Speaker 1: Pushing sunny and older. My dear departed father took me
Speaker 1: to the polls every time, every time that he cast
Speaker 1: a vote. It was like a man son thing, you know.
Speaker 1: And so I've had ingrained in me the notion that
Speaker 1: the full measure of your citizenship is the ability to
Speaker 1: participate in our democracy. I'm Khalil Jibra Muhammad. I'm Ben Austin.
Speaker 1: We're two best friends, one black, one white. I'm a
Speaker 1: historian and I'm a journalist. And this is some of
Speaker 1: my best friends are. Some of my best friends are
Speaker 1: dot dot dot and this show we wrestle with the
Speaker 1: challenges and the absurdities of a deeply divided and unequal country.
Speaker 1: A man and ain't that the truth? Our democracy is
Speaker 1: on life support. And we're gonna talk to the nation's
Speaker 1: leading democracy trauma surgeon, Eric Holder, the former US Attorney General,
Speaker 1: is with us to help us make sense of how
Speaker 1: deep this problem is and what to do about it.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk to him about his life leading
Speaker 1: up to his career in the Obama administration and everything
Speaker 1: he's done since YEP, and all of the work that
Speaker 1: he's done after leaving office to strengthen our democracy. A
Speaker 1: lot of that work has paid off in the mid
Speaker 1: term election, so we're going to learn a lot more
Speaker 1: about it. Yeah, he has been protecting voting rights, he's
Speaker 1: been fighting for fair elections, he has been working to
Speaker 1: uphold our democracy. I am really looking forward to this conversation.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. So first, what should we call you?
Speaker 1: Should we call you an attorney general holder? Can we
Speaker 1: call you Eric? What do you prefer? Eric is fine?
Speaker 1: I mean I've been called a lot worse than next,
Speaker 1: trust me. Yeah, all right, we absolutely love that. I've
Speaker 1: actually heard another nickname of yours. So I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know if you remember, but we were in a
Speaker 1: meeting trying to figure out how to sort of prepare
Speaker 1: for the twenty sixteen election. And it was one of
Speaker 1: these closed door meetings where none of us are supposed
Speaker 1: to talk about what happened in the meeting, but there
Speaker 1: was you know, Harry Bellafonte was there, and Reverend Barber
Speaker 1: joined in remotely, and there are a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: other folks in the room, and at some point someone
Speaker 1: in the room was talking about the Democratic get out
Speaker 1: the vote machine and really kind of frustrated by how
Speaker 1: it just shows up, you know, for midterms, it shows
Speaker 1: up for the presidential race. But everyone packs up there
Speaker 1: consulting briefcases and moves on. And the question was directed
Speaker 1: to you and said, hey, you know you're like the
Speaker 1: highest ranking official in this room from the past administration.
Speaker 1: You know, you're somebody who can help us understand why
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party won't change. And you said, hey, man,
Speaker 1: I'm just little Ricky from one hundred forty fifth Street. Okay,
Speaker 1: you and your great memory Khalil, Yes, that would be
Speaker 1: like little older from one hundred first Street, two places,
Speaker 1: you know. Yeah, so I and I love the moment
Speaker 1: when when mister Bellafonte, mister b leaned over who was
Speaker 1: sitting next to Year, and he said, well you were
Speaker 1: the man, as if to remind you that you did
Speaker 1: actually have some power in that moment. You weren't just
Speaker 1: little Ricky, so we won't call you a little Rickie.
Speaker 1: But Eric works. Yeah, little Ricky grew up to be
Speaker 1: Eric Holder, and uh, little Rickie that you know, that's fine,
Speaker 1: Ricky Holder, that that's that's cool. But Eric will worked
Speaker 1: just fine. Okay, all right, And we actually had a
Speaker 1: question out of that, who was little Ricky? Meaning like
Speaker 1: we want to know who you were as a kid
Speaker 1: growing up in Queens. Well, I tell you it was interesting.
Speaker 1: I was a kid who just grew up in what
Speaker 1: was an immigrant neighborhood. Although the immigrants at that point
Speaker 1: were folks who had moved up from the south to
Speaker 1: the north. It was an all black neighborhood. It's actually
Speaker 1: a neighborhood that was in transition. When I was extremely young,
Speaker 1: Italian folks were moving out, Black Americans were moving in.
Speaker 1: East Elmhurst in Queens is one of the most stable
Speaker 1: neighborhoods in the city. I once read that if you
Speaker 1: look at all the zip codes, we're one, one, three,
Speaker 1: six nine. It's the place we have the least amount
Speaker 1: of movement. And it was also a neighborhood that was
Speaker 1: peopled with, you know, really with celebrities. It was a
Speaker 1: real hotbed of black achievement. But it was interesting also
Speaker 1: because up until fourth grade I was at PS one
Speaker 1: twenty seven, all black school, and then as part of
Speaker 1: some I guess was called IGC program Intellectually Gifted Children,
Speaker 1: they me to PS one forty eight and that was
Speaker 1: a predominantly Jewish school and so I had little Ricky Holder,
Speaker 1: my feet in two worlds, was predominantly Jewish in a
Speaker 1: world that was predominantly African American. But I think it
Speaker 1: was in some ways something that prepared me for the
Speaker 1: duality that I was going to have to face as
Speaker 1: an adult. Wow. So, so what you're saying is your
Speaker 1: coming of age was like being encapsulated in our podcast
Speaker 1: a black guy and a Jewish guy trying to make
Speaker 1: sense of race in America. That's amazing. That's amazing. If
Speaker 1: you guys have any problems interacting with one another, I
Speaker 1: can be the interpreter here to explain what's happening from
Speaker 1: the Jewish perspective as well as from the African American.
