Speaker 1: All right, folks, I need you all to stop what
Speaker 1: you're doing and listen up.
Speaker 2: You know I love this time of year, right, The
Speaker 2: NBA season is in full swing and with all this
Speaker 2: action going on the Stephen A. Smith Show, what's to
Speaker 2: make sure you take advantage of it all? That's why
Speaker 2: we've partnered with Prize Picks, the best place to win
Speaker 2: cash while watching sports.
Speaker 1: The app is easy to use.
Speaker 2: Just pick more or less on a few player stats
Speaker 2: and you could win up to one thousand times your
Speaker 2: cash on a single lineup. Best of all, Prizepects will
Speaker 2: give you fifty dollars. When you play your first five
Speaker 2: dollars lineup, We're gonna lose. You'll get fifty bucks for playing.
Speaker 2: Use promo code sas and download the app now again.
Speaker 2: Download the app and use code sas to get fifty
Speaker 2: dollars instantly after your first five dollar lineup. Prize Pects, Hey, hey,
Speaker 2: run your game today. I'll give you my picks for
Speaker 2: tonight's game between the NBA's Phoenix Suns and the Golden
Speaker 2: State Warriors. So let's get right to it.
Speaker 1: First.
Speaker 2: Up, well, Steph Scurry score more or less than twenty
Speaker 2: five points of Steph Curry's baby Face Assassin is the
Speaker 2: greatest shoot of God ever created, and it's going up
Speaker 2: against a horrid Phoenix Suns team that I don't know
Speaker 2: what the hell they are. The only thing that's inexplicable
Speaker 2: right now is the fact that Kevin Durant is out hurt.
Speaker 1: Okay, the fact of the matter.
Speaker 2: Is they've been the biggest disappointment in the NBA. You
Speaker 2: can make the argument that the seventy Sixers are it,
Speaker 2: but it's really the Phoenix Suns because the seventy six
Speaker 2: Ers were injured. The Phoenix Huns were healthy for the
Speaker 2: most part, and they still suck. That's problematic Steph Curry
Speaker 2: Moore because they're going up against Phoenix Suns. Next up,
Speaker 2: will Devin Booker scored more or less than twenty nine
Speaker 2: and a half points.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go with more because he's the only one
Speaker 1: that's gonna be able to make a shot.
Speaker 2: That's how I view it. What else does Phoenix have?
Speaker 2: Devin Booker will do what he does. It will not
Speaker 2: be enough. Golden State will beat them, but Devin Booker
Speaker 2: will get his I'm going to go with more on
Speaker 2: this particular question as well. Next up, Will Draymond Green
Speaker 2: scored more less than ten and a half points. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna say less because Draymond Green doesn't need to score
Speaker 2: points to be effective, to be elite. He's my defensive
Speaker 2: player of the Year. I have a vote, and I
Speaker 2: think I'm gonna give it to him. I can't imagine
Speaker 2: that I'm not going to give it to him, especially
Speaker 2: the way that he has looked, the way that he
Speaker 2: has played, the way that the Golden State Warriors have
Speaker 2: looked since acquiring Jimmy Butler, his guarantee that they were
Speaker 2: gonna win the championship, and now how bosiosition they are
Speaker 2: to potentially compete for it. If the players were to
Speaker 2: begin the day, in all likelihood they've played the Lakers
Speaker 2: in the first round of the playoffs. Steph Curry or
Speaker 2: Lebron James. Who are you going with? But Draymond Green
Speaker 2: may have something to say about that, because he can
Speaker 2: find a way to beat you. It ain't with points, though.
Speaker 2: That's why I'm gonna go with less on this particular question.
Speaker 2: And finally, will Bradley Bill scored more or less than
Speaker 2: seventeen and a half points, I'm gonna go less with
Speaker 2: him as well. Have you seen the way Golden Statesmen
Speaker 2: playing defense? Have you seen how they've been like Piranha's
Speaker 2: going after folks. Have you see how quick they are
Speaker 2: in getting out the shooters and getting to the basketball
Speaker 2: and defending the way that they have. Bradley Bill might
Speaker 2: have trouble with that. Could he score more than seventeen
Speaker 2: and a half points? Sure he could, I just don't
Speaker 2: think it'll happen in this game. So the recap, let's
Speaker 2: go back to the four selections that I've just picked.
Speaker 1: More with Steph Curry.
Speaker 2: Okay, more with Devin Booker, less with Draymond Green, less
Speaker 2: with Bradley Bill. That's even Stephen like how ron right
Speaker 2: it works, because everything does when it comes to prospects.
Speaker 1: I have no desire to be a politician.
Speaker 2: My life is pretty well, but I've decided I'm no
Speaker 2: longer gonna close that door.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna keep my options open.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna entertain the possibility and if it comes in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty late, twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven, where
Speaker 2: I look at this country and I think it's an
Speaker 2: absolute mess and there's legitimate reason to believe, whether it's
Speaker 2: via exploratory committees or anything else that I indeed would
Speaker 2: have a legitimate shot to win the presidency of the
Speaker 2: United States. I am not gonna rule it out, and
Speaker 2: I'm not playing what's up? Everybody.
Speaker 1: Welcome to this latest edition of The Stephen AI.
Speaker 2: Smith Show, coming at you as I love to do
Speaker 2: over the digital airwaves or YouTube and of course iHeartRadio
Speaker 2: at the very least three times a week. As always,
Speaker 2: I like to take a moment to thank and show
Speaker 2: gratitude to my listener and my subscribers. Over the iHeartRadio platform.
Speaker 2: We've received millions of downloads over the last several months,
Speaker 2: and of course, courtesy of YouTube, our subscribers have eclipsed
Speaker 2: more than one point one seven million in two years time.
Speaker 2: I can't thank you all for the love and support
Speaker 2: enough for supporting this show, keep it coming, and I'm
Speaker 2: gonna keep on coming. To continue to like and follow
Speaker 2: the show, just click the bell to get notified five
Speaker 2: newest content and YouTube shall be considered the latest member
Speaker 2: of the Stephen A.
Speaker 1: Smith Show family.
Speaker 2: And while you're doing that, make sure to pick up
Speaker 2: a copy of my New York Times best selling book,
Speaker 2: Straight Shooter, A Memoir of Second Chances and first takes
Speaker 2: now in paperback. Just go straight shoot book dot com
Speaker 2: to get yourself a copy. Once getting that straightsheet book
Speaker 2: dot com to get yourself a copy. I'm gonna be
Speaker 2: very very calm today because I don't want the excuses
Speaker 2: coming my way about I'm enraged, I'm angry, and all
Speaker 2: of this other stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm a human being.
Speaker 2: I get discussed by certain things that I see sometimes
Speaker 2: and sometimes I don't. But I think today is an
Speaker 2: important day because I think today that I'm going to
Speaker 2: be Dare I say a bit more revealing than I
Speaker 2: ever have been about where I stand on a few
Speaker 2: things in life.
Speaker 1: It's clearly necessary in light of the.
Speaker 2: Headlines that have been scurrying all over the place over
Speaker 2: the last twenty four hours. That's where we're going to
Speaker 2: get started, headlines made by yours truly. Specifically, yesterday, at
Speaker 2: the National Association of Broadcasters conference in Las Vegas, Nevada,
Speaker 2: I was sitting down for a conversation fireside chat with
Speaker 2: Mike McVeigh, president of McVeigh Media, somebody who's been a
Speaker 2: mentor and a friend to me for years. Helped me
Speaker 2: resurrect my career in this business after I was going
Speaker 2: in two thousand and nine, he asked me about my
Speaker 2: future as a potential presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: For those of you who didn't see it, here's more
Speaker 2: of my response, piggybacking off of that cold open you
Speaker 2: just saw to those very questions.
Speaker 1: Listen up right here. I just think that it's a
Speaker 1: mess right now. Now. I'm not scared. There's a lot
Speaker 1: that I have to learn.
Speaker 2: I am no official, and I don't make no mistake
Speaker 2: about it, but damn it.
Speaker 1: Let me hunker down for two or three months. I'll
Speaker 1: know the issues.
Speaker 2: And once that happens, then imagining me on a debate
Speaker 2: stage with these people, these politicians, this is what I
Speaker 2: do for a living, and if for no other reason,
Speaker 2: then the stand on of the debate stage with tens
Speaker 2: of millions of people watching, where I get to sit
Speaker 2: back and talk about what you've been doing as politicians
Speaker 2: to literally dissipate and disintegrate the quality of America before
Speaker 2: our very eyes because of your own selfishness, me having
Speaker 2: an opportunity to do that, that is what I mean
Speaker 2: when I say I will eat them alive. I am
Speaker 2: not a politician. I don't have a political record for
Speaker 2: them to lean on. They all do, which means I
Speaker 2: get to look at your record and what you've done
Speaker 2: and challenge whether you can legitimately say, not just with
Speaker 2: the cameras rolling, but in front.
Speaker 1: Of my face, that you actually operated.
Speaker 2: On behalf of what was in the best interest of
Speaker 2: all of America.
Speaker 1: Who's gonna pull that off in front of my face?
