Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody. Pre recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: it is wokf's holiday week and it is our farewell
Speaker 1: week as we close out seven years of conversations, rage, information, celebration,
Speaker 1: and trying to deliver keen political analysis over the last
Speaker 1: seven years. So this week I am bringing you some
Speaker 1: of my favorite shows with some of the voices that
Speaker 1: we've brought took f over the years that I am
Speaker 1: just so grateful for. First up is my conversation with
Speaker 1: our friend Ellie Mistell, who is the Justice correspondent at
Speaker 1: the Nation, and he returns and in this episode he
Speaker 1: gives his expert perspective on Trump's indictments that we now
Speaker 1: have known are no longer they've gone the way of
Speaker 1: the wind. But to remind us these indictments were serious,
Speaker 1: and had America decided to, oh, I don't know, not
Speaker 1: vote for a convicted felon, not vote for somebody that
Speaker 1: had been indicted multiple times, not vote for somebody who
Speaker 1: showed very little care about the American people but a
Speaker 1: lot of attention to America's coffers, maybe we wouldn't be
Speaker 1: in the situation that we're in. But I think that
Speaker 1: it is important as we wind our way to the
Speaker 1: second Trump regime, which is certain to be worse than
Speaker 1: the first one, because now they know where all the
Speaker 1: keys the kingdom are. The first time around, they were
Speaker 1: just case in the joint seeing what they could take,
Speaker 1: and as my friend doctor Christina Grier said, it was
Speaker 1: a smash and grab job. This time around, they can
Speaker 1: be methodical, they can be slow because guess what, ain't
Speaker 1: nobody going and check them? So in this best of episode,
Speaker 1: Ellie Mistell brings us through the Trump indictments and the
Speaker 1: mountain of evidence that America will never see. Folks, I
Speaker 1: am so excited to welcome back to wok F after
Speaker 1: just too long of a time away, which is our
Speaker 1: friend Ellie Mistel, who is a justice correspondent for the
Speaker 1: Nation and the author of Allow Me to Retort, A
Speaker 1: Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution and just all around.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the fuck we call Twitter these days?
Speaker 1: Is it X?
Speaker 2: Is it? You know?
Speaker 1: Trash? It is trash, but you you make it a
Speaker 1: place still worth going. I will say that, Ellie.
Speaker 2: Oh, don't put that. Don't you put that evil on me.
Speaker 1: Let me not put that X on you by that. So, Ellie,
Speaker 1: you know I want to talk to you because I
Speaker 1: just there are times when I wish that I had
Speaker 1: not listened to the old white male professor who told
Speaker 1: me it wasn't smart enough to go to law school,
Speaker 1: and that I actually went. And it is times when
Speaker 1: I'm trying to understand how much legal trouble a normal
Speaker 1: person whose name wasn't Trump would be in, uh if
Speaker 1: they had all of these indictments that have already come
Speaker 1: out and one big one still that is looming, actually
Speaker 1: two big ones that are looming if you're also looking
Speaker 1: at the state of Georgia. But walk us through, because
Speaker 1: it's potential, the potential of Donald Trump being indicted for
Speaker 1: a third time while people are listening to this is
Speaker 1: very high. So please walk us through where we are
Speaker 1: in the insurrection case so as not to get people
Speaker 1: confused with the other indictments that the former twice impeach
Speaker 1: president has.
Speaker 2: Yes, any look, a normal person would be in jail
Speaker 2: like eight times over by this point. A normal person's
Speaker 2: children would probably be in jail at least twice over
Speaker 2: by this point. The normal rules simply don't apply to Trump.
Speaker 2: The White Rules does do. And that's kind of how
Speaker 2: where we start with. Right, this indictment that's coming from Jacksmith,
Speaker 2: potentially already out from Jacksmith, coming at the time that
Speaker 2: we're recording. To me, this is the big one. This
Speaker 2: is the one that we should have been working towards.