Speaker 1: This might be a long interview, we might be on
Speaker 1: all day. Well, I wanted to follow up on all
Speaker 1: that greatest hits of black excellence. I mean, so just
Speaker 1: take us back just a little bit to your own
Speaker 1: consciousness being immersed in that neighborhood at the time. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's interesting, Khalil. I mean I saw a
Speaker 1: full range of accomplished, you know, striving black men, and
Speaker 1: that went from everybody from mister Gachet, who was my
Speaker 1: little league coach and who was a custodian for a
Speaker 1: building in Manhattan. Also, doctor Scott two blocks over was
Speaker 1: a radiologist, so there was mister Archer down the block
Speaker 1: was a lawyer. I mean, you were all packed together,
Speaker 1: and I saw the full panoply of um, you know,
Speaker 1: Black men and to a lesser extent, African American women,
Speaker 1: because a lot of them were, you know, working in
Speaker 1: the home, but a full range of black I guess
Speaker 1: involvement activity. And the thing was, no matter what your station,
Speaker 1: for lack of a better term, was everybody had pride
Speaker 1: in themselves. Everybody thought that they were working to make
Speaker 1: it better for the next generation. We were cognizant of
Speaker 1: the fact that, you know, Louis Armstrong was around the block,
Speaker 1: that Malcolm X was around the block, that Willie Mays
Speaker 1: was you know, pretty close by. But it wasn't as
Speaker 1: if we were a start ruck. They were just part
Speaker 1: of the neighborhood. I mean, one interesting story, I'm at
Speaker 1: a candy store run by a Jewish guy twenty third
Speaker 1: Avenue in ninety seven sight guy named Mo and I'm
Speaker 1: getting through candy whatever. My brother comes flying in and says, Cactus.
Speaker 1: Clayton is in front of Malcolm X's house. Now this
Speaker 1: is after the first Listen fight and before he formally
Speaker 1: becomes Muhammad Ali. All right, So I'm like, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: and he said, no, it's true, it's true. So I
Speaker 1: walked down there. Everybody is running. I walked down and
Speaker 1: then in fact he's out there in front of Malcolm
Speaker 1: X's house and he's signing autographs. And I skinny little,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess maybe twelve year old holder and
Speaker 1: always kind of a bit of a smart ass. I
Speaker 1: said to him if people might not remember in the
Speaker 1: way in before the Liston fight, his blood pressure was
Speaker 1: really high. People said he was scared, and so I said, hey,
Speaker 1: were you scared? Before the fight? And this is he
Speaker 1: the largest human being I've ever seen. So he's like
Speaker 1: sixteen sixty three. I'm like five something or of it.
Speaker 1: And he balls up his fist and very slowly extends
Speaker 1: it and puts it in my face and says, what
Speaker 1: do you think? Oh wow? I said, no, you know,
Speaker 1: And he signed the autograph for me on a I
Speaker 1: had a bag and I pulled a piece of the
Speaker 1: bag and he signed cash his clay on the bag.
Speaker 1: Kept it forever, and my mother, in one of her
Speaker 1: periodic cleanings throughout my autograph book. So I think Pill
Speaker 1: has his, but I don't have mine. You don't need
Speaker 1: an autograph, you have this on the podcast. That's that's forever.
Speaker 1: Here we go, we go. So so Eric, one more
Speaker 1: follow up about this, which is so much of your
Speaker 1: work is about civil rights and so how does all
Speaker 1: of this growing up and growing up in the nineteen
Speaker 1: sixties lead you to civil rights work. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting because I always saw possibilities, you know, um
Speaker 1: growing up in East Elmhurst again, that range of people
Speaker 1: doing a variety of things, all with a great deal
Speaker 1: of pride. But also I'm growing up in the sixties
Speaker 1: where African countries are gaining their independence. My folks is
Speaker 1: from Barbados. Caribbean countries were gaining their independence, and the
Speaker 1: civil rights movement is in, you know, in full bloom.
Speaker 1: And so as a Northerner, I'm watching to see what's
Speaker 1: going on in Birmingham. My future sister in law is
Speaker 1: integrating the University of Alabama with the George Wallace standing
Speaker 1: the schoolhouse door, and so all of this stuff is
Speaker 1: brewing in me, and this notion of black pride, black
Speaker 1: accomplishment the notion of independence, the notion of throwing off
Speaker 1: that which was old and creating something new. All that
Speaker 1: is in me and has stayed with me, you know
Speaker 1: ever since. You know, they say, as you get older,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to get I guess more conservative. I'm seventy
Speaker 1: one now, and I suspect I'm more progressive, liberal, radical
Speaker 1: now than I was when I was, you know, fifteen. Oh,
Speaker 1: you're on the right show. So you have a new
Speaker 1: book out called Our Unfinished March, and we've read your book,
Speaker 1: and one of the things that you tell in this
Speaker 1: book is how, in the midst of the Civil rights movement,
Speaker 1: at its height, you are watching John Lewis cross the
Speaker 1: Edmund Pettis Bridge in nineteen sixty five. Tell us about
Speaker 1: that moment and why it became sort of a turning
Speaker 1: point in your own life story. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: see it live because I'm watching from the black and
Speaker 1: white TV in the basement in Queens, but I see
Speaker 1: the newsreels of your like fourteen at this point, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm fourteen. Can I see the newsreels of him crossing
Speaker 1: the Edmund Pettis Bridge the March four you know, from
Speaker 1: Selma to Montgomery for voting rights. People tend to forget
Speaker 1: that it was from voting rights. And then to see
Speaker 1: these Alabama state troopers attack these people, and to see
Speaker 1: this guy who left an impression to me from the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty three March on Washington. I remember thinking he
Speaker 1: was kind of young, you know. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: remember you remember the speech as much as I remember.
Speaker 1: He just seemed seemed young. Of all the speakers who
Speaker 1: are remember watching again on television, And to see him
Speaker 1: getting beaten, that for me was kind of like, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, What's what's going on here? These guys are
Speaker 1: marching for a right that I know we have up
Speaker 1: here in the North. And to see these folks marching
Speaker 1: to do that which we do as a matter of
Speaker 1: routine and then getting beaten for it. That made me
Speaker 1: understand in a way that perhaps I had not before,
Speaker 1: that there was a dual existence for African Americans in
Speaker 1: the United States. But the John Lewis thing, for some reason,
Speaker 1: really melded in my mind. Welded into my mind the
Speaker 1: notion that there was a battle to be had, there
Speaker 1: was a fight to be won, and specifically over voting rights.
Speaker 1: Like where you conscious that that was where the fight
Speaker 1: was being had. Yeah. Yeah, you know, it's something that
Speaker 1: I knew at the time, you know, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: sixty four you have Cheney, Schwarner and Goodman dying, and
Speaker 1: I knew, for whatever reason that they were down there
Speaker 1: to register people to vote. John Lewis is marching to
Speaker 1: get people to vote. And so voting is something that
Speaker 1: really gets seared into my consciousness and has always has
Speaker 1: really kind of been a focal point of my professional life.