Speaker 1: Good luck with that. I wish they would, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 2: I'd love to sit up here and tell you that
Speaker 2: I didn't mean what I said, but I do, and
Speaker 2: I think the time has arrived to let you all
Speaker 2: know this is not something that I plan. Contrary to
Speaker 2: people bloviating out there on their podcasts and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: I'm no political efficient model. There's so much that I
Speaker 2: have to learn about the intricacies of politics and all
Speaker 2: that it entails, particularly as it pertains to dealing with
Speaker 2: people on Capitol Hill. My god, I wouldn't even know
Speaker 2: how to put a staff together as of yet.
Speaker 1: We understand that part.
Speaker 2: But what I've tried to say to many people, on many,
Speaker 2: many occasions is that I'm an American citizen, I'm a voter,
Speaker 2: and what has transpired throughout the years as far as
Speaker 2: I'm concerned, has been reprehensible. I'm a believer that the
Speaker 2: American people have been played as suckers for decades, that
Speaker 2: we've allowed politicians to become career politicians, to sit up
Speaker 2: there and pad their own wallets and look out for
Speaker 2: their own self interest, and it's been at the expense
Speaker 2: of the American people. My proof is the fact that
Speaker 2: we have a thirty seven trillion dollar deficit.
Speaker 1: How is that possible?
Speaker 2: How could you possibly be doing your job and be
Speaker 2: thirty seven trillion dollars in debt? How could you do that?
Speaker 2: It's really certain. Things are just very very simplistic to me.
Speaker 2: Of course, that's not the only problem that we have,
Speaker 2: but something needs to be said. And when I said
Speaker 2: what I said, people can dismiss it all they want to.
Speaker 2: Because I have no desire to be a politician. I'm
Speaker 2: sincere with that. I just signed a multi year contract
Speaker 2: extension with ESPN that will pay me exponentially more than
Speaker 2: being a politician would ever pay me. I don't need politics.
Speaker 2: But the fact is is that our country is in
Speaker 2: a very very bad spot. And when I'm perceived as
Speaker 2: somebody that is excoriating the left, and favoring the right.
Speaker 2: Those people don't know what they're talking about, but I
Speaker 2: understand where their animist towards me comes from. It comes
Speaker 2: from a place of me constantly pointing the finger at
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party, because the Republican Party, the GOP, as
Speaker 2: far as I was concerned, until the latest election, they
Speaker 2: had given up on the black community years ago. Let
Speaker 2: me reiterate, or remind you rather, what has transpired since
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty four when civil rights legislation came into effect.
Speaker 2: There was a president by the name of Lyndon B.
Speaker 2: Johnson who had succeeded President John F. Kennedy who was
Speaker 2: assassinated in nineteen sixty three. And even though you have
Speaker 2: both Republicans and Democrats in both Houses of Congress pushing
Speaker 2: for civil rights legislation, there were adversaries to that.
Speaker 1: And Lyndon B.
Speaker 2: Johnson said, if we pushed this through, we will have
Speaker 2: the negroes voting for us for the next two hundred years.
Speaker 2: I'm paraphrasing, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty close to
Speaker 2: that quote. Well, lower and behold what has happened since then.
Speaker 2: The Democratic Party has spent the last fifty five plus years.
Speaker 1: Receiving the black vote. So what did we do.
Speaker 2: We were transparent in our support for one party, giving
Speaker 2: them a license to take us for granted, and we
Speaker 2: alienated the other party, who naturally assumed they'd have no
Speaker 2: shot at getting our votes. And as a result, as
Speaker 2: a community, for the most part, we were disenfranchised, which
Speaker 2: speaks to some of the problems that we have had.
Speaker 2: I only bring that up to say it is legitimate
Speaker 2: when I look at the Democratic Party and I have
Speaker 2: an attitude dude, because I'm looking at you and I'm saying,
Speaker 2: how the.
Speaker 1: Hell did you forget about us?
Speaker 2: The Black community makes up nearly fourteen percent of the population.
Speaker 2: The Hispanic community makes up nearly twenty percent of the population.
Speaker 2: The Cosensus Bureau reports shows that by the year twenty thirty,
Speaker 2: this Hispanic populace in this country would exceed over thirty
Speaker 2: percent of the population. But we were talking about Wok
Speaker 2: culture and Cancel culture. We were talking about problems that
Speaker 2: really really didn't address what really existed in our communities.
Speaker 2: We had a president of Barack Obama, who quietly, adroitly,
Speaker 2: skillfully went about the business of patrolling our borders and
Speaker 2: making sure that immigration issues were addressed absent comprehensive immigration reform.
Speaker 1: What does Joe Biden do?
Speaker 2: He goes into office and he says, open the damn borders,
Speaker 2: and over twelve million undocumented immigrants across the borders, all contributing.
Speaker 1: To our problems. Why shouldn't I have an attitude?
Speaker 2: Why should not look at that and say it's a
Speaker 2: problem you forgot about us? Why shouldn't I look at
Speaker 2: you and I heard you talk about think about the
Speaker 2: sound bites we saw. And I'm gonna get to the
Speaker 2: Republicans in the second, because we all know Trump and
Speaker 2: his tariffs is a problem right now. But I'll get
Speaker 2: to that in a second. What do we see? We
Speaker 2: saw a body in an office. We saw him clearly debilitated.
Speaker 2: Every eighty plus year old is not as debilitated as
Speaker 2: he appeared, but he did appear that way. Yet we
Speaker 2: saw a democratic politicians standing on Capitol Hill chanting four
Speaker 2: more years we now learned how we was religiously lied
Speaker 2: to about his state of mind and his capabilities. We
Speaker 2: saw Chuck schumelatta us. We shaw a plethora of politicians
Speaker 2: on the left trying to defend and support him, only
Speaker 2: to throw him by the wayside. After the debate on
Speaker 2: June twenty seventh, and the very person in Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: who I respect as our former vice president, became the
Speaker 2: Democratic nominee all of a sudden, the same woman that
Speaker 2: couldn't make it to the Iowa CAUCUSUS in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: was a rock star.
Speaker 1: And if we didn't all.
Speaker 2: Buy in, we were misogynists, we were anti women, we
Speaker 2: were racist, we were all anything you could come up with.
Speaker 2: You heard it over and over and over again. That
Speaker 2: is where my disgust comes from when it comes to
Speaker 2: the left, when I say they forgot about us, They
Speaker 2: forgot about it's the economy stupid. They forgot about if
Speaker 2: people have money in their pockets and they're living fruitful lives,
Speaker 2: that they have something to lose, and as a result society,
Speaker 2: from a societyal perspective.
Speaker 1: People will act better.
Speaker 2: Because if you have something to lose, guess what, you
Speaker 2: ain't trying to lose it. You're not trying to lose it.
Speaker 2: Why do I bring up laws? Why is it appropriate
Speaker 2: that this particular moment in time, because we've got these tariffs,
Speaker 2: these tariff wars going on, and there are some people,
Speaker 2: particularly on the side of Trump. They are all in
Speaker 2: supportive tariffs. Let me be the first to say this
Speaker 2: about Donald Trump. I support tarriffs. I have no problem
Speaker 2: with it. I do believe that the United States has
Speaker 2: been paying too much money.
Speaker 1: We've been giving up give too much money out.
Speaker 2: You go to foreign countries, you see people they talk
Speaker 2: about how you don't see American vehicles, you don't see
Speaker 2: American products nearly as much as you see other products
Speaker 2: from other nations. This is what they say. If that
Speaker 2: is true, then Trump is right. We are getting hosed
Speaker 2: and something needs to be done about it. I am
Speaker 2: not averse to Donald Trump with tariffs. What I'm averse
Speaker 2: to is how he's handling it. I'm averse to the
Speaker 2: fact that you're gonna go after everybody. I'm averse to
Speaker 2: the fact that you didn't anticipate that China would come
Speaker 2: back with thirty four percent terriffs of their own, and
Speaker 2: in the process of doing so, would set up meetings
Speaker 2: with allies of the United States that are now threatening
Speaker 2: not to be allies because they had Trump's dad tariffs
Speaker 2: imposed on them by Trump, and now because of that,
Speaker 2: they're turning against the United States into China.
Speaker 1: Now only time will tell whether Trump's right.
Speaker 2: Only time will tell whether or not we're gonna find
Speaker 2: ourselves in a disastrous situation, whether recession is in place
Speaker 2: right now, whether inflation is gonna boom. Only time will tell.
Speaker 2: But it's a short time. I don't wanna hear a year.
Speaker 2: I don't want to hear two years. We can't afford that.
Speaker 2: Why do I bring all of this up, Because all
Speaker 2: of this is the kind of stuff that made me
Speaker 2: say what I said yesterday at the National Association for
Speaker 2: Broadcasters convention. Because enough to enoughs I don't want to
Speaker 2: do this. My hope is that politicians who are centrists,
Speaker 2: who think about the economy, who think about being humane,
Speaker 2: who think about small businesses, who think about education, who
Speaker 2: think about our borders, who think about our national security,
Speaker 2: can call us with one another, engage in common sense
Speaker 2: thinking and come to conclusions.
Speaker 1: So somebody like me isn't necessary. You want to talk about.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and a potential third term when you want
Speaker 2: to circumvent the twenty second Amendment of the US Constitution
Speaker 2: and Donald Trump and ends up running for a third term.
