, we
Speaker 3: got grand juries in all fifty states, and if a
Speaker 3: grand jury hands down an indictment, that person is as
Speaker 3: good as gone. And states of the fifty states, twenty
Speaker 3: five out of fifty have grand juries. And when those
Speaker 3: grand juries decide to indict, that person is as good
Speaker 3: as gone, either through their trial where they may be
Speaker 3: found guilty, or because they don't want to risk that
Speaker 3: they plea out, which is most times the case that
Speaker 3: happens between the attorneys, the prosecutors, and the defendants. And
Speaker 3: I'm simply saying, if the if the state or the
Speaker 3: federal government lose if their case is not proven. Why
Speaker 3: is it that the government never has to pay the
Speaker 3: legal bills of the folks that they took to task.
Speaker 2: Why is it that's some legislation you should get injured.
Speaker 3: That's rare. Why is it the prosecutor ever held accountable
Speaker 3: for telling false statements to a grand jury in pursuit
Speaker 3: of an indict man. In the civil side, I can't
Speaker 3: say I'm on sue Tiffany because she took an idea
Speaker 3: of mine and ran with it. If I bring that
Speaker 3: suit against you, Tiffany, and I lose, you have the
Speaker 3: ability to your judgment to come after me, get your
Speaker 3: legal fees and any other damages that you've incurred as
Speaker 3: a result of me coming after you. Faulty. That same burden, however,
Speaker 3: doesn't exist for the government, and it's an unit's an
Speaker 3: it's an outweighted system. And when we talk about reform,
Speaker 3: we ought to be reforming every single aspect of criminal
Speaker 3: justice law. If justice is blind, make it blind from
Speaker 3: the beginning until the end of the process. And that
Speaker 3: doesn't exist, and we got to incorporate that more and
Speaker 3: our conversations around criminal justice reform.
Speaker 4: I wanted to fact check myself, Lolo synth this as
Speaker 4: of July one, twenty twenty three, drug convictions no longer
Speaker 4: affect federal student Aida village eligibility. Okay, so that student AGA.
Speaker 4: I didn't just I just said about the student aid.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to clarify. I don't want here next
Speaker 4: week toalking about part ding.
Speaker 3: Okay, I get it. I'm just saying food and shelter
Speaker 3: Maslow's hierarchy needs. That's number one safety security, food shelter.
Speaker 2: Yes, I am not arguing there. I agree.
Speaker 3: I know, I know, I know, I know. Friend, I'm just.
Speaker 1: Saying all the first step back because a second step
Speaker 1: is needed, and a lot of this policy rest at
Speaker 1: the state and local level, so there's a lot more
Speaker 1: work to do on criminal justice reform. We're gonna take
Speaker 1: a quick break, pay some bills. But when we come back,
Speaker 1: in the words Codis Blow, we are playing talking really
Speaker 1: basketbamb If you old enough, remember Curtis Blow, check it out.
Speaker 2: We'll see you on the other side of this break.
Speaker 1: All right, for you old enough folks, Curtis Blow saying
Speaker 1: it's time to talk bassket ball.
Speaker 2: Of course you do, all right. I hope you don't
Speaker 2: have to forgive my.
Speaker 1: My lacking, forgive my my lacking and singing abilities. But
Speaker 1: I think this is so cool because as a sports
Speaker 1: officionado and people are constantly asking my opinion on these
Speaker 1: type things. I think it's amazing that women's basketball in
Speaker 1: March Madness, the women's brackets are becoming just as popular
Speaker 1: as the men's baskets. I will say in full transparency.
Speaker 1: Angela reminded me that March Madness is college basketball, not
Speaker 1: the w NBA, as if a sports expert like me
Speaker 1: needed to be reminded of that too.
Speaker 2: But I got it. But I am.
Speaker 1: I honestly am thrilled our friend Aaron Haynes with the
Speaker 1: nineteenth It is like super into women's basketball. And so
Speaker 1: Angela and I and our group of friends the MACHETI
Speaker 1: shout out to you guys. We all went to Paris
Speaker 1: in the fall to support It was two black women,
Speaker 1: Don Staley and I forget the other coach's name, forgive
Speaker 1: me from Notre Dame, Notre Day, Yes, but they were
Speaker 1: playing in a basketball exhibition game in Paris, and I
Speaker 1: had so much fun.
