Speaker 1: Native Lampod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership with
Speaker 1: Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Welcome, well come, well come, well come.
Speaker 1: Welcome, Welcome home, y'all. This is episode sixty seven of
Speaker 1: Native Lampod. I am your co host, Angela Raie. My
Speaker 1: co host Tiffany Cross and Andrew Gillim are with us
Speaker 1: today and we have so much to talk about. I
Speaker 1: got to tell you guys. One of these things that
Speaker 1: is that's really been on my mind all morning. Y'all know,
Speaker 1: I was yelling about it on the pre production call.
Speaker 1: Is Elon Musk having five on it saying that he's
Speaker 1: considering a five thousand dollars tax credit, which seems like
Speaker 1: it's another STEMI check to folks who may be not
Speaker 1: as familiar with what's really going on to reading that
Speaker 1: fine print. So that's one of the things I want
Speaker 1: to talk about, tiff Andrew. What you guys got, Well,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of you.
Speaker 3: Guys sent us in questions, and so I want to
Speaker 3: make sure that we get to your questions. There was
Speaker 3: one particular question about participating in local elections, which I
Speaker 3: think is extra are important right now. So throughout the show,
Speaker 3: we'll be taking your viewer questions. But there's one particular
Speaker 3: on local elections that I'll dive into.
Speaker 4: And you know, ladies, the uh uh, the American people
Speaker 4: have been watching again on a squivel, all these court cases,
Speaker 4: all these filings. We all want to know what do
Speaker 4: they mean? And so the question of do these court
Speaker 4: cases matter at all? And are they having any impact
Speaker 4: on curbing this administration? I want to get into that.
Speaker 4: I love it.
Speaker 1: Well, let's get into it. Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 3: Can I just tell you guys something, Yeah, outside the window,
Speaker 3: is Lady Gaga trying to eavesdrop on our podcast.
Speaker 4: I think you should go say hello and take the
Speaker 4: camera with you.
Speaker 3: Until I keep looking in the window over here, I'm like, I.
Speaker 1: Need some aternatives make up so I can't hear more
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 4: She was whispering.
Speaker 1: I didn't want her listening. We're going to make sure
Speaker 1: we keep that in the show, just for you, lady,
Speaker 1: Welcome home, so I really keep it speak speaking of
Speaker 1: things that matter, we're talking about do court cases matter.
Speaker 1: One of the things that we talked about is it
Speaker 1: seems like a court case matter. There may have been
Speaker 1: some justice just a couple days ago with the acquittal
Speaker 1: of asab Rocky. But with everybody else in the country
Speaker 1: and the cases that are being brought against this administration,
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel like they're mattering, especially when you have
Speaker 1: a president who says things like this and signs executive
Speaker 1: orders to support this. Can we roll that clip?
Speaker 5: Lastly, we have another executive order that President Trump signed
Speaker 5: relating to independent agencies. This executive order would establish important
Speaker 5: oversight functions in the Office of Management and Budget and
Speaker 5: its subsidiary office OHIRA, supervising independent agencies and many of
Speaker 5: their actions, and also re establishes the long standing norm
Speaker 5: that only the President or the Attorney General can speak
Speaker 5: for the United States when stating in opinion as to
Speaker 5: what the law is.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Well, that was the primary purpose of this conference. So
Speaker 1: here's why this matters. Of course, we've talked about already
Speaker 1: on this podcast. I did a solo pod on whether
Speaker 1: or not this is this This moment is defined as
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis when you have three co equal branches
Speaker 1: of government and somebody just completely ignoring one of those
Speaker 1: branches of government, just like we're ignoring Andrew's phone ringing rude.
Speaker 1: I think that what we have to acknowledge is that
Speaker 1: when a court issues an opinion saying there's a temporary
Speaker 1: restraining order on your ability to freeze these funds because
Speaker 1: you're operating outside of what is in your power. And
Speaker 1: then the administration visa VI your new president South African
Speaker 1: Elon Musk coming around to say, actually, only the president
Speaker 1: can decide whether or not these court orders will be
Speaker 1: enforceable at all. And then Donald Trump coming behind him
Speaker 1: and saying on Twitter a quote that they've associated with
Speaker 1: Napoleon about when a man is working to save his country,
Speaker 1: he breaks no laws. All of these things combined with
Speaker 1: the cases there are now well over fifty, saying that
Speaker 1: the four thank you Andrew, seventy four cases, the executive
Speaker 1: branch is engaging in a significant unconstitutional overreach of their powers.
Speaker 1: And you have them signing the executive order saying, hell
Speaker 1: would every act Congress has, every past, every bill that's
Speaker 1: been signed into law by every president. This is what
Speaker 1: we're doing. We gonna tell you we're the only ones
Speaker 1: that tell you what the law is, even if I
Speaker 1: broke them eighty eight times.
Speaker 4: So what is the honestly I mean, it says since
Speaker 4: your question, because I don't know the answer. What is
Speaker 4: what is the long standing practice? You see it was
Speaker 4: his comments were preempted by the gentleman product. I'm saying
Speaker 4: re establishing the long held practice that when it comes
Speaker 4: to stating what the law of the country is, that
Speaker 4: that responsibility falls exclusively to the Attorney General of the
Speaker 4: United States and the President of the United States. I'm
Speaker 4: unfamiliar with the long held practice, Tiff or Angela, do
Speaker 4: either of you all? I mean, they make up stuff
Speaker 4: all the time. I just want to just one of them.
Speaker 1: They're taking it up like we don't even have to
Speaker 1: litigate this. They are making it up.
Speaker 6: It is.
Speaker 1: It runs a foul of what is printed on paper.
Speaker 1: In the United States Constitution, full stop. There are three
Speaker 1: co equal branches of government. The legislative branch are the
Speaker 1: ones responsible for passing the laws. The President signs those
Speaker 1: into law. He's responsible for implementing and executing those laws
Speaker 1: passed by Congress the House in the Senate, he's responsible
Speaker 1: for executing the laws, as is the rest of the
Speaker 1: executive branch, and the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting
Speaker 1: the law. They don't get to decide what the law is.
Speaker 1: They don't get to declare what the law is unless
Speaker 1: they are supporting what has been passed by Congress.
Speaker 3: I have to say, guys, I think this whole and
Speaker 3: I've said this before, and I think we have to
Speaker 3: have a serious consideration that these social norms and more's
Speaker 3: these political norms are core democratic institutions that have existed
Speaker 3: for hundreds of years. In this very young democracy, some
Speaker 3: people will argue it's an old democracy.
Speaker 6: It is not.
Speaker 1: At all.
Speaker 3: I think we have to give serious consideration to it's
Speaker 3: pixie dust. It doesn't exist. And I think that power
Speaker 3: is being tested right now. I think there is a
Speaker 3: false blanket of security that people sleep under at night thinking, oh,
Speaker 3: there's only so much Donald Trump is going to do.
Speaker 3: And I think that speaks to the heart of your point,
Speaker 3: Angel about these three coequal branches of government. Yes, that
Speaker 3: is what has existed. But all you need is enough
Speaker 3: people to say, no, we do not accept those rules anymore.
Speaker 3: This old, you know, antiquated document does not serve us anymore.
Speaker 3: So we you know, this is the fourth time I've
Speaker 3: references on last week's episode that we are reaching a
Speaker 3: constitutional uh potentially a constitutional convention beyond a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 3: In the first test of Trump's power. We will see
Speaker 3: what happens at the Supreme Court level. From the blitz
Speaker 3: of actions that he's taken since he's been in office.
Speaker 3: The new administration has fired the head of a watchdog agency,
Speaker 3: and now this case is going to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: The Conservative Supreme Court bought and paid for. As we've
Speaker 3: talked about, what did you call Clarence Thomas Ahuchi who
Speaker 3: gets flewed out? The Conservative Supreme Court will weigh in
Speaker 3: on does this administration have the right to fire the
Speaker 3: head of special counsel of a whistleblowers organization that enforces
Speaker 3: certain ethics laws. Now, once the Supreme Court says yay
Speaker 3: or nay on this power, that will inform something I
Speaker 3: think the next course of action. We will see this
Speaker 3: administration will defy the courts. So we already have the
Speaker 3: courts that are mostly conservative leaning. Beyond that, this administration,
Speaker 3: I predict, will defy the courts once that happens. What
Speaker 3: does that mean? It's like a question we asked in
Speaker 3: our group chat. If the president can break multiple laws,
Speaker 3: then what is a law? If the administration can consolidate
Speaker 3: power of government to solely the executive branch more specifically
Speaker 3: to Donald Trump and UH to Vice President Donald Trump
Speaker 3: and President Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Then what does that?
Speaker 6: What? Then?
Speaker 3: What is the three co equal branches of government? I
Speaker 3: just think we're in the outer bounds now are of
Speaker 3: what society is. So I don't That's why we keep saying,
Speaker 3: don't say shit to me about mid terms.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear it. Don't even talk care necessarily.
Speaker 1: This is my point.
Speaker 3: We are greely supposes that we will have another election.