Speaker 1: And you go into the law with that in mind,
Speaker 1: that that's how you want to use to use the
Speaker 1: law for these fights. So no, I gotta tell the
Speaker 1: truth here. I mean, I tried to craft a Black
Speaker 1: studies you know major that did not exist at Columbia.
Speaker 1: So I took all the courses I could and came
Speaker 1: up with this thing and said that looks like American history.
Speaker 1: So you're an American history major. And I get out
Speaker 1: and I'm thinking, all right, now what do I do?
Speaker 1: And people say, well, you could teach, And I was thinking, boy,
Speaker 1: I don't want to foist myself on the you know,
Speaker 1: this next generation of Americans that would be irresponsible. Let's
Speaker 1: not do that. And somebody said well, you know, if
Speaker 1: you go to law school, you can do a lot
Speaker 1: with a legal degree. So I thought of law schools
Speaker 1: kind of the haven for the undecided. And so I
Speaker 1: go to law school and something clicked first year criminal
Speaker 1: law at a professor named Telford Taylor, who had been
Speaker 1: a Nuremberg prosecutor, and something about him and about the
Speaker 1: way he taught the course and the way he talked
Speaker 1: about the law made me and maybe decide that I
Speaker 1: wanted to be a lawyer and to use the law
Speaker 1: and my skill as a lawyer to kind of help
Speaker 1: advance the cause. Kind of a diffuse notion of advancing
Speaker 1: the cause. I mean, as a freshman at Columbia, we
Speaker 1: took over the Naval ROTC office and converted it into
Speaker 1: what is still there, the Malcolm X Lounge, a place
Speaker 1: where black students could gather. And so I was a
Speaker 1: bit of an activist, and I thought that I could
Speaker 1: use my legal skills in some kind of undefined way
Speaker 1: to further the cause. So Eric, you go on to
Speaker 1: become the first black US attorney for the District of
Speaker 1: Columbia and then go on to be the nation's first
Speaker 1: black Attorney General under President Obama and We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about that legacy after the break, But there was a
Speaker 1: moment when your career was going to be the basis
Speaker 1: for a TV show. One of our actual best friends
Speaker 1: is Sasha Penn, the screenwriter whom you were working with
Speaker 1: on a TV show based on your career and life.
Speaker 1: What is a TV show about the first black attorney general?
Speaker 1: What is it about? Well, you know, it's interesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: Sasha is an unbelievably talented writer, and it was a
Speaker 1: great show. It was going to be called Main Justice,
Speaker 1: and it was about this first African American ag attorney general,
Speaker 1: and we were going to explore, you know, what it
Speaker 1: meant to be that person and you know, trying to
Speaker 1: be black and to be a person consistent with all
Speaker 1: that helped define you well at the same time being
Speaker 1: the chief law enforcement officer of the country and to
Speaker 1: try to understand that they were political pressures that you
Speaker 1: had to, you know, make some difficult choices in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways, just kind of you know, based on
Speaker 1: what my experience was as the first black um AG.
Speaker 1: It went to pilot, scored pretty well, and for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: CBS decided not to put it on there. So I've
Speaker 1: got this like CD or DVD of this break, so
Speaker 1: it ought to be on TV. Will we will get
Speaker 1: HBO or something like that. But um, they couldn't. They
Speaker 1: couldn't handle the truth. They weren't ready for the handle
Speaker 1: were ready for you. Well, we are going to take
Speaker 1: a break now and when we come back, we are
Speaker 1: going to talk to you about what you've been up
Speaker 1: to since you've left that incredible office as the first
Speaker 1: black Attorney General for the United States. Well, Eric has
Speaker 1: been great, really hearing the trajectory going from Elmhurst Queen's
Speaker 1: and having a neighbor as Malcolm X and being inspired
Speaker 1: by so many people of the civil rights generation, and
Speaker 1: now you yourself are making history. You have been working
Speaker 1: against the tide of history in this moment to deal
Speaker 1: with this issue of voter suppression. And you've been working
Speaker 1: with this organization, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. So tell
Speaker 1: us what you've been working on, tell us how this works. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the NDRC, the National Democrat Redistricting Committee, the NDRC was
Speaker 1: formed up in January of twenty seventeen, and what we
Speaker 1: wanted to do was to try to come up with
Speaker 1: a way in which the redistricting process, which happens every
Speaker 1: ten years after the census when we draw the lines
Speaker 1: and that decides, you know, what the districts is going
Speaker 1: to look like at the state legislature, in state legislatures
Speaker 1: as well as in you know, the United States House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. To do that in a fair way, Republicans
Speaker 1: had really jerrymandered. In twenty eleven, a study at Princeton
Speaker 1: University said it was the worst jerrymandering of the past
Speaker 1: fifty years. And we said, you know, if we just
Speaker 1: make this fair, Progressives Democrats will be just fine as
Speaker 1: long as it is fair. This is kind of simple, Eric,
Speaker 1: but could you just define what jerrymandering is. Yeah, Jerrymandering
Speaker 1: is the drawing of district lines in such a way
Speaker 1: that you guarantee, almost guarantee that the party that draws
Speaker 1: the lines that their candidate will win. And so you
Speaker 1: end up with people who are in these elected positions
Speaker 1: who don't year a general election because they know they're
Speaker 1: going to win, that the only thing they worry about
Speaker 1: is getting primaried. You know, there's a whole range of things.
Speaker 1: And now we have seen as a result of the
Speaker 1: Dobb's decision, we've seen these gerrymandered state legislatures use the
Speaker 1: power that they have to put in place these anti
Speaker 1: choice laws that are inconsistent with the desires of the
Speaker 1: people in the states where these things are being passed.
Speaker 1: But they can pass these bills even though again every
Speaker 1: state that stunn a poll, every state has said we
Speaker 1: don't want roversus way to overturn. Now, the margins are
Speaker 1: different in New York they than say in Texas, but
Speaker 1: they can put in place these anti choice laws, these
Speaker 1: draconian anti choice laws, and not fear any electoral consequence
Speaker 1: because they're in these gerrymandered state legislatures. And so that's
Speaker 1: what we were We've been fighting, in addition to fighting
Speaker 1: voter suppression and the attacks on our electoral infrastructure. While
Speaker 1: your Attorney General Shelby County, Alabama has this lawsuit to
Speaker 1: weaken the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights out and it
Speaker 1: goes to the Supreme Court and the decision that actually
Speaker 1: does weaken the act. Is this where your inspiration to
Speaker 1: do this kind of where comes from? Where you're already
Speaker 1: thinking about working on voting rights. No, it's interesting. I
Speaker 1: knew that working to protect voting rights was going to
Speaker 1: be within the range of those things that I was
Speaker 1: really going to have to focus on is ag and
Speaker 1: that was fine. But after the Shelby County decision in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, it becomes critically clear that I'm going to
Speaker 1: have to use the power what remains of the power
Speaker 1: that the Justice Department has to try to get at
Speaker 1: what the States almost immediately did after the Shelby County case,
Speaker 1: which is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.
