Speaker 1: Native lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome home, y'all, Welcome home.
Speaker 1: This is episode ten of Native LAMPI where we break
Speaker 1: down all things politics and culture. We're your hosts, Angela Rye,
Speaker 1: Tiffany Cross, and Andrew Gillham. What are we celebrating this week, y'all?
Speaker 1: T week we introduced an award, but we didn't win
Speaker 1: the award.
Speaker 3: Andrew take the award home.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was that.
Speaker 5: We were at south By Southwest.
Speaker 6: For the iHeart Podcast Awards and got to present an award.
Speaker 6: But more importantly, we got to spend time together and
Speaker 6: I really I had such a great time with y'all.
Speaker 5: We ate all the things that the food.
Speaker 2: There is so good. Our last meal that we not
Speaker 2: the last supper, but the last meal we had that
Speaker 2: whatever it was. I'm not going to name check the spot,
Speaker 2: but I've been reflecting on that on that meal for
Speaker 2: a minute, y'all. So thank you so delicious name checking
Speaker 2: when they become sponsors.
Speaker 6: Wow, check somebody real quick, who is a sponsored the
Speaker 6: gathering spot? Because they let us record here every week
Speaker 6: the spot.
Speaker 2: Oh and I just shot y'all out too, I often
Speaker 2: find myself. I've been in probably more of your audiences
Speaker 2: Angela and live and in person that I have TIFFs.
Speaker 2: But both these women were on various panels asself By Southwest,
Speaker 2: and it is a good feeling to sit and watch
Speaker 2: y'all's brilliance on display. So keep being bad.
Speaker 3: Thanks brother.
Speaker 1: I will tell you, guys, we want to shout out
Speaker 1: y'all the NLP fam. You tune in every week, you've downloaded,
Speaker 1: you've subscribed, you've told your friend to tell a friend
Speaker 1: to tell a friend to tell a friend, and we
Speaker 1: want to ask you to tell them again to rate
Speaker 1: and review our show. We are so grateful for you again,
Speaker 1: welcome home. So here's the rundown for today. We had
Speaker 1: a time this week at south By Southwest. We just
Speaker 1: talked about that a little bit, but one part we
Speaker 1: didn't talk about is how fine my co hosts are.
Speaker 7: Y'all.
Speaker 1: If you didn't see these carpet pictures and these pictures
Speaker 1: from the stage, this is the cue for the video
Speaker 1: team to put those pictures up because they fly.
Speaker 3: Shout out to all of our new podcasts.
Speaker 1: Man who we met in Austin, and thank you for
Speaker 1: the overwhelming love it was seen, felt, and heard, and
Speaker 1: on that note, feeling the love and I hope that
Speaker 1: she feels it. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge
Speaker 1: announced earlier this week that she would be retiring after
Speaker 1: five decades of public service.
Speaker 3: She served as a mayor.
Speaker 1: I know hadn't counter spoke service, but she was the
Speaker 1: president of Delta's I'm not a Delta. I don't know
Speaker 1: how that keeps happening. But nonetheless, Marcia Fudge, we love you,
Speaker 1: we see you for a congresswoman. We know that your
Speaker 1: footprint and hamprint are all over this budget that we
Speaker 1: will talk about later speaking of the budget. To shout
Speaker 1: out Shalanda Young during this Black Women's History or Black
Speaker 1: Women's history one now Women's Histryebruary, Who's another member of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's cabinet, a Black woman in the cabinet, And
Speaker 1: this week we're going to talk about something that's near
Speaker 1: and dear to Shilanda.
Speaker 3: It is the heartbeat of the work she does.
Speaker 1: She's the Office of Management and Budget Director, and so
Speaker 1: of course she's had her hands directly on the budget
Speaker 1: that President Biden brought to Congress, the f y twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five budget, just a couple of days ago. On Tuesday,
Speaker 1: we will also be talking about that budget and contrast
Speaker 1: that with the priorities of then President Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: see where they may may be a little bit of discrepancies,
Speaker 1: because y'all stay in our dms with a lot of discrepancies.
Speaker 1: And so because surprise, even though we're really not that surprised,
Speaker 1: as of Tuesday, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump became
Speaker 1: their respective parties nominees for president, and aco you says,
Speaker 1: oh hell na to a bipartisan bill that cleared the
Speaker 1: House banning TikTok in the United States, saying that's clearly
Speaker 1: a violation of the First Amendment. And also Trump has
Speaker 1: now gone from ninety one and diamonds to eighty eight
Speaker 1: thanks to Judge McAfee who has thrown out charges for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and some of his co defendants in that
Speaker 1: Fulton County racketeering case. And of course, we will be
Speaker 1: answering your questions all throughout this show in LPFAM, and
Speaker 1: we've got a Maryland Moseby update because woo, y'all do
Speaker 1: not play about Maryland Moseby. And when I tell you
Speaker 1: we're great folcals, we don't play about her either, Let's
Speaker 1: get into it. Shout out to all of you have
Speaker 1: asked how you can engage. We'll be sure to tell
Speaker 1: you by the end of the end of the show.
Speaker 1: Stay with us. Okay, everyone, So here we are after
Speaker 1: a three hundred and fifty two to sixty five vote
Speaker 1: in the United States House Representatives. This don't happen on
Speaker 1: nothing but post offices these days, but that's what the
Speaker 1: vote was on this TikTok band. Surprisingly, so they are
Speaker 1: trying to ban TikTok in the United States, and now
Speaker 1: the bill will head over to the Senate. I want
Speaker 1: to first here's some sound for Donald Trump, because you know,
Speaker 1: every now and then he got a conflict for several
Speaker 1: as you.
Speaker 4: Know, I was at the point where I could have
Speaker 4: gotten it done if I wanted to. I sort of said,
Speaker 4: you guys, decide, you make that decision, because it's a
Speaker 4: tough decision to make. Frankly, there are a lot of
Speaker 4: people on TikTok that love it. There are a lot
Speaker 4: of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without it.
Speaker 4: There are a lot of users. There's a lot of
Speaker 4: good and there's a lot of bad. With TikTok. But
Speaker 4: the thing I don't like is that without TikTok, you
Speaker 4: can make Facebook bigger. And I consider Facebook to be
Speaker 4: an enemy of the people, along with a lot of
Speaker 4: the media.
Speaker 2: Okay, Angelou, by the way, forgetting everything he said prior
Speaker 2: to that last point, which was Facebook meta whatever they're called.
Speaker 2: Now he didn't he just meet with Elon Musk. Maybe
Speaker 2: that a bug got drummed in his ear, right. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is all about his vengeance for Facebook mark that
Speaker 2: whole crew. But I also think it's partly a smart
Speaker 2: pedestrian move by him. I'll just say that, But I
Speaker 2: think it conflicts with he relected.
Speaker 1: Himself in this actual we haven't showed that yet, right,
Speaker 1: so when.
Speaker 3: People see that quick, they're gonna say kids himself the
Speaker 3: all time.
Speaker 2: But in the previous his previous statement, y'all, when he
Speaker 2: was president of these United States, unfortunately he did seek
Speaker 2: he was the first one to throw out going after
Speaker 2: China and banning TikTok usage in the United States of America.
Speaker 2: That was his position as president when he could do something.
Speaker 2: Now he's citizen mister eighty one convicted with an eighty
Speaker 2: eight convicted.
Speaker 6: Eighty eight and its let the people we wish well,
Speaker 6: Can I just say this is the danger to me
Speaker 6: with centering Donald Trump, because it's really not about him.
Speaker 6: I know we have to talk about him, but y'all
Speaker 6: know how I feel about it, Like, this is not
Speaker 6: a Donald Trump issue. This is a much bigger issue one.
Speaker 6: What the Congress, the lower chamber the House decided was
Speaker 6: that TikTok would have to essentially emancipate itself from a
Speaker 6: company called byte Dance.
Speaker 5: Now that's why that matters.
Speaker 6: Byte Dance is a Beijing based company, and we have
Speaker 6: a very complicated and sometimes beneficial bilateral relationship with China.
Speaker 6: Byte Dance is worth more than twenty million dollars and
Speaker 6: essentially they would have to sell. The Beijing based company
Speaker 6: would be compelled to share, to sell twenty percent of
Speaker 6: their stake. And the reason why is because, as rightfully so,
Speaker 6: there's a concern about TikTok sharing US based user data
Speaker 6: with China, and given our rocky relationship with our biggest
Speaker 6: competitor on the global stage, that actually makes sense. There
Speaker 6: has been information from the US intelligence community that they
Speaker 6: are monitoring how we use TikTok from everything, not just
Speaker 6: to what we look at but our finger motions, our
Speaker 6: eye movement, And that might not matter if you think
Speaker 6: about a twelve year old using TikTok, But when that
Speaker 6: twelve year old is thirty five years old and they
Speaker 6: work for the NSA or the FBI or in the
Speaker 6: banking industry, and there is data that says I know
Speaker 6: exactly who this person is because I've been tracking their
Speaker 6: every move since they were twelve years old.
Speaker 5: Well, now we're looking at a national security issue.
Speaker 6: So I think that's the bigger conversation here because it's
Speaker 6: not just about TikTok. It's really about our relationship with China.
Speaker 6: And we just saw I know, this is like foreign policy,
Speaker 6: which we don't pay a lot of attention to in
Speaker 6: this country because you know, as black folks, we're concerned
Speaker 6: about our mortgage payments and you know, sending our kids
Speaker 6: to school and raising responsible people. But foreign policy is
Speaker 6: a really big issue. And when you look at our
Speaker 6: relationship with China, and you just saw President Shei of
Speaker 6: China on the global stage with President Vladimir Putin, who
Speaker 6: the world has considered a pariah given his international ambition
Speaker 6: and the attempted annexing of Ukraine.
Speaker 3: This is a big deal.
Speaker 6: If these two powers, these two nuclear powers, are joining
Speaker 6: hands on the world stage, and there's a Beijing based
Speaker 6: company where a significant portion of US users are interacting
Speaker 6: with it daily, potentially unwittingly compromising their own.
Speaker 5: Data, that's a big deal. And that's why this matters.
Speaker 6: The danger in centering Donald Trump is you are chasing
Speaker 6: the red herring instead of focusing on something that really
Speaker 6: is a bipartisan issue that impacts us all no matter
Speaker 6: what side of the how you sit on.
Speaker 1: Well, Donald Trump isn't the only one that might have
Speaker 1: a little bit of a conflict here. Joe Biden says
Speaker 1: that if Congress passes this TikTok band, he'll sign it.