Speaker 3: I just don't know that we're there. Either the courts
Speaker 3: at the highest level will uphold his attempt at an autocracy,
Speaker 3: or this administration will buck the courts, and then what happens.
Speaker 3: We've truly not been here before. But I will say,
Speaker 3: historically and across the globe, when you see things like
Speaker 3: this happen in a democracy, it does not go back.
Speaker 3: Nobody goes back to their corner and say, Okay, we're
Speaker 3: bad guys, We're just kidding. We will only go further
Speaker 3: to the right more. It's a plutocracy and autocracy, and
Speaker 3: we'll see more of this. So I don't feel confident
Speaker 3: about any of it.
Speaker 4: I just guessed it. So just want to clarify one
Speaker 4: thing the Special Council would rather to add to Tiffany's point,
Speaker 4: the special Council case that Donald Trump is decided to
Speaker 4: appeal one. It is the only case that so far
Speaker 4: the Trump administration has decided to appeal to the United
Speaker 4: States Supreme Court. Now, the importance of this is that
Speaker 4: these special councils, again created by Congress, exists not to
Speaker 4: audit the legal activity of everybody.
Speaker 3: Is the general case inspectors General the only one want
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 1: Yes, but is it a special Council or Inspector General.
Speaker 1: I just want to make I don't want to.
Speaker 4: Special Council law, which is the office that then investigates
Speaker 4: the actions of elected officials throughout the branches, So the
Speaker 4: Special Council, but we could, we could get in. I
Speaker 4: don't want to dive too deep into that because the
Speaker 4: point is, yeah, I think.
Speaker 1: Some people might want to know. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: thought you were talking about the IGS. I didn't hear
Speaker 1: about this Special Council case.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is the only this is the only appeal
Speaker 4: that he's now taken to the court.
Speaker 1: And I can say, Stanny, He's appealed several other cases,
Speaker 1: but they're just in the circuits they haven't reached the
Speaker 1: this case.
Speaker 4: Goes direct major. It means that it lands that the
Speaker 4: jurisdiction of this case lands directly at the United States
Speaker 4: Supreme Court. They don't have to issue a rich of
Speaker 4: social rory to take it from the lower to the higher.
Speaker 4: It is immediately at the Supreme Court. And I would
Speaker 4: like to argue that the reason why he has made
Speaker 4: that decision, his council has made that decision is because
Speaker 4: in the immunity case of the Supreme Court, in the
Speaker 4: writings of the opinions from the justices, they state that
Speaker 4: the executive branch exists of one person and one person only.
Speaker 4: That's the President of the United States. So the judicial
Speaker 4: has many members of the branch. Obviously, the legislative has
Speaker 4: four hundred and thirty five members of that branch of government.
Speaker 4: If you hold that the executive branch exists consists rather
Speaker 4: of one person, you might, further by extension, conclude that
Speaker 4: any actions that take place within the agencies, the departments,
Speaker 4: anything that exists outside of the other two branches, the
Speaker 4: judiciary and the legislative branch, of the president basically gets
Speaker 4: to make whatever in decision that he wants gets to
Speaker 4: move this country in any kind of way. The Washington
Speaker 4: Post has this byline that says that democracy dies in darkness.
Speaker 1: Right, democracy, I believe there's that.
Speaker 4: I was just going to add the democracy also is
Speaker 4: guying in the light that they have not been secretive
Speaker 4: about their actions. They've stated them plainly. They've been out
Speaker 4: in front and stated them plainly. They lie like Yesterday's gone.
Speaker 4: And it is infuriating and I think very frustrating for us,
Speaker 4: the American people, to see this exercise right in front
Speaker 4: of us and to not understand where the accountability is.
Speaker 4: Well around saying where is the accountability? Who gets to
Speaker 4: check this guy? And your point, Tiffany around what he's
Speaker 4: going to do is flout the courts openly, basically say yep,
Speaker 4: with your army, you go ahead and guarantee that decision.
Speaker 4: I actually don't think it's going to get to that
Speaker 4: point because I don't believe he's going to have to
Speaker 4: with this court.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. But can I just say, really quick, is
Speaker 1: I don't want us to get too far away from
Speaker 1: this special Council piece I wanted to read. I was
Speaker 1: confused I was combining this with the IG's cases. You
Speaker 1: all heard the Office of Special Counsel is a separate
Speaker 1: and independent agency. It is not housed in any federal agency.
Speaker 1: The OSC has traditionally been tasked with protecting federal whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: That's a big deal. So you started to see members
Speaker 1: of Congress putting these whistleblower pages on their sites so
Speaker 1: people can independently file whistle blower complaints with members of
Speaker 1: Congress and relevant committees investigating reports of corruption, fraud, and
Speaker 1: government waste. You would think that Elon Musk would want
Speaker 1: to work with this agency with DOGE because they have
Speaker 1: a bunch of experience figuring this out. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to pause there and say that because I think we
Speaker 1: have also have an obligation to people.
Speaker 3: I didn't say that in the beginning, that is whistleblower organization.
Speaker 3: But I think Angela's point really quickly. Androids want to
Speaker 3: get this point out. The fact that Angela didn't know
Speaker 3: about this. This has been kind of my point. So
Speaker 3: many people don't know about this. This was above the fold.
Speaker 3: A one New York Times people are not waking up,
Speaker 3: not this that the New York Times people are not
Speaker 3: waking up reading the New York Times. Most people are
Speaker 3: going to watch CNN, the social media or whatever. I
Speaker 3: My point is, most people have no idea what's happening.
Speaker 3: This is a major case going to the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: that is going to determine and this was probably what
Speaker 3: a week ago that it came out. What also happened
Speaker 3: that most people don't know about. I didn't see a
Speaker 3: breaking news banner anywhere. These half witted idiots fired the
Speaker 3: people who oversee and refurbish are nuclear warheads and developed them.
Speaker 3: They fired them. What I was saying, And you and
Speaker 3: I may be unique in this because when I say
Speaker 3: this to people, they're like, what I didn't know. I
Speaker 3: didn't know what case was going to Supreme Court? What
Speaker 3: they fired the nuclear Are you sure because I didn't
Speaker 3: see that? And I'm like, yes, that is the entire point.
Speaker 3: The media has capitulated. They had they benefit from keeping
Speaker 3: people in the dark. And so if you're not waking
Speaker 3: up reading the Times or the posts or you know,
Speaker 3: the journal or whatever, it is completely flying by people.
Speaker 3: And that that is all very intentional.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, I don't want to lose the strand
Speaker 4: of what you had to say before when you described
Speaker 4: the role of this Special Council. The reason why I
Speaker 4: made the argument that they are taking this as the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court is You're correct, it is independent, as are
Speaker 4: these auditors supposedly within each of these departments. They're supposed
Speaker 4: to be independent auditors, not doing the bidding of the department,
Speaker 4: but rather making sure that it is being accountable to
Speaker 4: the law. The reason why I believe that this is
Speaker 4: the right case for them is because the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: is said right already in this community case, if the
Speaker 4: department is independent, yet it doesn't exist under the arm
Speaker 4: of Congress. If it's independent and yet it doesn't exist
Speaker 4: under the judiciary, then does the president have jurisdiction over
Speaker 4: every agency, no matter who creates And they're arguing that
Speaker 4: they do, and therefore he did have the power to
Speaker 4: fire anybody he wants to reduce that office to practically
Speaker 4: ashes if he wants to, And this is gonna be
Speaker 4: a this will be a key case. I am holding out.
Speaker 4: Angela and I had this offline conversation about whether or
Speaker 4: not Amy Kobe, Barrett and Cavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Might be the handmaiden.
Speaker 4: Well, I just she did have a dissenting even though
Speaker 4: she was in the majority. She had a different reason
Speaker 4: for deciding the way she decided opinion yes, and so
Speaker 4: I don't know how this is going to fall out.
Speaker 4: I honestly, my knee jerk tells me past his prologue
Speaker 4: that essentially whatever they what they've shown us up to
Speaker 4: this point is what they will do. And what they've
Speaker 4: shown us up to this point is that even the
Speaker 4: court under Roberts is prepared to bend nie to Donald Trump,
Speaker 4: and I think they're going to continue it.
Speaker 1: I have a question. I want to just say. I
Speaker 1: get really irritated. I know this is not the intention,
Speaker 1: but I just want to say this in my humanity,
Speaker 1: I get irritated when it's said that I don't read,
Speaker 1: or that people aren't reading, and I'm included as people.
Speaker 1: I don't feel like that's what was meant. But I
Speaker 1: just want to acknowledge that that I'm trying to sift
Speaker 1: through thirty plus cases. They are coming out in real
Speaker 1: time executive orders breaking this stuff down, and the case
Speaker 1: that I know the most about it is the IG's case,
Speaker 1: which we were supposed to talk about. I was not
Speaker 1: aware of a special counsel, and I'm hearing special counsel
Speaker 1: like at DOJ. I still wasn't aware of all the
Speaker 1: facts of this case, so I appreciate it, but I
Speaker 1: also want to go back to clarify. I can't remember
Speaker 1: who said it, but I think I heard, and correct
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong. Somebody say that they didn't go
Speaker 1: through the regular courts, they're going straight through to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and that's not true either. So I just
Speaker 1: want to make sure we're clear.