Speaker 1: Stephen A.
Speaker 2: Smith will happily invite Barack Obama back into the mix.
Speaker 2: I think he'll beat Donald Trump. Yes, I said it
Speaker 2: because I think at his core, regardless of what people
Speaker 2: want to say about how he governed, I think he's
Speaker 2: a centrist individual. It's just that both sides will polar
Speaker 2: opposites against one another. I am not oblivious to the
Speaker 2: fact that since Obama was in office, there was a
Speaker 2: white backlash that took place. I am not oblivious to
Speaker 2: the fact that that made folks hunker down and be
Speaker 2: even more divided than ever before. I get it. I
Speaker 2: understand it that black man in office spewing liberal policies,
Speaker 2: telling folks they got to get to the back because
Speaker 2: they lost the election, that.
Speaker 1: This is our time fall back.
Speaker 2: We running the show now, and the boldness and how
Speaker 2: embolden he felt because he was the president of the
Speaker 2: United States, how much that turned folks off and made
Speaker 2: them more resolute and going against him, and as a result,
Speaker 2: we were even more.
Speaker 1: Divided as a nation than ever before. I get that.
Speaker 2: I remember the joke that Kat Williams once told that
Speaker 2: thatffing up the country is what it's done. Goddamn titaments
Speaker 2: Go watch Kat Williams talking about how folks were feeling
Speaker 2: about Obama doing as a president doing his presidency who
Speaker 2: weren't black.
Speaker 1: The flip side to it, however, is that it's not
Speaker 1: about black or white anymore. It's apout America. Just like
Speaker 1: a rising tide lifts all votes.
Speaker 2: As a nation, we're only as strongest as our weakest link.
Speaker 2: And if you have the weaken, the desolate amongst us,
Speaker 2: and you're doing nothing for them, and you're leaving them out.
Speaker 1: To pasture, where does that leave us? See?
Speaker 2: When I think about the Republicans, I think the Republicans
Speaker 2: are asking us, particularly Trump, trust me. And by the way,
Speaker 2: he's in a position to do it because he won
Speaker 2: the popular vote, he won the electoral College vote, he
Speaker 2: won every swing state, he won both houses of Congress,
Speaker 2: He's got a majority sixty three in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I mean, damn.
Speaker 2: Americans didn't just give it to him. He took it
Speaker 2: because he recognized what the left wasn't doing. They were
Speaker 2: preoccupied with nonsense. You want to ask why Steven Asmith
Speaker 2: felt the need to speak up at the NAB conference.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you all this question.
Speaker 2: Were supposed to leave it to Bernie Sanders and AOC
Speaker 2: Alexandria Cassio Cotest We're supposed to leave it with individuals
Speaker 2: that will tell you that it's perfectly okay to tack
Speaker 2: seventy percent of your money.
Speaker 1: Not that they gave out that number.
Speaker 2: I'm just speculating, because of how socialistic they are in
Speaker 2: their thinking.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to say that that's okay, y'all? Okay with that?
Speaker 1: You okay? We're going to work and making one hundred
Speaker 1: dollars and walking home with thirty You sure about that?
Speaker 1: Are you cool with it?
Speaker 2: Just tell me, because these are the kind of questions
Speaker 2: that we have to ask ourselves. That is why I
Speaker 2: spoke up. I am an independent, That's who I am.
Speaker 2: I'm not on either side. I'm not on both sides,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen. I'm creating my own lane. I have
Speaker 2: no desire to be on either side. Donald Trump has
Speaker 2: his alcolytes, he has his surrogance, He has people in
Speaker 2: the bullpen. It could be a Mare Ubio, it could
Speaker 2: be a Jdvans, It could be somebody that we don't
Speaker 2: even know coming from a Republican party. I sincerely doubt
Speaker 2: as Marjorie Tailor gree and I can tell you that much.
Speaker 2: But it got people on the right. That's why everybody
Speaker 2: talks about me on the left. It's not just because
Speaker 2: I voted Democrat and I voted for Kamala Harris. It's
Speaker 2: because that's the side I see myself on. But you're
Speaker 2: conda wrong about that too, because I don't. When I
Speaker 2: think about me and I think about me running for
Speaker 2: president of the United States, let me re emphasize that
Speaker 2: I am woefully unqualified. But a lot of people say,
Speaker 2: so is he, and you put him in a lot
Speaker 2: of people look at his cabinet members and the positions
Speaker 2: he has them in.
Speaker 1: They're there. Let me tell you something about Steven A. Smith.
Speaker 2: Let me get this out of the way again.
Speaker 1: I would create a new lane.
Speaker 2: I'd be a centrist, not quite like Clinton having to
Speaker 2: be dragged by Newt Gingrich to work with the right
Speaker 2: so you can ultimately leave office with a surplus. I
Speaker 2: would have done so voluntarily. I want to work with
Speaker 2: both sides of the aisle. I'd have Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 2: in my cabinet. They would be the ones button heads
Speaker 2: and fighting, but their mandate would be to come to
Speaker 2: me with an idea that works for America. No one
Speaker 2: can have everything. In other words, I'm building a coalition.
Speaker 2: That's what I would want to do, not just the
Speaker 2: stance that wouldn't be me. One of my friends wrote
Speaker 2: notes for me and stuff like that because he was.
Speaker 1: Iron and out. Man.
Speaker 2: If you were running for president, man, this is what
Speaker 2: you should be. Some things he said that were right,
Speaker 2: some things he said that were wrong. Because it's amazing,
Speaker 2: no matter how much I'm on television, no matter how
Speaker 2: much I'm in a public eye, people still don't know
Speaker 2: who the hell I am. So let me give you
Speaker 2: an idea who that person is. It's about problem solving.
Speaker 2: It's about fixing the issues that really really matter. It's
Speaker 2: about caring about all of America, not just a segment
Speaker 2: of our population. It's about all of those things. You
Speaker 2: know who I am, just like you know who Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is. That's the problem with the Democratic Party. You
Speaker 2: don't know who the hell a are and you don't
Speaker 2: know who their leader, who.
Speaker 1: Can lead them.
Speaker 2: You don't have any clue. I think a guy like
Speaker 2: west Wore out of Maryland can do it. I think
Speaker 2: a guy like Joshapier out of Pennsylvania can do it.
Speaker 2: But we all know they'll have their critics from a
Speaker 2: national perspective. You talk about West Moore's a governor of Maryland.
Speaker 2: Joshapaiir is governor of Pennsylvania. Okay, those are localized individuals.
Speaker 2: Andrew Como trying to come back as mayor of New York.
Speaker 2: He was about to be a fourth a fourth term
Speaker 2: governor in New York before his troubles invaded the proceedings
Speaker 2: that he was booted out of all. He had to
Speaker 2: resign from office, and now he's trying to make a comeback.
Speaker 2: Of course, there are individuals as professional politics who are
Speaker 2: far more qualified than me. But haven't y'all been paying attention?
Speaker 2: The American people don't clear clearly don't want politicians. They
Speaker 2: don't mind having a populist in the White House. They
Speaker 2: don't mind having somebody that they can lean towards and
Speaker 2: they can say, at least we know him, at least
Speaker 2: we trust that he's gonna be who he is. You
Speaker 2: might not like Donald Trump with the tariffs. He told
Speaker 2: you he was gonna do it. Some people might not
Speaker 2: like what Donald Trump is doing with the borders, but
Speaker 2: from a ninety five percent toil success rate, they say
Speaker 2: he's doing his job with the borders. Inflation is still
Speaker 2: an issue. A recession is in play, if not on
Speaker 2: its way. So certainly there are things that he hasn't done,
Speaker 2: but he's asking you to give him time because he's
Speaker 2: got to fight with these people. The war in Ukraine
Speaker 2: with Russia. We don't like the fact that it seems
Speaker 2: like he's sided with Russia. But what his people are
Speaker 2: saying is, wait a minute, do you want World War three?
Speaker 2: Bottom line? We trying to stop all of this stuff.
Speaker 2: I look at Russia. I think they're trying to take
Speaker 2: control of Europe. I look at China, they're making footprints,
Speaker 2: they're gaining footprints in Africa and other places in the world.
Speaker 2: Why because they look they're looking for minerals, they want
Speaker 2: to make sure they take care of their own people,
Speaker 2: amongst other things that they want to do. These people
Speaker 2: are not pro America. They're anti America. We understand that
Speaker 2: the enemy, but what are we gonna do about it?
Speaker 2: At some point in time, you got to ask yourself
Speaker 2: these questions. I don't want to come across as somebody
Speaker 2: who's trying to engage.
Speaker 1: In some kind of war over identity politics.
Speaker 2: Maybe I have to monitor my tone, and that's fair,
Speaker 2: But when I think about me and what I want
Speaker 2: to do. I want you to know that I'm somebody
Speaker 2: who rejects party extremes. I'm not interested in that. I
Speaker 2: am a lord or to do. Make no mistake about that.
Speaker 2: You can be a crowd of your ass gonna be
Speaker 2: in jail. If I was in or if I was
Speaker 2: if I was in control, I will throw your ass
Speaker 2: in jail in the heartbeat.
Speaker 1: I don't like criminals.
Speaker 2: I don't like people who scare the public from living
Speaker 2: their normal lives. National security is a big deal with me.