Speaker 3: We're gonna roll that sound. And then there's one other
Speaker 3: flag I have for y'all. You still cabandoned the clock.
Speaker 8: I'm not milky.
Speaker 9: They're very passed. It all fun.
Speaker 1: And so here's the thing, though, I don't know how
Speaker 1: y'all feel about this, but people have pointed out this hypocrisy.
Speaker 1: I think we're all walking hypocrites about something. But of course,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is running for president. So can you run
Speaker 1: for president these days without greening a TikTok account. He
Speaker 1: certainly did, and they made their first post during the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl this year, And so I'm curious to know
Speaker 1: if you all think that any if there should be
Speaker 1: any like, hey, well what about this over here? Obviously
Speaker 1: he can do it from his phone, so there's no
Speaker 1: real national security threat there, But I'm wondering if you
Speaker 1: all think that there's like, hey, if you going to
Speaker 1: sign the band, don't use the thing.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 6: Look, I would applause the Biden administration for meeting voters
Speaker 6: where they are. The reality is a significant portion of
Speaker 6: young people are on TikTok, and so jim z ers
Speaker 6: who are just coming into this process, you want to say, hey,
Speaker 6: I'm engaging you. And quite frankly, if you're eighteen years
Speaker 6: old voting for the first time, I'm not sure how
Speaker 6: closely you're monitoring foreign policy see issues, not saying that
Speaker 6: you aren't, but that's probably not the leading issues that's
Speaker 6: driving your vote. So I don't necessarily think that's hypocrisy.
Speaker 5: Look, I have a.
Speaker 6: Challenge with Meta and how they conduct a lot of
Speaker 6: their practices. Yet I'm definitely on Instagram, Native Land is
Speaker 6: on Instagram. I think it's really hard to navigate the
Speaker 6: society without participating in some sort of social media.
Speaker 5: It's a necessarily problem, necessary evil.
Speaker 6: Because social media has democratized who has a voice in
Speaker 6: this society, and as black folks, we have been so
Speaker 6: summarily left out of that process.
Speaker 5: Social media is.
Speaker 6: Integral to how we organize, how we activate, and how
Speaker 6: we communicate with each other.
Speaker 5: So I don't know that I would blame.
Speaker 2: By them, but more than one thing can be true
Speaker 2: at one time. The democratization that's being experienced by so
Speaker 2: many of us through these platforms is good. But then
Speaker 2: you get to a point where these platforms become so powerful,
Speaker 2: have so much because just like we're talking about China
Speaker 2: and the information that they're colecting about our movements, what
Speaker 2: we put into the public space, even what we haven't
Speaker 2: put into the public space, that's happening in the backframe,
Speaker 2: these companies have access to all of it. So what
Speaker 2: happens when a Facebook becomes so or meta, becomes so
Speaker 2: incredibly powerful. It starts to sort of develop this posture
Speaker 2: in our society similar to Wall Street, that they're just
Speaker 2: too big to fail. So then you can't pass legislation,
Speaker 2: you can't prosecute you can't hold them accountable because going
Speaker 2: after that bohemoth then shakes the foundation of other parts
Speaker 2: of our society. So my problem with all of them
Speaker 2: is that I just don't think our regulators, especially as
Speaker 2: I think about, you know, artificial intelligence now and I'm
Speaker 2: getting email saying, hey, try AI with that email composition
Speaker 2: and try AI. You know, these ads are popping up
Speaker 2: when I know good and well that they're all so
Speaker 2: underregulated right now. From the President on down through Congress,
Speaker 2: they have basically said that these the wise kids out
Speaker 2: out of you know, California, have come to them and said,
Speaker 2: if you regulate us now, we will never get to
Speaker 2: the kinds of levels of innovation that could potentially be
Speaker 2: experienced for the health of our country and for the
Speaker 2: world if you regulate us too early. And by and
Speaker 2: large that argument has been accepted on the Hill, and
Speaker 2: so they have been slow walking any regulation regarding these folks.
Speaker 2: And I'm just not sure how much of our lives
Speaker 2: are being put at risk for the corporate entities and
Speaker 2: the corporate bohemans to go out there and figure out
Speaker 2: the best way to advertise the next thing they want
Speaker 2: to sell to us.
Speaker 5: Well, seris how you feel about it because you asked
Speaker 5: the question.
Speaker 6: But I'm wondering if you ask the question because you
Speaker 6: feel like maybe it is hypocrisy, or but how do
Speaker 6: you feel about the TikTok ban in general?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what I think is that is complex.
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting to see both of you agreed
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump on a point around meta they do.
Speaker 1: Like when Instagram and Facebook, I was like, oh God,
Speaker 1: like there it was no antitrust law, no soup for them.
Speaker 1: They just were able to kind of merge. I think
Speaker 1: one of the things that's fascinating to me is Congress
Speaker 1: banned the ability for any congressional office, any federal office
Speaker 1: from using TikTok on a federal device in December of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, so they're just having the rest of
Speaker 1: the country catch up. I think the other thing that's
Speaker 1: worth noting is that there are content creators. So I'm
Speaker 1: about to be a hypocrite too, Like I was acknowledging
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy because I am too on this, But there
Speaker 1: are content creators who are raking in hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of dollars on TikTok that has become their bread and butter,
Speaker 1: And I'm like, oh, my god. They if we just
Speaker 1: eliminate that platform for them, what happens? And I think
Speaker 1: acou that's I don't think that their point is one
Speaker 1: that round economics, but their point is one around like,
Speaker 1: how are you choosing to regulate this platform for free
Speaker 1: speech purposes? I understand national security issues, I'm sure they
Speaker 1: do and have considered all of that, and yet and
Speaker 1: still they're like, this is going a bridge too far.
Speaker 1: So it looks like there's gonna be some type of
Speaker 1: aco U suit based on this if it passes the
Speaker 1: Senate and gets to Joe Biden's desk, it is going
Speaker 1: to be challenging.
Speaker 2: And Angela, if I could just add, I know we've
Speaker 2: talked on this a minute, but it's really important. There
Speaker 2: are countless multi national companies that are operating in the
Speaker 2: United States but are headquartered elsewhere in our paying taxes
Speaker 2: and s andcounting companies that were started in the United
Speaker 2: States and for taxation purposes and greed, they have lifted
Speaker 2: their corporate headquarters out of here and have settled in
Speaker 2: some other tax friendly, non existing country around. So where
Speaker 2: does if we start at this place? And I probably
Speaker 2: am more in the line of where the Aclu is here.
Speaker 2: Even though I don't have a TikTok, I don't use it,
Speaker 2: but my wife shows me videos and stuff, and so
Speaker 2: I laugh at stuff. So I guess I'm complicit. But
Speaker 2: if we start down this road, where does it go next?
Speaker 2: Which enemy of the state does Congress then decide is
Speaker 2: a national security risk? And therefore we're going to shut
Speaker 2: such and such down so that they can't collect data.
Speaker 2: That same information is being collected right here by domesticated companies,
Speaker 2: and they're selling that shit elsewhere anyway. They're selling it
Speaker 2: outside the United States, it's selling it globally. So in
Speaker 2: some ways this feels like a red herring that TikTok's
Speaker 2: been picked out, and I understand. And by the way
Speaker 2: you name the company that owns it, the truth is
Speaker 2: that it's likely owned by the government.
Speaker 3: That it's likely.
Speaker 5: That's been the question.
Speaker 6: That is a key question they have asked, does the
Speaker 6: government and in China it is not America.
Speaker 2: But they are not. Then they're not the only one.
Speaker 2: You can go you can go to to to where
Speaker 2: anywhere in the Middle East, in fact, the in the
Speaker 2: Middle East. You can't own a company if you are
Speaker 2: not if you are not a what's the uh Jordanian
Speaker 2: or a KUWAITI I've been to cutter cutter frosts. You
Speaker 2: can't own a company and cutter more than fifty percent
Speaker 2: of it if you are not a Qutarian. So there,
Speaker 2: we don't have that regulation here in the United States.
Speaker 2: So I'm just saying this is Atari.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's Kutran.
Speaker 2: No. I was thinking, no, no, no, no. I was thinking,
Speaker 2: how do you take your Katar if.
Speaker 5: You're from Qatartarian or.
Speaker 2: Because of the sentence structure. But you're right, it could
Speaker 2: be just an.
Speaker 3: We don't okay.
Speaker 6: A CLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. They are
Speaker 6: not a government entity, and they are the people who
Speaker 6: are bringing forth the suit. They bring forth a lot
Speaker 6: of suits on issues like this, so we'll have to
Speaker 6: keep our eyes.
Speaker 2: Member.
Speaker 5: Well there. They have some.
Speaker 6: Controversial takes too, so they're an interesting organization. I just
Speaker 6: wanted to be clear for everywers about that.
Speaker 3: Thank you know. That's good. Okay, we got to pay
Speaker 3: the bills.
Speaker 1: We'll be back right after this with an update on
Speaker 1: presidential politics. Well this is actually a former presidential politics update,
Speaker 1: but in Fulton County, Judge McAfee is thrown out six
Speaker 1: of the charges again Donald Trump and some of his
Speaker 1: co defendants, including two counts of solicitation in one count
Speaker 1: of false statements. In writings, this is in regard to
Speaker 1: a phone call where he says that the prosecution needs
Speaker 1: to get a lot more specific in their allegations and
Speaker 1: their charges that they are pursuing against Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: the eighteen code defendants. What do y'all got about that?
Speaker 5: I'm questions, I'm confused or what that means?
Speaker 10: What?
Speaker 6: So six charges were thrown out, that's what you're saying.
Speaker 6: What were those charges? And my biggest question, because I
Speaker 6: think this is the most important question, the recording of
Speaker 6: him saying find me eleven thousand votes? Do any of
Speaker 6: those charges render that recording mood?
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I don't think so.
Speaker 5: Then then to me, that's the most important thing.
Speaker 2: Honestly, Yeah, no, you hit at it. So the six
Speaker 2: charges as understand and that have been dropped by the judge.
Speaker 2: He very specifically states Georgia law which requires years that
Speaker 2: any charges that are bought in an indictment must be
Speaker 2: very specific and provide a certain level of background information
Speaker 2: facts evidence in the In the in the allegation, and
Speaker 2: in this case, he determined that six of at least
Speaker 2: six of them did not meet that standard. He also
Speaker 2: goes on to say, however, that the federal system, the
Speaker 2: federal court system, has a way for you to get
Speaker 2: that information without dropping charges. But unfortunately in this state.