Speaker 1: It's a five four decision where Chief Justice Roberts says,
Speaker 1: America has changed, and as a result of that, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't need to have in the full force that
Speaker 1: we now have, the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five,
Speaker 1: which is the pearl of the jewel, the crown jewel
Speaker 1: of the civil rights movement. Almost immediately States put in
Speaker 1: place these unnecessary photo ID laws. Seventeen hundred polling places
Speaker 1: have been closed around the country since Shelby County decision.
Speaker 1: Unnecessary voter purges have occurred, all of which would have
Speaker 1: been stopped before the Shelby County case by the Justice
Speaker 1: Department in those covered jurisdictions. Because the Justice Department had
Speaker 1: the ability to look at any change in an electoral
Speaker 1: system and say you can't do that. But after Shelby
Speaker 1: County Justice Department did not did not have that power,
Speaker 1: and so it became clear twenty thirteen on the voting
Speaker 1: rights had to be a primary focus of my time
Speaker 1: at the department, and I you know it is again.
Speaker 1: So after I leave the department, or what I said
Speaker 1: in my closing speech was I'm leaving the department, but
Speaker 1: I'll never leave the work. And what I meant by
Speaker 1: that is I'm never going to leave the work to
Speaker 1: protect our democracy generally and to protect the right to
Speaker 1: vote more specifically. Yeah, now it's just us here. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just Derek, Ben and Khalil You. What you really
Speaker 1: want to say is that they mess with the wrong
Speaker 1: brother from Queens. Since your name is on that's the
Speaker 1: Freme Court decision Shelby versus Holding. You said, Okay, I'll
Speaker 1: be back, but I won't be back here as ag.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be back here with a cape and
Speaker 1: an ass underneath my sweater, and I'm ready to bring
Speaker 1: the fight to the people. You can't mess with Sunny
Speaker 1: Holder's boy. Try me. So we just had a midterm
Speaker 1: I mean, Ben and I are still learning from exit
Speaker 1: poll research and results in the newspapers what happened and
Speaker 1: why one outcome went one way and another. Obviously, the
Speaker 1: degree to which the Democrats retain control of the Senate
Speaker 1: but lost the House is as a sort of mixed outcome.
Speaker 1: But I'm really curious, as a native New Yorker, to
Speaker 1: what degree do you see that in New York and
Speaker 1: in the nation, your own work over these past several
Speaker 1: years having led to a good outcome, Is it a
Speaker 1: mixed outcome for you? How do you weigh the results
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty two midterm elections? Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I think in a lot of ways a twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two midterm or midterms are validation of the work that
Speaker 1: we did. We have seen, you know, the flip of
Speaker 1: state legislative chambers in Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, you know, trifecta
Speaker 1: control for Democrats for the first time in forty years
Speaker 1: in Michigan, much more fair voting in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Speaker 1: North Carolina. So lots of lots of pluses. So I'd
Speaker 1: say overall it was a good night. There was a
Speaker 1: good mid term that, as I said, validated a lot
Speaker 1: of the work that we did New York, there is
Speaker 1: an interesting case. You know, Initially a lot of people said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's because of the redistricting that was done
Speaker 1: inappropriately overreached by New York Democrats. And then you know,
Speaker 1: the court drew the lines in such a way that
Speaker 1: were unfair at least as we looked at kind of
Speaker 1: the data here. The places where Democrats lost in New
Speaker 1: York were pro Biden districts by a variety I think
Speaker 1: two percent to five percent. And so something else was
Speaker 1: going on there as to why, you know, Democrats loss,
Speaker 1: I think the crime you know, measures or the crime
Speaker 1: arguments republican, the rhetoric, the fair langering. Yet yeah, really
Speaker 1: kind of resonated for whatever reason in New York in
Speaker 1: a way that did not resonate in similar kinds of
Speaker 1: suburban districts in other states. And so I think more study,
Speaker 1: I think it's going to have to be is going
Speaker 1: to have to be done. But it wasn't the redistricting.
Speaker 1: I think that cost Democrats critically, you know, four or
Speaker 1: five seats in New York. It was something else, Eric
Speaker 1: as you're saying, it was a good night that the
Speaker 1: election day, the election was a good night. You're wearing
Speaker 1: two hats. I sort of hear you say, like one
Speaker 1: as a Democratic stalwart, and you're saying like how Democrats did,
Speaker 1: but you're also talking about was it fair? And we're
Speaker 1: the problems with the vote, and those seem those could
Speaker 1: be aligned, but they don't necessarily have to be. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, Ben that you say that, because I actually
Speaker 1: think that I'm not. I'm wearing one hat because the
Speaker 1: reality is, although yeah, I'm a Democrat and proud of that,
Speaker 1: one party has made the determination in our system, and
Speaker 1: let's just be fair, let's you know, be accurate about this.
Speaker 1: One party stands for democratic small d democratic principles, you know,
Speaker 1: pro democracy. Another party, because of the demographic changes that
Speaker 1: it faces, the ideological ideological shifts that I think the
Speaker 1: nation is undergoing, they've made peace with the notion that
Speaker 1: they can be, in terms of popular support, a minority
Speaker 1: party that has majority power. And so they do a
Speaker 1: whole range of things racial and partists in jerrymandering, making
Speaker 1: it more difficult for people to vote, suppressing the vote.