Speaker 2: Since January seventh, twenty twenty one. Now, there has been
Speaker 2: reporting about how Merrek Carlin has slow walked the investigation
Speaker 2: and basically kind of did everything he could to get
Speaker 2: Trump off the hook. But finally he appointed Jack Smith.
Speaker 2: I've said on other shows Danielle that I think I
Speaker 2: was wrong about Jack Smith. I thought he would be
Speaker 2: kind of another Robert Muller type, and he has not
Speaker 2: been run. Now, he is not an actual fucking prosecutor,
Speaker 2: and he has been putting the wood to Trump, not
Speaker 2: just in the espionage case, but now finally on the
Speaker 2: January sixth case. We already know that he has interviewed. Basically,
Speaker 2: he has finally done the work that Garland should have
Speaker 2: been doing and that the January sixth Select Committee in
Speaker 2: Congress already did. Right, He's finally done the interviews with
Speaker 2: the Cassidy Hutchinson's and the Mark Meadows and the Steve
Speaker 2: batt Bannons. He's gotten all of that information in and
Speaker 2: he's prepared to charge Trump with a number of ofugh crimes.
Speaker 2: Right the biggest ticket would be kind of conspiracy to
Speaker 2: deprive right through the color of law. That's basically the
Speaker 2: trying to intimidate and and potentially assassinate Mike Pence charge,
Speaker 2: Like that's that's what that is. He's going to be charged,
Speaker 2: we believe, with obstruction and and and and the fake
Speaker 2: electors scheme as well. And these are the serious ones,
Speaker 2: not just serious in terms of like legal jeopardy, but
Speaker 2: serious in terms of actually holding the man accountable for
Speaker 2: the coup he tried to pull off against the government,
Speaker 2: Like that needs to happen, and it looks like that
Speaker 2: that is finally going to happen. The problem, Danielle, is.
Speaker 1: That because there always is one elle race, it's.
Speaker 2: It's never just good news. The problem is that that accountability,
Speaker 2: that trial over these charges will most likely happen in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, and will only be allowed to happen
Speaker 2: if Trump loses again another presidential election, where he will
Speaker 2: again try to steal it and potentially again try to
Speaker 2: do another coupe, right, Like this is all because of
Speaker 2: the timeline, because of Merrick Garland's slow walking to get
Speaker 2: us to this point. We are now in a situation
Speaker 2: where it's just very unlikely that any of these trials
Speaker 2: are going to happen before the election. And that's not
Speaker 2: and there's almost nothing we can do about that. Like
Speaker 2: the timeline is the timeline, and so Trump will get
Speaker 2: to run again.
Speaker 1: But but let me ask you, let me ask this.
Speaker 2: I want to say why.
Speaker 1: I don't even want to say I will say why.
Speaker 1: But so you have first in the Document's case, ailing
Speaker 1: Cannon has set the date from May twenty four, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, right, yep, And so that is several months
Speaker 1: prior to the election. Why is it that? And then
Speaker 1: Donald Trump prior to that? I believe that Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: it has the another Egen Carroll case that I believe
Speaker 1: is happening in October. Why wouldn't this case, which is
Speaker 1: going to be heard in Washington, DC, because it has
Speaker 1: such a long runway given a Leen Cannon's timeline, and
Speaker 1: there is no need for security clearance in the way
Speaker 1: that the Document's case requires security clearance. Why wouldn't that
Speaker 1: be set for the end of the year or January because.