Speaker 4: That's why.
Speaker 1: Yes, Okay, I didn't. I was like, but I thought
Speaker 1: I heard somebody say they're appealing it straight to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. That's not what happened. The lower court, the
Speaker 1: district court already heard it and they're appealing again because
Speaker 1: they don't like either ruling. So it's been it's been
Speaker 1: litigated twice just on this order. They don't like the
Speaker 1: ruling because it's clear that Donald Trump broke the law
Speaker 1: based on what the Act says, which it says he
Speaker 1: can only or the person right now, it's a man
Speaker 1: can only be fired for an act of malfeasis, yes,
Speaker 1: for cause, and that is not what has happened. Okay, Sorry,
Speaker 1: just to clarify.
Speaker 3: My only point was it was on the cover of
Speaker 3: the Post The Times in the wall Street Journal, and
Speaker 3: most people didn't even know about it because they aren't
Speaker 3: waking up reading those papers. Okay, lots of court drama
Speaker 3: this week actually, and on the other side of this break,
Speaker 3: we're going to get into asap Rocky. I have questions
Speaker 3: about it, so we'll see you on the other side
Speaker 3: of this break.
Speaker 1: Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 3: I have a question about another court case that I
Speaker 3: don't know about because I didn't read about it, and
Speaker 3: that is if we want to switch, because mine is
Speaker 3: not as serious. So I don't want to get us
Speaker 3: off topic. But I do actually have legitimate, legitimate question
Speaker 3: about the asap Rocky case because I honestly did not
Speaker 3: read anything about it. I didn't follow it. I don't
Speaker 3: know anything about it, and you guys may be better
Speaker 3: versed on that than me. Do we want to talk
Speaker 3: about that serious?
Speaker 4: Moving very swiftly from the free world.
Speaker 3: It's serious stuff going on. But there is also the
Speaker 3: thing with asap Rockey as well.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's fair to say that that's not serious, right,
Speaker 1: You're right, I do think no, no, no, no, I
Speaker 1: just it's just and it's just a point of a
Speaker 1: different perspective. But I just would say first, we didn't
Speaker 1: get into it. But with the Tanya Chicken ruling, a
Speaker 1: lot of people are like, oh, now he's gonna every
Speaker 1: single thing that he brings to the courts. Even the
Speaker 1: judges who are appointed by Biden or Obama, they're siding
Speaker 1: with him too. I think that the point that we
Speaker 1: have to remember is, folks who may sue the Trump
Speaker 1: administration for cause you suffered a direct, immediate, and there
Speaker 1: in some instances irreparable harm, that is always going to
Speaker 1: be the requirement for standing. So I know in this
Speaker 1: moment like I'm one of them, and I'm an attorney,
Speaker 1: and I should know better. I've been like, why don't
Speaker 1: they just sue? The thing is, it can't just be
Speaker 1: a union that sues. It can't just be a group
Speaker 1: of folks representing the inspector generals. It can't just be
Speaker 1: this civil rights org that stands up to protect these
Speaker 1: various entities. And NAACP LDF suit dropped this morning. By
Speaker 1: the time, y'all see this a couple of days ago,
Speaker 1: where they are suing against the DEI, the diversity equity
Speaker 1: inclusion anti the discriminatory policies put forth by this administration.
Speaker 1: And I was like, oh my god, it's gonna get
Speaker 1: thrown out that they don't have standing. They do have standing.
Speaker 1: They have a man, a plaintiff who is in direct
Speaker 1: harm because of an hiva's program he runs, and all
Speaker 1: of these things that demonstrate a direct and immediate harm.
Speaker 1: So we got to remember that as much as we
Speaker 1: know this isn't right. You know, and you wanted to
Speaker 1: go fight on behalf of your friend on a playground
Speaker 1: like leave my friend alone. We can say that, but
Speaker 1: you may not be able to say it in a
Speaker 1: complaint in a court of law that will have standing.
Speaker 1: If you don't remember that, there has.
Speaker 4: To be angela I answer before we go to except Rackley.
Speaker 4: I think this is a really important point for us
Speaker 4: and for our listeners to know, because similarly the Massachusetts
Speaker 4: case last week where they allowed they lifted the hold
Speaker 4: on Dojah's ability to offer those buyouts, the judge in
Speaker 4: that case in Massachusetts said he can no longer keep
Speaker 4: the whole because the plaintiffs in this case, these were
Speaker 4: the unions representing federal employees, did not have standing in
Speaker 4: the case and therefore he had to allow the practice
Speaker 4: to continue. So for those of us who later this
Speaker 4: week heard okay, Tanya Chuck and the same judge who
Speaker 4: was over the criminal cases involving Donald Trump and January
Speaker 4: sixth has now decided that he can, you know, move
Speaker 4: forward with the action dose you can move forward with
Speaker 4: is access to our information and such activities. And therefore
Speaker 4: we've lost a judge on this, a judge who was
Speaker 4: appointed by dealer. That isn't that is not the outcome.
Speaker 4: And that's what Angela is trying to point out that
Speaker 4: in order for these cases to be ripe, for them
Speaker 4: to be for judge to hear the matter and the
Speaker 4: complete set of facts, they have to establish that you're
Speaker 4: the right person, the right entity who can bring the
Speaker 4: claim because you have been directly, directly negatively impacted. And
Speaker 4: of course there are conditions of the law that must
Speaker 4: be met. That being said, folks, don't let your you know,
Speaker 4: don't how do you say? We shouldn't be let down
Speaker 4: or dissuaded or or let up at all on the pedal,
Speaker 4: simply because there are there are judicial decisions that are
Speaker 4: being made that are not necessarily going the way that
Speaker 4: we would like them to. Of the seventy four lawsuits
Speaker 4: that have been currently filed, thirty three of them are
Speaker 4: related to those directly judges that have temporarily paused eighteen
Speaker 4: measures already Nevada Attorney General Trump's efficiency plan is unlawful
Speaker 4: according to the course there, and it lacks compassion obviously
Speaker 4: here in the country. But I just want to say,
Speaker 4: the overall picture as it relates to applying the law
Speaker 4: to the actions of this administration have gone the way
Speaker 4: that many of us would would appreciate and value, the
Speaker 4: way of upholding and sustaining democracy. But I will tell
Speaker 4: you this, what has not been the proper check is
Speaker 4: the Congress of the United States, the Senate in the House,
Speaker 4: which have by and large allowed this man to do
Speaker 4: exactly what he wants to without the check and balance
Speaker 4: being enforced by their branch of government. They are to
Speaker 4: shut it down, or, as Tiffany already pointed out, once
Speaker 4: powers are taken, they are really really rarely ever giving
Speaker 4: back given by ever.
Speaker 1: I one thing to tiff and I want to get
Speaker 1: to said Rocky is one point because well, I'm following
Speaker 1: because as a woman, I know a lot of what
Speaker 1: Andrew just said. So I'm learning as a as a
Speaker 1: woman of color judge. So Tanya Chukin, who she said
Speaker 1: a lot in this case. She I think this is
Speaker 1: why it's so important to your point Tiff earlier, to
Speaker 1: not just read headlines if you're reading it all, you know,
Speaker 1: reading headlines and going beyond. When you get into the
Speaker 1: actual print of her opinion, she says some things. Two
Speaker 1: things that I want to point out. One is, she says,
Speaker 1: plaintiffs raised this again. This is about the state's attorney's
Speaker 1: general who brought this case against DOJE. It's overreach, its
Speaker 1: access to our very private information. She says, plaintiffs raise
Speaker 1: a colorable appointments caught clause claim with serious implications must
Speaker 1: has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by
Speaker 1: the US Senate, to Andrew's point, as constitutionally required for
Speaker 1: officers who exercise quote significant authority pursuant to the laws
Speaker 1: of the United States. And then she says in a footnote,
Speaker 1: and this is one that I know that you all appreciate.
Speaker 1: Just on truth. This is what she tells DOJ Defense
Speaker 1: Council is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations
Speaker 1: to the court. And so I think what she's indicating.
Speaker 1: I think what she's indicating here is there is a
Speaker 1: pathway but they just picked the wrong lane. The lane
Speaker 1: has to be a plaintiff, especially for an emergency order,
Speaker 1: it has to be an immediate suffer an imminent irreparable
Speaker 1: harm that would only occur or that can only be
Speaker 1: stopped with a temporary emergency restraining order. And if that
Speaker 1: standard's not meant that she needs more time. Kse ain't
Speaker 1: been dismissed, case ain't been thrown out, right, It's just
Speaker 1: this one part of it, this one chapter in the
Speaker 1: book where we're not quite there, And I think people
Speaker 1: need to remember that in order to hold on to
Speaker 1: hope for justice. That said, we still with this where
Speaker 1: we started, which is, dude, these cases even matter because
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, is Donald Trump going
Speaker 1: to comply with the court order? It's not clear that
Speaker 1: he will.