Speaker 1: And so when I say we had a good night,
Speaker 1: what I meant by that? And it made me make
Speaker 1: this clear to everybody. I meant that democracy had a
Speaker 1: good night. Now that also meant that Democrats had a
Speaker 1: good night, because Republicans are too much of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party has kind of turned its back on that, which
Speaker 1: when we are saying we are exceptional, the thing that
Speaker 1: makes us exceptional is the fact that we let the
Speaker 1: people decide. We've been an imperfect nation. You know, we're
Speaker 1: better than we were fifty years ago and better than
Speaker 1: fifty years before, but we're still not at a place
Speaker 1: where we need to be. But I'm really worried about
Speaker 1: where the Republican Party is headed. Yeah. Well, this is
Speaker 1: one of the things that I think is really interesting
Speaker 1: about this moment, because you have given speeches about and
Speaker 1: you've written in your book about the history that helps
Speaker 1: inform how we Americans ought to think about democracy as sacrosanct,
Speaker 1: as non negotiable. And yet I think it's fair eric
Speaker 1: to say that America didn't actually deliver democracy to all
Speaker 1: of its people until nineteen sixty five, in which case
Speaker 1: we're talking about more than or just shy of essentially
Speaker 1: two hundred years of a country who so called liberal
Speaker 1: democracy was not for everyone. And I'm wondering how do
Speaker 1: you navigate the sort of tide of history and the
Speaker 1: need to actually make these changes In a sense, wouldn't
Speaker 1: we have to become a different nation legislatively and by structure,
Speaker 1: by political structure, by the very reforms you proposed would
Speaker 1: actually change the bones of this country in order to
Speaker 1: maintain the post nineteen sixty five multiracial democracy. You know,
Speaker 1: the demographic changes are baked into this nation. We're going
Speaker 1: to be a we say, twenty fifty, we will have
Speaker 1: more people of color than than white folks in this nation.
Speaker 1: Now that's been moved up to twenty forty three. The
Speaker 1: last I look might even be earlier than that now.
Speaker 1: And so those demographic changes can be a source of
Speaker 1: great strength for this nation or they can be unbelievably divisive.
Speaker 1: And you know, Donald Trump has tried to use those
Speaker 1: demographic changes to instill fear and to gain political control.
Speaker 1: And so we've got to look at the structure of
Speaker 1: our nation. And yeah, it was groundbreaking and wonderful two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years or so ago, but it was flawed.
Speaker 1: And the first group of people who fought for the
Speaker 1: right to vote were white men and the Jacksonian era, Yeah,
Speaker 1: who did their own property. While the founders are in
Speaker 1: the process of putting this thing called America together, they
Speaker 1: consider a couple they consider one thing. On somebody said, well,
Speaker 1: what we should let all white men vote? Well, not
Speaker 1: only with property. And when somebody one of the founders says,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, if you give white men without property
Speaker 1: the right to vote, they don't have the intellectual capacity.
Speaker 1: They'll be able to be bought off. And interestingly says,
Speaker 1: if you give them the right to vote, other groups
Speaker 1: we're going to ask for the right to vote, including
Speaker 1: up hold on to it now women And sure enough,
Speaker 1: as that founding father predicted, other groups over time have
Speaker 1: sought that that right to vote. But we need to
Speaker 1: make structural changes. I mean, yeah, it was great two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years or so ago. You know, the
Speaker 1: Senate two senators for every state, part of the you know,
Speaker 1: the great Compromise. So Wyoming's got to with less people
Speaker 1: than why Hington DC a sticking point for me, and
Speaker 1: California with over thirty million people, you know, has to
Speaker 1: We've allowed the filibuster to render the Senate to be
Speaker 1: a place that just doesn't function well. Supreme Court life
Speaker 1: tenures sounded great when people lived, you know, much shorter lives,
Speaker 1: and people left the court in the early parts of
Speaker 1: our country when they died. Now people do these strategic retirements,
Speaker 1: and this is Democrats as well as Republicans. You know,
Speaker 1: they leave when they decide that they're going to have
Speaker 1: a president who will appoint somebody like them. And we
Speaker 1: put people on the court when they're like in the
Speaker 1: late forties, early fifties and with the hope that they'll
Speaker 1: serve forty fifty years. That's too much time for somebody
Speaker 1: to have that much power. Yeah, you're proposing now that
Speaker 1: it'd be eighteen year terms. And I've read this and
Speaker 1: heard it amongst some of my colleagues who are law professors,
Speaker 1: that eighteen year term limited. I think actually the former
Speaker 1: Justice Brier has recently come out also in favor of
Speaker 1: term limited Supreme Court appointments. You know, that's one of
Speaker 1: the rare places. The Chief Justice Roberts and I agree
Speaker 1: he says term limits of fifteen years. I say eighteen
Speaker 1: because I also think that a president should appoint a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice in his or her first year as
Speaker 1: well as her third year of an administration. So a
Speaker 1: president would be guaranteed to Supreme Court appointments every term,
Speaker 1: and if you have them at eighteen years, over time,
Speaker 1: that will expand the court in the short term, but
Speaker 1: over time the court will come back to nine members.
Speaker 1: And just to close the loop on this point, I think,
Speaker 1: I mean this tension between fairness and what's in the
Speaker 1: interests of the Democratic Party, which is often the main
Speaker 1: talking point of the Fox News and conservative ecosystem. I mean,
Speaker 1: all these reforms are really just to put more Democrats
Speaker 1: in power. Fundamentally turns on a rejection of the notion,
Speaker 1: as was true in the Founding Generation, that people who
Speaker 1: are taxed and who have obligations to the state should
Speaker 1: also have the right to vote. Period hard stop, end
Speaker 1: of story, and we'll let the electoral outcomes of their
Speaker 1: patient let the chips fall where they may. So it's
Speaker 1: not fundamentally fair that Puerto Rico has essentially been treated
Speaker 1: as a stepchild in our democratic system of government, and
Speaker 1: more certainly true for the residents of Washington, DC. I
Speaker 1: mean that's your point, yeah, and clear you make a
Speaker 1: really good point there, because I think the reality is
Speaker 1: that it's a telling thing about where the conservative movement
Speaker 1: is right now, where the Republican Party is right now
Speaker 1: that when you stand for things that looked at I
Speaker 1: think objectively, are just all about fairness, injecting fairness into
Speaker 1: the system, they deem that partisan. Right. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: people ought to have the right to vote. We should
Speaker 1: have more polling places. We should reduce the number the
Speaker 1: amount of time it takes for a person to vote.
Speaker 1: We should make it easy for people to vote by
Speaker 1: letting people vote by mail, you have early voting hours
Speaker 1: and people that's you know, you're favoring Democrats. No, I'm
Speaker 1: favoring the American people. Now it may mean that more
Speaker 1: I don't know, Democrats will maybe Democrats when maybe Demo
Speaker 1: perhaps to lose. I don't really care as long as
Speaker 1: the system is fair. We are here with the amazing
Speaker 1: Eric Holder, Sonny's kid, and we will be back after
Speaker 1: a short break to talk about a more perfect future.