Speaker 2: I thought it was amazing.
Speaker 1: So Kandice Parker recently waighed in with her thoughts on
Speaker 1: women's basketball and women's sports really getting more attention.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen to her and then we'll talk
Speaker 2: about it. On the other side.
Speaker 12: I think now people are realizing how important and how
Speaker 12: exciting it is to watch women's sports. And you know,
Speaker 12: we've been on this train for a long time, and
Speaker 12: now I understand people get on at different times, but
Speaker 12: to be a part of women's basketball at this point,
Speaker 12: to see the excitement, the outcomes, just even in conference tournaments,
Speaker 12: to see what it did last year, I think it's
Speaker 12: just truly special. And I think it's just a sports
Speaker 12: fan like as a sports fan, being able to pick
Speaker 12: the winner in both brackets. Men have had it all along.
Speaker 12: Women now are getting in and I think we're taking
Speaker 12: advantage of it. I mean, look at the ratings, get
Speaker 12: social media, look at the five.
Speaker 11: It's called the athleticism that the women do. So this season,
Speaker 11: most eyes have been on Caitlin Clark. Where does she
Speaker 11: stack up in terms of the rankings, because I said,
Speaker 11: you can't underestimate don Staley.
Speaker 12: Listen, I think South Carolina on Staley and what she
Speaker 12: has done at South Carolina.
Speaker 2: I know my team.
Speaker 12: Yeah, she likes rubbing it in a lot, but what
Speaker 12: she's done back to back undefeated seasons in the regular
Speaker 12: season is just ridiculous. Yeah, she in your final four,
Speaker 12: she is in my final four.
Speaker 1: I just I'm excited to see it. Really, I don't
Speaker 1: know about the brackets.
Speaker 2: Do y'all have brackets. Are y'all playing in this March madness?
Speaker 2: I definitely will.
Speaker 4: I have not completed my bracket yet, but I do
Speaker 4: have to do a shameless plug here really quick for
Speaker 4: our good sister Jamel Hill.
Speaker 2: She just wrote a piece.
Speaker 4: On what Caitlin Clark's fans are missing in the Atlantic,
Speaker 4: and I love it because it really highlights the role
Speaker 4: that black women have played in basketball and are very
Speaker 4: regularly not recognized for all of our contributions. And also
Speaker 4: to that point, we want to say her name. Neil
Speaker 4: Ivy from Notre Dame is the coach that Tiff referenced earlier.
Speaker 4: But I just think we oftentimes are not given the
Speaker 4: full credit that we deserve. I know we talked about
Speaker 4: paid disparity earlier Tiff, but now with NIL, they're kind
Speaker 4: of leveling the playing field. You see folks like Angel
Speaker 4: Rehies making a killing because of NIL, and I do
Speaker 4: want to quickly. I know we're talking women's basketball, but
Speaker 4: I just want to acknowledge Juwan Howard, who was just
Speaker 4: told by the University of Michigan that he would be
Speaker 4: relieved of his coaching duties, and I think it's such
Speaker 4: a shame that they would do that the year that
Speaker 4: he had an open heart surgery. The team definitely had
Speaker 4: a tough season, but Juwan's contributions along with the significance
Speaker 4: of what the Fab five has meant to Michigan in
Speaker 4: terms of resources, time, effort, and the ways in which
Speaker 4: they've showed up for Juwan overall, this was the first
Speaker 4: reunion they've had and they didn't even let that thing
Speaker 4: write out, and so it's a shame, especially at the
Speaker 4: hands of a black athletic director. I do have other
Speaker 4: things to say about black women.