Speaker 2: He knows this because he's a formal federal judge and
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor. But in this state of Georgia, and remember
Speaker 2: this is a Georgia, State of Georgia case, not a
Speaker 2: federal United States case. So the federal I mean, the
Speaker 2: Georgia constitution and Georgia law takes precedents here. And so
Speaker 2: he's saying, based off of what precedence is in Georgia
Speaker 2: regarding this issue, I've got to let these six charges go.
Speaker 2: And by the way, prosecution, you can refile these charges
Speaker 2: any now if you bring this additional evidence, that this
Speaker 2: additional information that then meets the standard of Georgia law.
Speaker 6: Ken Republican governor, also widely known voter suppressionists, can he
Speaker 6: pardon Donald Trump for any or all of these state charges?
Speaker 5: Is that even a possibility?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 5: Do you all think that he would?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 5: Because even though Trump has.
Speaker 6: Been, of course antagonistic to him because he's a child
Speaker 6: and throws to timber tantrums.
Speaker 5: Yet and still some people still, you know, drink drink
Speaker 5: his kool aid.
Speaker 2: So I got to measure this obviously obvious voter suppressionist
Speaker 2: and to his own end, he was a candidate on
Speaker 2: the on the ballot, and demand was trying to square
Speaker 2: it up so he had the best chance of winning possible.
Speaker 5: You know, long before that. He's been doing it a
Speaker 5: long time.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, for sure, but he's at his own
Speaker 2: He's had as Secretary of State and as a candidate
Speaker 2: for governor. He put all this stuff in place. My
Speaker 2: point is, though he also ran for reelection without endorsing
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, being critical of him, ascended into office because
Speaker 2: there was a constituency of Republicans in Georgia that would
Speaker 2: still elevate him to that post. What I am thankful for, however,
Speaker 2: is that because these are state charges, if Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: God help us all, were elected, you know, president of
Speaker 2: the United States, he couldn't direct his Department of Justice
Speaker 2: to then suddenly, you know, just drop charges because these
Speaker 2: charges are being bought at a state level according to
Speaker 2: its state laws and state Constitution, and the prisons that
Speaker 2: you would go to are not state prison are not
Speaker 2: federal prisons, they are state prisons, and those and those
Speaker 2: decisions can't be vacated by president simply because he happens
Speaker 2: to be at issue in those charges.
Speaker 1: But the one caveat I'd offer is he might not
Speaker 1: be able to do that sitting in the oval, but
Speaker 1: he could still escape a conviction and even being tried
Speaker 1: if when the Supreme Court hears the presidential immunity case
Speaker 1: in April and they make a decision in June or
Speaker 1: July that says he's immune from all these things relating
Speaker 1: to January sixth related. If the presidential immunity stands and
Speaker 1: it's becomes exhaustive and expansive.
Speaker 3: He may not ever have to face a state charge.
Speaker 2: So that's you're right, Angela.
Speaker 5: Andel, You've been on that that immunity case, that it
Speaker 5: scares me.
Speaker 3: It frightens me that especially.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you guys, the thing that really scared
Speaker 1: me was, and I can understand how they got there,
Speaker 1: but in the Colorado.
Speaker 3: Case, nine to zero.
Speaker 5: Decided to leave him.
Speaker 1: Nine to zero unanimous Supreme Court decision to ensure that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was able to stay on the ballot in
Speaker 1: the Republican primary in Colorado, doing it.
Speaker 3: To ensure that that he would make it in time
Speaker 3: on that particular ballot.
Speaker 1: The fact that they would say that he did not
Speaker 1: violate this particular clause in the Constitution around insurrection, that
Speaker 1: it would be a violation of the equal protection clause
Speaker 1: to remove him.
Speaker 3: Like these are the things where I'm like, Okay, if
Speaker 3: they're going to be.
Speaker 1: Strict, you know, strict upholders of the Constitution, how will
Speaker 1: they expand constitutional protections? And I think that we could
Speaker 1: be in a place, you know, I don't know if
Speaker 1: we would be nine zero because folks are there are
Speaker 1: some folks at least hopefully with Sonya Soto mayor Elena
Speaker 1: Kagan and with Katanji Brown Jackson, where they would realize
Speaker 1: the danger outweighs. What you would hope that this country,
Speaker 1: like we understand what the documents are supposed to mean,
Speaker 1: that they are supposed to be living and breathing. That
Speaker 1: does not mean that you should let this dude take
Speaker 1: us out and die like behind trying to protect the
Speaker 1: document that like some of these things, you just got
Speaker 1: to look beyond the plane four corners of the document,
Speaker 1: because if you looked at it just as it was,
Speaker 1: that didn't even apply to us. So we were not
Speaker 1: considered human beings in that document. So what am I
Speaker 1: really talking about? Evolved that thing based on who's in
Speaker 1: front of you and what's going on, and it did.
Speaker 3: All I got to say.
Speaker 2: She didn't concern me as much, and partly because I
Speaker 2: think I could see this working a completely different way
Speaker 2: with a different candidate, you know, under consideration.
Speaker 3: So I did get that.
Speaker 2: I take real, you know, issue with an individual state,
Speaker 2: Let's say, I don't know Alabama, Mississippi deciding whether or
Speaker 2: not Barack Obama could be on a ballot, right, And
Speaker 2: so when you have a federal election where the results
Speaker 2: should be determined by the whole of us, the collective
Speaker 2: of US got it gets back to the fundamental argument
Speaker 2: of the Articles of Confederation versus a United States Constitution.
Speaker 2: The Articles didn't last because an individual state could then
Speaker 2: trump the power of the federal settled on a federalist
Speaker 2: system because we didn't want individual states who were a
Speaker 2: part of the Union to be able to trump and
Speaker 2: bigfoot over the rest of US. Now, by the way,
Speaker 2: so many, by the way, it's happening in a presidential
Speaker 2: election where you have the little states being able to
Speaker 2: bigfoot over the majority of Americans. I'm just saying, I
Speaker 2: don't want to court standing ratestive yest. It's completely, completely,
Speaker 2: completely I think what makes this different, this, this particular
Speaker 2: case around immunity different is if the court, and they
Speaker 2: possibly can because they did it in Bush v. Gore.
Speaker 2: They basically said, we're making this decision, this is why
Speaker 2: we're making this decision. And by the way, and making
Speaker 2: this decision, this should never be used as precedents, which
Speaker 2: means never ever use our decision and this case as
Speaker 2: a foundation for making the same conclusion in another like case.
Speaker 2: They said it. The Supreme Court said, as in every
Speaker 2: other case, Angela, you can agree or you can at
Speaker 2: least confirm this. When the Supreme Court makes a decision,
Speaker 2: it becomes the law of the land, and it set
Speaker 2: precedents for like cases until the Supreme Court reverses itself
Speaker 2: in a future decision. And bushby Gored they said this
Speaker 2: should never be president's and never reversible. I only make
Speaker 2: that point to say this would be such a departure
Speaker 2: from the federal assistants say the president could basically assassinate
Speaker 2: his political opponent as president, kill his opponent as president
Speaker 2: and cannot be prosecuted. You have to draw it out
Speaker 2: to his logical conclusion. If you say he can if
Speaker 2: presidential immunity applies to anyone who is president and they
Speaker 2: cannot be prosecuted for the actions that they take while
Speaker 2: being president, take its to its furthest conclusion. Can he
Speaker 2: assassinate his opponent as president and never ever have to
Speaker 2: pay a consequence for that? The court goes that direction.
Speaker 2: They are saying that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but that is it sounds hyperbolic to people. But
Speaker 6: what you just said, Andrew, that is a legitimate question
Speaker 6: to ask you already even said he has said he
Speaker 6: could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue. Elected Angela, my question
Speaker 6: for you because you name check three Supreme Court justices
Speaker 6: with Kagan, Sodomayor, and Jackson. And the reason why Angela
Speaker 6: name checked those judges is because they are Democratic appointed
Speaker 6: members of Scotis. Scotus is the Supreme Court of the
Speaker 6: United States. So when you hear that term, that's what
Speaker 6: that means. Those are the three left leaning Democratic appointed
Speaker 6: Justice John Roberts also a justice who was Republican appointed
Speaker 6: has surprised us sometimes, so I'm asking you precisely. So
Speaker 6: I'm asking this the question for you, but also to
Speaker 6: make a point to our viewers. The right prioritizes justices.
Speaker 5: In a way the left does not.
Speaker 6: The reason being this is not a criticism of the left.
Speaker 6: We have so much on our plate. We're under attack
Speaker 6: on every possible front, so it's hard to do this.
Speaker 6: My question to you, Angela, as an attorney, given the
Speaker 6: makeup of this court and we've had some surprises, there
Speaker 6: is it possible. Well, I shouldn't even ask what is
Speaker 6: your prediction on the immunity case, because I know we
Speaker 6: should talk about this later. I know we'll have a
Speaker 6: bigger episode on it. But if on the top of
Speaker 6: your head today, if you could predict how this court
Speaker 6: might rule in this community.
Speaker 5: Case, what do you predict?
Speaker 3: Six? Three?
Speaker 5: So you think that it will go right down party lines?
Speaker 5: The three I do?
Speaker 1: Well, you know what, I'll say, maybe maybe, maybe five
Speaker 1: four to your point around John Roberts. And the only
Speaker 1: reason why is because he's not Trump appointed. I think
Speaker 1: all of the Trump appointees are out there, they're like
Speaker 1: diehard Trump supporters. They're gonna always side with him, and
Speaker 1: he got three appointments. Who am I missing Alito? And
Speaker 1: I think Alito, No, I'm not, I'm missing what's his name?
Speaker 5: There's Thomas Tondo.
Speaker 1: I'm missing. I'm missing I'm missing Tom. I'm missing Thomas.
Speaker 1: He's always gonna be with Trump because his wife basically,
Speaker 1: she don't have to.
Speaker 3: I don't know. She don't have to.
Speaker 1: He don't have to recuse himself because he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to because the same rules don't apply, which is a
Speaker 1: whole We should that should be a mine? Why should
Speaker 1: why should there be lifetime appointments?
Speaker 3: Like should there be?
Speaker 5: Okay, so will we talk about that today or no?
Speaker 5: You just saying in the future.
Speaker 3: I think we should ask the viewers what they think.
Speaker 3: But I do like the idea. Maybe not right now
Speaker 3: because we still got a whole budget to get into.
Speaker 1: But before we get into the budget, we had a
Speaker 1: question about this too, because we know this man, say
Speaker 1: he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue.
Speaker 3: We don't know how the judges are going to rule.
Speaker 3: Part of this is if you crazy, should you get
Speaker 3: your head check? What's the question to say? Let's hear it.