Speaker 1: So one of the things I'm struck by, Eric, is
Speaker 1: that there's this chicken and egg problem, meaning that in
Speaker 1: order to get to these reforms like automatic voter registration,
Speaker 1: like reforming the use of the filibuster by getting rid
Speaker 1: of it, by dealing with Supreme Court term limits, all
Speaker 1: of these are in the end legislative reforms, you'll have
Speaker 1: to get voters to support passing this legislation. And as
Speaker 1: a Ben and I being gen xers, you know, we
Speaker 1: are keenly aware that for our generation that's been written
Speaker 1: out of the history books at having accomplished nothing like
Speaker 1: the first generation of FoST civil writers, right like your generation, Eric.
Speaker 1: You know, you guys took the reins of power. You
Speaker 1: were the first to show up in all parts of
Speaker 1: American society, and then your kids us ultimately just set
Speaker 1: on our hands and enjoyed the fruits of all that labor. Now,
Speaker 1: of course with this podcast, we are trying to make
Speaker 1: up for lost time. But that's totally unfair, I mean,
Speaker 1: because the reality is that your generation has accomplished a
Speaker 1: great deal, you know, thank you, No, I mean that's
Speaker 1: really true. And in the notion that somehow or other,
Speaker 1: you know, boomers did all these wonderful things and then
Speaker 1: nothing has happened. I mean, you know that which the
Speaker 1: generation before me put in place or started, and that
Speaker 1: we've tried to keep going. Your generation has done its
Speaker 1: part to do, you know, as we did, and you'll
Speaker 1: want get nearly the credit that you deserve, you know,
Speaker 1: you guys are still young and malleable, and we need
Speaker 1: to bring you over to the democracy side. You know,
Speaker 1: I love it, I love it. I'm ready. I signed
Speaker 1: me up. But on this point, so we are talking
Speaker 1: about a generational divide, and it's not it's not not
Speaker 1: an issue, right because, as you well know, in John
Speaker 1: Lewis's day, when he decided to leave Troy, Alabama, to
Speaker 1: leave his parents who were farmers, to make his way
Speaker 1: to Fisk University and sit at the foot of Jim
Speaker 1: Lawson and learn about the nonviolent movement he broke from
Speaker 1: his parents. They did not send him out there to
Speaker 1: make sacrifice to change the world. And it seems to me,
Speaker 1: just from my perspective, that we are still living with
Speaker 1: generational tensions between young black activists who are engaging in
Speaker 1: racial justice movements right now on the ground. Some of
Speaker 1: them are teenagers, some of them are like Latasha Brown,
Speaker 1: who is organizing in Alabama and really nationally for black
Speaker 1: voters matter. How do you make sense of today's generational
Speaker 1: divide between a baby boom generation that's still active, still
Speaker 1: doing things, and even how we sort of hold up
Speaker 1: people like John Lewis as an avatar for change when
Speaker 1: there are people today doing this work. This generational tension,
Speaker 1: it certainly exists and we can but we can make
Speaker 1: more of it than it actually is. I mean, I
Speaker 1: look at these young people today and they remind me
Speaker 1: of me. I'm the guy you know, at that age
Speaker 1: who was taken over the Naval ROTC office to come
Speaker 1: up with a black lounge. You know, attention is good
Speaker 1: because young people are the ones least beat down by
Speaker 1: the experiences that you acquire over time, and it's almost inevitable,
Speaker 1: you know, as you age, they are the most optimistic.
Speaker 1: They are the ones who are physically, you know, most capable.
Speaker 1: And so the question is how do you harness that
Speaker 1: energy with the knowledge that that older folks have. You know,
Speaker 1: Richard probably to always say, you don't see many old fools.
Speaker 1: You know, when you get to be old, you've been
Speaker 1: able to navigate, at least at a minimum, you know,
Speaker 1: keep yourself alive. And so getting that that experiential base
Speaker 1: along with that youthful fervor, that is the way in
Speaker 1: which you know the movement at the end of the
Speaker 1: day will be most successful. Now it means that people
Speaker 1: have to again keep their eyes on the price and
Speaker 1: we can argue about tactics, and you have to compromise
Speaker 1: around tactics, which you never compromise about what our ultimate
Speaker 1: goals are. I want to stay on this a minute longer,
Speaker 1: because this is fascinating. You talked about being entering your
Speaker 1: seventies and feeling as progressive as you were, or more
Speaker 1: so than even when you were at fifteen. Certainly a
Speaker 1: problem for the Democratic Party is what we're describing here,
Speaker 1: that the leadership is older and more centrist, and the
Speaker 1: younger people are much further to the left on actual policy,
Speaker 1: on the prize, not just on tactics, but like what
Speaker 1: we're supposed to achieve. And so I don't think we
Speaker 1: can just sort of say like we're all. You know,
Speaker 1: this is a good tension, because it's also the riffs that,
Speaker 1: you know, we might have strategies to win elections, but
Speaker 1: we're not even sure what exactly we stand for. It's
Speaker 1: a tension that on one hand leads some young voters
Speaker 1: to not vote because they feel like they're not being
Speaker 1: captured in the party itself in responding to their political
Speaker 1: vision of the future. And also those young people have
Speaker 1: been scapegoaded by Republicans and the right, as terrorists who
Speaker 1: want to change America, who who literally are the thing
Speaker 1: that Republican voters have to do everything in their power
Speaker 1: to keep from voting, otherwise they would change America. And
Speaker 1: then Democrats runaway. Centrist Democrats run away from them, from
Speaker 1: the youth, from those those charges. Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: interesting because I mean, I think if you look at
Speaker 1: Democrats written large, and say, are you concerned about things
Speaker 1: that animate and move? I think young people, you know,
Speaker 1: are you concerned about climate? They'd all say yes. Are
Speaker 1: you concerned about a woman's right? Two? They all say yes,
Speaker 1: criminal justice reform, yeah, you know, protecting the right to vote? Yeah,
Speaker 1: So everybody's I think, in the same place when it
Speaker 1: comes to those things that are that matter. The question
Speaker 1: that I think that separates the generations is, so what
Speaker 1: is it that we do to get to the place
Speaker 1: where we are dealing effectively with climate? And so, you know,
Speaker 1: you have something the New Green Deal, which has been
Speaker 1: totally misconstrued as a molocialist package to destroy America. Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, people, you know, Fox talks about the New
Speaker 1: Green Deal. They don't have any idea what the New
Speaker 1: Green Deal is about other than it's just a good
Speaker 1: talking point to scare people, you know, and unfortunately, too