Speaker 3: Well, oftentimes under directions of presidents and boards of trustees
Speaker 3: and you know how that process.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but he has some discretion. I didn't even know
Speaker 4: that Angeles. Yeah, it really really is awful. So I
Speaker 4: am sending love to Juwan and Jeanine. They have a
Speaker 4: son who is in the NBA now another son who
Speaker 4: plays for that team. It's just a really disappointing way
Speaker 4: to see the season end. But for women, I will
Speaker 4: say it was such a joy to support two black
Speaker 4: women coaches in Paris. As Tip talked about, to watch
Speaker 4: the many ways in which the sport has changed. I'm
Speaker 4: watching young boys like running after women players to get
Speaker 4: autographs and it is dope. I was super hyped knowing
Speaker 4: that Juju Watkins, for example, was leaving high school and
Speaker 4: going to the University of Southern California, and she's been
Speaker 4: killing it. Watching the center Camilla Cardozo, who's from Brazil,
Speaker 4: who made a three pointer at the end of a
Speaker 4: game won the game for Dawn just a couple of
Speaker 4: weeks ago. It has been a joy to watch the sports.
Speaker 4: And I hate to say it, y'all, but the boys
Speaker 4: are a little boring. The girls got it going on
Speaker 4: this time. So I can't wait to fill out my bracket.
Speaker 4: And I'm kind of boycotting boys or men's basketball NCAA
Speaker 4: style because of what happened with Jawan.
Speaker 2: I'm mad. Yeah, I don't like that. Can I copy
Speaker 2: your bracket or does everybody?
Speaker 4: I'm definitely going to make you do your lie, Like
Speaker 4: how do you how ome bracket? You can bet twenty
Speaker 4: dollars tip not to know it's not too okay.
Speaker 1: So it's really and it's with you and somebody like
Speaker 1: if I did a bracket, you can have.
Speaker 4: The machetes do a bracket. We can have a Native
Speaker 4: lamp pot bracket situation. You put your money in. Everybody
Speaker 4: put in twenty dollars, and you might not be a
Speaker 4: bet man because he's a bishop most days. Look at this,
Speaker 4: see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: It's twenty dollars by me, lunch. It's not illegal, can I?
Speaker 1: I honestly, I thought the brackets were national.
Speaker 2: I didn't even know I thought the brackets were national.
Speaker 1: I thought, like everybody in the country is participating in
Speaker 1: this bracket, and like there were stages like tiers of Winter,
Speaker 1: like a lottery.
Speaker 2: Fair enough.
Speaker 4: Yes, there's there is a whole gambling industry for this,
Speaker 4: but there are also a lot of people who do
Speaker 4: brackets for fun. It's you know, how fantasy football works is.
Speaker 3: Very similar a lot of jobs.
Speaker 1: Yes, can we do a Native Land viewer bracket with
Speaker 1: the viewership we put a link up to that so
Speaker 1: we don't.
Speaker 3: Have somebody else to evaluate all this stuff because giving your expertise, uh,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 4: We can. We can ask Nick to put a link
Speaker 4: up to the NCAA bracket where the teams are starting,
Speaker 4: where they end up. They go to Sweet sixteen, the
Speaker 4: Elite eight, and then the Final four and then of
Speaker 4: course the championship.
Speaker 3: The last thing I've just said about the basketball piece
Speaker 3: or what contribute here is just to say that uls
Speaker 3: been a joy watching and it truly has. And I
Speaker 3: hadn't considered the fact until I heard a female basketball
Speaker 3: player and I can't remember who said it say, you know,
Speaker 3: we've been hustling at this for a long time, but
Speaker 3: the way in which the cameras, the videographers, the folks
Speaker 3: who have who have projected what we do on the
Speaker 3: court out to the rest of the world hasn't always
Speaker 3: been equal to what the men get men's games, in
Speaker 3: which the way that they have covered, the technology, investment
Speaker 3: that gets made, the shots that get covered there makes
Speaker 3: it a different kind of experience. And so the level
Speaker 3: of just even that piece of it, which I hadn't
Speaker 3: considered before, has also had the inducement of putting the
Speaker 3: athleticism of these talented women on full display. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: I hadn't considered that part of it. So, you know,
Speaker 3: it's important to dis six every piece of why it
Speaker 3: is that the popularity has been going up the way.
Speaker 9: That it has.
Speaker 3: They've survived off their athleticism for a long time, and
Speaker 3: now we get that plus the dynamics of the way
Speaker 3: in which it's covered.