Speaker 3: And I will bet you all most people don't even
Speaker 3: know about this court case.
Speaker 1: I say this. I say this because.
Speaker 3: Right, and my point is, they flood the zone like
Speaker 3: I can't. At one point I felt like I was
Speaker 3: a pretty informed person. I cannot keep up with it all.
Speaker 3: And I'll be honest, there are things that I read
Speaker 3: the headline and I don't read the article, you know,
Speaker 3: Like I literally cannot hold it all. There are things
Speaker 3: happening all over the globe that are major, and all of.
Speaker 1: It is important, Angelie.
Speaker 3: You were reading an opinion and something on Our friend
Speaker 3: Albert always says, he's like, read the opinions, you know.
Speaker 3: He's like, they're literally written for public consumption, to make
Speaker 3: you understand. And I what you just read to me
Speaker 3: does not sound like public consumption to me. I'm like,
Speaker 3: explain it to me, like I'm a five year old,
Speaker 3: you know, And I don't have any shame in that, Like,
Speaker 3: I that's not what I understand, So explain it to me.
Speaker 3: And I think so many people out there feel that
Speaker 3: exact same way about the courts, about how government functions,
Speaker 3: about what's happening in the world, and so given all
Speaker 3: the chaos, they're like, fuck this, I check out, I
Speaker 3: get it, you know, let me.
Speaker 1: Let me translate. If I translate for ten seconds, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna give you cliff notes. You you, I think you
Speaker 1: got the cliff note on DJB lions. Stop lying to
Speaker 1: the court. You're gonna go to jail maybe if we
Speaker 1: can enforce the core order. And then the bigger cliff
Speaker 1: note is if you not Senate confirmed Elon Musk, sit
Speaker 1: your whole ass down. That's what that means.
Speaker 4: Social media means very much. So get there. This administration
Speaker 4: could get there. I have no belief whatsoever that the
Speaker 4: US Senator is gonna stand in the way of Elon Musk.
Speaker 4: I have no belief whatsoever that they would stop him
Speaker 4: from being confirmed. If Donald Trump knows that, and I
Speaker 4: know he knows that, as does Elon Musk, why haven't
Speaker 4: they put him up for confirmation? Why haven't they formally
Speaker 4: requested the legislature submit a bill to create those for hearing.
Speaker 4: He's gonna have to sit for hearing. And also he
Speaker 4: becomes he becomes responsible to comply to all of the
Speaker 4: for you and disclosure laws and so on and so
Speaker 4: forth that God this country will. I'll submit my opinion
Speaker 4: here because at Tiffany, I hear your point in Angela,
Speaker 4: the question is ripe whether or not the courts matter.
Speaker 4: I will say this, so long as they continue to
Speaker 4: create appeals and to take cases to the court itself,
Speaker 4: I believe that there is still hope for the court
Speaker 4: to still have its way with its respective decisions. The
Speaker 4: question that is still outstanding for me, and so far
Speaker 4: as it's been answered. The third branch of government, which
Speaker 4: is actually the original branch of government, the legislative branch,
Speaker 4: appears completely incapable of upholding their end of the constitutional bargain.
Speaker 4: They completely are right now delegating, relegating, decreasing from their position,
Speaker 4: and allowing the executive branch to run rough shot over them.
Speaker 4: And that's I think the bigger problem is that's true.
Speaker 1: Now, speaking of justice and justice being served, yes, perhaps
Speaker 1: some of us we should actually ask our audience, do
Speaker 1: y'all agree that Asap Rocky should have been acquitted? I
Speaker 1: do reparations, bitch, So Asap Rocky. For some of y'all
Speaker 1: don't even notice. But that's Rihanna's man, y'all, So Asap Rocky.
Speaker 6: It is.
Speaker 4: That's so good. Many women are told, Okay.
Speaker 1: Rocky, I like Rocky. I said, this was a silver liner.
Speaker 1: I said, for those of you who don't know, who
Speaker 1: only read a one tiff the Cliff Rocky song. To
Speaker 1: be honest with y'all, Rihanna's man, and he's a fashionis sto.
Speaker 1: They have two beautiful boys. Now. Anyway, this man jumped
Speaker 1: across the backside of this court bench thing to hug
Speaker 1: her and his mom and them after he was acquitted.
Speaker 1: Now he was facing two felony counts of assault with
Speaker 1: a deadly weapon. This came from a fight that he
Speaker 1: had with one of his longtime friends. When they went
Speaker 1: to the scene of the crime, they weren't able to
Speaker 1: find these shellcasings. This man said he got shot, but
Speaker 1: he only had some scratches, and so the police went
Speaker 1: or like, we can't find no casings. Asab Racki saying
Speaker 1: this is a stunt gun or whatever. It's not called
Speaker 1: a stunt gun prop gun and no, not a taste
Speaker 1: a prop gun. It is how rumors get started.
Speaker 4: Called him like what stunt, a stunt a prop gun.
Speaker 1: So the prop gun was allegedly used to threaten him
Speaker 1: to calm down. A Sabraki's allegedly fire said gun to
Speaker 1: scare him. This man's knuckles got scratched. He said, my
Speaker 1: friend shot me. So they went to go try to
Speaker 1: find these nine mili nine millimeters shell casings, couldn't find them. Somehow,
Speaker 1: when old boy goes back to the scene, he finds
Speaker 1: said casings is a suggestion that no, no, no no.
Speaker 1: The boy said he shot his homeboy said, who said,
Speaker 1: asab Rocky shot him. Then he comes back to the
Speaker 1: asab Rocky and he's like, yo, I got these shell cases.
Speaker 1: What you're gonna do? So a sav was like, he's
Speaker 1: trying to extort me. Old boy, trying to extort me.
Speaker 1: We're gonna ride this thing till the wheels fall off.
Speaker 1: I'm not taking no plea deal to make y'all look
Speaker 1: good prosecutors. I'm gonna ride this thing because I know
Speaker 1: that the truth is with me and the jury decided
Speaker 1: in his favor. That is my most translatable version I
Speaker 1: can give you.
Speaker 3: Okay, because honestly, the way it was explained to me
Speaker 3: I want to hear it by a friend who's an attorney,
Speaker 3: is like he was offered this plea deal. He could
Speaker 3: have done six months and he would have been in
Speaker 3: and out and he was. The way he was presenting
Speaker 3: it to me is like it's not looking good for him,
Speaker 3: like he's not Everybody was trying to.
Speaker 1: Say that they didn't listen to the other side. They
Speaker 1: didn't listen to the other side. This motherfucker said, my
Speaker 1: knuckles got shot off. He had some scratches, and after
Speaker 1: the scratches they couldn't find the casings. The only time
Speaker 1: the casings turn up is when all boy goes to
Speaker 1: find the cases himself. And I forgot to tell you
Speaker 1: he had just went to the gun range shooting a
Speaker 1: nine millimeters So interestingly, some nine millimeter casings come up. Honest,
Speaker 1: that is peculiar.
Speaker 3: But what I andrew, what I take from this is
Speaker 3: when an aggressive prosecutor comes and it's telling you, like,
Speaker 3: it ain't looking good for you, so we will take
Speaker 3: a plea about six months. You go to jail for
Speaker 3: six months and then but then you come out.
Speaker 1: You have a record.
Speaker 3: You know, it's all this on your for him to
Speaker 3: have faith and say no, I can't, I can't agree
Speaker 3: to that. That would be saying that I did something wrong,
Speaker 3: I did something that I know I didn't do. And
Speaker 3: that puts me in the mind of Leaf Prouder.
Speaker 1: You know who said no.
Speaker 3: You know the youth who they put in Riker's Island
Speaker 3: with grown men, who was there simply because he couldn't
Speaker 3: afford baill. He was offered to plead and he said no,
Speaker 3: because that would be me saying I did something I
Speaker 3: didn't do. And I just think of all the people,
Speaker 3: disproportionately black men, who are in that situation because someone
Speaker 3: convinced them I can give you, you know, you go
Speaker 3: do five years and you'll be out, but if you
Speaker 3: go to trial, you might get thirty years.
Speaker 1: And how devastating that is for so.
Speaker 4: Many I was there. Look, I got offered a talk
Speaker 4: about Andrew, and it well, no, I mean, I just
Speaker 4: it was probably in preparation for trial. It was probably
Speaker 4: the lowest moment in trial pre prep when my lawyers
Speaker 4: had to come to me, and I was so angry
Speaker 4: at them. I think they would admit. I was just like,
Speaker 4: why would you bring me this? I have a legal
Speaker 4: obligation that to bring this to you for you to
Speaker 4: make a decision. What they offered a g They wanted
Speaker 4: me to admit guilt on one count and they would
Speaker 4: have dropped the you know, the other twenty however many
Speaker 4: accounts they bought against me. And I was so insulted,
Speaker 4: I was offended, I was hurt, I was all these things,
Speaker 4: and there's no mother than way I'm accepting any deal.