Speaker 2: Trials take a long time. I mean, it's just like
Speaker 2: there it is. It is just true that trials, especially
Speaker 2: trials of rich white people, take a long time to
Speaker 2: process through the system, and the defense lawyers remember, like
Speaker 2: a lot of times, here's here's the thing that listeners
Speaker 2: have to think about a lot of times when they
Speaker 2: hear about court cases or trials from television, news or
Speaker 2: even most print media. They're caring about it from the
Speaker 2: perspective of a prosecutor, right, And the prosecutors are always like,
Speaker 2: go now, go now, we can do this now. And
Speaker 2: when they are when the prosecutors are facing criminal defendants
Speaker 2: who are underfunded, underprivileged black Latino, the system is very
Speaker 2: happy to go as quickly as humanly possible to get
Speaker 2: a black and brown people in jail. But when it
Speaker 2: happens to white people, the defense attorneys have usually legitimate
Speaker 2: reasons and arguments to delay trial. Right. One of the
Speaker 2: biggest ones is that the defense lawyers need time to
Speaker 2: go over all of the evidence that the government has
Speaker 2: and prepare an adequate defense. Right. So in these cases
Speaker 2: I always argue kind of in favor of the defense,
Speaker 2: because I realize that more often than not, what I'm
Speaker 2: doing is arguing on behalf of black and Latino people
Speaker 2: who are being railroaded through the system. Right, So I
Speaker 2: understand and I guess the need for defend's attorneys to
Speaker 2: have time to prepare their cases. Is Trump getting more
Speaker 2: time than normal? It depends on what you think normal is. Right.
Speaker 2: If you think normal is what we do to black people,
Speaker 2: then hell yeah, he's getting way more time. Is he
Speaker 2: getting more time than he should? The brass tacks of
Speaker 2: it is, if you look at the espionage case, at least,
Speaker 2: given when Smith was allowed to make these charges, I
Speaker 2: think May twenty fourth is about the right day. I
Speaker 2: think that's about the right time. Now. The question is,
Speaker 2: and I think that this is the bigger problem. It's
Speaker 2: unlike May twenty fourth is unlikely to hold up. You know, sorry,
Speaker 2: May twentieth, twenty twenty four is unlikely to hold up
Speaker 2: because as we get closer to May twentieth, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers will again ask for a delay. They will
Speaker 2: say they were overwhelmed, so they'll be there. They're busy
Speaker 2: running a campaign. They'll say whatever they have to say,
Speaker 2: and with Trump Judge Eileen Cannon having already own a
Speaker 2: willingness to the lay this trial for six months, it's
Speaker 2: I think, but this is.
Speaker 1: This is why I think that the insurrection case has
Speaker 1: the potential to go before ailing Cannon's case. And my
Speaker 1: feeling is one because it's going to be held in DC.
Speaker 1: I don't know. And this is a question for you,
Speaker 1: who do we think that that judge is like what
Speaker 1: circuit is this going through? Is that this is actually
Speaker 1: about this about national security?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: You're talking about somebody who is going to be indicted
Speaker 1: on charges that I am going to assume one of
Speaker 1: them may in fact be seditious conspiracy, which we have
Speaker 1: seen both keeper folks and others get charged with and
Speaker 1: it stick. So I guess, like, am I being in
Speaker 1: two naive Ellie in thinking that the fate of our
Speaker 1: democracy and the person who instigated and incided the riot
Speaker 1: on the Capitol and told people to overturn the government
Speaker 1: who is running for election, that that would be caused
Speaker 1: for a speedy trial.
Speaker 2: I think you're right. I think it should. I think
Speaker 2: that the differences in the January sixth case versus the
Speaker 2: espionage case lend itself to a faster timeline than what
Speaker 2: Eileen Canon has set up for the espionage case. As
Speaker 2: you point out, this is happening in DC, that means
Speaker 2: that the judge, we don't know what judge will get right,
Speaker 2: and it will be a random choice from among the
Speaker 2: judges that sit on in the DC circuit. Right, that
Speaker 2: circuit is generally pretty split. Generally, it's not as conservative
Speaker 2: as the Florida circuit where Canon was pulled from, is
Speaker 2: not as conservative as like the Fifth Circuit if it
Speaker 2: was out in Texas or Louisiana. It's a pretty pretty
Speaker 2: evenly split circuit, you know. But it's still going to
Speaker 2: come down to kind of a random dice roll in
Speaker 2: terms of which judge we get right. If you get
Speaker 2: an aggressive judge, you will have an aggressive timeline. And yeah,
Speaker 2: there's there's a good chance that they will set a
Speaker 2: date before the next election. But then the defense lawyers
Speaker 2: will appeal that date. And don't forget that these appeals
Speaker 2: about the timing of the of the of the trial
Speaker 2: could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where
Speaker 2: Trump has stacked the Supreme Court with his own hand
Speaker 2: picked judges. Brett Kavanaugh in particular, is very susceptible to
Speaker 2: arguments that this is happening too close to the election
Speaker 2: for us to do anything about it, like he's made
Speaker 2: that argument before in cases involving outright racism in electoral jerrymandering. Right,
Speaker 2: So I am not confident that an aggressive timeline will
Speaker 2: will work in front of Brett Kavanaugh or the other Conservatives.