Speaker 1: many Democrats you know, get scared, you know, by these
Speaker 1: attacks from the right. The reality is is that I
Speaker 1: think the movement and the party are most successful when
Speaker 1: you stand up for what it is you truly believe
Speaker 1: when you know it's like, don't cut corners, don't try
Speaker 1: to be Republican light conservative light. That doesn't work, you know. Um,
Speaker 1: we are most successful when we stand up and say, look,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, I'm for climate change and call it
Speaker 1: a new Green Deal in the same way that you know,
Speaker 1: I'm proud to be a member of the party that
Speaker 1: started you know, social Security, you know, the New Deal,
Speaker 1: and Medicare and Medicaid and the Civil Rights Act of
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty five, you know, and the the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: That's who we are as progressives and as Democrats and
Speaker 1: to really, you know, interact with the people of this
Speaker 1: country and counter a narrative, I mean, don't be you know, look,
Speaker 1: we got to be as tough as they are, as
Speaker 1: creative as they are. I mean, hell, it's smarter than
Speaker 1: they are. There's no question about that. They have mastered
Speaker 1: the art of the big lie, and so we have
Speaker 1: got to be effective in pushing back against it. And
Speaker 1: that means that, you know, some older Democrats, I don't know,
Speaker 1: centrist democrats have got to ask themselves. You know, you
Speaker 1: claim to be a Democrat, you know understand what that
Speaker 1: means in a historical context, and how do you apply
Speaker 1: the historical context to the present day issues that we've
Speaker 1: confront Yeah, So, in keeping with the theme a more
Speaker 1: perfect future, I'm also struck by this tension in your
Speaker 1: own journey as a public figure about balancing hope and honesty.
Speaker 1: I mean, in part that's what we've been talking about here,
Speaker 1: and the sort of narrative strategies of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: have probably leaned a lot more on unity and hope
Speaker 1: and a little bit less on the honesty of what
Speaker 1: our policies need to be and what it needs to
Speaker 1: be to run on your values in a way that
Speaker 1: you don't run away from them. And something in your
Speaker 1: book really jumped off the page at me in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: on that anniversary of the Selma March, and you describe
Speaker 1: being there and giving a speech in Selma. You say
Speaker 1: that just as you were about to close the speech
Speaker 1: that you decided to end on a hopeful note when
Speaker 1: you knew there would be irreparable harm done by the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And as someone who I've admired in your
Speaker 1: role for your use of your platform, I mean you've
Speaker 1: opened essentially your term as Attorney General giving an internal
Speaker 1: speech to the DLJ where you in the end describe
Speaker 1: the nation as a nation of cowards for being unwilling
Speaker 1: to confront a racial past and to deal with those
Speaker 1: legacy effects today. In closing, just help us think about
Speaker 1: how you balance this tension between the hopeful, aspirational rhetoric
Speaker 1: of what the past teaches us and what we're capable
Speaker 1: overcoming and the honesty that is required that typically our
Speaker 1: young people are a little bit more on the honesty
Speaker 1: side of the equation than the hopeful side. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting because I think what you're tapping into there
Speaker 1: is like, what's leadership about? How do you share honesty
Speaker 1: which can be daunting and can be action defeating. How
Speaker 1: do you combine that with inspiring people to be engaged
Speaker 1: even when the odds seem, you know, set against you.
Speaker 1: You know, in twenty thirteen, Yeah, I understand what's going
Speaker 1: to happen and what states are going to do with
Speaker 1: this new freedom that the Supreme Court has inappropriately given
Speaker 1: to them. But I want people to leave that church
Speaker 1: with the sense that whatever it is that we're going
Speaker 1: to have to confront, history tells us in this space
Speaker 1: that every generation of Americans has met challenges to democracy
Speaker 1: and that this generation can't be the first that does not.
Speaker 1: You know, whether it is threats from outside the country,
Speaker 1: you know, Nazis, or threats from within you know, white supremacists,
Speaker 1: and you know other structural inequalities that are baked into
Speaker 1: the system. You know, we have every generation has expanded
Speaker 1: the franchise try to protect our democracy, and that this
Speaker 1: generation can't be the one. This can't be the time
Speaker 1: where we are not successful in that defense of an
Speaker 1: expansion of democracy. So it's it's it's me. It's melding
Speaker 1: that honesty with that notion of hope. Eric. So, I
Speaker 1: mean since that moment in twenty thirteen, have you changed?
Speaker 1: I mean you're talking about different kinds of leadership, and
Speaker 1: here you've written this book and the work you're doing,
Speaker 1: you're much more direct and addressing the hired truths the problems.
Speaker 1: Is this a time for a different kind of leadership
Speaker 1: for for calling out the problems and focusing on them
Speaker 1: using the khalil you know equation in there. I think
Speaker 1: it's a time to dial up to a greater degree
Speaker 1: of honesty component because I think people need to understand
Speaker 1: what's at stake, you know, And I don't mean to
Speaker 1: scare people, but I mean the reality is that, you know,
Speaker 1: you look at what happened in Europe in the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: You know, fascism rose not because fascism was strong, but
Speaker 1: because the defense of democracy was weak. And it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean we'll have a dictator here in the United States,
Speaker 1: but you could render meaningless our elections every two years,
Speaker 1: every four years, every six years, unless we are willing
Speaker 1: to stand up for our democracy. You know. Again, we
Speaker 1: had a pretty good night a couple of two days ago.
Speaker 1: All the election deniers who ran for Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: a position that people never focused on before, all of
Speaker 1: them were defeated. It's important a blatt of election deniers
Speaker 1: were defeated at a whole range of levels, but some
Speaker 1: did win at the local level, and so we got
Speaker 1: to be concerned about that. And what it is that
Speaker 1: they would do with that power is shown by what
Speaker 1: they tried to do in January the sixth. That wasn't
Speaker 1: you know, we talked about insurrection and people, I'm short
Speaker 1: an insurrection. That was a cool attempt. That was an
Speaker 1: attempt to capitate our democracy, to stop the peaceful transfer
Speaker 1: of powers, drop peaceful, to just stop the transfer of power.