Speaker 2: We love to see it. Keep hooping, ladies, we're watching.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna fill out my first bracket, so I'm excited
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 2: Angela. I'll call you later for guidance. Native Landpop Family.
Speaker 1: If y'all have suggestions for me, drop a comment and
Speaker 1: let me know who I should be paying attention to.
Speaker 2: Please help her.
Speaker 1: Speaking of Native Land Family, it's time to hear from
Speaker 1: you all on this show. We want to make sure
Speaker 1: y'all feel welcome home. We so enjoy hearing your questions,
Speaker 1: so keep those questions coming. We try to fit in
Speaker 1: as many as possible and a lot of people. I
Speaker 1: don't know. If you y'all get these two people with
Speaker 1: DM ME and leave a comment like why I gotta
Speaker 1: be on me? There's a problem because there are so
Speaker 1: many people who try to pretend they are other people
Speaker 1: on social media.
Speaker 2: So we want to know that you are real people.
Speaker 2: We want to see your beautiful face is right.
Speaker 1: We know we're not engaging with bots, and so that's
Speaker 1: why we ask you to be on video.
Speaker 4: To talk to your AI, your stunt double, your tupac
Speaker 4: hologram like anybody turned it in exactly.
Speaker 2: We want to see who you are all eyes. Speaking
Speaker 2: of exactly.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of I think we have a first question
Speaker 1: from Marquell Cole.
Speaker 2: What you got, Mark Well? What's going on?
Speaker 13: Native lamppod? My name is Mark Well Cole. I'm currently
Speaker 13: living on the beautiful island of Grenada, but I'm originally
Speaker 13: from the Bronx, New York. And if you guys know
Speaker 13: anything about the Bronx, you know that the Bronx is
Speaker 13: the last of the Mohicans in regards to gentrification. Now,
Speaker 13: there's been a lot of talk in regards to reverse
Speaker 13: great migration. We're blacks resettle back in the South, however,
Speaker 13: but what is a result to fight the forces of gentrification?
Speaker 13: And how can we repopulate neighborhoods that were predominantly and
Speaker 13: historically black, such as your Harlems and Bedsize. I believe
Speaker 13: the Bronx has been doing a pretty good job in
Speaker 13: terms of preserving the culture, but how can we continue
Speaker 13: to keep that defense up and fight against gentrification? Thank you?
Speaker 1: I love that question, and we've all bore witness to
Speaker 1: that gentrification harms not only us, but the wealth gap
Speaker 1: is a whole history and now gentrification started with white
Speaker 1: white folks essentially destroying black neighborhoods and we're seeing it repopulated.
Speaker 3: Andrew, did you want Yeah, I mean, I was just
Speaker 3: gonna say, I got a lot of black friends who
Speaker 3: are part of the regentrification as they've come in with
Speaker 3: their degrees and good jobs and you know, have settled
Speaker 3: back and some of those communities that the folks who
Speaker 3: had historically lived there can no longer afford to be there.
Speaker 3: And I would just say, but we cannot be when
Speaker 3: we pay the rates that are being asked, and uh
Speaker 3: uh uh and and truth be told. The market conditions
Speaker 3: in so many ways in a free market system dictate
Speaker 3: how these areas are able to charge and and reshape
Speaker 3: themselves the way that they have. But don't get that
Speaker 3: to mean that there aren't protections that can be put
Speaker 3: in place. So I can tell you in the at
Speaker 3: the municipal level, you have city boards and planning boards
Speaker 3: whose jobs it is to determine what are going to
Speaker 3: be the laws and the policies that govern this particular
Speaker 3: area of development in the city. And so if it's
Speaker 3: a value of those of those decision makers, you can
Speaker 3: go in and you can say, hey, I like for
Speaker 3: you know, I want the neighborhood cleaned up or I want,
Speaker 3: you know, a new housing that is livable and sustainable,
Speaker 3: But I believe that we need to put a cap
Speaker 3: on uh uh pricing in this particular area, within this
Speaker 3: certain square, you know, block footage in that the city
Speaker 3: could also determine that the property values won't increase above
Speaker 3: a certain percentage right here in Florida, and I'm sure
Speaker 3: other states do it as well. Where if you're a
Speaker 3: senior or if you've served in the military, your taxing
Speaker 3: structure is different from everybody else. Those same kinds of
Speaker 3: provisions can be made available to everyday folks who are
Speaker 3: living in neighborhoods that they want those neighborhoods to be
Speaker 3: improved upon, but they don't want to be priced out
Speaker 3: of the place where they've grown up and their mothers
Speaker 3: have grown up, and their grandmothers have grown up. Where
Speaker 3: you've got inner generations living right in the same neighborhood
Speaker 3: and are now being pushed out by many of these
Speaker 3: market forces. Yes, the market dictates a lot, but yes,
Speaker 3: also local decision makers can decide what kind of protections
Speaker 3: they want to put in place to keep some of
Speaker 3: these neighborhoods looking like they reflecting the values and the
Speaker 3: people who have held them up for so long.