Speaker 2: So we'll still have to wait and see, but I
Speaker 2: think that it is very likely that this trial will somehow,
Speaker 2: some way get delayed until after the election.
Speaker 1: The positive is where are you going for the positive?
Speaker 1: Because you have already put my feelings and my hopes
Speaker 1: and dreams in the dumpster along with our democracy. So
Speaker 1: what road trip are we go not for the positive side?
Speaker 2: The positive is this the last time Trump lost an election,
Speaker 2: he should have immediately been thrown into jail for his
Speaker 2: efforts to overturn it. And obviously the system wasn't ready
Speaker 2: to do that. We picked Merrick Garland instead of like
Speaker 2: a better person. You know, lots of issues happen. We
Speaker 2: weren't ready. The system wasn't ready to throw his ass
Speaker 2: in jail after he lost the last election. If he
Speaker 2: loses the next one, the positive here is that I
Speaker 2: really do believe that if he loses the next election,
Speaker 2: there will be you know, tiny little handcuffs waiting for
Speaker 2: him at the end of that road. Like he needs
Speaker 2: to win the election to stay out of jail. And
Speaker 2: if he loses, and he should lose because he's a
Speaker 2: terrible person and a terrible candidate and blah blah blah blah,
Speaker 2: if he loses, there should be handcuffs waiting for him
Speaker 2: if he loses.
Speaker 1: And right now we're at a fifty to fifty fucking
Speaker 1: toss up that that is going to be the reality,
Speaker 1: right Like it's fifty to fifty that Donald Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: have the maneuvers still to lie, cheat and steal his
Speaker 1: way to the White House. Now, I think that the upside,
Speaker 1: if in fact we call it that because it's not
Speaker 1: the floor, the upside is that, I hope, because we
Speaker 1: have tried the Jurassic Park version where they have touched
Speaker 1: all of the fences and folks have been you know,
Speaker 1: are there are sixteen fake electors that are being charged
Speaker 1: in you know, in Michigan. You got other people that
Speaker 1: are being investigated. I think that in my opinion, and
Speaker 1: I want to talk about this case next the dragnet,
Speaker 1: if you will, is coming out of Georgia, because I
Speaker 1: don't think that Trump is the only person that Fannie
Speaker 1: Willis is looking at when she's prepared to drop her indictments.
Speaker 1: And so again we our democracy held on by a
Speaker 1: thread and was tested over sixty six times in court
Speaker 1: with Rudy Giuliani, with these fake electors, with the phone calls,
Speaker 1: and so I think folks are prepared for what they
Speaker 1: know could be coming their way. That's the only hope here.