Speaker 7: My name is Bruno Compost from Los Angeles, California. My
Speaker 7: question is, why is it so much harder to get
Speaker 7: a job as a ups driver than it is to
Speaker 7: become president of the United States. I know that if
Speaker 7: I went to apply somewhere for a job, if I
Speaker 7: had ninety one indictments and I had a long list
Speaker 7: of trials coming up, I know for a fact I
Speaker 7: wouldn't be hired. So how does a man get to
Speaker 7: run this country with so many indictments, so many trials
Speaker 7: coming up, evidence that he's a racist in citing a riot.
Speaker 7: I just don't understand. Please help me. I love you, guys.
Speaker 1: I love you friend, Bruno, Bruno, you guys. Please let
Speaker 1: me get at this. Let me tell you sorry, go
Speaker 1: for it.
Speaker 5: People on the lease right me tell.
Speaker 1: You something I have been saying this. I used to
Speaker 1: get reprimanded on air for this. I think if attorneys
Speaker 1: have to do uh, we have to. We have to
Speaker 1: we have to abide by the rules of professional conduct.
Speaker 1: We have to pass a professional responsibility exam, the npr E.
Speaker 1: We have to ensure that we aren't nuts to be
Speaker 1: able to practice law. There are folks, you have to
Speaker 1: do some of some mental evaluations to do certain jobs
Speaker 1: in this country. I think some of it should apply
Speaker 1: even more to law enforcement. You have to do some
Speaker 1: of this to get a clearance, a security clearance. I
Speaker 1: had to do so much to get a security clearance.
Speaker 3: When I worked on the Homeland Security Committee. Are you
Speaker 3: kidding me? There are touching not just top secret. You
Speaker 3: guys are gonna laugh.
Speaker 1: But I didn't even want to get the SCI clearance
Speaker 1: that's the one that goes through the CIA for approval,
Speaker 1: because you know, I was raised by an activists.
Speaker 3: I was like, I'm good on this.
Speaker 5: I'm scared EI.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But it's the clearance you have to get to go
Speaker 1: through the security clearance through the CIA, CIA proof.
Speaker 3: It's the highest security clearance you can get as a
Speaker 3: staffer on the Hill.
Speaker 1: Okay, I wouldn't do that one. I only got my
Speaker 1: TS top secret clearance. Now Donald Trump is touching documents
Speaker 1: that are impacting lives, like international classified information. He don't
Speaker 1: have to get his hand check. Like, please tell me
Speaker 1: how you're justifying this. We are paying you with our
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars. We are we have to actually ensure your
Speaker 1: health care. You're covered by everything that we do in
Speaker 1: this land. But you don't have to get your head check.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't just be a physical it should be a
Speaker 1: mental health evaluation every single year. I actually think that
Speaker 1: it should apply to members of Congress too. Maybe we
Speaker 1: would have missed out on George Santos. It's as he
Speaker 1: ready to run again by the way he walked around
Speaker 1: the house for they're ready to change the rules. It
Speaker 1: was like, you know what what we said, we wanted
Speaker 1: to allow members to be able to roam these floors
Speaker 1: after they get removed. They were like, what is that,
Speaker 1: How does that really apply to somebody was expelled? Yo, Well, like,
Speaker 1: this is something that we have to address. Is crazy,
Speaker 1: It is crazy.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Well, first of all, thank you Angela for breaking down
Speaker 6: because so many people don't understand how this works, especially
Speaker 6: on Capitol Hill. That's why I such a privilege to
Speaker 6: have you break these things down since you worked there
Speaker 6: for so long. I just want to remind people. In
Speaker 6: twenty seventeen, I believe it was one day after dismissing
Speaker 6: James Comy, who was the head of the FBI at
Speaker 6: that point, Donald Trump was in the Oval office with
Speaker 6: two members of an adversarial government, two members of the
Speaker 6: Russian government. He was there with the Russian Foreign Minister
Speaker 6: Lavrov Sergey Lavrov and UH ambassador Sergey Kisliak. He had
Speaker 6: them in the Oval office. The conclusion that came out
Speaker 6: of that was that he actually revealed highly classified information
Speaker 6: to two members of a foreign government with whom we
Speaker 6: have a very adversarial relationship. I just talked about President
Speaker 6: Putin literally holding hands with President She on the world stage,
Speaker 6: and this man is up for re election with the
Speaker 6: support of at least seventy five million people.
Speaker 3: This is where you know.
Speaker 6: It is not about patriotism. It is not about political divides.
Speaker 6: There are people who could literally see this country turn
Speaker 6: to ashes before they saw someone who looked like us
Speaker 6: running it.
Speaker 5: That is what this is about. This is not patriotism.
Speaker 6: These are members of a cult who is willing to
Speaker 6: turn this country over to a man who is a
Speaker 6: proven trader.
Speaker 5: That should tell you where we are in this country.
Speaker 2: I'll just say, having gone through a process of having
Speaker 2: to fight back and beat back lies through an indictment
Speaker 2: as a regular average citizen who finds themselves on the
Speaker 2: other side of that system off of an accusation, having
Speaker 2: banks closed their doors on you, having credit cards canceled
Speaker 2: on you, having your your passport stripped from you, having
Speaker 2: DS a global entry, all the other stuff, all that's
Speaker 2: stripped away from you off of an accusation. So before
Speaker 2: you ever get to a guilty or innocence, someone's claim
Speaker 2: against you. And it just goes to show how the
Speaker 2: justice system is, which is supposed to be blind, and
Speaker 2: it's supposed to apply to all of us the same way.
Speaker 2: That that's a hoax, that if you're powerful enough, if
Speaker 2: you are connected enough, if you're Donald Trump, and and
Speaker 2: and and and that crew, the law doesn't work the
Speaker 2: same way for you. And in his case, with all
Speaker 2: of the delay delays that we're seeing in these four
Speaker 2: cases that are before him, this man may even be
Speaker 2: able to escape justice in some ways. He has it
Speaker 2: so many other points in his life, and we're only
Speaker 2: now seeing the reckoning, And unfortunately the reckoning only he
Speaker 2: seems to be happening in the civil cases, but in
Speaker 2: the criminal cases where I think this man is most liable,
Speaker 2: most responsible, and not because I'm just guessing at it,
Speaker 2: but because we all laid witness to many of the
Speaker 2: crimes that he committed out loud, we saw them with
Speaker 2: our own eyes. Yet there's a strong possibility that none
Speaker 2: of these cases is going to get tried prior to
Speaker 2: the election, and if you were to stand the opportunity
Speaker 2: to be re elected, he could summarily dismiss and suspend
Speaker 2: with two of the cases that have the greatest consequences
Speaker 2: attached to them. And so, you know, I take the question, Bruno,
Speaker 2: and I understand it. I'm simply saying that this is
Speaker 2: a reconfirmation that all men are equal, doesn't mean all
Speaker 2: men are equal.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Bruno for that question.
Speaker 3: While we love that question. We absolutely love that question.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, We're going to get to this break
Speaker 1: after that hot headed moment about getting some mental some
Speaker 1: folks with some sense in office.
Speaker 3: We'll be right back after this break.
Speaker 10: My name is Monte White, originally from Inkster, Michigan. What
Speaker 10: up though? Now from Maryland and not the following question.
Speaker 10: In the last twelve hours, we've seen Trump unofficially win
Speaker 10: the Republican nomination for president. We've seen Mitch McConnell's spinelessly
Speaker 10: throwa is support behind Trump despite the insults and barbs
Speaker 10: they thrown at each other. And we've seen Nicki Hayley
Speaker 10: suspend her campaign without supporting anybody but like this shall
Speaker 10: fall in line like the rest of the Republicans already
Speaker 10: have so solely, but surely, it seems like the Republican
Speaker 10: Party is slowly beginning to coalesce around Trump. Some influential
Speaker 10: Democrats have been leading and supporting symbolic demonstrations like voting
Speaker 10: uncommitted at the Democratic primaries to influence President Biden to
Speaker 10: act in the Palestine Israel crisis. So my question for
Speaker 10: you is, do you believe that Democrats as a whole
Speaker 10: will now begin to coalesce around the president, knowing that
Speaker 10: Trump is unofficially officially the Republican nominee or will these
Speaker 10: demonstrations continue, and if they do, is there a point
Speaker 10: where will be too late for Democrats to throw their
Speaker 10: support behind President Biden to any real meaningful effect.
Speaker 3: Nice, heay, welcome home, Antie. We appreciate your question.
Speaker 1: I love this, y'all because we honestly get a number
Speaker 1: of questions every week about it's lesser two evils, or
Speaker 1: you know, how are Biden and Trump different? And it
Speaker 1: feels almost like we're it's like Groundhog's Day, like we
Speaker 1: haven't are having to keep answering. I am not disparaging
Speaker 1: the question or I'm just saying that we are answering
Speaker 1: this a lot, and so because we're answering a lot,
Speaker 1: it must mean that people still need to understand the difference.
Speaker 1: That is something that we all understand. We sometimes can
Speaker 1: get wonkish. Tiffanyil regularly be like, what's that acronym mean?
Speaker 1: I just said something about a SCI clearance and she's like,
Speaker 1: what is that? I'm like, I don't know. It's a
Speaker 1: sensitive compartmentalized information.
Speaker 3: I had to look it up by it.
Speaker 1: But the point is like, we are regularly in this,
Speaker 1: but because this is the work that we do and
Speaker 1: have done for many, many years, we do get into
Speaker 1: spaces where we're like, oh, this is obvious or that's obvious,
Speaker 1: that it isn't necessarily so. So today what we're doing,
Speaker 1: hopefully Monty and answering your question as well as some
Speaker 1: of the others, is showing what some of those distinctions are.
Speaker 1: Now that we have well, I think we've been knowing
Speaker 1: who are nominees would be in the respective parties for
Speaker 1: the general. We know very clearly now as per the
Speaker 1: numbers that they are going to advance to the General
Speaker 1: so long as their party conventions say the same. We
Speaker 1: want to make sure that we're drawing a contrast and
Speaker 1: that it's really clear with Biden's release of Silanda's budget
Speaker 1: this past Tuesday, as well as being able to reflect
Speaker 1: on someone who was a president lost reelection is now
Speaker 1: so it's now eligible to run for another another four
Speaker 1: year term. What are the biggest distinctions. One of the
Speaker 1: things that I wanted to call attention to is Congressman
Speaker 1: Leeber used to say, who is my boss on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill and the chair of the CBC when I worked there.