Speaker 4: You can tell them when you go back, never ever
Speaker 4: ever to approach me again with any bargain unless it
Speaker 4: is we're dropping all charges and we apologize for having
Speaker 4: turned your life upside goddamned down to pursue a case
Speaker 4: that was no case at all. So but but for
Speaker 4: most people, when you look at the percentage of federal cases,
Speaker 4: ninety percent of them, the defendant is found guilty or
Speaker 4: they have already reached the bargain so it never goes
Speaker 4: to trial. You're looking at ninety I mean, you got
Speaker 4: the odds of ten percent, ten out of a dollar.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 4: Of course, the money will cause you to say, okay,
Speaker 4: we can end this, and the bill can stop the
Speaker 4: ability to have some predictability abround what's gonna happen if
Speaker 4: I say okay and I only get three months, or
Speaker 4: maybe I only get a year of probation or whatever
Speaker 4: in a felony whatever, all of those decisions I get.
Speaker 4: While some people say, yeah, I'll take it without even
Speaker 4: being guilty. They take it because you're like, I'll take
Speaker 4: the thing I know versus the risk of what I
Speaker 4: don't know and the consequences that can come that could
Speaker 4: keep me away from my wife and my kids and
Speaker 4: my family for years. Right, So you might come to that.
Speaker 4: But I appreciate this brother for fighting this thing all
Speaker 4: the way through, knowing that writers writers, right. But the
Speaker 4: truth is is that there are a lot of people
Speaker 4: who were right and did not break the law who
Speaker 4: are behind bars today because the deal was more predictable
Speaker 4: and acceptable than the fighting of it and the not knowing,
Speaker 4: because we don't get a fear shake in this system.
Speaker 4: And I know that for a fact, and I know
Speaker 4: it's that Rocky knows it for a fact, and I'm
Speaker 4: just glad that in this case the justice prevailed. But
Speaker 4: it never really is justice why because they never say
Speaker 4: you're innocent. The judgment that they get to reach is
Speaker 4: either you're guilty or not guilty. You're acquitted, or you're
Speaker 4: found guilty. And so his life is still impacted. Regardless
Speaker 4: of his resources or how bad his girl is or whatever.
Speaker 4: His life has still been turned upside down and it's
Speaker 4: going to take him some time to recuperate and recover
Speaker 4: himself from what he's just gone through.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like ag based on everything you've experienced, that.
Speaker 4: You have recovered, No, not at all.
Speaker 1: I think that is so important for people to know,
Speaker 1: one how much you had to spend to.
Speaker 4: Ensure still spending.
Speaker 1: The emotional, psychological, and the financial toll to argue your innocence,
Speaker 1: that never to your point, you said earlier on a
Speaker 1: pre pro call. Never nobody ever declares you innocent. You're
Speaker 1: just acquitted, and you don't get reparations or restorative just
Speaker 1: for the money you spent knowing you're not guilty. And
Speaker 1: asap Rocky through all that could say to turn to
Speaker 1: the jurors and say thank you for saving my life.
Speaker 1: It's like somebody believed the story that is the truth,
Speaker 1: and not the story that is painted by the prosecution.
Speaker 4: And my case. What I appreciated even more is that
Speaker 4: after the case was done, these jurors were released from
Speaker 4: their responsibility, and what did they do. They started meeting
Speaker 4: after my case, went down to the editorial board of
Speaker 4: the local paper and they said, we cannot believe that
Speaker 4: this case was ever bought. Wow, we cannot believe this
Speaker 4: case made it through a grand jury. That's what they
Speaker 4: went down and said. They organized themselves after they were
Speaker 4: released from their responsibility, a jury where the majority of
Speaker 4: people on it didn't even vote for me for governor
Speaker 4: because those things were disclosed, right, But they went down
Speaker 4: and they advocated because they saw a miscarriage of justice
Speaker 4: and a miscarriage of the law. All I got to
Speaker 4: say is that the effects of it are long term.
Speaker 4: You'll a god knows. I pray to get passed and over,
Speaker 4: but shows up every single day in a multitude of ways.
Speaker 4: And I just try to hold it together long enough
Speaker 4: not for it to be a drag on my children
Speaker 4: and my family.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to sat Rocky and Andrew to start
Speaker 1: an organization. I believe me.
Speaker 3: I know you are one hundred serious. I think anybody
Speaker 3: listening knows orgization a year from now. Yeah, I honestly
Speaker 3: I think that would be a good idea. And Andrew,
Speaker 3: let me just say, like when you and I are together,
Speaker 3: when the three of us are together, when I've seen
Speaker 3: you with your family, you do a really good job
Speaker 3: of you know, of course you're free whatever you're feeling
Speaker 3: inside to share with us. We love you, but and
Speaker 3: we've talked about it, but you you don't let it
Speaker 3: weigh you down. You know, like you're still out here
Speaker 3: doing what you can as best you can. And I
Speaker 3: just want to say this entire show, I want you
Speaker 3: to know this. I've looked at you and thought you
Speaker 3: were showing cleavage and I realize now.
Speaker 1: Oh my tipp is plowning today. First, lady, that ain't
Speaker 1: even pleasure.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's not even his skin color.
Speaker 1: Now podcast is officially disinformation. Congratulations, gess it looks all
Speaker 1: the same. My screen is this? Somebody want to tiff
Speaker 1: screen because that does not look like that looks like
Speaker 1: andy s face that time that makeup artists try to make.
Speaker 6: You look.
Speaker 1: I don't see it. We're not in person on the screen.
Speaker 1: It's definitely when you see it back, you're gonna be
Speaker 1: like this. Yeah, Okay, sorry, we got a viewer question.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it is. I know we were
Speaker 1: supposed to. After this break, we're gonna answer one of
Speaker 1: your questions and talk about this five thousand dollars plan
Speaker 1: circulating around DOGE and a refund to taxpayers.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: My name Michel.
Speaker 7: I'm from the Philadelphia area, and the first thing I'd
Speaker 7: like to say is what do you think about those
Speaker 7: Super Bowl champs, the Philadelphia Eagles? But in terms of
Speaker 7: your podcast, I want to say I enjoy your podcast.
Speaker 7: I don't know where I was at, but I first
Speaker 7: learned that you're about your podcast last year when I
Speaker 7: heard Tiffany and Angela on a interview on the Young Turks.
Speaker 7: I do listen to the Young Turks as I like
Speaker 7: to have a variety of perspectives, and to that point,
Speaker 7: I would love to hear what you all think about
Speaker 7: a narrative that the Young Turks has been pushing of saying,
Speaker 7: why not work with MAGA on the things that we
Speaker 7: align to help manage the chaos that's going on. It
Speaker 7: certainly feels like the or I think is apparent that
Speaker 7: the guardrails that we think we have in the government
Speaker 7: are not really holding. So I can understand where that
Speaker 7: might seem like a possible solution.
Speaker 1: Andrew, you reason like that in the mic back, Oh
Speaker 1: my God, Jesus, doing you suggested I want a sandwich?
Speaker 1: Andrew back?
Speaker 4: Big sandwich, Andrew?
Speaker 1: That is not obese friendly. In this podcast, we are
Speaker 1: inclusive is going on.
Speaker 4: You're the worst human ever.
Speaker 1: You just started breathing heavy saying you wanted a sandwich?
Speaker 1: What else does that mean?
Speaker 4: I mean from your routiness.
Speaker 1: Anyway, it's gonna get cut. You're just saying in though. Okay, anyway,
Speaker 1: here's what I want to say. You guys have something controversial.
Speaker 1: Tiff is already inadvertently dragged me once in this show,
Speaker 1: so this will be the official ten seconds.
Speaker 3: Let me just say this, because then all about this
Speaker 3: Number one, Angela reads all.
Speaker 1: If you know and watch the show, Angela reads all
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 3: She's been doing a live Youtubes. There's a chance to
Speaker 3: promote the live YouTube on executive orders. She at three
Speaker 3: in the morning is dropping links to something she read it.
Speaker 3: I mean, I was not trying to say Angela don't read.
Speaker 4: She don't.
Speaker 1: Most people.
Speaker 3: Most people do not read, and I don't if Angela
Speaker 3: feels that way, I don't want the viewers out there
Speaker 3: who don't read to feel that way. It is not
Speaker 3: a moral judgment. I'm not reading everything right now. My
Speaker 3: point is multiple the elitist. Yes, Andrew, they.
Speaker 1: Do both of them.
Speaker 3: But Andrew mostly has said that my thoughts are elitists
Speaker 3: before I will take it. I will take it, but
Speaker 3: I just want I'm trying to say Angela doesn't read.
Speaker 1: Most people don't read.
Speaker 3: But Angela, iuly you can go through all the executive orders.
Speaker 3: I can't like I haven't been keeping.
Speaker 1: Up with Clearly I didn't go with one of them,
Speaker 1: or that the court case. Okay, I'm not that redeemed,
Speaker 1: but it's okay. I don't need to be redeemed. I
Speaker 1: do need to talk about Howard dojing ball? See what
Speaker 1: I did? They're doge Ball? No, Okay, I got it?