Speaker 1: You know, I think this might be a good mini pain,
Speaker 1: this for a mini pod. No, no go, please, I'll
Speaker 1: be very quick.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: The thing that comes to mind is the emotion that
Speaker 4: you see play out when gentrification occurs in these communities.
Speaker 4: It's not just people being displaced, it is memories also
Speaker 4: being displaced. There was a really big article in the
Speaker 4: Seattle Times some years back talking about the Central Area
Speaker 4: and where what you really see are the number of
Speaker 4: people who lose the houses because property taxes rise and
Speaker 4: they can no longer afford to pay the property taxes.
Speaker 4: And that is a devastating way to lose a home
Speaker 4: that has been in your family for generations. And I
Speaker 4: do think Andrew to the point there should be some
Speaker 4: protections put in place in municipalities all around the country.
Speaker 4: The number of you know, mortgage companies that faced discrimination
Speaker 4: settlements that should be a part of it too, Like
Speaker 4: what kind of program is there a public private partnership
Speaker 4: that it could exist that could be developed to ensure
Speaker 4: people can stay in their homes and that legacy is
Speaker 4: not erase from families. It is so important. I don't
Speaker 4: have the answer. I have more questions than I have answers,
Speaker 4: but I would love to see solutions in me.
Speaker 3: But you're right about that, Angelau. The memories are stunning,
Speaker 3: and you often hear our parents and grandparents say, Man,
Speaker 3: when I was growing up, that's where everybody congregated. That's
Speaker 3: where we went and got fresh foods and vegetables that
Speaker 3: were grown right here in the neighborhood on trees and bushes,
Speaker 3: so on and so forth. And there are protections y'all.
Speaker 3: In fact, we may follow up with a couple of
Speaker 3: resources of national folks who are doing this work, so
Speaker 3: y'all can figure out how to plug in where it
Speaker 3: is that you live.
Speaker 2: I love that, and that's a good question. Can we
Speaker 2: be gentrifiers?
Speaker 1: Because if a group of educated black folks had resources
Speaker 1: moved into an area, commerce doesn't follow us that way.
Speaker 1: The marketplace doesn't follow us that way. You want, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden see a banana republic popped up. So
Speaker 1: I think it's a goot minipid to have a deeper yea.
Speaker 3: I would. I don't know the answer to that, but
Speaker 3: it would be curious. But because I kind of thought
Speaker 3: that it followed more gentrification, money and the fact that
Speaker 3: you are now pricing folks out of areas than not.
Speaker 3: When publicisides if they want to go into a place
Speaker 3: and build a store, they do a geo mapping of
Speaker 3: the area and evaluate incomes and if it meets this threshold,
Speaker 3: it's like, okay, that's a customer for us. Those would
Speaker 3: be our future customers. And you know the same thing happens.
Speaker 1: Well, we're gonna get more into this because I got
Speaker 1: more questions than answers to maybe all right, to keep
Speaker 1: us moving, because I want to make sure we get
Speaker 1: to everybody. Our next question is from Monica.
Speaker 2: What you're talking.