Speaker 2: Trade as opposed to trade, wars are a big deal
Speaker 2: to me. Immigration, I tell you this right now. See
Speaker 2: it crazy as it sounds outside of the criminals, because
Speaker 2: we don't need lawless First of all, lawless Americans should
Speaker 2: be in jail, and lawless people who ain't Americans should
Speaker 2: be out of the country. Outside of them, Guess what
Speaker 2: I'm doing, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not I'm not throwing
Speaker 2: anybody out of the country. I'm not deporting anybody.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm doing.
Speaker 2: Outside of those criminals, I'm leaving others alone. But the
Speaker 2: border is shut down. Nobody comes in, nobody until we
Speaker 2: get our house in order for at least the first year.
Speaker 1: Shutting it down.
Speaker 2: Got a year, got to get our house in order.
Speaker 2: That's how I look at it. I'm saying all of
Speaker 2: this to say, while I'm no officionado, I'm not completely
Speaker 2: lost and oblivious to the problems that are pervasive in
Speaker 2: our country.
Speaker 1: It matters to me.
Speaker 2: I want to make sure that it matters to you,
Speaker 2: and I want to make sure that you understand that
Speaker 2: in the process of us.
Speaker 1: Doing these things, we gotta do better. We just have to.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking about some stuff that I wrote down. Four
Speaker 2: tenth flat tax with the top one percent make it
Speaker 2: two hundred thousand dollars or so. I'm looking at it
Speaker 2: from the standpoint that why do I support a flat tax?
Speaker 2: I'm tired of you coming to me in one day?
Speaker 2: Is thirty three another whey, there's thirty five. Another way,
Speaker 2: it's thirty nine percent of my money that you could
Speaker 2: take as the federal government. Now, why can't you take
Speaker 2: twenty seven percent? Let's just throw that out. Workers fifty
Speaker 2: five years and younger can diversify a percentage of their
Speaker 2: income from Social Security.
Speaker 1: One of my boys gave me that idea. I kind
Speaker 1: of like that kind of like that.
Speaker 2: How about Congress only being allowed to spend thirty percent
Speaker 2: of tax revenue? How about them being forced to sit
Speaker 2: in the nation's capital and actually work for the American.
Speaker 1: People instead of themselves.
Speaker 2: I'm still baffled as to how you can be a
Speaker 2: congressional figure or a Senate figure and you may have
Speaker 2: entered the nation's capital with debt, but now when you
Speaker 2: look at your financial portfolio it might be worth millions.
Speaker 2: What's going on there? I don't understand that. And then
Speaker 2: I look at a thirty seven trillion dollar debt. Am
Speaker 2: I supposed to believe that we're just spending willy nilly
Speaker 2: on all of these things and no money is coming into.
Speaker 1: Your pockets as politicians?
Speaker 2: What's the number one reason I tell you, outside of
Speaker 2: being private and not wanting stressed in my life as
Speaker 2: to why I'm not interested in politics. I'm getting paid,
Speaker 2: and what I'm getting paid politics ain't gonna pay me.
Speaker 1: That's my position.
Speaker 2: And then I look at some of these reports of
Speaker 2: what politicians are worth.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna mention any names.
Speaker 2: But we got politicians that were in debt, that were
Speaker 2: paying student loans. We got politicians that didn't have but
Speaker 2: so much money. Then net worth was in the thousands
Speaker 2: and now it's millions.
Speaker 1: How how.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, By the way, one of my boys
Speaker 2: gave me this idea Congress and Senate only in DC
Speaker 2: two weeks per quarter of the vote reduced to course,
Speaker 2: what the hell you living in DC for?
Speaker 1: For what you ain't doing? No work, just a suggestion.
Speaker 2: All I'm saying is that as you look at these
Speaker 2: things and you look at me, I am very sincere
Speaker 2: when I tell you I have no desire to be
Speaker 2: a politician.
Speaker 1: I have no interest. But I have been asked by.
Speaker 2: Folks in the business world, folks in corporate America, folks
Speaker 2: on Capitol Hill, plus folks who are friends of mine,
Speaker 2: to strongly reconsider and to at least leave the door
Speaker 2: open to the possibilities, because you never know what state
Speaker 2: our country could be in in the next three years
Speaker 2: or so. Stephen A, just don't shut the door. Just
Speaker 2: don't shut the door. Please, just don't shut the door.
Speaker 2: That's all I was saying yesterday. But what I want
Speaker 2: y'all to understand is that I had every right to
Speaker 2: say it. It was necessary because of everything going on,
Speaker 2: not just in our nation's capital with this tariff's war,
Speaker 2: but also how helpless the Democratic side is to do
Speaker 2: anything about it. All they can do is complain for
Speaker 2: the moment, nothing else. They don't have the seats. And
Speaker 2: we want to rave about Corey Booker, who we respect,
Speaker 2: speaking on the floor in the US House for twenty
Speaker 2: five hours plus, But what are we really power?
Speaker 1: What are we really empowered to do?
Speaker 2: The party isn't empowered, So it comes down to the people,
Speaker 2: and one of the people spoke up.
Speaker 1: That's all.
Speaker 2: Just want to let y'all know where I'm at. Not
Speaker 2: interested in running. Hope it doesn't come to that. But
Speaker 2: I was told I owe it to all of us
Speaker 2: to at least leave the door open.
Speaker 1: That's what I did, by the way, this week.
Speaker 2: This Sunday, I'm scheduled to be on this Week with
Speaker 2: George Stephanopolis on ABC and practically every other network is called.
Speaker 2: They're apparently taking it very seriously, so I have no
Speaker 2: choice but to do so.
Speaker 1: It stiff comes down to that. It just comes down
Speaker 1: to that. Coming up.
Speaker 2: The NCAA could be shelling out billions to settle lawsuits
Speaker 2: from athletes who accuse them of limiting their ability to
Speaker 2: capitalize off their name, image and likeness. I'll get into
Speaker 2: that straight ahead, but first, did y'all see the end
Speaker 2: of the NCAA Men's Championship game between Houston and Florida.
Speaker 2: Congrats to the Gators who prevented Houston from even getting
Speaker 2: a shot off. I'll get into that sloppy ending in
Speaker 2: a minute. It's the stephen A.
Speaker 1: Smith Show.
Speaker 2: I'll let your boy back for morning minute light. Everybody
Speaker 2: listen up with all the big time sports action that's
Speaker 2: happening each and every.
Speaker 1: Day, The stephen A.
Speaker 2: Smith Show wants to make sure sure you are taking
Speaker 2: advantage of it all. That's why we've partnered with the
Speaker 2: Prize Picks, the best place to win cash while watching sports.
Speaker 1: The app is really easy to use.
Speaker 2: To make a lineup, all you have to do is
Speaker 2: pick more or less on a few player stats. Choose
Speaker 2: from any of your favorite players Luka, Doncic, Jimmy Butler,
Speaker 2: and Zach Lavine all in the same entry.
Speaker 1: Then sit back and watch. The list is absolutely endless.
Speaker 2: You can play prizepects in over forty states, including California
Speaker 2: and Texas. Best of all, Prospects will give you fifty
Speaker 2: dollars when you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 1: Wanna lose, You'll get fifty bucks.
Speaker 2: Just use promo code says and download Prozpects right now again,
Speaker 2: download the app and use code sas to get fifty
Speaker 2: dollars instantly after your first five dollars lineup prize picks,
Speaker 2: run your game.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the stephen A. Smith Show.
Speaker 2: By the way, before I get to my next subject,
Speaker 2: let me just say one last thing about the top
Speaker 2: ten that I was discussing in.
Speaker 1: The a blot.
Speaker 2: Rather than thinking about me being a politician, don't think
Speaker 2: for one second I wouldn't mind staying over these airways
Speaker 2: and engaging in even more political commentary day after day
Speaker 2: after day. A lot of Joe Rogan's the Megan Kellys
Speaker 2: of the world and beyond. That's more my lane. I'd
Speaker 2: love to continue doing that now. That is something that
Speaker 2: I intend.
Speaker 1: To be doing for years and years and years to come,
Speaker 1: as I elevate my level.
Speaker 2: Of knowledge about this particular genre, this subject matter. Make
Speaker 2: no mistake about that. That's more suitable for me than
Speaker 2: the presidency.
Speaker 1: Just letting you know.
Speaker 2: Anyway, moving on, I want to get into that crazy
Speaker 2: finish we saw last night with the NCAA Men's Championship
Speaker 2: game Houston.
Speaker 1: To check this out, y'all.
Speaker 2: Houston had the ball with eleven seconds left in the
Speaker 2: game and couldn't get a shot off.
Speaker 1: As a result, the Florida.
Speaker 2: Gators are now National Championship champions, coming all the way
Speaker 2: back from being down twelve points in the second half.
Speaker 1: It was a disastrous final few minutes. Do y'all know
Speaker 1: that the.
Speaker 2: Houston Googers turned the ball over in their final four
Speaker 2: offensive possessions.
Speaker 1: You can't do that. You can't do that.