Speaker 1: The Congressional Black Caucus still present in what districts Missouri
Speaker 1: for but sometimes you know, are redistricting those Yeah, those
Speaker 1: numbers can change Missouri. Yes, Kansas City and a Pathety
Speaker 1: mayor and a former Kansas City mayor, yeah, and a
Speaker 1: former HOOT official. Anyway, we have run through these people's
Speaker 1: whole resumes. But he says the measure of a person
Speaker 1: or a nation's heart can be divulged by examining the
Speaker 1: details of a budget they craft. And because he's a pastor,
Speaker 1: tip you know, he said based on Matthew six twenty one,
Speaker 1: So right, He's like, I got a biblical.
Speaker 3: Basis for this, but I think it's so true.
Speaker 1: Even Michael Lomax, who ran the UNCF, used to say
Speaker 1: that you it's not about the numbers in the budget, really,
Speaker 1: you can really determine where priorities lie. And speaking of lies,
Speaker 1: it's interesting that Donald Trump would utilize the budget and
Speaker 1: say that he's doing these grandiose things for black people,
Speaker 1: because what in the hell do we have to lose
Speaker 1: in these budget documents and be lying, he would just
Speaker 1: be te a whole story like I've done more for
Speaker 1: HBCUs than any president in history. It has been fact
Speaker 1: checked by PolitiFact over and over again.
Speaker 3: That is not a thing.
Speaker 1: But I think the truth of it is there are
Speaker 1: some places where some of these budgets kind of intersect.
Speaker 1: The whole purpose of this is every year the sitting
Speaker 1: president goes before Congress, they give the State of the
Speaker 1: Union address. In that State of the Union, they list
Speaker 1: their key priorities kind of like a road map like
Speaker 1: we do at the beginning of the show, of what
Speaker 1: they're going to do this year, what they're asking Congress
Speaker 1: to join them in meeting the needs of the American people.
Speaker 3: Here's what I want to do.
Speaker 1: Shortly thereafter, there's a budget proposal that is hundreds of
Speaker 1: pages that is broken up by department, you know, Department
Speaker 1: of Interior, Agriculture Justice HUD, which is Housing in Urban
Speaker 1: development over like, through and through, as well as some
Speaker 1: of the agencies like the Minority Business Development Agency, which
Speaker 1: they just decided should be the white Minority Business Development Agency.
Speaker 1: But that's the court case for another day. So you
Speaker 1: see all of these priorities that are presented with numbers
Speaker 1: attached to them, from PEIL grants to SNAP to affordable
Speaker 1: housing to a farmer debt relief, and you see what
Speaker 1: they're what presidents, what they would use as pay force?
Speaker 1: How are they going to pay for these initiatives for
Speaker 1: these projects? The pay force normally come from taxes, and
Speaker 1: we see in this administration how they plan to use
Speaker 1: taxing the rich to pay for some of the programs
Speaker 1: because a number of federal programs had to be cut
Speaker 1: under the Trump administration because of the number of tax
Speaker 1: cuts and credits that were given to the rich. So
Speaker 1: that said, I want to allow and move over it
Speaker 1: because I've been talking for five minutes. Sorry, y'all, I
Speaker 1: want to share this stage with my co hosts because
Speaker 1: I just kissed the mic because I think it's so
Speaker 1: important for you guys to talk about some of the priorities.
Speaker 1: You've seen some of the things where you're like, this
Speaker 1: is good, but I think we need to be, you know,
Speaker 1: prioritizing this in a different way. One of the things
Speaker 1: that frustrates me is the attention to the border and
Speaker 1: how much money they want to spend on the border.
Speaker 1: On a bipartisan level, this is an issue that goes
Speaker 1: far exceeds Donald Trump and Joe Biden's administrations. But I
Speaker 1: want you guys to talk about some of the things
Speaker 1: that you've seen in the budget documents and what you
Speaker 1: hope to see.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 6: Can I just hop in and I hate to be
Speaker 6: a wet blanket here, but I just want our viewers
Speaker 6: to understand how this process works, and one this budget,
Speaker 6: like most presidential budgets, has very little chance of becoming law.
Speaker 6: What this does instead, to Angela's point, is post State
Speaker 6: of the Union address. It's saying here's where my priorities lie.
Speaker 6: So I appreciate you landing that out for us.
Speaker 5: Angela. I have more questions than I do answers here.
Speaker 6: Before I kick it to you, Andrew, because I don't
Speaker 6: have a lot to say about the budget itself.
Speaker 5: I will tell you.
Speaker 6: When we were Angela and Andrew and I were talking
Speaker 6: about this before we started recording. One thing that I
Speaker 6: care because Angela said, I want you awt to you know,
Speaker 6: look at this budget and see you know what matters
Speaker 6: to you. And I read probably eight papers every day
Speaker 6: before the sun comes up. I don't watch a lot
Speaker 6: of cable news. I feel better for having I feel
Speaker 6: smarter for having read things. And what I have not
Speaker 6: read even when I google it is what is in
Speaker 6: this in President Biden's budget. When it comes to SNAP benefits,
Speaker 6: Snap is food assistance. It's a food assistance program. I
Speaker 6: it's not because it's not in there. It is because
Speaker 6: people have not written about it. What that says to
Speaker 6: me is the Beltway press is incestuous, and it is
Speaker 6: often talking to each other, for each other and about
Speaker 6: each other. That creates a disconnect with voters who are
Speaker 6: out there, who are not waking up looking at CNBC
Speaker 6: every day or reading the op ed pages of the
Speaker 6: Journal or Financial Times. They are figuring out how to struggle.
Speaker 6: And this is why, to Angelo's point, they do not
Speaker 6: feel connected with this budget. They don't always understand what
Speaker 6: the president has instituted in a budget that Congress has
Speaker 6: to vote on and pass, which rarely happens, and how
Speaker 6: it impacts their everyday life, the fact that no one
Speaker 6: has thought about, well, there are millions of people who
Speaker 6: receive snap benefits? How does this budget impact them so much?
Speaker 6: That it is not written about anywhere since the State
Speaker 6: of the Union. I found that quite telling. That's what
Speaker 6: I care about. I have members in my family who
Speaker 6: get SNAP benefits. When I was younger, I you know,
Speaker 6: we got snap benefits called welfare at the time. If
Speaker 6: you old enough like we are, you remember government cheese.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: Andrew's raising his hand and he got it too, so
Speaker 6: we all understand that. So that is the key thing
Speaker 6: that I care about. And unfortunately I did not find that,
Speaker 6: and I'm not as smart as Angela and Andrew to
Speaker 6: comb through hundreds of pages of it.
Speaker 5: Andrew, I want to hear your priorities.
Speaker 6: But my question to you is, and angel because you
Speaker 6: worked on Capitol Hill, and I told Angela I was
Speaker 6: going to ask this question earlier because these guys have
Speaker 6: more government experience than I do. The President's budget is
Speaker 6: one part of it. Then Congress has to vote on it,
Speaker 6: and then the money is issued to states. If you
Speaker 6: have a Republican governor, and I'm using Mississippi as an example,
Speaker 6: Governor Tate Reeves, who gets this big pot of money, Yeah,
Speaker 6: he gets to decide where it goes. So in a
Speaker 6: state like Mississippi where you have a city like Jackson, Mississippi,
Speaker 6: where they literally had no clean drinking water and it's
Speaker 6: still a very flimsy drinking water system in place, Now
Speaker 6: that's infrastructure money that Tate Reeves gets to say, I'm
Speaker 6: gonna put this money elsewhere and not in the blackest
Speaker 6: part of my state. Andrew, do I have that correct?
Speaker 6: And that's how it goes. And because you were a
Speaker 6: mayor running for governor, how does that money trickle to
Speaker 6: the governor? And then how does the governor trickle that
Speaker 6: money to you?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Your point as well, taking Tiffany, and the truth
Speaker 2: is is a lot of us get it confused, and
Speaker 2: for good reason because for us, look, we put money
Speaker 2: in through taxes and we hear about all the money
Speaker 2: being generated, but we get real lost in the process
Speaker 2: when that stuff so it's to come back down to us.
Speaker 2: And so it's important to know how, and it's really
Speaker 2: as a mayor. It was one of my biggest criticisms
Speaker 2: about the budgeting process. I brought it up numerous times
Speaker 2: and visits to the White House and talking to at
Speaker 2: that time Obama administration officials and so on. It's a big,
Speaker 2: big issue for a lot of us at the local
Speaker 2: level that we can have problems. That's in Jackson, Mississippi
Speaker 2: and our very own communities. But unfortunately, the way Washington,
Speaker 2: DC Congress sends down the money is they send the
Speaker 2: money down to the states that then be distributed by
Speaker 2: the states into local governments underneath their jurisdiction. Well, when
Speaker 2: those grants come to the states, they largely come as
Speaker 2: what we know as block grants, which is a category
Speaker 2: of money safe for housing and it's intended to impact
Speaker 2: housing for your entire state. But what happens is when
Speaker 2: it gets to the state level, the state then decides,
Speaker 2: based off of its priorities, where exactly then they want
Speaker 2: this money to go at what levels and so on
Speaker 2: and so forth. As it also include there's also, by
Speaker 2: the way, something called categorical grants. These are really the
Speaker 2: two forms of granting that local governments and states kind
Speaker 2: of deal with. Categorical is a very specific, detailed place
Speaker 2: that you would like money to go within this category.
Speaker 2: The government doesn't send enough of those down. They largely
Speaker 2: like to deal with block because it's a big sum
Speaker 2: of money that can then labor later to be decided
Speaker 2: on its distribution at the local level. Well, in a
Speaker 2: state like mine, where you got a governor, Republican governor
Speaker 2: who loves to take punitive measures against what we call
Speaker 2: blue cities inside of red states and those are more
Speaker 2: democratically voting cities that likely didn't vote for him, is
Speaker 2: he likes to penalize withhold redirect resources to more friendly
Speaker 2: and more conservative parts of the state. And I'm willing
Speaker 2: to bet that that attitude is true and more states
Speaker 2: with more governors than we'll ever hear admitted by those
Speaker 2: by those respective governors.
Speaker 6: To make a quick question here, Andrew, yeah, yeah, because
Speaker 6: I'm just making this connection that because the blue states
Speaker 6: pay more into the system, but red states benefit more,
Speaker 6: do I have.
Speaker 2: Any And then once you become once you get into
Speaker 2: the red state, then the red cities or the red
Speaker 2: counties tend to end up absorbing more of their share
Speaker 2: of the pot than what they contribute into the pot.
Speaker 5: And who lives in those blue spots.
Speaker 2: You know who, you know who who you know who's where.