Speaker 14: About, Hey, Native Lampard Monica Williams Harris Here, this relates
Speaker 14: to your discussion about the Alabama Supreme Court's recent decision
Speaker 14: regarding IVF. It's someone who did two rounds unsuccessful successful
Speaker 14: rounds of IVF, and then who subsequently we adopted our
Speaker 14: beautiful son. I just find it extremely frustrating that these
Speaker 14: lawmakers and judges continue to legislate and try to control
Speaker 14: a woman's right to give birth and make decisions about
Speaker 14: her body, when what they really should be doing is
Speaker 14: making adoption much more affordable. As Tiffany indicated, there are
Speaker 14: tens of thousands of children who are in foster care,
Speaker 14: many of them are black children. And there are several
Speaker 14: women that I know, several families that I know that
Speaker 14: would love to adopt, but it's simply it's not affordable.
Speaker 14: Thanks so much for you all's bringing light to this
Speaker 14: situation and as always, continued blessings on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I love Monica, fellow wrap up, Monica, thank you, continue
Speaker 1: blessings to you and congratulations on your beautiful son. I
Speaker 1: hope we get to see a picture, maybe if she
Speaker 1: could DM us a picture of her son.
Speaker 2: But I love that question, Angela.
Speaker 4: Did you want to Yeah, I think just as a
Speaker 4: matter of where we actually are. Of course we know
Speaker 4: about the Alabamas Supreme Court, but also a few weeks
Speaker 4: ago the Governor of Alabama did sign a bill into
Speaker 4: law to protect IVF So I do want to make
Speaker 4: sure that you know where we where we can't give credit,
Speaker 4: we give it, but shamelind you for having a judge
Speaker 4: on the bench that would do all of that fire brimstone,
Speaker 4: and hell, he was preaching from his opinion.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, I'm also a little hesitant to give KIV anyway.
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, signed the bill into.
Speaker 1: Law Republican Governor k Ivy of Alabama.
Speaker 4: She's I don't believe in another than not telling people
Speaker 4: when they did something. She did the right thing. She
Speaker 4: signed a bill into law to protect IVF and it
Speaker 4: was pat I'm surprised, honestly by the legislature. The House
Speaker 4: passed it a bill ninety four to six, and then
Speaker 4: the Senate passed the bill unanimously. But sometimes when you
Speaker 4: see your own interests being challenged, you will rise up
Speaker 4: to protect your own entrant. It is still the right
Speaker 4: thing because it impacts lots of other people besides them.
Speaker 4: It could have been worse. We could have been a
Speaker 4: handmade tail earlier than in twenty twenty four of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Was this election, So shout out to the.
Speaker 3: Threat still exists, right the birth control.
Speaker 2: The threat is still exist They're going after birth control now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I just want I want to credit the
Speaker 1: organizers and the people who applied the pressure to make
Speaker 1: sure that this bill passed and to force k Ivy's
Speaker 1: hand to do it. There was a lot of videos circulating,
Speaker 1: one of a female reporter interviewing Senator Tommy Tubberville. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't but what he lacks in intellect, he makes
Speaker 1: up for in talking nonsense.
Speaker 2: And he literally didn't even know what the legislation was.
Speaker 1: And this is something he voted for, right, But it
Speaker 1: took so many people on the ground, organizing, protesting, and
Speaker 1: confronting these politicians with this for k Ivy to find that.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to point that out. Okay, now
Speaker 2: we have Brianna from Phoenix.
Speaker 15: Hello, my name is Brianna.
Speaker 14: I'm from Phoenix, Arizona.
Speaker 15: I'm currently serving in the Acuity Air Force here in Missouri.
Speaker 15: I would like to just shed some light on our
Speaker 15: top government officials. We're being required to have mental health
Speaker 15: evaluations in order to sit in our top government seats
Speaker 15: in Washington and even in the local and state politics.
Speaker 15: As a military member, we are required to go through
Speaker 15: mental health evaluations from the beginning middle and even if
Speaker 15: we have any mental health issues during our time of service,
Speaker 15: we are removed from our jobs and we're not even
Speaker 15: allowed to in some case deploy our PCs, which is
Speaker 15: like move duty stations. I feel like if we have
Speaker 15: to go through these grooming processes when it comes down
Speaker 15: to mental health evaluations and making sure that we are
Speaker 15: mentally fit to serve in the United States military, our
Speaker 15: government officials from local all the way up.