Speaker 2: And that kid Sharp, I feel so bad for me,
Speaker 2: committed a privotal turnover trying to drive into the lane,
Speaker 2: got stripped, ball, got bounced off his knee about twenty
Speaker 2: six and a half seconds left, and then he jumped
Speaker 2: up in the air and Clayton Junior cleared out on
Speaker 2: him and had a hand in his face. Great defense
Speaker 2: on his part, and instead of pump faking and pulling
Speaker 2: up for the three or pump faking and going to
Speaker 2: the lane because two would have been enough, he couldn't
Speaker 2: even get a shot off. And that's sad. Houston is
Speaker 2: an elite defensive team. They had Florida on the ropes,
Speaker 2: had him down by twelve in the second half.
Speaker 1: They should not have lost this game.
Speaker 2: But major, major props to Florida for staying the course
Speaker 2: and that kid, Walter Clayton Junr Is going.
Speaker 1: He's special.
Speaker 2: He didn't have the biggest game last night, only eleven
Speaker 2: points of three to ten shooting, but he came live
Speaker 2: in the second half. That's when he made some noise
Speaker 2: when it really really counted. Giving me props where props
Speaker 2: is due, and I think that he might be, you know,
Speaker 2: the first or second we are taking in the draft in.
Speaker 1: The NBA Draft. He's that special.
Speaker 2: He reminds me a lot of Wade cutting hand for
Speaker 2: the Detroit Pistons person. I don't know what y'all think
Speaker 2: about that, but that's what I think.
Speaker 1: Anyway.
Speaker 2: Let me move on and get to this subject that
Speaker 2: I have. I cannot negate getting into this. I want
Speaker 2: to give props to the one and only Gino Oriema
Speaker 2: and the Yukon women's team who beat South Carolina Sunday
Speaker 2: to win their twelfth national championship. The Lady Huskies were
Speaker 2: led by Sarah Strong, Osie Fudd, and Paige Beckers, of course,
Speaker 2: who played her final game as a Husky she'll like
Speaker 2: to be the first pick in the w NBA draft
Speaker 2: next month. Meanwhile, many people are wondering if Yukon's twelfth
Speaker 2: title makes Gino Oriema the greatest coach in American history.
Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna say it does very simple.
Speaker 2: The man's been coaching there for forty years. He's been
Speaker 2: a twenty four final fours. He's won twelve national championships.
Speaker 2: Think about that, he's been the twenty four final fours
Speaker 2: and half the time he's won the national title. Okay,
Speaker 2: think about that, all time winners this coach. Not only that,
Speaker 2: he's won in four different decades. So not only does
Speaker 2: he coach exceptionally well, he recruits exceptionally well, he motivates
Speaker 2: exceptionally well. Now, page is something special. She hadn't torn
Speaker 2: her ACL. Remember she was the National player of the
Speaker 2: Year as a freshman. She went to four straight she
Speaker 2: went to four final fours. She got injured one year
Speaker 2: with the torn ACL, and that's why they couldn't close
Speaker 2: the deal.
Speaker 1: But this young lady is sensational.
Speaker 2: My only my only dissenting opinion is that she didn't
Speaker 2: get a chance to go against Juju Watkins. Because that
Speaker 2: usc Star National Player of the Year by the way,
Speaker 2: got hurt in the NCAA tournament, and when Yukon could
Speaker 2: have met them in an Elite eight again for the
Speaker 2: second consecutive year, Juju wasn't there. She couldn't play. So
Speaker 2: I was very very sad about that. But Becker's a
Speaker 2: special she is something special. But there's always a special
Speaker 2: player coming out of Yukon, the Maya Moors of the Ward,
Speaker 2: Diana Tarassi's of the world, Breonna Stewart, four time champion
Speaker 2: in all four years at Yukon, fo Time's most outstanding
Speaker 2: player in the process. You're looking at Fudd and you're
Speaker 2: looking at strong. Look at them ladies, strong at coming,
Speaker 2: strongest special and Fudd can ball too.
Speaker 1: That young lady can ball. She's gonna be special as well.
Speaker 2: They showed up in the national title game and they
Speaker 2: beat the brakes off of South Carolina.
Speaker 1: South Carolina, Dawn Stelley.
Speaker 2: She didn't have the horses, she didn't have the personnel,
Speaker 2: and we're not accustomed to seeing that, but that has happened,
Speaker 2: and so we have to look at it for what
Speaker 2: it is. Gino Ariema has withstood the test of time
Speaker 2: and You can talk about Nick Saban, you can talk
Speaker 2: about Bill Belichick, you can talk about all of these guys.
Speaker 1: I think Nick Saban is the closest.
Speaker 2: Bill Belichick had Tom Brady for twenty years, Okay, one
Speaker 2: with them didn't win without him. Nick Saban won at LSU,
Speaker 2: he won at Alabama, So I think that's close. John Wooden,
Speaker 2: you got to think about him and his eleven titles,
Speaker 2: no doubt, But when you look at Geno Orima and
Speaker 2: the span over which he's won over four different separate decades,
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any question that he is the
Speaker 2: greatest coach in American history. His resume says so, the
Speaker 2: test of time says so, his recruiting ability says so, his.
Speaker 1: Basketball acumen says so.
Speaker 2: And the fact that his players never leave his program,
Speaker 2: and I all exists. You know, just saw Olivia Miles
Speaker 2: decide to depart from Notre Dame. Let me tell you something.
Speaker 2: Anybody think about leaving Yukon. This is Stor's Connecticut. Anybody
Speaker 2: think about leaving because Gino Orim is there. That's why
Speaker 2: it's just that simple congratulations to the goat of basketball coaching.
Speaker 1: That is Geno Oriema. He truly is. There's nothing to
Speaker 1: say about it. Coming up.
Speaker 2: Seawan Diddy cohmb's federal sex trafficking trial is less than
Speaker 2: a month away, and Cassie's apparently preparing to testify gets them.
Speaker 1: We've got to get into that.
Speaker 2: My Mayor Ryan Smith is in the house to discuss
Speaker 2: that with me, and a little something extra about the
Speaker 2: NCAA as well.
Speaker 1: So don't go away. It's the stephen A.
Speaker 2: Smith Show coming right at you, back with more in
Speaker 2: a minute.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to stephen A. Smithshew.
Speaker 2: Now let's get to the latest on Sean Diddy Combs,
Speaker 2: whose federal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges is
Speaker 2: set to begin next month.
Speaker 1: Sources tell People Magazine.
Speaker 2: That Cassandra Cassie Venturer is prepared to testify against her
Speaker 2: ex partner Diddy at the upcoming trial using her name.
Speaker 1: Last Friday, prosecutors follow the motion.
Speaker 2: Stating that quote Victim number one would not be testifying
Speaker 2: anonymously during Comb's upcoming trial, where he faces charges of
Speaker 2: racketeering and conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution.
Speaker 2: People Magazine exclusively confirmed with sources that Ventura is victim
Speaker 2: number one or Victim one, and that she will be
Speaker 2: testified in the trial. Meanwhile, three other victims are preparing
Speaker 2: to testify anonymously against the disgraced musician. Listen, in recent news,
Speaker 2: we've seen a lot of things come to the fold.
Speaker 2: We've seen charges being dropped by other folks, things going away,
Speaker 2: but this hasn't.
Speaker 1: And to me, this is why this is.
Speaker 2: So incredibly damaging for Diddy because the one person that
Speaker 2: visually incriminates him more than anything else, it's Cassie Ventura.
Speaker 1: His ex girlfriend.
Speaker 2: She is the person he was seen in that video
Speaker 2: that he ran down the hallway half naked, grabbed or yanked.
Speaker 1: Her, throw her to the floor, kicked her, you know,
Speaker 1: threw a vase.
Speaker 3: That are.
Speaker 2: The behavior was despicable and it's incredibly incriminating to me.
Speaker 2: If you're the prosecution and you can use that video
Speaker 2: to smear p Diddy, that's bad. That's very, very bad.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I understand that some people will set up there, say
Speaker 2: racketeering and all of this other stuff that you know,
Speaker 2: the charges that have been leveled against them. This may
Speaker 2: how much this may have to do with that remains
Speaker 2: to be seen. But these are twelve jurors. We're talking
Speaker 2: about jurors of your peers, and if you have an
Speaker 2: opportunity to visualize a heinous act on the part of
Speaker 2: the defendant, then that's not going to garner sympathy.
Speaker 1: It's not going to garner neutrality.
Speaker 2: It's not going to garner the kind of emotion that
Speaker 2: one would surmise you would need from a jury in
Speaker 2: order for you to win your case and ultimately get
Speaker 2: off with a not guilty verdicant able to go home.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: If that's possible once you see that video of him
Speaker 2: putting his hands on Cassie Ventura, and for her to
Speaker 2: be the one to testify, and for her to be
Speaker 2: the one testifying on behalf of the prosecution, considering the
Speaker 2: fact that she was his lady, in the fact that
Speaker 2: purportedly reportedly she engaged in activities she otherwise would not
Speaker 2: have wanted to at the behest of him. When you
Speaker 2: consider some of the things that they're saying about him,
Speaker 2: and the fact that your ex girl, with all the
Speaker 2: evidence in the world to come at you, one would
Speaker 2: smise is willing to do so for the prosecution. Ladies, gentlemen,
Speaker 2: that's not good. That's very very bad. That's very bad.