Speaker 1: Is I like it? Thanks sports expert. So for doge Ball.
Speaker 1: I think that if we're not careful and if they're smart,
Speaker 1: if they go forward. There was a proposal presented to
Speaker 1: Elon Musk by a man named James Fishback. I don't
Speaker 1: know who this man is, but I stayed on Twitter
Speaker 1: unlike some of the folks who couldn't wait to haul ass.
Speaker 1: He presented a proposal to Elon Musk for a tax
Speaker 1: credit of five thousand dollars per household from all of
Speaker 1: the alleged savings that they were seeing from Doge's efforts,
Speaker 1: all of the cuts they're making to programs, the jobs
Speaker 1: they're cutting, all of that. This money would be redistributed
Speaker 1: to the American people visa via tax credit. Some people
Speaker 1: are calling this stimmy checks. Some people recognize that it's
Speaker 1: a tax credit. And I think the most important thing
Speaker 1: here is that this would only go to people who
Speaker 1: file taxes in taxier twenty twenty five, and that they
Speaker 1: have to be net payers. And I think that's important
Speaker 1: because that means you have to have some employment that
Speaker 1: demonstrates that you've paid into the system in order to
Speaker 1: get this thing back. Now, James Fishback runs a right
Speaker 1: leaning investment firm called Azoria. He is not a government employee,
Speaker 1: but for that matter, neither well Elona is the government emplay.
Speaker 1: I think he's getting paid, but he is not appointed
Speaker 1: given the scope of work, as we've discussed earlier in
Speaker 1: this podcast. And government employee I think he gets. Special
Speaker 1: government employee is the designation in a paycheck.
Speaker 3: We are tax dollars are paying the world's richest man.
Speaker 1: I think, from what I understand, this special government employee
Speaker 1: designation means he's an employee. I don't know if he's
Speaker 1: drawing down a salary. If he's donating it back to
Speaker 1: the government, that also can happen. But the designation given
Speaker 1: to him by Donald Trump, so he didn't have to
Speaker 1: file all the disclosures, clear all conflicts with special government employee.
Speaker 1: Although special government employee also per one of my latest
Speaker 1: solo pods, doesn't mean that you don't have any ethics responsibility.
Speaker 1: He's just ignoring that. But I digress back to this
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars payment. Here's what I'm let me tell
Speaker 1: you all my deepest fears. My deepest fears is that
Speaker 1: people won't read the four page memo and they will
Speaker 1: only read the headline from Fortune or Forbes that says
Speaker 1: Elon Musk moles giving Americans a five thousand dollars check
Speaker 1: based on those savings there.
Speaker 4: Are coming from. This is from Fortune, you know the
Speaker 4: check whose bank account?
Speaker 1: This is coming from the when you file your taxes
Speaker 1: with the iro government.
Speaker 4: Yes, he wouldn't. I'm sorry, Elon Musk, a non full
Speaker 4: time employee of the government, not confirmed in a department
Speaker 4: that doesn't exist, is going to make a decision about
Speaker 4: whether or not to rebate us five grand from our
Speaker 4: own fucking money. Well, to be clear, he's going into
Speaker 4: his billionaire wealthiest man in the world status and writing
Speaker 4: the check from himself.
Speaker 1: He's not writing the check, So just so we're clear,
Speaker 1: He did say in response to James Fishback from wherever
Speaker 1: this place is this, this right leaning investment firm that
Speaker 1: launched an anti woke etf last year as well, James Fishback,
Speaker 1: he said he told James Fishback, I will have to
Speaker 1: run it by the president. But the headline is killing me, Tiff,
Speaker 1: because we read headlines sometimes too Elon Musk males Americans. No,
Speaker 1: I know why I was getting back into what you're saying,
Speaker 1: but I'm trying to give credit, the little bit of
Speaker 1: credit I can give him, a Doge credit, a Doge
Speaker 1: crypto coin credit to Elon Musk for saying he would
Speaker 1: at least have to ask the president. Here's my point, though,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is the same man that held up stimulate
Speaker 1: funds to ensure that his name was on the check
Speaker 1: going out to American people. Donald Trump is smart with
Speaker 1: marketing in a lot of ways. He reaches people just
Speaker 1: by repurposing and repackaging things. He's still getting credit for
Speaker 1: stimulus checks when Joe Biden also did stimulus checks. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden doesn't get that credit.
Speaker 4: And you know what not and when the first check
Speaker 4: that had his name on it came from Democrats who
Speaker 4: were in control of the Congress incorporators. Remember I know here,
Speaker 4: we know that steps.
Speaker 1: My biggest fear. My biggest fear is that people see
Speaker 1: a five thousand dollars tax credit line and they forget
Speaker 1: everything else that has happened. The dismantling, the dismantling of
Speaker 1: DEI programs that woul ensure a grant for your kid
Speaker 1: doing research that could save lives, the money that is
Speaker 1: taken away from HIV AIDS related care on the continent,
Speaker 1: The fact that they are making fun of the men
Speaker 1: in Mozambique who were gonna be a part of a
Speaker 1: grant where they would be circumcised to prevent the wide
Speaker 1: spread of HIV AIDS on the continent. All of the
Speaker 1: things that are taking place where they're seeing it as waste,
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse without really asking the people who are
Speaker 1: in charge of these programs, what are they for If
Speaker 1: you get a five thousand dollars credit but you suffer
Speaker 1: a fifty thousand or one hundred thousand dollars loss, friends,
Speaker 1: was it worth it?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 1: I don't want to look like a hater by any
Speaker 1: means necessary. Lola and I were talking about this earlier too,
Speaker 1: but I got to tell y'all the truth. I have
Speaker 1: an obligation to tell you all of the ways in
Speaker 1: which we are being hit on an education level, on
Speaker 1: a health human services level, on a HUD level, eventually
Speaker 1: on a treasury level, on an IRS level, all the
Speaker 1: places where your data has been compromised. Do you know
Speaker 1: if there was a court case to talk about how
Speaker 1: your private information was access and you can prove direct
Speaker 1: harm to the point of what we were talking about earlier,
Speaker 1: you would get paid out. Your settlement would be larger
Speaker 1: than five damn dollars. So I want to be clear
Speaker 1: about the wolf in sheep's clothing. I want to be
Speaker 1: clear about the many ways in which we're being bamboozled.
Speaker 1: I cannot even imagine what it's like for somebody who's
Speaker 1: never seen a five thousand dollars check and what this
Speaker 1: might mean to them. But I want you to know
Speaker 1: your life is so much more valuable than this check,
Speaker 1: than this tax credit. However, it makes its way to
Speaker 1: you everything that is being lost right now across the board,
Speaker 1: for veterans, for small children, for our elders, for the
Speaker 1: people who are sick in our country, for the people
Speaker 1: who are differently able than our country. I don't know
Speaker 1: that it's worth it.
Speaker 4: Oh to tell you, I know the answer. It ain't
Speaker 4: worth it, because this is the big deal. This is
Speaker 4: the big deal, because these are distractions, including this five
Speaker 4: thousand and I love to have five thousand more dollars
Speaker 4: in my pockets. I can pay more on my legal
Speaker 4: debt that's sitting out there right. But the point is
Speaker 4: they have proposed Donald Trump and the Republicans Tim Johnson
Speaker 4: to speak of the House. They're about to a package
Speaker 4: that is going to Mike Johnson, thank you. That's going
Speaker 4: to bring me forward. That is about to bring forward
Speaker 4: a budget proposal that includes four trillion dollars in tax
Speaker 4: breaks to the wealthiest one percent, to the wealthiest Americans
Speaker 4: and wealthiest corporations in this country. But guess what, y'all,
Speaker 4: they have not figured out a way to pay for it,
Speaker 4: and they have already given us a clue around how
Speaker 4: it is that they're going to pay for Trump's tax breaks.
Speaker 4: Do you want to know where it is coming from? Folks? Healthcare,
Speaker 4: So you think about the last time you had a
Speaker 4: medical emergency where you had a copay and you got
Speaker 4: to walk away with just having paid five thousand all in.
Speaker 4: When you consider medications, the cost of the care, the
Speaker 4: long term consequences which may cause you to have to
Speaker 4: lose your job because you have to tend to medical situations,
Speaker 4: and therefore your retirement gets bounced because you have to
Speaker 4: dip into that money early in order to make a
Speaker 4: way for yourselves and for your family. So, when you
Speaker 4: think about five thousand dollars. We don't have to we
Speaker 4: don't have to imagine that we're gonna get worse on
Speaker 4: the back end. They're telling us right now, this is
Speaker 4: a five thousand is a distraction so that they can
Speaker 4: get to the real goods. And the real goods is
Speaker 4: they're going to cut Medicaid in this country, if not
Speaker 4: in half and hole, certainly in significance enough form that
Speaker 4: many of us will not even have access to healthcare anymore.