Speaker 2: To DC should be required as well. That's just my
Speaker 2: take on it, and fair is fair. I love that. Rihanna.
Speaker 2: First of all, thank you so much for your service.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 4: Second of all, you know, every single week we say
Speaker 4: welcome home, but all throughout the week people are weighing
Speaker 4: in on social media, telling us what they think, how
Speaker 4: they feel, what we got right, what we got wrong,
Speaker 4: and everything in between. Stop that cussing, y'all. Keep that
Speaker 4: cussing going, y'all, like everything in between, and so we
Speaker 4: are so grateful that you're weighing in. In fact, I
Speaker 4: think we're gonna pivot a little bit from just having
Speaker 4: Native Lamppod fam questions into having some comments, and I
Speaker 4: think Brianna is kicking that off. So we appreciate your statement.
Speaker 4: All I'll say to that is amen, because you heard
Speaker 4: me say it before. I definitely think we guive you
Speaker 4: some more mental health evaluations in this piece. So we
Speaker 4: definitely thank you for your service and for sharing your opinion.
Speaker 1: Welcome home, Briann, I actually really love that, and I
Speaker 1: love Angela that you're saying, let's open this up. For
Speaker 1: comments as well, because we want people to fill welcome home,
Speaker 1: and this is your platform as well, So I invite
Speaker 1: everybody along handle exactly, pull up a seat to this table,
Speaker 1: sit on the couch with us. So send it, but
Speaker 1: just make sure that when you're sending questions or comments
Speaker 1: that it is sixty seconds or less. We're not gonna
Speaker 1: pretend this is church on a Sunday. Everybody trying to
Speaker 1: get home to see the game, like you gotta just
Speaker 1: sixty seconds or less. Make sure we can see you,
Speaker 1: say your name clearly and where you're from. And keep
Speaker 1: those comments and questions coming. We love being in community
Speaker 1: with you, We love being in conversation with you, so
Speaker 1: keep those comments and questions coming. We're gonna take a
Speaker 1: really quick break, but don't go anywhere because we're coming
Speaker 1: right back.
Speaker 2: With call to action.
Speaker 1: Okay, calls to action. Who wants to go first? Don't
Speaker 1: everybody jump at once? Who wnths to go first? Well,
Speaker 1: in transparency, not call it action yet.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The only one I have is me asking people to
Speaker 1: help me with my bracket.
Speaker 2: And that doesn't seem like an important enough.
Speaker 3: But that's it. That's it.
Speaker 2: It just doesn't seem like an important enough call to action.
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry, guys, but that is what I would
Speaker 1: like help with my bracket in general understanding of how
Speaker 1: these brackets go.
Speaker 3: Extraordinary expert. I'll go quickly. It's I. You know, we
Speaker 3: talked a bit. We did a little Facebook live on
Speaker 3: the whole funny funny Willis situation, and I know it's
Speaker 3: old news. Last week we learned she will be able
Speaker 3: to stay on the case, her prosecutors will continue to
Speaker 3: do the work they've got to do. And she told
Speaker 3: the judge listen, if you want to start a trial
Speaker 3: in thirty days, we will be ready. So she reassured
Speaker 3: us with the confidence. I will tell you though I was.
Speaker 3: I was a bit concerned, and I'll just stated here.
Speaker 3: The judge in this case McAfee, in his written decision
Speaker 3: and says the following. This finding is by no means
Speaker 3: an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in
Speaker 3: judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney's testimony
Speaker 3: during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned opinion
Speaker 3: that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an
Speaker 3: actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly, and
Speaker 3: it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to
Speaker 3: the relevant issues in applicable law applicable law before it.