Speaker 2: That's for damn sure. And then the one very clear
Speaker 2: example I'd like to give for folks, because many of
Speaker 2: us no benefited no about Obamacare or the Affordable Healthcare Act, Well,
Speaker 2: there was also the expansion of Medicaid and Medicaid that
Speaker 2: was included as part of how it was that the
Speaker 2: president was one to get health care into the hands
Speaker 2: of the people who need it the most. This is
Speaker 2: a huge issue for most Americans who are coming out
Speaker 2: of pocket, you know, with money that they don't have
Speaker 2: just to ensure to their livelihood. Well, if you're in
Speaker 2: a state like mine, Florida, guess who didn't expand medicaid
Speaker 2: in the state. It was the state of Florida and
Speaker 2: many other red states. And so there's a Federal Health
Speaker 2: Care Act where the federal government says, we're going to
Speaker 2: pay for one hundred percent of the cost of expansion
Speaker 2: of this program, and then after a number of years,
Speaker 2: we'll pay ninety percent and you state of filling the
Speaker 2: blank state of Florida, you'll pay ten percent. So we
Speaker 2: had money that was free money coming to us from
Speaker 2: the federal government that never got into the hands of
Speaker 2: the people that it was intended because the governors decided
Speaker 2: that they would not extend, expand those programs to include
Speaker 2: those people. That's very clear example of federal money coming
Speaker 2: down to a state to of a specific purpose and
Speaker 2: a governor and a government deciding that money ain't getting there,
Speaker 2: not at all. In fact, we won't even take it.
Speaker 2: You hold on to it and go give it to
Speaker 2: I don't know anybody else but us. I.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I really appreciate that breakdown. I think it's so important. Andrew,
Speaker 1: like we talk about all the time, we all have
Speaker 1: approached our political careers in different facets, and state and
Speaker 1: local is something that I don't know well at all,
Speaker 1: Like it is a complete blind spot. So I deeply
Speaker 1: appreciate that. And even around snap TIF, I was like,
Speaker 1: how is there nothing in here? I was going back
Speaker 1: through all the articles and that was like, there's nothing
Speaker 1: on snap We went back through, there's one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty eight pages for this year's budget or for twenty five.
Speaker 1: Me and Lolo our researcher. Shout out to Lolo and
Speaker 1: Nick who's always keeping us sometimes. I was I was like, well,
Speaker 1: I just five me anyway, But Lolo is saying she
Speaker 1: couldn't find anything. And what they did in this budget
Speaker 1: is they say, if you want to see a change
Speaker 1: in SNAP, you got to pass you got to reauthorize
Speaker 1: the Farm Bill. And so there's that Pece. I don't
Speaker 1: know why they didn't break that out in this budget.
Speaker 1: And that's a great question we can ask the administration.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'd be happy to answer.
Speaker 5: Well for not even posing that, you know, but well,
Speaker 5: here we are, here, we are, we have.
Speaker 2: We want to know what your proposers as well, because
Speaker 2: you count what counts.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's their very true.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, we're asking the question. We just want to
Speaker 1: know what is the increase for SNAP benefits. We know
Speaker 1: it is going to be much different than what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump did, which was please pull that number. I think
Speaker 1: it was an eighty five million dollar cut in SNAP. Lolo,
Speaker 1: please fact check. Did I say cut?
Speaker 5: No, no, no, no, no, Angela, you said it just
Speaker 5: a million.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure eighty five million dollars
Speaker 1: and cuts to SNAP, Lolo, if you can fact check
Speaker 1: me on that.
Speaker 3: But I wanted to say to do a tiffany really quick.
Speaker 1: I'm calling this doing a Tiffany, SNAP is the supplemental
Speaker 1: Nutrition Assistance program, So I want to make sure we're
Speaker 1: clear on that.
Speaker 3: Tiff said, food stamps, that's a very similar thing. It
Speaker 3: is support.
Speaker 1: So based on what Lolo found, Donald Trump's cuts to
Speaker 1: SNAP benefits again food stamps was slashing that by fifteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars, along with reductions in federal crop insurance subsidies.
Speaker 1: But for some reason, farmers has thought that he was
Speaker 1: on their side.
Speaker 3: He is not. Nationwide, Andrew, go ahead with the video,
Speaker 3: I know you were going to.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, can I get fact check something really quickly?
Speaker 6: This is according because I like to site facts and
Speaker 6: sources so people know it's not us saying this. This
Speaker 6: is according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Speaker 6: Donald Trump's twenty twenty one budget proposes to cut the
Speaker 6: SNAP benefits by more than one hundred and eighty billion
Speaker 6: dollars nearly thirty percent over the next ten years by
Speaker 6: radically restructuring how benefits are delivered, taking SNAP away from
Speaker 6: millions of adults who are not working more than twenty
Speaker 6: hours per week. During the Trump administration, they considerably reduced this.
Speaker 6: Not only they reduced it, they started applying more restrictions
Speaker 6: on who could get SNAP benefits, which made it like
Speaker 6: almost impossible for people. And I'll just say to somebody
Speaker 6: in my family who gets SNAP benefits, it's not enough.
Speaker 6: I have to supplement that food income every single month.
Speaker 6: They expect you to live off two hundred dollars a
Speaker 6: month sometimes, and you have to consider it's not just food.
Speaker 6: It is deodorant, it is toothpaste, it's toilet paper, paper,
Speaker 6: basic needs for life.
Speaker 5: This is what snapcover.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Andrew, I'll just say, Angela, you were going in
Speaker 2: the direction with your comments that that farmers thought that
Speaker 2: Republicans loved them and that the president would love them.
Speaker 2: But you saw the cut that was proposed that in
Speaker 2: that department's budget. And I'll tell you, the farmers are
Speaker 2: still getting their subsidies, in fact, are getting enhanced subsidies.
Speaker 2: What was what cover was from that budget. The cut
Speaker 2: that we see represented from the Trump administration and Agriculture
Speaker 2: has to do with the fact that SNAP benefits, food
Speaker 2: subsidy programs, after school fool lunches, during school lunches, weekend
Speaker 2: feeding programs, all of that is caught up in the
Speaker 2: budget for agriculture. Agriculture isn't sitting inside housing in urban development.
Speaker 2: Those food subsidy programs and benefits are within that department's budget.
Speaker 2: And so when we see cuts to them and you think, oh, well,
Speaker 2: they're trying, you know, I thought he was on the
Speaker 2: side of the big farmers, and of this he is.
Speaker 2: Those subsidies for those farmers are still there. What is
Speaker 2: gone is the subsidies for working people, poor families who
Speaker 2: depend on those services in order to eat, in order
Speaker 2: to live. When we when we What is great about
Speaker 2: this video, and I'm so glad that we're getting to
Speaker 2: talk a bit about the budget, is that for those
Speaker 2: who are deluded into believing that this that that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump in any way offers something to our states, to
Speaker 2: our communities, to our households, to us as individuals in
Speaker 2: line with being greater than what you have received under
Speaker 2: Democrat administrations, and I'll be more specific under Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: just look at the Just look at where they are
Speaker 2: proposing to take away in order to give. And what
Speaker 2: you will notice in Trump's budget is that all the
Speaker 2: give was to the wealthiest one percent, and it was
Speaker 2: paid for because the federal government didn't have the money
Speaker 2: to do it. In future years. It is paid for
Speaker 2: by taking away from affordable housing, from food subsidy programs,
Speaker 2: from child assistance programs, from the child tax credit, from
Speaker 2: the earned income tax credit, all those things get slashed,
Speaker 2: while he then puts money into the bank accounts of
Speaker 2: the wealthiest one percent, the people who needed the least.
Speaker 2: And so I love if we get an opportunity, either
Speaker 2: in poster or now, to just play that so that
Speaker 2: viewers who are seeing this get to see it.
Speaker 3: We need to play it because there's some parts of
Speaker 3: this that you need to read.
Speaker 1: One other flag for you, all regarding snap is during
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, they also proposeed the elimination of food
Speaker 1: stamps for seven hundred thousand people. And fortunately that's where
Speaker 1: the judicial system was on our side and they prevented
Speaker 1: the Donald Trump administration for implementing that rule. So Andrew,
Speaker 1: at this point, you want to go ahead show people
Speaker 1: how the budget works. And then I do still have
Speaker 1: one thing I want to get to on HBCUs.
Speaker 2: Indeed, I'll read them as quickly as bussibly.
Speaker 5: This is all according to now this the outlet.
Speaker 2: Fifteen point six billion he proposes for customs in butter
Speaker 2: protection an increase of seven percent, by the way, two
Speaker 2: billion for the wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.
Speaker 2: Y'all remember that nine point nine billion for immigration and
Speaker 2: Customs enforcement, an increase of twenty three percent over their
Speaker 2: previous budget. What one trillion for infrastructure spending up virten years,
Speaker 2: including two hundred billion but nationally significant projects. And the
Speaker 2: cuts to pay for that budget were four hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty five billion dollars for medicare providers, seven hundred billion
Speaker 2: in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade, workforce requirements,
Speaker 2: food stamps, housing assistants came with new requirements, seventy billion
Speaker 2: in cuts to federal disability insurance, one hundred and seventy
Speaker 2: billion dollars cutting student loan forgiveness. The budget calls for
Speaker 2: extending Trump's tax cuts, you know, the ones to the
Speaker 2: top one percent till twenty twenty three, at the cost
Speaker 2: of one point four trillion dollars. He proposed to pay
Speaker 2: for that trillion plus with a negative nine percent negative
Speaker 2: nine percent down in that from for the Department of Agriculture,
Speaker 2: negative eight percent down. So it moved quickly because there's
Speaker 2: a lot of information that when you're dealing with the budgets,
Speaker 2: the size of the United States, right. But the beauty
Speaker 2: is is for folks who want to say Donald Trump
Speaker 2: gave us this, and I got more money, and I
Speaker 2: got a check in the mail, and I got a
Speaker 2: this that had his name on it. The real, the truth,
Speaker 2: the what really went down is what is being reflected here,
Speaker 2: which is that all those things that you think he
Speaker 2: did for us, in fact, he was taking away right
Speaker 2: before our eyes. The man is a trickster, that's all
Speaker 2: I'm saying.
Speaker 6: Well, and the point that he made that you that
Speaker 6: we're going really fast, so wludos to you, Andrew. But
Speaker 6: he cut the CDC budget by No. Nine percent in
Speaker 6: February of twenty twenty.
Speaker 5: We know what happened. In March of twenty twenty, there
Speaker 5: was a global pandemic.
Speaker 2: Angela.