Speaker 1: That and you know, a fourth indictment, the fourth and
Speaker 1: final I don't know, coming out of Georgia.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if we're looking for hope, that's where
Speaker 2: we find it. Right like that, people will be more
Speaker 2: prepared that are there, elections will be more resilient this
Speaker 2: time than they were last time. Of course, you also
Speaker 2: have to worry about the fact that, you know, one
Speaker 2: of the reasons why it's so important to prosecute people
Speaker 2: who attempt coups is that if you don't prosecute them,
Speaker 2: and if you don't hold them accountable, they just try
Speaker 2: it again, and the second time they're better. So as
Speaker 2: much as we can say that like, okay, our elections,
Speaker 2: our election system should be better prepared to defend itself
Speaker 2: from Trump. We also have to understand that Trump and
Speaker 2: his forces will make a better coup attempt round two,
Speaker 2: having potentially learned lessons from round one. We know that
Speaker 2: they've done a lot to stack the courts, to stack
Speaker 2: the secretaries of states in ways that are amenable to
Speaker 2: various coup attempts, whether the legal ones, the quote unquote
Speaker 2: legal ones of fake electors and whatever. We all, but
Speaker 2: we also know that his more violent forces, you know,
Speaker 2: have also learned some lessons about how to violently overthrow
Speaker 2: the government, and we can we have to at least
Speaker 2: expect that they will be coming again. You know. We know,
Speaker 2: for instance, one of the biggest organizing things that Trump
Speaker 2: used to put the coup out there with social media,
Speaker 2: and after you know, being banned, we know that he
Speaker 2: now has an ally in Elon Musk and social media
Speaker 2: potentially to organize another coup. So like, yes, there are
Speaker 2: more defenses, but also they're going to be new attacks,
Speaker 2: and so we have to be you know, I am
Speaker 2: still hopeful that he loses, and I'm still hopeful that
Speaker 2: after he loses, he loses all of his attempts to
Speaker 2: overthrow the election. But I'd be a fool to think
Speaker 2: that they're not going to be It's not going to
Speaker 2: be like, you know, we're watching TV on November whatever
Speaker 2: and CNN says no, the winner is declared for and
Speaker 2: then that's it. Right. We know there's going even after
Speaker 2: he loses at the balance, we know there's going to
Speaker 2: be another attempt, and we're prepared for that too.
Speaker 1: We shall see. Let's switch gears a little bit just
Speaker 1: to go down to Georgia and then I want to
Speaker 1: go to the Supreme Court. So down in Georgia, you
Speaker 1: do have Fannie Willis. You do have another what I
Speaker 1: deem as another very serious case right that she's been
Speaker 1: building an unlike the slothlike pace of Merrick Garland, she's
Speaker 1: actually been going full steam ahead for the last two years.
Speaker 1: So give us your thoughts on where Fannie while Willis
Speaker 1: is in terms of her You know, she gave us
Speaker 1: an announcement several months ago that said we were to
Speaker 1: be on the lookout between July and September. Well we're
Speaker 1: headed into August now, So what do you think about
Speaker 1: her case and the timing and then how again this
Speaker 1: all measures up as we head into the fall a
Speaker 1: year out from the presidential So I've.
Speaker 2: Always thought Georgia had the strongest case because they have
Speaker 2: the motherfucker on tape trying to overturn the election. Right,
Speaker 2: They've got, like everybody's heard the tape where he tries
Speaker 2: to find eleven thousand votes, which has just happens to
Speaker 2: be exactly how many he needs to overturn the election.
Speaker 2: So I've always thought that just kind of evidentiary, that
Speaker 2: is the strongest case against him. But one thing, and
Speaker 2: I do believe that Fannie Willis has been a dedicated,
Speaker 2: kind of hardworking public servant and is trying to do
Speaker 2: things the right way. But we have seen that Fannie
Speaker 2: Willis is also sensitive to political pressure, and so you know,
Speaker 2: we saw her say before the midterms that she wouldn't
Speaker 2: release any news within a kind of zone of secrecy
Speaker 2: around the midterms so as to not unduly influence the
Speaker 2: midterm elections, which is not a legal position, it's a
Speaker 2: political position. So, you know, not something that I would
Speaker 2: have done. But okay, so now again what we what
Speaker 2: we worry about with Willis is not whether or not
Speaker 2: she's going to diligently charge a crime that she can prove,
Speaker 2: but whether or not that trial comes off before the election,
Speaker 2: and you know, if Fannie Willis is not willing to
Speaker 2: make any an announcement within a zone of secrecy around
Speaker 2: the midterms, you know, is she gonna be willing to
Speaker 2: put this man to trial and let's say July twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four, right before the Republican National Convention, or he
Speaker 2: will be crowned the GOP nominee. Again, I don't know that.