Speaker 2: I mean, I just don't know what to say about it.
Speaker 2: I really really don't, because again, I'm not trying to
Speaker 2: convict the brother in the court of public opinion, nor
Speaker 2: am I trying to let him off.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to let the facts bear themselves out.
Speaker 2: But with the litany of charges and allegations that the
Speaker 2: throne in his direction, I can't imagine anything more incriminating
Speaker 2: than her. She's the last person that I would have
Speaker 2: expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution. I thought, somehow,
Speaker 2: some way Ditty and his defense team would have prevented
Speaker 2: that part from happening. That's not going to happen. And whatever,
Speaker 2: think about it, whatever they ask, you're just ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 2: just paused for a second. Just close your eyes for
Speaker 2: a second and just imagine that when your eyes were
Speaker 2: opened just a few seconds earlier, you saw that video.
Speaker 1: And it's Continental Hotel. I believe that's where it was.
Speaker 2: In la where he's running down the hallway half naked.
Speaker 2: He grabs it, he yankes it to the floor, she
Speaker 2: lays helpless on the ground.
Speaker 1: He kicks and he shoves, and he throws.
Speaker 2: A vase at her, he drags her down the hall
Speaker 2: where he does all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: The hotel clearly had the video.
Speaker 2: They held on for it for quite some time because
Speaker 2: it happened years ago, and yet somehow, someway it didn't
Speaker 2: come to light until this, And then you're showing that
Speaker 2: the jurors.
Speaker 1: Jurors see this.
Speaker 2: After that, every question they ask her, they're gonna to
Speaker 2: believe her before they believe him. They could even play
Speaker 2: the video on him on social media looking disheveled and
Speaker 2: contrite and saying that he was real messed up.
Speaker 1: He was in a messed up place, He had a
Speaker 1: lot going on.
Speaker 2: You see it right there there there it is. That's
Speaker 2: him on social media, of his own volition, putting that
Speaker 2: post out. He's in no position to refute what she says,
Speaker 2: especially if they can find their questions to her personal experiences,
Speaker 2: like if they ask her dates and times and stuff
Speaker 2: like that, and they could try to get a caught
Speaker 2: up and all of that, and she gives the wrong answers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that could be incriminating.
Speaker 2: But if they're asking her about what she felt like,
Speaker 2: how terrorized she felt, what the fear factor was like,
Speaker 2: These are things that you can't police, and it all
Speaker 2: impacts the jury. This is why I say he's in trouble.
Speaker 2: It's not just because of the litany of charges. It's
Speaker 2: not just because it's being brought by the Southern State
Speaker 2: of the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: It's not just because of those things. It's because.
Speaker 2: The person or people who are incriminating him, especially as
Speaker 2: it pertains to Hus specifically, It's not going to be
Speaker 2: hard for her to be very convincing.
Speaker 1: It just isn't.
Speaker 2: Those are my thoughts, as minimal as they may be
Speaker 2: in significance. But my next guest, that's not a problem.
Speaker 2: He has joining me to discuss. This is ESPN and
Speaker 2: ABC News legal analyst, one of the best in the business,
Speaker 2: I might add, he's also Sports Center anchor as well,
Speaker 2: the one and only Ryan Smith, my colleague.
Speaker 1: What's going on, buddy? How you doing, man? How's everything?
Speaker 3: Everything's good?
Speaker 1: Man? How you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm doing alright, man, Let's get right to it. Ari
Speaker 2: heard me talking about Diddy a little bit early as
Speaker 2: child dates thoughts on May fifth, what's the significance of
Speaker 2: Cassandra Cassie Ventura testifying under her real name instead of
Speaker 2: anonymously like three other people named in the indictment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this could be huge in a couple different ways.
Speaker 3: And let's break it down between symbolically and legally. Symbolically,
Speaker 3: For me, this is huge because it lends credibility to
Speaker 3: her testimony. So you think about it like this, Cassie
Speaker 3: gets up on the stand, she's naming herself and for
Speaker 3: jurors and even in the court of public opinion, there's
Speaker 3: this sense that she's standing behind her allegations full throttle,
Speaker 3: using her name. Now, that's nothing against other accusers who
Speaker 3: might not be willing to use their names. It's just
Speaker 3: that how we tend to look at things, especially how
Speaker 3: juris might tend to look at things. They might say, well,
Speaker 3: this person standing behind what they're saying, so we're going
Speaker 3: to back her a little bit more. We might believe
Speaker 3: her a little bit more, and it lends credibility to
Speaker 3: her allegations. The other thing is putting her name out there,
Speaker 3: and I know it's been out there in some connections
Speaker 3: in many ways so far. It also helps others possible
Speaker 3: come forward. Prosecutors always talked about how this case might
Speaker 3: not be done. There might be other factors, and that
Speaker 3: could still be a possibility Legally, I think it's twofold
Speaker 3: number one. It's showing of strength for the prosecution. We
Speaker 3: are here, we are naming ourselves. We are out there,
Speaker 3: come at us. The other thing I think that's critical
Speaker 3: here is it puts the defense on the defensive. Here's
Speaker 3: why she gets up on the stand. She names herself.
Speaker 3: She's got the credibility. Jurors are connecting with her. It
Speaker 3: might make it harder for them to try to discredit her,
Speaker 3: or intimidate her, or come at her really hard on
Speaker 3: cross examination. So those are some factors that play into
Speaker 3: all this. And I think for the prosecution it's a
Speaker 3: win to have her naming herself.
Speaker 2: Let's look at the specificity of the actual charges against Diddy.
Speaker 2: When you talk about her name instead of being anonymous,
Speaker 2: her name being put out there specifically, what can she
Speaker 2: speak to I'm talking about the actual specifications of the
Speaker 2: charges against them. How can she specifically speak against that?
Speaker 2: We heard the words racketeering the crowd ou lap, what
Speaker 2: would she have to do with that?
Speaker 1: Explain that to my viewers.
Speaker 3: My biggest thing is she's going to try to explain
Speaker 3: what happened at these free costs, and that's going to
Speaker 3: be huge. I think people tend to look at legal
Speaker 3: trials and they say, well, this person's going to give
Speaker 3: us the smoking gun, this person's going to tell us
Speaker 3: the one thing that's connect everything. But racketeering cases are
Speaker 3: a vast thing that you have to build. So you
Speaker 3: have to show through the different witnesses, through the different evidence,
Speaker 3: all the different things you have, that there was a
Speaker 3: criminal enterprise going on in furtherance of these activities, in
Speaker 3: further once, in furtherance in this case, of these assaults,
Speaker 3: of these different things, in terms of prostitution, the allegations
Speaker 3: they're making. So you have to build that case. And
Speaker 3: I think what Cassie can do is we've all seen
Speaker 3: the video and there's been a lot of connections to
Speaker 3: her in that video, but this goes beyond that. This
Speaker 3: is her being able to frame what the situation was
Speaker 3: like for Diddy, what some of these events were like,
Speaker 3: so they can use her testimony along with the evidence
Speaker 3: they have to prove the racketeering.
Speaker 2: But ro when we talk about that and just just
Speaker 2: playing Devil's advocate for a seven, did he in all
Speaker 2: likelihood one would surmise would say she was consensual in
Speaker 2: these actions.
Speaker 1: Okay, she wasn't forced, et cetera.
Speaker 2: His proof could be the fact that they were in
Speaker 2: a relationship for years. So if he was so reprehensible,
Speaker 2: such a such a such an insidious figure, why was
Speaker 2: she involved with him for so long? What defense do
Speaker 2: you anticipate he'll be able to make that he has
Speaker 2: a snowballs chance and you know what of making against her,
Speaker 2: particularly when she's the one we saw him hit and kick.
Speaker 1: On a video.
Speaker 3: That's the defense. He's gonna say she was consensual. He's
Speaker 3: gonna say all the people involved, everybody the prosecutor was
Speaker 3: bringing in, was all consensual. That people did this because
Speaker 3: they liked that, they wanted to be there. But prosecutors,
Speaker 3: you got to look at it in terms of the
Speaker 3: way prosecutors are trying to build their case. They're building
Speaker 3: it in the same way or in a similar way
Speaker 3: that the Weinstein case was built. This is a person
Speaker 3: in power, a gatekeeper to certain things in this industry.
Speaker 3: If you wanted to get into this industry in certain ways,
Speaker 3: you had to do the things he said, and this
Speaker 3: was how he did it. And these are the things
Speaker 3: these people had to do. I think you make a
Speaker 3: great point that they were in a relationship, that that
Speaker 3: might be part of what they might use. But my
Speaker 3: sense is that, and we don't all the prosecution's case,
Speaker 3: My sense is that they're going to build this and
Speaker 3: say she was in that relationship. But just because you're
Speaker 3: in a relationship doesn't mean that person gets to control
Speaker 3: you and make you do certain things. And perhaps there
Speaker 3: was a point where he was doing this and doing
Speaker 3: things that she felt like she had to do in
Speaker 3: order to not only further her career, but in order
Speaker 3: to be a part of this world. And I think
Speaker 3: that's a one way in which prosecutors are going to
Speaker 3: try to build this case. We're going to try to
Speaker 3: build similarities among Cassie and other people that might testify
Speaker 3: and other people that are contributing to this case, to
Speaker 3: say this was a pattern, these are the things he
Speaker 3: did in order to continue this criminal enterprise.