Speaker 6: I'm curious about your because I know this is something
Speaker 6: that was really important to you about saying that the
Speaker 6: budget reflects priorities.
Speaker 5: One thing when you were explaining to me.
Speaker 6: Earlier is that you worked on Capitol Hill for a
Speaker 6: number of years executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Speaker 6: and you were explaining to me that staffers would be
Speaker 6: given the responsibility of looking at the budget, taking a
Speaker 6: section and looking at it and explaining.
Speaker 5: To the member. So I'm keenly curious to hear how
Speaker 5: you feel about this budget.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so yes.
Speaker 1: I worked on the Homeland Security Committee, and every committee
Speaker 1: staff goes and takes their the Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: for example, for US, and we combed through it to
Speaker 1: see if it's in alignment with our chair or the
Speaker 1: ranking member, if you're not in the majority of the committee.
Speaker 1: And I think for me, the frustration I have is
Speaker 1: the heightened priority to securing the border when there are
Speaker 1: so many deep needs in the community.
Speaker 3: TIF and Andrew y'all went in deep.
Speaker 1: About snap, I mean alone the other priorities for kids
Speaker 1: in K through twelve HBCUs, which is a place I
Speaker 1: think that there's a highlight we can actually talk about
Speaker 1: in a clear distinction we can draw. You know, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has been has been known to say that he
Speaker 1: saved HBCUs when President Obama wouldn't give them long term funding,
Speaker 1: which is preposterous. And one of the things I do
Speaker 1: want to do is just take a moment to highlight
Speaker 1: just a couple of points in this year's budget from
Speaker 1: the Biden Administration for institutional capacity alone, not just for
Speaker 1: HBCUs but also other minority serving institutions. There is a
Speaker 1: proposal of three hundred and twenty nine million more than
Speaker 1: where levels currently are for institutional that's for institutional capacity
Speaker 1: of those schools. Additionally, for R and D that's research
Speaker 1: and development, they proposed another one hundred million, and for
Speaker 1: STEM education at these schools one point four billion dollars.
Speaker 1: The one thing that I think is a highlight, because
Speaker 1: we have been talking about people in our communities in need,
Speaker 1: they are offering or proposing. I have to make sure
Speaker 1: I say that because even with Trump's budget is a proposal.
Speaker 1: Those things aren't automatically appropriated, which is another important word.
Speaker 3: This is authorization.
Speaker 1: There's authorization language, there are bills that propose these priorities,
Speaker 1: and then there are bills that fund these priorities. So
Speaker 1: it's not appropriated yet. But they offer two years propose
Speaker 1: I keep saying, offer two years of subsidized tuition at
Speaker 1: HBCUs for families earning one hundred and twenty five thousand
Speaker 1: dollars or less. That is fantastic, and I think it's
Speaker 1: great for them because they've been very consistent in providing
Speaker 1: student relief for tuition related payments. We've seen it with
Speaker 1: student loan debt relief and now here with subsidized tuition.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's pail grants, there's a proposed increase in
Speaker 1: pal and that kind of thing. But yeah, I wanted
Speaker 1: to get into this because I think we often talk
Speaker 1: about policy as.
Speaker 3: Like this big, like this high floaty concept.
Speaker 1: But there's a clear way to determine if people are
Speaker 1: supporting priorities that you're aligned with or not, and that
Speaker 1: is looking at what they've proposed in the budget, going
Speaker 1: beyond what they stayed in the State of the Union,
Speaker 1: seeing what each of their cabinet secretaries and those departments
Speaker 1: they oversee have pushed forward as their proposal recommendations, and
Speaker 1: how that's different from the administrations that preceded them, and
Speaker 1: even how it's different from their prior year budget.
Speaker 2: I just got to say where we're talking tuitions. The
Speaker 2: Biden budget also proposes a new program to ensure affordable care,
Speaker 2: affordable childcare, and I y'all know how I am about
Speaker 2: child Carey.
Speaker 5: Yes, sixty dads.
Speaker 2: And to all dads and moms who are struggling with
Speaker 2: what it means. I mean, you almost feel like you
Speaker 2: hit the lottery when your kids are out of childcare
Speaker 2: because they naturally going to a public system where you're
Speaker 2: not paying is well, it'll catch in the summer, but
Speaker 2: you're not paying that monthly expense that that that you're
Speaker 2: so used to. So let me just finish that point,
Speaker 2: which is a program to us. You're investing four hundred
Speaker 2: billion dollars over the next ten years to cap the
Speaker 2: costs for families and expand childcare subsidies and tax credits
Speaker 2: for those businesses. And the reason why, like I said,
Speaker 2: during the pandemic, they increased that amount threefold. They went
Speaker 2: from three hundred dollars with nobody takes a child and
Speaker 2: care for them for a month outside of their parents
Speaker 2: care for three hundred dollars a month. Nobody's doing that, okay,
Speaker 2: So they to take that up to nine hundred dollars,
Speaker 2: so that for each child, the benefit, the tax benefit
Speaker 2: that came to us what was it, I think four
Speaker 2: times a year. They ended up factoring it into sort
Speaker 2: of waiting for you to file your taxes and get
Speaker 2: that in one fell swoop. Every four months you were
Speaker 2: getting to check from the federal government for your as
Speaker 2: a part of the child tax Credit, so that you
Speaker 2: didn't have to wait till the end to the beginning
Speaker 2: of the next year to then reap the benefit of it.
Speaker 2: That you got to reap the benefit of it every
Speaker 2: four months because we're paying these expenses every single day. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and that we're being then reimbursed come the end of
Speaker 2: the you know, come the next year. I can't underscore
Speaker 2: enough what it means for families and families with children.
Speaker 2: How prioritizing families but after they are born, by the way,
Speaker 2: is such a critical value to this administration. And it
Speaker 2: shows up here, It shows up in their healthcare proposals,
Speaker 2: it shows up in the school assistance, and in many
Speaker 2: of the other programs. This is our money getting returned
Speaker 2: to us. It's not a gift, unlike what it is
Speaker 2: for the for the corporate community who is experiencing the
Speaker 2: tremendous tax breaks under the Trump administration, that isn't money
Speaker 2: that they've earned. That's our money being then distributed to them.
Speaker 3: As a case and Andrew on that point.
Speaker 1: Prior to Donald Trump being in office, corporations were taxed
Speaker 1: that a rate of thirty five percent. Under Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: they dropped down to twenty one percent, and Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is still not raising them to the levels pre Trump.
Speaker 1: He's raising them by seven percent to twenty eight percent
Speaker 1: in this proposed budget. I do want to run this
Speaker 1: quick clip. I'm speaking of corporations being taxed because Biden
Speaker 1: is planning to pay for most of this by increasing
Speaker 1: the taxes of the rich.
Speaker 9: You know, there are one thousand billionaires in America. You
Speaker 9: know what the average federal taxes for those billionaires. No,
Speaker 9: they're making great sacrifices eight point two percent. That's far
Speaker 9: less than the vast majority of Americans pay. No, billionaires
Speaker 9: should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher,
Speaker 9: or sanitation worker or a nurse. I propose a minimum
Speaker 9: tax for billionaires of twenty five percent, just twenty five percent.
Speaker 2: What it's forty percent effectively for.
Speaker 3: The rest of us.
Speaker 1: But about that, and they still have it anyway, that's
Speaker 1: the story for anotherday. But they still have it hired
Speaker 1: for us. This has been an illuminating conversation. I didn't
Speaker 1: I didn't even know we were going to do such
Speaker 1: a deep dive on Snap, But based on the questions
Speaker 1: that we get every week from our listeners, where we
Speaker 1: find relief is something that's abundantly important to us all,
Speaker 1: not just in our community, but especially in our community.
Speaker 1: We know that when America catches the cold, we might
Speaker 1: have COVID. We used to say pneumonia, might be COVID,
Speaker 1: orry punks something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, all of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, right after this break, we'll get into one
Speaker 1: more listener question, and of course we have a Maryland
Speaker 1: Mo's we update.
Speaker 8: Hey, David Lampard, this is Tony from Dallas.
Speaker 4: Question for you.
Speaker 8: The Biden Harris administration recently released a new campaign video Sensor,
Speaker 8: around the story of a white female doctor in Texas
Speaker 8: who left the state due to the abortion whites fan Now,
Speaker 8: my question to you is, why do you think the
Speaker 8: same amount of attention is not being focused on black
Speaker 8: and brown disaffective voters as it pertains to voting rights
Speaker 8: and affirmative action restoration. Similar stories could be told, such
Speaker 8: as the current legal battle that's happening with Aaron Simones,
Speaker 8: the Fearless Fun, and the weaponization of the civil rights
Speaker 8: at nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 6: That's perfect for you, Angela, because you just you were
Speaker 6: just with the Fearless Fun this week, I think, but
Speaker 6: i'd been here, I says frustrations about this all the time,
Speaker 6: so I'd love for you to jump on that.
Speaker 1: I yeah, I think we all talk about this both
Speaker 1: on and we always joke now y'all that we anytime
Speaker 1: we're in conversation, we're like having a podcast. We were
Speaker 1: doing it at south By, Like we're standing in the
Speaker 1: lobby talking and folks, it's so MANI podcasts. I think
Speaker 1: for me, I definitely share the frustration. It feels like
Speaker 1: there's not a real sense of urgency around on the
Speaker 1: equity pieces, around an agenda that ensures our survival and
Speaker 1: liberation in this country. I do think it's very dangerous
Speaker 1: for us to start finding ways to separate ourselves from others.
Speaker 1: There are black women who are more impacted by an
Speaker 1: abortion ban and reproductive justice issues, and folks who are
Speaker 1: less fortunate, lower income than white women. And I think
Speaker 1: if there's a way for us to bring people in
Speaker 1: by focusing on those issues, we've got to do that.
Speaker 1: But we can also walk in chew gum at the
Speaker 1: same damn time. We better figure out how to Arian
Speaker 1: Simone who shout out to I'm an honorary rattler. I've
Speaker 1: told you all that.
Speaker 3: But arian Simone is killing it.
Speaker 1: I was on a panel with her yesterday, a round
Speaker 1: table discussion that Congressman Maxine Waters held on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3: I'm getting into it.
Speaker 5: Oh sorry, my bad.
Speaker 1: I was on a round table discussion yesterday that Congressman
Speaker 1: Maxine Waters held on Capitol Hill talking about the attacks
Speaker 1: on DEI at the hands of MAGA Republicans, and Arianne Simone,
Speaker 1: who is the co founder of the Fearless Fund, sat
Speaker 1: to my right and tore it down. She talked about
Speaker 1: the lack of access to venture capital. She talked about
Speaker 1: the ways in which black women are the highest growing
Speaker 1: rate of entrepreneurs in this country, but the lowest funded.