Speaker 2: I don't know that she'll do that. I don't know
Speaker 2: that I don't know that a judge will let her
Speaker 2: do a Georgia judge will let her do that. So again,
Speaker 2: the I just am not sure, despite the immense legal
Speaker 2: jeopardy he's under, I'm just not sure that any of
Speaker 2: these trials, the Willis one, either of the Jack Smith ones,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that any of them come off before
Speaker 2: November twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So essentially we're fucked right, And essentially we've all played
Speaker 1: into Donald Trump and his lawyer's hands in knowing exactly
Speaker 1: how they were going to use this, how it was
Speaker 1: going to be spun, the timeline that was going to
Speaker 1: be created, and the person to blame isn't just Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and his lawyers, because we always know the tactics
Speaker 1: that we're going to be made. It is Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: and his desire to not play politics and play the
Speaker 1: most insane politics at the same time, which is, let
Speaker 1: me not go after Donald Trump because I don't want
Speaker 1: to look like this is something partisan. Let me waste
Speaker 1: twelve months of time, and now we're here.
Speaker 2: The analogy that Ivan mcgarland is like a basketball referee
Speaker 2: who swallows the whistle and refuses to call a file,
Speaker 2: and that referee says like, Oh, I'm just trying to
Speaker 2: be neutral and fair to both sides. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to call file. I was going to let the games
Speaker 2: play out. That's not being fair and neutral. That is
Speaker 2: benefiting the team that fouls. If you don't call the
Speaker 2: rules correctly, you benefit the team that breaks the rules.
Speaker 2: And that's Merrick Garland and his alleged attempt to be
Speaker 2: non political. He has. All he's done is completely politicize
Speaker 2: the process. And that the reason why I've been screaming
Speaker 2: about Merrick Garland for two years prior to this is
Speaker 2: because at some point his failure becomes unrecoverable, right like
Speaker 2: you can't and This is where I'm talking about the timeline.
Speaker 2: Because of his delays, it's now very hard to squeeze
Speaker 2: everything in before the election. I mean, Danielle, riddle me this. Okay,
Speaker 2: Let's say one of these trials goes off and he
Speaker 2: gets convicted. Is he gonna get sentenced before the election.
Speaker 2: Is he gonna be sent to jail before the election?
Speaker 2: How does that even work? Are we gonna actually send
Speaker 2: federal marshals to arrest the Republican nominee for president eight
Speaker 2: weeks before the general election? Is that really something that's
Speaker 2: gonna happen in America? Because that's gonna look like something
Speaker 2: that happens in you know, other cut and true Banana
Speaker 2: republic countries. Right. So, because the timeline has been so truncated,
Speaker 2: I just don't know how any of this happens before
Speaker 2: he's allowed to run again. And so even if he's
Speaker 2: tried and convicted, if he wins the presidency, he will
Speaker 2: pardon himself from that conviction commute, I think at that
Speaker 2: point is what you would call what he would do,
Speaker 2: And so he would never face actual accountability even if
Speaker 2: he was convicted, and he's convicted on the state charges
Speaker 2: where he can't pardon himself. I mean again, are the
Speaker 2: Georgia State troopers gonna go arrest the president of the
Speaker 2: United States? Is that at some point the practicality kind
Speaker 2: of trumps the theory of the case, right, Yeah, and
Speaker 2: and and so that's my problem, that's my that's my worry.
Speaker 2: Like all of this, all of this looks great on paper,
Speaker 2: right when you actually when it actually comes to time
Speaker 2: to try convict and jail this man before the election,
Speaker 2: I just think it's too late. It wouldn't be too
Speaker 2: late if we were having this trial right now, right.