Speaker 1: You know. That was an attempt to somehow stop the
Speaker 1: American people from having their voices heard and deciding who
Speaker 1: the next president of the United States was going to be.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were all about doing things that we
Speaker 1: see happen or have seen happen, you know, in other countries,
Speaker 1: and because it happened in other countries, it can happen here.
Speaker 1: That's right. Democracy is a fragile thing and if we
Speaker 1: don't fight for it, we can lose it. Yeah. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to end this conversation with your own words,
Speaker 1: which I think are a taste of that honesty. And
Speaker 1: for those who haven't had a chance to read the book,
Speaker 1: you can pick it up and read it yourself. You
Speaker 1: say we are in the middle of a crisis. You say, now,
Speaker 1: anyone who tells you progress is inevitable is mistaken. Demography
Speaker 1: is not destiny. Moral arcs don't been with certainty. History
Speaker 1: is not a Marvel movie. The good guys lose as
Speaker 1: often as they win, and so we have to fight
Speaker 1: for the things that matter. Thank you so much, Eric Holder,
Speaker 1: little Ricky son of Sunny Holder, not to be confused
Speaker 1: with Sunny Listen are We are really grateful that you
Speaker 1: took some time to join us on some of my
Speaker 1: best friends are all right. Thanks for having me, Ben,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me clear it has been it's been
Speaker 1: a lot of fun. Yeah, thank you so much, Eric Man.
Speaker 1: What a great conversation. I mean, his love of his background,
Speaker 1: his family, the journey he's been on is really strong
Speaker 1: voice and honesty. It just was impressive. But there's one
Speaker 1: thing that he made reference to about that TV show
Speaker 1: that none of us have seen and may never see,
Speaker 1: about the political pressures of being the first black attorney general.
Speaker 1: And I was really curious. I didn't I didn't get
Speaker 1: a chance to ask it during the interview, but I
Speaker 1: was really curious about what exactly he was talking about. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is the show that he made with our
Speaker 1: friend Sasha Penn that that they made a pilot but
Speaker 1: it didn't go to series. That's what you're talking about, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and I kind of asked you maybe you could talk
Speaker 1: to Sasha and find out I talked to Sasha about it.
Speaker 1: You know, this is you talked to it. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is CBS. You know the murder she wrote stations, so
Speaker 1: they didn't they couldn't they couldn't pick it up. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the political pressures about being the first black attorney general.
Speaker 1: So the show was like working with these ideas that
Speaker 1: you know, he had the staff that had been there
Speaker 1: through multiple administrations, and when they weren't supporting him this,
Speaker 1: you know, this black ag has to worry like are
Speaker 1: they not supporting me because they disagree with my policies
Speaker 1: or because I'm black? You mean, like that the same
Speaker 1: kind of stuff I have to deal with when my
Speaker 1: students give me bad, bad marks. I'm like, is it
Speaker 1: no joking? Yeah, no, it goes deeper. There isn't a
Speaker 1: Barack Obama character, meaning the president at that time is
Speaker 1: a white man who appointed him to the job because
Speaker 1: they needed ratings. Has too much Blackfoot television. You can
Speaker 1: have either a black president or a black tangent, or
Speaker 1: you can't have both. Maybe not because I didn't get
Speaker 1: picked up the series, but when he's like investigating some mouthfeasance,
Speaker 1: possibly by the president. Again, there's a sort of racial tension,
Speaker 1: but I think where race maybe comes up the most
Speaker 1: is that they are all these threats on his life.
Speaker 1: And when Sasha was researching the show, he said that
Speaker 1: he talked to the person and assigned to protect Erk
Speaker 1: Colder and he was like, yeah, man, they came all
Speaker 1: the time. You know, he had not seen this man,
Speaker 1: oh damn. Yeah. Wow. Hence, political pressure is like to
Speaker 1: just to like shut up and dribble for the attorney general.
Speaker 1: But you know, maybe maybe most importantly so that show
Speaker 1: didn't get picked up. But you know, when Sasha is
Speaker 1: writing the show for us, you know about some of
Speaker 1: my best friends, are we're gonna get picked up the
Speaker 1: series all got it? Got it? Yes? Yeah, because nobody
Speaker 1: is trying to kill us. Well, you know the first
Speaker 1: thing is I think it won't be on CBS. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be on cable. That's gonna be the thing that
Speaker 1: gets us going. You mean, like the tub channel, No,
Speaker 1: maybe cook us up? Maybe stars all right, all right,
Speaker 1: all right, man, well listen, I love that Sasha got
Speaker 1: to be part of this episode, and of course I
Speaker 1: love you man. I love you Too. Some of My
Speaker 1: Best Friends Are is a production of Pushkin Industries. The
Speaker 1: show is written and hosted by me Khalil Dubron Muhammad
Speaker 1: and my best friend Ben Austin. It's produced by John
Speaker 1: Asante and Lucy Sullivan. Our editor is Jasmine Morris, our
Speaker 1: engineer is Amanda k Juan, and our executive producer is
Speaker 1: Mia LaBelle. At Pushkin thanks to Leta Mullad, Julia Barton,
Speaker 1: Heather Faine, Carly Nigliori, John Schnars, Gretta Cone, and Jacob Weisberg.
Speaker 1: Our theme song, Little Lily, is by fellow chicagoan the
Speaker 1: Brilliant Avery R. Young, from his album Tubman. You definitely
Speaker 1: want to check out his music at his website Avery R.
Speaker 1: Young dot com. You can find Pushkin on all social
Speaker 1: platforms at pushkin pods and you can sign up for
Speaker 1: our newsletter at pushkin dot fm. To find more Pushkin podcasts,
Speaker 1: listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: like to listen. And if you like our show, please
Speaker 1: give us a five star rating and a review and listen.
Speaker 1: Even if you don't like it, give it a five
Speaker 1: star rating and a review and please tell all of
Speaker 1: your best friends about it. Thank you. That's gonna be
Speaker 1: like the hardest thing that you all do. How do
Speaker 1: you keep Khalil quiet for fifteen seconds? He wasn't really
Speaker 1: quiet there. You could hear you with moving around. I mean, like, like, Khalil,
Speaker 1: don't say anything for fifteen seconds. That's clothed. Damn near impossible, right,