Speaker 1: She talked about the fact that many of us are
Speaker 1: not in position to fund these companies. They have created
Speaker 1: such a big din in this through the Fearless Fund,
Speaker 1: and who came after them, Ed Bloom And if it's
Speaker 1: not Ed Bloom's America First legal right, Well, we have
Speaker 1: to be very aware of those attacks and we cannot
Speaker 1: play footsye with them. Another sister on the panel, God
Speaker 1: forgive me for not remembering her name. She's a brilliant
Speaker 1: attorney at the Lawyer's Committee. She said something and I'll
Speaker 1: never forget it. I even tweeted it yesterday. She said
Speaker 1: we should not do the opponent's work for them, and
Speaker 1: what that means even in campaigning, what that means in
Speaker 1: a state of the union. Address what that means when
Speaker 1: Kamala is sitting with governors from all over the country
Speaker 1: and they are doing what she says needed to be done,
Speaker 1: we need to be telling them take it a step
Speaker 1: further on equity, be boulder in your anti racist policies,
Speaker 1: ensure that we're represented in an affirmative action.
Speaker 3: Make them. Sue you.
Speaker 1: I got a program for professional professional development program with
Speaker 1: one hundred students from all over this country.
Speaker 3: They are black, Sue me. I wish you would bring it.
Speaker 3: That's the point.
Speaker 1: So we need a campaign that says that against democracy
Speaker 1: and all the attacks that we're facing on voting rights,
Speaker 1: and all the attacks that we're facing on reproductive justice,
Speaker 1: and all the attacks that we're facing on livable wage,
Speaker 1: on a federal job guarantee, everything across the board. We
Speaker 1: need to stand shoulder to shoulder, unashamed and clear, flat footed,
Speaker 1: ten toes down on business and say here we are
Speaker 1: deal with it.
Speaker 3: If you don't like it. Sue us. But it is
Speaker 3: going to be liberty and justice for all if I
Speaker 3: got something to do with it. So I rack with
Speaker 3: this brother's question.
Speaker 6: I love that, and I love that you were on
Speaker 6: the hearing yesterday or the roundtable. The round table and
Speaker 6: that was your mentor, Congressman Maxine Waters. I love that
Speaker 6: you were participating in that, and forgive me areas and over,
Speaker 6: I literally have only called her a fearless fund So
Speaker 6: I'm happy that you actually said she's fearless.
Speaker 5: Yeah, clearly, So shout out to you for doing your work.
Speaker 2: Sorry, she's fearless, she's a rat leer, and she's a delta.
Speaker 2: I did want to mention that Angela one beautifully beautifully
Speaker 2: stated too. I want to nominate Maxine Waters to be
Speaker 2: heading up the campaign's outreach funds to outreach efforts to
Speaker 2: include as the brother evoked in his question around reproductive rights, Angela,
Speaker 2: your point is well taken. We don't have to choose
Speaker 2: between all the problem with this is that our fights
Speaker 2: are so manifold. We got to have battlefront. We got
Speaker 2: battlefront set up on every part of this landscape. And
Speaker 2: what the other side wants us to do is negotiate
Speaker 2: our way out of what we all know we deserve
Speaker 2: by pitting our issues against each other. And I believe
Speaker 2: the attorney was getting at, don't do the pont has
Speaker 2: worked for them is oftentimes and all of us have
Speaker 2: been in these conversations where we're in rooms with people
Speaker 2: of like mine and we're finding each other negotiating against
Speaker 2: ourselves to get what we believe it is going to
Speaker 2: be acceptable. The other side is just putting out what
Speaker 2: they want where they want to go, and they're like,
Speaker 2: I did you just like ange what I'm saying so
Speaker 2: beautiful point.
Speaker 3: I don't want to say what I want to say beautiful.
Speaker 2: Beautiful point and a and and better than a point.
Speaker 2: It's a way of being, y'all. It's a way of it.
Speaker 1: It is embody, that embody, that boldness. Tiff they number
Speaker 1: five three on a strong good day and tough and.
Speaker 3: Look she looked at the pictures.
Speaker 1: They were like they were like, I didn't know Tiffany
Speaker 1: was so shortific Like I didn't know I was either.
Speaker 5: Well people sometimes people say, wow, Angela is tall, like you.
Speaker 1: Were like five uh these five inch platforms she had
Speaker 1: online and the people, Maybe that's what we need to
Speaker 1: tell them.
Speaker 3: Do we need to tell them to put their platforms on?
Speaker 3: Do we need to tell them to put their platforms
Speaker 3: on in March for this agenda?
Speaker 2: But you know, deeper on the insight is deeper than
Speaker 2: any of us know. This is all part of the
Speaker 2: vestiges yesday slavery. It's part of the vestiges of a
Speaker 2: system that isn't designed and built for us, because you're
Speaker 2: oftentimes often questioning yourself about what's possible, Should we pursue that,
Speaker 2: should we go with what's you know, more acceptable? Am
Speaker 2: I in the right place? Am I qualified to be
Speaker 2: in the right you know?
Speaker 3: So the legacy is normally like, oh, you can't ask
Speaker 3: for that. It's not It's not them, it's.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 2: It needs to be a believer. The belief is built
Speaker 2: out of a lived experience that has taught you time
Speaker 2: and time again about what you just do.
Speaker 6: Yeah, can can I just say why Arion Simon's work
Speaker 6: is so important? And this is old data now, But
Speaker 6: in twenty sixteen, the Center for Global Policy Solutions said
Speaker 6: discrimination and bias in favor of funders funding companies run
Speaker 6: by white men cause the United States to lose out
Speaker 6: on over one point one million minority owned businesses and
Speaker 6: forfeit more than nine million potential job opportunities.
Speaker 5: So when you hurt us, you hurt yourself.
Speaker 3: Hurting yourself, don't hurt yourself like yance.
Speaker 1: Listen here, Okay, Well on that taking making those women's lemonade,
Speaker 1: because that is only the thing that Haryan Simone could do.
Speaker 1: This Women's History Month that I've reclaimed as Black Women's
Speaker 1: History Month, we are going to talk about another Black
Speaker 1: women's history maker. Just briefly, as we segue into calls
Speaker 1: to action, I just want to acknowledge again our dear
Speaker 1: sister Marilyn Moseby. You all know that she's been raped
Speaker 1: across the coals in these two criminal trials, both of
Speaker 1: which she should have never even had to sit for.
Speaker 1: You all have responded boldly, and it really I mean
Speaker 1: I was kind of caught on my heels because I
Speaker 1: was like, well, we would go rev up to the
Speaker 1: call to action, But y'all are like, now I got
Speaker 1: a call action for y'all.
Speaker 3: What we're doing next?
Speaker 1: We write it down as our friend Jamail will readily
Speaker 1: respond with anytime there is a call to action.
Speaker 3: And I think there are two things for you all
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 1: And the immediate one is Maryland has a GoFundMe that
Speaker 1: folks have set up for her, just helped to pay
Speaker 1: some of the monthly bills. You all know that she's
Speaker 1: got two young daughters. We are not the recipients of
Speaker 1: that fund. We are not holding that fun. There are
Speaker 1: people out here in this country who do that regularly.
Speaker 1: You won't ever catch us doing that, no shade, but
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit. And then I would also say
Speaker 1: that we where's my Oh. The other thing is there
Speaker 1: will soon be a petition made available. But until that
Speaker 1: petition is up, there will be a rally on March
Speaker 1: twenty third in Baltimore, and we'll make sure to get
Speaker 1: those details up and available for you all in the
Speaker 1: credits for this show as well as on our Native
Speaker 1: lamp Pod page, which we hope you are following on
Speaker 1: social at Native lamppod.
Speaker 3: And with that, I wanted to refer to my co
Speaker 3: hosts for their calls to action.
Speaker 5: Andrew, you go, I'll go last.
Speaker 2: You know I'm co signing every day on the Maryland
Speaker 2: most reactions.
Speaker 6: Okay, yes, yeah, Well, thank you for that, Andrew, and
Speaker 6: for always sharing your testimony. When we talked talked through
Speaker 6: this reminding people because, like I say, not too many
Speaker 6: people square up against the federal government and live to
Speaker 6: tell about it. So it's just we You went through
Speaker 6: what you didn't deserve, and Maryland is going through what
Speaker 6: she didn't deserve. So I love how you're passin committed
Speaker 6: to that, and I of course echoed that call to action.
Speaker 6: My last call to action I would say is if
Speaker 6: you are a fan of Native Land Pod, I would
Speaker 6: ask you to share this episode. Specifically, Angela had the
Speaker 6: genius idea to say, let's talk about the budget, and
Speaker 6: this conversation went a lot of different directions. The most
Speaker 6: important thing is connecting how the budget impacts your everyday life.
Speaker 6: A lot of people have that question. So if you
Speaker 6: know someone who says things like you know, Trump gave
Speaker 6: more to HBCUs, Angela breaks that down and with facts
Speaker 6: and references and cite sources on why that's not true.
Speaker 6: We try to communicate with you in a way that's
Speaker 6: very digestible and confidence because that's how we talk to
Speaker 6: each other. And so often the cable news platforms are
Speaker 6: not considering you the beltwegh media, they are not considering you.
Speaker 6: We consider you, you center everything we talk about, and
Speaker 6: so if you have someone in your family who's not
Speaker 6: clear on things, we try to break these things down,
Speaker 6: share this episode with them, Post this episode on your
Speaker 6: social media, tell your friends to listen, talk about it
Speaker 6: in your group chats. Because Antela was the first person
Speaker 6: to say this to me, but I think it's so important.
Speaker 6: None of us here are trying to build individual brands.
Speaker 6: We are trying to build community. So Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 6: Invite more people into this home because you get knowledge,
Speaker 6: you get seen, and hopefully, collectively we make sure this
Speaker 6: here democracy serves us as well.
Speaker 1: Before we end this show, I just want to remind
Speaker 1: everyone to leave us a review and subscribe to Native
Speaker 1: Lampod where available on all platforms and YouTube. New episodes
Speaker 1: drop every Thursday around ten am ish and then we have.
Speaker 3: A YouTube that drops later on in the day.
Speaker 1: You can also follow us on social media. We are
Speaker 1: Angela Raie, Tiffany Cross, and Andrew Gillum. Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 1: There are two hundred and thirty five.
Speaker 3: Days until the election.
Speaker 5: Welcome Home.
Speaker 1: Native Lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reasoned Choice Media. For more podcasts, from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.