Speaker 4: And those costs are going to be borne exclusively by you.
Speaker 3: Well, even to the point, if we can back up
Speaker 3: a bit, just indulge itself like they've just been lying
Speaker 3: to the American people, and the media has done such
Speaker 3: a shitty job of pointing out all the minutia in
Speaker 3: the ways that they've lied. They how they have arrived
Speaker 3: that they've saved the American people fifty five billion dollars
Speaker 3: is unclear, literally unclear to print reporters who have poured
Speaker 3: through these numbers unclear. They have found glaring errors. For example,
Speaker 3: he has said that he won contract he cut was
Speaker 3: eight billion dollars. The contract was actually eight million dollars.
Speaker 3: That is a huge discrepancy. And when you're presenting this
Speaker 3: lie that that you're canceling that the most recent version
Speaker 3: of the and it was an ICE contract that was
Speaker 3: eight million dollars that they cut. I would like to
Speaker 3: know more questions about what exactly this means.
Speaker 1: Angela.
Speaker 3: You talked about them cutting off AIDS in HIV here
Speaker 3: according to the reporting from Bloomberg, that is going to
Speaker 3: come at the cost of two hundred and.
Speaker 1: Fifty babies dying every day daily.
Speaker 3: Now for all the people who are self reclaimed pro life,
Speaker 3: this administration that you voted for is literally costing lives.
Speaker 1: Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 3: I think Angela made a really good point pointing out
Speaker 3: that this five thousand dollars tax credit is not worth it. Andrew,
Speaker 3: you made a good point like, no, it's not a credit.
Speaker 3: You're paying for it Somewhere. I want people to know
Speaker 3: it's blood money. Is literally the five thousand dollars you're
Speaker 3: getting is literally costing people their life.
Speaker 4: But it could also be their blood. Right when you
Speaker 4: talk about extracting health care force from somebody, when you're
Speaker 4: talking about cutting off the levers of support. Because I
Speaker 4: know that there are a lot of people, including a
Speaker 4: many in our community who are not that turned on
Speaker 4: by US international investments, you don't have to go there.
Speaker 4: We can set international investments to the side. Why because
Speaker 4: USAIDEA is less than one percent of the budget. You
Speaker 4: can't pay for four trillion dollars but one percent less
Speaker 4: than one percent of the United States budget. You just
Speaker 4: can't do it. The math won't math. So what do
Speaker 4: you have to do. You have to go after big, huge,
Speaker 4: wholesale pieces of the budget. And if you've already taken
Speaker 4: defense off the plate, and you've already done this little
Speaker 4: cutting around some of the staff, which again is not
Speaker 4: constituting a whole bunch of money at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, because they missed their goal of ten percent, right,
Speaker 4: And then you consider the costs when you talk about waste, fraud,
Speaker 4: and abuse, when you consider the cost of all of
Speaker 4: the private contractors that they are going to have to
Speaker 4: go out and hire for expertise. Why, because they fired
Speaker 4: the people inside the government who were government employees who
Speaker 4: did this work on a salary, they're going to escalate
Speaker 4: the cost of this government even more.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 4: What they really should have done is been very honest
Speaker 4: and basically said, we do not believe that the federal
Speaker 4: government ought to have employees. We believe that the entire
Speaker 4: federal budget ore to be farmed out in contracts to
Speaker 4: the private sector.
Speaker 1: To our friend.
Speaker 2: Really the goal, yeah, welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome.
Speaker 1: And I want to say on this point about you
Speaker 1: don't have to go to usaid Andrew. I loved that point.
Speaker 1: I am feeling the pinch of this. I've been having
Speaker 1: conversation with conversations with people like even my professional development program,
Speaker 1: where they were like, I haven't felt the immediate harm
Speaker 1: from this yet. And it just hit our family this week.
Speaker 1: So my mom after we taped this show. Today, we're
Speaker 1: taking my mom to get her port installed for chemo.
Speaker 1: She starts chemo on Monday. And the place where we're
Speaker 1: entrusting my mom's care with Fred Hutchinson just announced that
Speaker 1: they are ending all their diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Speaker 1: When my mom went in there, you guys, to get
Speaker 1: the contrast, died put in last week to do a
Speaker 1: CT scan to see how everything was looking in her liver.
Speaker 1: There was another nurse talking to a patient saying that
Speaker 1: they were starting to have to cut back on things
Speaker 1: because some of their federal funding for cancer research is
Speaker 1: being impacted, and that's how they ended up making this
Speaker 1: decision around what they would do with diversity, equity and inclusion. Now,
Speaker 1: everything in me, you all know, is screaming to raise
Speaker 1: hell about what this might mean for the very few
Speaker 1: black oncologists that work it for at Hutch, What this
Speaker 1: might mean for the nursing staff, for the folks who
Speaker 1: do acupuncture and rehabilitation. What this might mean for our
Speaker 1: opportunities for the black women who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately
Speaker 1: harmed by triple negative breast cancer. What does that mean
Speaker 1: for our care plans? But I gotta be careful about
Speaker 1: how I move because I can't have my mom be
Speaker 1: in the sacrificial land for this shit. So we are
Speaker 1: put in these conundrums with intention. They outstrategized us in
Speaker 1: this way because they're willing to cause us harm and
Speaker 1: ways that we would never do to them, of course,
Speaker 1: never do to them. And I waitn't And I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to see nobody suffer. I don't want to see
Speaker 1: nobody's loved ones suffer. It ain't right. I just want
Speaker 1: to CULTI is the point, right?
Speaker 3: I just want to say, really, quickly. Must love to
Speaker 3: Mama Rai. We are sending you all the love as
Speaker 3: you go through chemo. I love the picture of Angela
Speaker 3: Posa to you, Mama Raah on Time's Day with your
Speaker 3: arm around both your parents like this. She looks so
Speaker 3: joyful and happy. So I think of Mama. Angela knows
Speaker 3: I think her mom often. I know the days her appointments.
Speaker 3: I try not to bug you too much on those
Speaker 3: days to check in because I know that's frustrating too,
Speaker 3: you know, and people checking it.
Speaker 1: What's the news, what's the latest? Because everybody cares you,
Speaker 1: just like I will tell y'all spot for mothers you
Speaker 1: Tiff really does, and I think that is a gift
Speaker 1: from God, so thank God for you both. I will
Speaker 1: tell you the thing that's the most helpful right now.
Speaker 1: I think I'm getting on my mom's own nerves. Ask
Speaker 1: her how she feeling how, you know? But I think
Speaker 1: even when people say how is your mom doing? It
Speaker 1: does feel like pressure. It does feel like because yes,
Speaker 1: because I can't number one, she is doing great. But also,
Speaker 1: you know how you get in these weird places where
Speaker 1: you're like, if I keep saying she's doing good, does
Speaker 1: that end? Up sending her to a different place, like
Speaker 1: I don't believe in jinxing. I believe in the power
Speaker 1: of the tongue and all that, but there is something
Speaker 1: in me, if I'm honest, that feels like if I
Speaker 1: keep saying that, is it going to send it to
Speaker 1: the wrong place or in the wrong direction or you know.
Speaker 1: I guess my only ask of you all, because there's
Speaker 1: so many of you. All have sent love, have shared
Speaker 1: your mother's own stories, and I do appreciate that. If
Speaker 1: you can just say I'm praying for Mamurai, Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of Mamurai. I promise you as opinionated as I am.
Speaker 1: If I got something to say, I will, But right
Speaker 1: now I just want to center what she needs for me.
Speaker 1: I don't want to have to meet your need to
Speaker 1: be informed about her. I just want you to pray
Speaker 1: for her, and if I proactively reach out to share,
Speaker 1: I will. But it does feel like pressure to answer everybody,
Speaker 1: and I want to be mindful of that. But I
Speaker 1: think I've learned in this moment it's better not to
Speaker 1: ask somebody how the person is doing. It's better to
Speaker 1: just say I'm thinking of her, I love her, hug
Speaker 1: her for me any love that I can give her,
Speaker 1: I'll take that. But the reportbacks my daddy.
Speaker 4: Beyond your point is still so important, Angela, which is
Speaker 4: that the ripples of all of this you may not
Speaker 4: have sheltered.
Speaker 3: And I think, honestly, what you said is so helpful
Speaker 3: to so many other people who are going there. You
Speaker 3: don't know what to say, you don't know how to
Speaker 3: deal and Angela, you did a beautiful job when she
Speaker 3: put in our group chat, because all of us were
Speaker 3: asking in the chat but also side chatting, and the
Speaker 3: way that you say it was with such grace, and
Speaker 3: you were like, girls, I promise you'll you'll give an update,
Speaker 3: and then you'll say, girls, I promise you'all will be
Speaker 3: the first to know when I have more to share.
Speaker 3: And the subtext of that is, I thank you for
Speaker 3: covering me with your love and interest, but I will
Speaker 3: contact you.
Speaker 1: I will call you.
Speaker 3: You know so, I so for all the people who
Speaker 3: are in situations like that, we're like, I don't know
Speaker 3: what to say, I don't know how to deal with it.