Speaker 3: Other forms of sources of authority, such as the General Assembly,
Speaker 3: the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia,
Speaker 3: the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, or the voters of
Speaker 3: Fulton County may offer feedback on any of the unanswered
Speaker 3: questions that linger. I read that and total just so
Speaker 3: that I personally felt like the judge in his paraga,
Speaker 3: went a little further than was necessary to I don't know,
Speaker 3: sanction express his opinions about the DA One. I will say,
Speaker 3: Fannie Willis getting on this stand and testifying the way
Speaker 3: that she did was critical to I think rallying folks
Speaker 3: to understand her thinking around the whole cash situation. Secondly,
Speaker 3: the judge laid out a number of legislative and governmental
Speaker 3: bodies and entities who can be approached to deal with
Speaker 3: any of the information that he feels was faulty or
Speaker 3: lacking in her testimony. And I would just say, if
Speaker 3: you were in the State of Georgia and you are
Speaker 3: an attorney. Moreover, in the State of Georgia that it
Speaker 3: will be really really important, I think, and vital if
Speaker 3: you believe that Fannie Willis deserves your protection, that she's
Speaker 3: serving her responsibility, that you all begin to rally around
Speaker 3: her with regards to the State Ethics Commission and some
Speaker 3: of the inquiries that are going to be coming from
Speaker 3: the Republican controlled legislature there so that she's flanked on
Speaker 3: all sides while she tries to do the work that
Speaker 3: is necessary to prosecute justice to the full end. I've
Speaker 3: seen these kinds of distractions before. This is by no
Speaker 3: means the end of the attack on her, and I'm
Speaker 3: just hoping that you all, as viewers and listeners, if
Speaker 3: you feel compelled, will figure out a way that you
Speaker 3: can come to the protective flank as these believe. I
Speaker 3: believe inquiries are going to continue as a side show
Speaker 3: to keep her from being able to do what she
Speaker 3: was elected to do. I know that was long. I
Speaker 3: apologize to my co host, but it's been in my
Speaker 3: spirit since reading this opinion that this was a real
Speaker 3: opening and guidance for added attacks against the DA.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Andrew.
Speaker 4: I was going to say, we're going to stick with
Speaker 4: protecting the prosecutors Marilyn Moseby. There is a rally that
Speaker 4: we told you all we would talk about soon. It
Speaker 4: is going to be held this Saturday, March twenty third,
Speaker 4: at noon at the Druid Hill YMCA in Baltimore. No Justice,
Speaker 4: No Peace, Fighting for Moseby Rally at noon on Saturday.
Speaker 4: There will soon be a petition made available as well
Speaker 4: as a letter that you can sign on to the
Speaker 4: Biden administration asking them to have mercy and pardon someone
Speaker 4: who did not engage in any criminal wrongdoing whatsoever, but
Speaker 4: has been the subject of a very expensive witch hunt
Speaker 4: for falsifying mortgage documents that she herself did not fill out.
Speaker 4: So we are going to continue to lift her up
Speaker 4: in prayer. We are going to continue to advocate for
Speaker 4: her as we would want someone to do for us,
Speaker 4: as we know Andrew would have wanted if he were
Speaker 4: not acquitted for his wrongful prosecution. And hopefully soon there
Speaker 4: will be a selective prosecution case coming to the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice for what has happened in Marylyn Moseby's case.
Speaker 4: So that said, we hope we can stand with you
Speaker 4: all here and then also stand alongside tiff as she
Speaker 4: works to fill out her March Badness in Cuba women's
Speaker 4: basketball Brat.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that, Angela and Andrew for your very
Speaker 1: serious am I friend, no girl, but you on AOL.
Speaker 2: Tiffany's on dial up Internet.
Speaker 4: She might not be able to close this show out today,
Speaker 4: but know that she is with you all in spirit.
Speaker 4: She's been silenced for no good reason. Internet justice and access.
Speaker 3: It's still an it's country.
Speaker 4: Yes, Andrews created a new hashtag Internet for everybody. Maybe
Speaker 4: y'all can carry in on the joke by just doing
Speaker 4: hashtag Internet for tiff In the meantime, everyone should send
Speaker 4: her comments on Instagram and on Twitter, saying Tiffany, it
Speaker 4: is time to let go of AOL dial up, long
Speaker 4: past time. But the show this brings us to our clothes.
Speaker 4: We thank you all so much for your constant support.
Speaker 4: We look forward to it, look forward to engaging with you.
Speaker 4: There are two hundred and twenty eight days until election Day.
Speaker 2: Welcome Home, Welcome Home.
Speaker 4: Native Lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 4: Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 4: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 4: favorite shows,