Speaker 2: And that's again where the failure of Garland where the
Speaker 2: slow pace of all the investigations really take a hole.
Speaker 2: If you think about where we were at the end
Speaker 2: of the January sixth Select Committee process, right where Trump
Speaker 2: could have been charged that day based on that final
Speaker 2: report from the Congressional Select Committee, right, like an aggressive
Speaker 2: prosecutor would have been really ready to charge his ass
Speaker 2: that day. At the end of twenty twenty two, then
Speaker 2: we're talking about a trial that happens not in May
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, but May twenty twenty three. Yeah, we're
Speaker 2: talking about a sentencing process that's happening over the summer.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the legitimate ability to capture and jail
Speaker 2: this man before Labor Day, a year and a half
Speaker 2: before the election, and that would have been doable. Now
Speaker 2: I don't know. I just it's very hard to see
Speaker 2: it happening.
Speaker 1: God, this was depressing.
Speaker 2: Well again, if he loses straight to the pokey right,
Speaker 2: if there's no addition like the again, the other way
Speaker 2: to positive to spend this positively is that Trump is
Speaker 2: using his last get out of jail free cards and
Speaker 2: as long as we don't give him four years of
Speaker 2: another one, right, as long as we don't give him
Speaker 2: another draw for those cards, he's gonna run out eventually
Speaker 2: and we should be able to put his ass in jail.
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean, here's hoping, right, I have no faith,
Speaker 1: but you know, here, here's hoping. Before I let you go, Ellie,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna scrap Scotis because you know they've scrapped democracy
Speaker 1: in the country, integrity. But I do want to get
Speaker 1: to someone who I believe that both of us probably
Speaker 1: grew up listening to, whose music had resonated, and who
Speaker 1: has clearly had a fucking lobotomy. And that is the
Speaker 1: one and only ice Cube, who was just recently filming
Speaker 1: with none other than Tucker Carlson, Please take the floor.
Speaker 2: I would like our friend Torrejo was big, you know,
Speaker 2: feature pieces titled from Fuck the Police to Fund the Police,
Speaker 2: the punk bitification of ice Cube.
Speaker 1: I'm texting him right now like that, that.
Speaker 2: Is what I want to read, because how this man
Speaker 2: has gone from where he was, where he was one
Speaker 2: of the what what the what the over educated black
Speaker 2: folks like me like to call one of the urban
Speaker 2: poets who is you know, talking about police brutality and
Speaker 2: the devastating effects that has on the black community to
Speaker 2: this point where he's kissing their ass is just one
Speaker 2: of the biggest devolutions that I can think that I
Speaker 2: have seen in my lifetime. Now I have a theory
Speaker 2: about this, Danielle. I call it the special black Man
Speaker 2: theory is that there are there are you know, one
Speaker 2: of the and this kind of They're gonna call me
Speaker 2: a critical race theorist after this, but like you know,
Speaker 2: one of the issues that I think a lot of
Speaker 2: black people chafe against is the fact that we're always
Speaker 2: grouped in with everybody else, right, We're always we're always
Speaker 2: you know, collectively viewed as if we are a monolithic
Speaker 2: people and we're not right, and some but some special
Speaker 2: black men like chase at that more than others, right,
Speaker 2: And so then their idea is just that whatever most
Speaker 2: black people are doing, they gotta do something different just
Speaker 2: to prove that they special, they not like the rest
Speaker 2: of us. Right. And so you could argue, and this
Speaker 2: is why I want again a scholar like Terrey to
Speaker 2: kind of explain it to me. You could argue that
Speaker 2: maybe he was never really about fuck the police. Maybe
Speaker 2: he was always just about being special, just just saying
Speaker 2: that special thing that makes him a little bit different
Speaker 2: than the other black And so now it actually so
Speaker 2: maybe it's not incongruous. Maybe it actually perfectly tracks. He
Speaker 2: was fucked the police when the most black people were like, okay,
Speaker 2: we have to have belize what can we do? And
Speaker 2: now that most black people are like, you know what,
Speaker 2: fuck the police, he's like, oh, actually no, Tucker and
Speaker 2: I tan our balls together, like because he's just like
Speaker 2: that special guy. Like that's my that's my theory. But
Speaker 2: I have not studied, and so I study want somebody
Speaker 2: explain it to me.