Speaker 2: If she's willing to put her name on Front Street
Speaker 2: instead of being anonymous, and others refrained from doing so,
Speaker 2: won't that diminish potentially their argument against Diddy the anonymous ones.
Speaker 3: I love that you answer that question, because that's a
Speaker 3: common thing that people ask when you talk about one
Speaker 3: person revealing their name and others not, And you make
Speaker 3: a great point because in some ways it looks like, well,
Speaker 3: they're not willing to stand behind their claims, so how
Speaker 3: can we believe their claims? What the judge and what
Speaker 3: others are going to have to decide in this case
Speaker 3: and what probably will play out a little bit is
Speaker 3: the reason why people are trying to remain anonymous here.
Speaker 3: Cassie is a well known public figure. She was also
Speaker 3: connected in that initial videotape. We know that she is
Speaker 3: a part of this anybody who knows anything about this case.
Speaker 3: So in many ways, it's amazing that she's still coming
Speaker 3: forward and offering herself out there like this, with all
Speaker 3: the public scrutiny that she might face, with the harassment
Speaker 3: she might face. But Stephen A look at it from
Speaker 3: the other people's perspective. Are they are they supposed to
Speaker 3: be in a place where they're supposed to deal with
Speaker 3: the harassment and the public scrutiny. I think it becomes
Speaker 3: hard for people sometimes to realize that people who are
Speaker 3: accusers in cases like this, they come forward with their story,
Speaker 3: and as painful as that is, there becomes the aftermath
Speaker 3: of sharing the story they're harassed online, people get their address,
Speaker 3: they try to find them. That the complaints dog, the
Speaker 3: accutations dog them for most of their lives. How does
Speaker 3: that affect their ability to get a job, How does
Speaker 3: that affect their ability to live in society? So I
Speaker 3: think it's incredibly brave that Cassie's able to come forward
Speaker 3: and use her name. But she's also a public figure
Speaker 3: and she's been accustomed to that scrutiny a little bit.
Speaker 3: I think what will help the other accusers is they
Speaker 3: might not be as famous, maybe not as a custom,
Speaker 3: and maybe it'll be easier for the prostituting and stated yours. Hey, look,
Speaker 3: they don't have the public profile that she does. Let's
Speaker 3: try to hear their words and respect their privacy.
Speaker 2: The word anonymous, and I'm gonna go off the subject
Speaker 2: in the second, but the word anonymous, A lot of
Speaker 2: people don't realize what that means. They just says, okay,
Speaker 2: you're not You don't know the meaning the public, but
Speaker 2: those who will testify against Diddy anonymously, does Diddy and
Speaker 2: his defense team know specifically who they are? Do they
Speaker 2: know their names?
Speaker 1: Et cetera? Can you explain it to an audience.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they'll know their names. Discoveries should have all come out.
Speaker 3: A lot of that information should come out, unless there's
Speaker 3: some sort of play by the prosecutor to try to
Speaker 3: restrict that access because there's some concern about harassment or
Speaker 3: that they can be threatened. But in deary, the way
Speaker 3: this should work is they should have a right to
Speaker 3: confront their accusers. They should have a right to know
Speaker 3: their names, background on them, and that's part of what
Speaker 3: they're going to try to use to just credit their story. So,
Speaker 3: but the naming anonymous ends up being significant in a
Speaker 3: case like this because you mentioned it once, you put
Speaker 3: Cassie's name out on Front Street, everybody's gonna hear about it.
Speaker 3: We're going to be waiting for the testimony, We're going
Speaker 3: to be trying to figure out what she said. She's
Speaker 3: gonna probably have to do press conferences possibly at some point.
Speaker 3: Speak are the other people signing up for that in
Speaker 3: order to share what happened to them? And I think
Speaker 3: that's the critical part of their names anonymous in that courtroom.
Speaker 3: That stuff is supposed to be confidential and allows them
Speaker 3: to go ahead and live their lives while also sharing
Speaker 3: their truth as the prosecution needs them to to build
Speaker 3: their tastes.
Speaker 2: The video that did he put out on social media
Speaker 2: where he appeared contrite and dishovel. Those are the words
Speaker 2: that I used, basically saying he was fed up. He
Speaker 2: was in a very very bad place when he did
Speaker 2: what he did to Cassie Ventur.
Speaker 1: You see the video right there.
Speaker 2: How incriminating could that end up being against him? Now
Speaker 2: that Cassie has been willing to attach her name to
Speaker 2: the lawsuit and she's gonna come out on Front Street
Speaker 2: and say whatever it is that.
Speaker 3: She has to say, it could be a very big
Speaker 3: problem for him because prosecutor's gonna pull up that videotape,
Speaker 3: they're gonna put it out there in court, and they're
Speaker 3: gonna say, look at what this man said. He is
Speaker 3: sorry for what he did. Folks. Let's outline for you
Speaker 3: now what he did. Cassie. Let's get on the stand
Speaker 3: and outline for us what he did and coupled with
Speaker 3: our evidence, that's going to prove our case. So typically
Speaker 3: when you have a situation like that, your lawyers will
Speaker 3: tell you, if you're representing Diddy, hey don't say anything.
Speaker 3: I know there's a temptation to do that. Don't say
Speaker 3: anything because it could be used against you. I think
Speaker 3: a Diddy's mind, it's a way to get public sympathy.
Speaker 3: It's a way to get and I think in some
Speaker 3: ways his defense team can say about this, Hey, he's
Speaker 3: apologizing for the relationship. He is not a perfect person,
Speaker 3: but he is not a criminal. That's going to be
Speaker 3: their messaging. But still, you don't want to have to
Speaker 3: have a videotape out there from your client saying I'm
Speaker 3: sorry for what I did, giving the prosecution the ability
Speaker 3: to explore that and with their evidence with Cassie and
Speaker 3: with other witnesses, to be able to prove, yeah, you're
Speaker 3: sorry for what you did because it was criminal. That's
Speaker 3: what prosecutors are going to want to do.
Speaker 2: Knowing the law, knowing criminal cases the way that you do.
Speaker 2: What does this case, Eily remind you of, as it
Speaker 2: pertains to other cases that may have existed out there
Speaker 2: in the past. When you think about what p Diddy
Speaker 2: is going through right now, what's the comparison you draw
Speaker 2: it to.
Speaker 3: My biggest comparison is the Weinstein case, also the Art
Speaker 3: Kelly case. Both of those cases involve the situation where
Speaker 3: prosecutors were able to build it as you have a gatekeeper,
Speaker 3: and it's impossible to really make inroads in this area
Speaker 3: without the gatekeeper. Now, I know people are going to
Speaker 3: hear that and say, well, all of these people, they
Speaker 3: could have Diddy is doing this, they could have gone
Speaker 3: to Dre or somebody else, and there's a million other
Speaker 3: rap artists and production companies out there. But I think
Speaker 3: what they're trying to build in the same way that
Speaker 3: was built in the Weinstein case was he wasn't the
Speaker 3: only studio in town. Meror Max wasn't the only place
Speaker 3: to make films, but in a particular way, once you
Speaker 3: got into this world, there was a way to build
Speaker 3: your career, to foster development. And I think what this
Speaker 3: case draws a similarity to, and what prosecutors have been
Speaker 3: trying to do with these cases is show no one
Speaker 3: is above the law. You can't go out, in prosecutor's mind,
Speaker 3: create a business and then make people do your bidding,
Speaker 3: even if it's illegal, in order to move up in
Speaker 3: that business. If it's a legitimate business, we can't do that.
Speaker 3: And so in the same way that the Weinstein case
Speaker 3: was prosecuted and the R. Kelly case was prosecuted. It
Speaker 3: feels like prosecuted or following the similar playbook here trying
Speaker 3: to make that point not only publicly but also in
Speaker 3: the courtroom. These are criminal enterprises that in many ways
Speaker 3: were set up in furtherance of Ditty and the people
Speaker 3: with him, and at the expense of these in their minds,
Speaker 3: accusers and victims.
Speaker 2: We use words last question on this matter. We use
Speaker 2: words like criminal enterprise, We use words like racketeering and
Speaker 2: what have you. Is it wrong for us to get
Speaker 2: the impression that it's not Didty that they're they're after him.
Speaker 1: Of course, please don't get me wrong, But it's not
Speaker 1: just him.
Speaker 2: They're after a whole string of individuals that he's connected to,
Speaker 2: as opposed to it just be.
Speaker 1: It was about r.
Speaker 2: Kelly, it was about Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't appear to
Speaker 2: be thereafter just Didty. It's like he's the guy to get,
Speaker 2: so all the dominoes will fall and we'll get everybody
Speaker 2: associated with it. That's the oppression that I'm getting to that.
Speaker 2: You say, what, Ryan Smith.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I say I completely agree, and I say I
Speaker 3: will go beyond that. The first thing is you're absolutely right,
Speaker 3: they're trying to get him and the enterprise and everything
Speaker 3: that backed him and everything that created this enterprise, because
Speaker 3: that's what they try to do when they prosecute criminal cases.
Speaker 3: I know that people out there say, hey, theft about Ditty.