Speaker 3: That is great advice. I'm praying for you. I'm praying
Speaker 3: for your mother and your family. And you leave it
Speaker 3: at that and leave it up to the person to
Speaker 3: share what they want.
Speaker 4: If you got.
Speaker 1: A random health tip, y'all, me and Mamurai we love
Speaker 1: all the natural this tiens drop you to, this is,
Speaker 1: this is good for chemo, nausea, this is whatever, like,
Speaker 1: we love those things, and she's in the comments.
Speaker 3: Please would I would even appreciate that. So please, if
Speaker 3: you have health tips, especially if you've gone through chemo
Speaker 3: or you know someone who did something that helped you
Speaker 3: with nausea, eating anything, hair loss, whatever it is, drop
Speaker 3: it in the comments, because I think Angela and Mamurai
Speaker 3: would appreciate that. Sorry, Andrew, I didn't mean to I
Speaker 3: an the time, and we have another.
Speaker 4: There's nothing to be sorry about it at all. I
Speaker 4: appreciate it. Your larger point, including your personal update, which
Speaker 4: I think invited you into it, which is that for
Speaker 4: those of us, many of us out there who are
Speaker 4: saying this don't impact me yet, but five grand will
Speaker 4: just wait, keep living me, keep living me. That's the point.
Speaker 4: Keep living.
Speaker 1: And I would love for us to revisit this five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars point too, because my whole point and I
Speaker 1: forgot because we had a question about it. To Tip's point,
Speaker 1: we have more questions, but we had a question about
Speaker 1: is there a place where we can work together with
Speaker 1: the MAGA folks. And I think that what I was
Speaker 1: bringing this up to say is I see this as
Speaker 1: an opening because our people are suffering so much for
Speaker 1: them and this is a place where I don't want
Speaker 1: to lean in, but I see a place where they
Speaker 1: could encroach on more of our folks who are in
Speaker 1: harm's way, who are feeling vulnerable, who have been ignored,
Speaker 1: who have been abused by the system. No matter who's
Speaker 1: in charge, right, that's something that we've all heard, Andrew,
Speaker 1: we heard it knocking doors. For you, you know that
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter who's in charge, this always happens. Or
Speaker 1: I'm just ignored it, or I don't matter, or my
Speaker 1: vote doesn't matter for those people that are the most
Speaker 1: vulnerable among us. I'm worried about the encroaching there.
Speaker 4: It's hard at what they will take from them, from
Speaker 4: all of them. I'm worried about what they take. Right,
Speaker 4: you always have to watch my mother. There's always one
Speaker 4: hand giving, but what is the other hand doing. It's
Speaker 4: in your pocket, it's in your medical it's in your data,
Speaker 4: it's in every it's so.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's always one hand given.
Speaker 4: It was always one taken the best.
Speaker 1: I mean, we are oracles.
Speaker 4: We got the life has shown it to us. And
Speaker 4: this is the beauty of these sayings being passed on
Speaker 4: from generation and generation, is that we know that ain't
Speaker 4: nothing new, ain't nothing under the sun new. They are
Speaker 4: repackaging the same old tactics that they had before. There
Speaker 4: was a gimmick when they were taking us out of Africa.
Speaker 4: There were gimmicks with tribes. Turn on your other tribe,
Speaker 4: We'll take them, leave y'all alone until we need more
Speaker 4: of you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then, and even then we said it wasn't
Speaker 1: gonna be that bad. Well, it's not gonna be that
Speaker 1: because we had slavery. There were institutions of slavery on
Speaker 1: the continent. They did not look like the Transatlantic slave trade.
Speaker 1: So everybody was probably thinking, I wasn't there.
Speaker 3: But there were servitude. It wasn't flavory with servitude, but
Speaker 3: not slavery.
Speaker 1: That's right, all right.
Speaker 3: Well, guys, in full transparency, we have so much to
Speaker 3: say on so many topics. So we are in a
Speaker 3: bit of a rush to get out of the show
Speaker 3: because we have a very exciting interview that's going to
Speaker 3: drop on Monday, so be sure to check that out.
Speaker 3: It will be with Congresswoman Ayanna Presley Friday. Friday is
Speaker 3: Andrew's Monday Andrew. Andrew has something that's right. So before
Speaker 3: I kick it to you, Andrew, I just want to
Speaker 3: say I know I said at the beginning of the
Speaker 3: show that there was a great question that came in
Speaker 3: on local elections.
Speaker 1: We didn't forget about you. We're going to answer your
Speaker 1: question next week.
Speaker 3: So be sure to catch Native lampod next Thursday, where
Speaker 3: I will answer your question on local elections and we'll
Speaker 3: get to all your other questions.
Speaker 1: And Andrew, so you're doing a podcast.
Speaker 4: There was another question. There's another question that came in
Speaker 4: about what the resistance looks like. What does the apparatus
Speaker 4: the opposition party look like?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: What do we look like challenges administration? And I want
Speaker 4: to dig into that with y'all. So I want to
Speaker 4: invite you on Monday, three pm Eastern Standard time, I'll
Speaker 4: be doing a solo pod for just a few minutes
Speaker 4: to try to illuminate what the what the what the
Speaker 4: squad looks like out there around the world that that
Speaker 4: is certainly here in the United States that we can
Speaker 4: plug into as part of the resistance, uh to this administration,
Speaker 4: and UH what the squad looks like for promoting the
Speaker 4: things that we deserve. We desire meeting our needs and
Speaker 4: not the needs of the of the top one percent
Speaker 4: in Elon Musk and them, So join us Monday.
Speaker 1: We're gonna roll that question.
Speaker 6: Hi, Native Landpod. My name is Sean Nqua. I'm a
Speaker 6: social worker in South Carolina. I have some a question
Speaker 6: and some just concerns, I guess. So since President Trump
Speaker 6: has come into office, I feel like things are moving
Speaker 6: so fast. The world is just kind of crumbling and
Speaker 6: he's wrecking havoc on like all of these systems and
Speaker 6: institutions and people. But at the same time, I work
Speaker 6: full time at a hospital. On weekends, I teach college courses.
Speaker 6: I have three school age kids, a husband. My life
Speaker 6: is already so busy and full. I feel like I
Speaker 6: cannot focus on what's happening or figure out how to
Speaker 6: actually do anything about what's happening. But I'm thinking, like
Speaker 6: there are some activists, there are some people who this
Speaker 6: is what they do, and I would like y'all to
Speaker 6: highlight some so we can know how to support them
Speaker 6: financially because I do recognize it's a sacrifice that they
Speaker 6: are making to actually put themselves on the line.
Speaker 1: For our community.
Speaker 6: So who are these people? Can you point us in
Speaker 6: the right direction so we can, you know, donate support
Speaker 6: so they can still live their lives and feed their
Speaker 6: kids and whatever they need to do, but they can
Speaker 6: also focus on their job to benefit our community.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and you all will get all of Andrew's
Speaker 1: answers on that question. I know many of us thinking
Speaker 1: about that on Monday at twelve pm Pacific three pm Eastern,
Speaker 1: where Andrew starts his first solo pod journey. So y'all
Speaker 1: make sure you tune in live on Native Lampod's YouTube page.
Speaker 1: And with that, and with that, I have to do
Speaker 1: one more shameless plug today, I am wearing something that
Speaker 1: is very black. It is a black hood It is
Speaker 1: a black hooded cape from The GAP's Harlem Fashion Role collection.
Speaker 1: Shout out to all the entities that are maintaining their diversity,
Speaker 1: equity and inclusion programs. And it is Black History Month,
Speaker 1: so I'm feeling very black and also wearing black all
Speaker 1: year because these guys told me were doing that. And
Speaker 1: then left me hanging, so we did not know. So
Speaker 1: we thank you all so much for tuning in. You
Speaker 1: know this is our home, but it is also yours.
Speaker 1: We want to make sure we hear from you. Please
Speaker 1: keep sending in your questions. I know we didn't answer
Speaker 1: enough today. We gonna do better. We're gonna do better.
Speaker 1: There are six hundred and twenty one days until the midterms.
Speaker 1: If we have midterms, if we keep fighting, we just might.
Speaker 1: We love y'all, got bless you and your families. I'm
Speaker 1: handel a Ry. That's Andrew Gillam. This is Tiffany Cross Lover,
Speaker 1: Tiffany Cross Home Lovers.
Speaker 8: Thank you for joining the Natives intention of with the
Speaker 8: info and all of the latest rock Gillam and Cross
Speaker 8: connected to the statements that you leave on our socials.
Speaker 8: Thank you, sincerely for the patients. Reason for your choice
Speaker 8: is clear.
Speaker 4: So grateful it took the execute roads.
Speaker 8: Thank you for serve, defend and protect the truth even
Speaker 8: in paste. We're gonna walking home to all of the
Speaker 8: Natives wait.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Native Lampard is a production of iHeart Radio in partnership
Speaker 1: with Reason Choice Media. For more podcast from iHeart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio, app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.