Speaker 1: You as I mean, but I think that everything that
Speaker 1: you just laid out is right. Maybe we're the ones
Speaker 1: that got it wrong, and he just wanted to be
Speaker 1: a standout, and so at a time in the eighties
Speaker 1: and early nineties he was going to be that standout
Speaker 1: with Fuck the Police. But maybe we too closely associated
Speaker 1: his rapping in the way that like Chuck D of
Speaker 1: Public Enemy, actually is that fucking guy right who believes
Speaker 1: what it is that he is rapping about and has
Speaker 1: always right been that rapper of thought. And so maybe
Speaker 1: it fell on the rest of us that this motherfucker
Speaker 1: has just been a performer that has played the industry,
Speaker 1: played his fans, and this is who he is.
Speaker 2: Maybe for ice Cube that was just the song man.
Speaker 2: It was raw, like you you write a song for
Speaker 2: Kesha and she's gonna say it and it's gonna be awesome,
Speaker 2: And maybe that's all it was. For him. It was
Speaker 2: just a song, you know, and and and it wasn't
Speaker 2: you know, he's not as you say, He's not Chuck D.
Speaker 2: He's not k R. S One. He's not one of
Speaker 2: these guys who actually live that life or or or
Speaker 2: live that progressiveness. He was just a guy singing a song.
Speaker 1: He was just a guy singing a song, how fucking sad.
Speaker 1: I want my money back, but I don't know I I.
Speaker 2: I want a deeper dive into what's happening because the
Speaker 2: other thing, Daniels, and you know, we're old enough and
Speaker 2: black enough to have seen this. There is always the
Speaker 2: like negro gets a bit of money and loses their
Speaker 2: damn mind, right, Like, they get a bit of money,
Speaker 2: and it's like, you know the black people who when
Speaker 2: they meet the I R s for the first time
Speaker 2: as an adult, it's wait a minute, what are these
Speaker 2: tax I? Don't like these? Ronald Reagan told me, and
Speaker 2: that that's how it happens, right, Like, It's not uncommon
Speaker 2: for people of any race, color, or creed to get
Speaker 2: a little bit more conservative as they get older and
Speaker 2: get more money and start to try to figure out
Speaker 2: how to keep it. That's not uncommon. This is just
Speaker 2: the kind of extremist, extrema extremophile version of that, you know,
Speaker 2: normal aging process.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Well, I'll just tell you breaking news.
Speaker 1: Tore just said, good idea. I can't wait, So so
Speaker 1: you know, folks who will have to wait and see
Speaker 1: got Danielle.
Speaker 2: I'm like, oh my god, I'm gonna be able to
Speaker 2: read something like I don't want to read more about
Speaker 2: what the hell is going on?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so well we'll see, we'll see what because I
Speaker 1: have to, I have to tetch them like in the moment,
Speaker 1: so we won't see. Uh, we will see uh where
Speaker 1: that goes. But you know, you could be right for
Speaker 1: a tour Ray, you know, I mean, for for a
Speaker 1: tour Rade, this would be the interview I'd want to see.
Speaker 1: But for ice Cube maybe that's the title of it.
Speaker 1: It was just the song. We took it too seriously evidently.
Speaker 1: As always, my friend Ellie Vistal, it is a joy
Speaker 1: and a pleasure when you bring the bad news, but
Speaker 1: you bring it with such passion and flair to WOKF.
Speaker 1: I always appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today, dear friends on wok F.
Speaker 1: As always, power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.