Speaker 3: It's not just about Didty. It's about trying to uphold
Speaker 3: the law. It's not what prosecutor. That's how prosecutors see it.
Speaker 3: But the way I go beyond it is this. With
Speaker 3: each one of these cases, they are trying to send
Speaker 3: a message not just to the Ditties of the world
Speaker 3: or to the Harvey Weinstein or R Kelly's. They're trying
Speaker 3: to send a message to the people who have other
Speaker 3: things going on, or people who might come up later
Speaker 3: who might have ideas of doing something that they are
Speaker 3: saying Diddy did. They're saying, we will find you, we
Speaker 3: will come after you. The fact that Diddy is there
Speaker 3: in the courtroom, perhaps he is telling us things about you,
Speaker 3: about people you know. So if you're doing something on
Speaker 3: the wrong side of the law, and you think your
Speaker 3: power and your money and influence is going to protect you,
Speaker 3: it will not. And that's the message they're trying to send.
Speaker 3: We obviously, stephen A, we talk about this case. We
Speaker 3: have to see how it's litigated and how everything comes out.
Speaker 3: But for prosecutors, this is every success they have in
Speaker 3: this area is another ability for them to be able
Speaker 3: to say to everybody else out there in all of
Speaker 3: these businesses, you are not above the law, no matter
Speaker 3: how much money or power you have.
Speaker 2: I want to transition back to the world of sports
Speaker 2: and off this p Diddy topic, and thank you so
Speaker 2: much for coming on Ryan and talking about this, But
Speaker 2: I want to talk about this potential multi billion dollar
Speaker 2: settlement between NCAA and student and athletes past and present.
Speaker 2: By the way, this deal could reshape the business of
Speaker 2: college sports.
Speaker 3: Correct, Yeah, absolutely, And this deal is like it's labeled
Speaker 3: as a two point eight billion dollar settlement, but really
Speaker 3: it's a deal that looks backwards then forwards. So the
Speaker 3: backwards part is it's spending billions of dollars to payback
Speaker 3: athletes who didn't who weren't able to make deals before nil,
Speaker 3: who are part of these anti trust lawsuits that were
Speaker 3: all combined. So for example, that could mean that athletes
Speaker 3: who made a lot of money for their schools, like
Speaker 3: Power five conference football players, basketball players who'd make hundreds
Speaker 3: of thousands of dollars. Small sport athletes a mid majors
Speaker 3: could end up making only hundreds of dollars, but in
Speaker 3: ways it kind of compensates them. The looking forward part
Speaker 3: ends up being interesting too, because what it does is
Speaker 3: it sets up sort of a salary cap, just like
Speaker 3: we say in pro sports, twenty million bucks or so
Speaker 3: for each school to spend on athletes. The idea is
Speaker 3: to try to rein in some of the nil spending
Speaker 3: by boosters and all that. And it also sets out
Speaker 3: something that I think is going to actually be a
Speaker 3: legal issue beyond this settlement, which is like a clearing
Speaker 3: house for nil deals. So if somebody's making a deal
Speaker 3: over six hundred bucks, they have a clearing house. It's
Speaker 3: going to look at that and maybe say, hey, is
Speaker 3: this circumventing the salary cap. If not, you can't do it.
Speaker 3: I think that one's going to face court challenges even
Speaker 3: after this settlement. At least it has a likelihood too.
Speaker 2: What I think the big part that turns me off
Speaker 2: Frond is that they're talking about cap and you know,
Speaker 2: revenue at twenty million percent school or what have you,
Speaker 2: something along those lines. The two point eight million dollar
Speaker 2: billion dollar settlement that they've been talking about is retroactive
Speaker 2: from what happened between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: the athletes that would denied money at that particular moment
Speaker 2: in time and sort of reimbursing them for missed wages
Speaker 2: and things of that nature. I understand that part, even
Speaker 2: though I think it should be more. My issue is
Speaker 2: why does it need to be capped? Why does it
Speaker 2: be capped at twenty million dollars as opposed to a
Speaker 2: percentage of revenue generated by the universities. Just like you
Speaker 2: have in basketball or football, where there's a percentage of
Speaker 2: football or basketball related income or a revenue that comes
Speaker 2: to the players, why can't the same be with NCUBA athletes.
Speaker 2: That's I'm suspicious, is what I'm trying to say about
Speaker 2: that cap trying to derail the kind of money guys
Speaker 2: are able to get in nil, guys and lads able
Speaker 2: to get in nil and beyond and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of.
Speaker 2: Suspicious anytime I see a capped number associated with student
Speaker 2: athletes playing in the nc DOUBLEA under the NCUBLEA umbrella,
Speaker 2: because I don't trust them one bit to that.
Speaker 3: You say what I say the pushback to you is
Speaker 3: gonna be, well, it's going to go up next year,
Speaker 3: it might be more, and then it's gonna be more.
Speaker 3: But the problem is it doesn't answer your claim, which
Speaker 3: is there's still a cap. And I think you make
Speaker 3: a great point. I also think what becomes interesting in
Speaker 3: what you're saying is the clearinghouse aspect of this. Think
Speaker 3: about this, stephen A. In the advent of NIL, and
Speaker 3: even before that, athletes became in many ways, these college
Speaker 3: athletes became business people. They built up huge followings online,
Speaker 3: millions of people. Some of their income might be coming
Speaker 3: from boosters, some of them might be coming from their
Speaker 3: own deals. Are we now going to look at those
Speaker 3: deals that they in many ways created on their own
Speaker 3: and say, well, you're going to circumvent the salary caps,
Speaker 3: so you can't do that. Now we're back in the
Speaker 3: same bag that we were in before NIL, which is
Speaker 3: not only your cap argument, which means people might be
Speaker 3: limited from getting their real market value, but then also
Speaker 3: even if you could go out and have millions of
Speaker 3: followers and do all these other things on your own, well,
Speaker 3: now we might try to cap that. We might try
Speaker 3: to limit that because we feel like it's circumventing cap
Speaker 3: we already have. I am in agreement with you. I
Speaker 3: think when you have a situation like nil, it's almost
Speaker 3: like letting the cat out of the bag. Once they
Speaker 3: open that bag up, you can't close it off and
Speaker 3: now say, okay, let's pull everybody back in and cut
Speaker 3: the number and try to keep everybody down a little
Speaker 3: bit lower. That ship has already sailed. I think if
Speaker 3: people I think at this point the booster system, the
Speaker 3: fact that I agree with the idea of paying players
Speaker 3: directly from colleges, but I think to try to cap
Speaker 3: it and to try to rein it in is always
Speaker 3: going to be a problem, and it's always going to
Speaker 3: face legal challenges, and it's always going to have critics
Speaker 3: because people are going to say, just when you open
Speaker 3: the floodgates so we could make money and create businesses
Speaker 3: and earn more, you're trying to close them back up
Speaker 3: again to the benefit of schools, which is the same
Speaker 3: reason why we ended up in many ways in the
Speaker 3: nil spot in the first place.
Speaker 2: And by the way, you know it's bad when Supreme
Speaker 2: Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: was the one that made the argument in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: one when he called them out and he said, known,
Speaker 2: there's no business in America that could get away with
Speaker 2: doing this all the day, you guys.
Speaker 1: And sure enough, I think they'll find out. They're fine
Speaker 1: trying to.
Speaker 2: Find an end around to get around this stuff to
Speaker 2: do the same thing they've always been doing.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what happens with all of that.
Speaker 2: Ryan Smith, Man, I really really appreciate you taking time
Speaker 2: out of your busy schedule.
Speaker 1: Thanks for coming on, my brother. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much anytime. Man, good to talk to you.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: One of only Ryan Smith legal analysts ABC and ESPN,
Speaker 2: also anchor for Sports under the Brothers. Outstanding one of
Speaker 2: the best in the business, make no mistake about that.
Speaker 2: That's it for this edition of The Steven A. Smith Show.
Speaker 2: I hope y'all enjoyed it. I'll be back in.
Speaker 1: A few days.
Speaker 2: I'm on vacation, but I still make sure to give
Speaker 2: y'all some shows. And keep in mind the next time
Speaker 2: you see me, I got bad news for you. Nephew
Speaker 2: Josh will be with me. Nephew Tism, that's what they
Speaker 2: call it, not nepotism. Nephewtism. You understand, That's what he
Speaker 2: tells everybody. Okay, So it was important to him not
Speaker 2: just to be on the show, but to be the show.
Speaker 2: So this Friday, Josh is gonna be on with me.
Speaker 2: I'll never give him the show by his damn self.
Speaker 2: I'm too scared, too scared of what he'll say. I'm
Speaker 2: too scared of what he'll do. He just doesn't know
Speaker 2: any but I just don't know. I don't trust them,
Speaker 2: I don't trust me like that. I got to sea.
Speaker 2: But we will be on together nevertheless. Anyway, hope y'all
Speaker 2: enjoyed this edition of The Stephen A. Smith Show. And
Speaker 2: before I go, I just want to say this. Your
Speaker 2: supporting me on this show is very appreciative. In other words,
Speaker 2: I approved this message. God bless you, and God bless
Speaker 2: the United States of America. Until next time, everybody signing off.
Speaker 1: Dec enough