Speaker 1: We got stuff percolating on Capitol Hill. We got stuff
Speaker 1: percolating with Bill Belichick and his young girlfriend. We got
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other stuff to talk about as well,
Speaker 1: especially in my line of work where RG three and
Speaker 1: Ryan Clark have gone nuclear, a lot of stuff to
Speaker 1: get into. Needless to say, I'm here for it. Steven
Speaker 1: Asmith Show in the house. Let's row what's up? Everybody?
Speaker 1: Welcome to the ladies edition of The Steven Ate Smith Show,
Speaker 1: coming at you as I love to do it the
Speaker 1: very least three times a week over the digital airwaves
Speaker 1: with YouTube and of course iHeart Radio. As always, I
Speaker 1: like to pause for a moment to give thanks and
Speaker 1: gratitude to my listeners, my followers, my subscribers, considering the
Speaker 1: millions of downloads we've received over the last few months
Speaker 1: courtesy of iHeartRadio, not to mention the one point twenty
Speaker 1: two million subscribers we've now eclipsed over the digital airwaves
Speaker 1: of YouTube. It just shows how much the show is
Speaker 1: growing each and every single passing day. And it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be possible if it was if it were not for
Speaker 1: your love and support. I really really appreciate it. From
Speaker 1: the bottom of my heart or behalf of myself and
Speaker 1: my team. I thank you for it. Keep the love coming,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna keep on coming. To continue to be
Speaker 1: notified for all of our newest content, Just click the
Speaker 1: bell to get notified for that newest content, and you too,
Speaker 1: shall consider yourself the latest member of Steven A. Smiths
Speaker 1: Show family. And while you're doing that, please don't forget
Speaker 1: to pick up a copy of my New York Times
Speaker 1: bestselling book, Straight Shooter, a Memoir of Second Chances and
Speaker 1: First Takes, now at paperback. Just go to Straight Shooter
Speaker 1: book dot com to get yourself a copy. Once getting
Speaker 1: that straight shoet of book dot com to get yourself
Speaker 1: a copy you see on a screen sometimes it's Straight
Speaker 1: Shoot the Media. That's the name of my production company.
Speaker 1: I named it after my book, Straight Shoot to Media.
Speaker 1: So look forward to stuff coming down the pike because
Speaker 1: I can assure you I'm coming with a few things.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake about it. As I told y'all, it's
Speaker 1: a lot to get into. I don't feel like getting
Speaker 1: into the NBA Playoffs just yet because the Minnesota Timberwolves
Speaker 1: got blown out in game won by the Oklahoma City
Speaker 1: Thunder last night, from the last three minutes of the
Speaker 1: half when the Minnesota Timberwolves will turnover machine and let
Speaker 1: the Oklahoma City Thunder within four points to a second
Speaker 1: half where Oklahoma City outscored them by thirty seventy to
Speaker 1: forty at one point. I'm just disgusted at the lop
Speaker 1: side of the fair that took place last night. And
Speaker 1: I went from thinking that this would be a seven
Speaker 1: game series OKC would likely win, to think and I'd
Speaker 1: be lucky if this series ended it didn't end rather
Speaker 1: in five, because that's the level of dominance we saw
Speaker 1: from OKC, who was playing less than forty eight hours
Speaker 1: after beating the Denver Nuggets in Game seven, while Minnesota
Speaker 1: had five days off and just didn't seem to have
Speaker 1: it when it really recounted most in the second half,
Speaker 1: courtesy of the New York Knicks playing host and hosting
Speaker 1: game one to night in the Eastern Conference Finals against
Speaker 1: the Indiana Pacers. I'll be all ribbed up about that.
Speaker 1: I think that'll be an epic series, the Knicks in seven.
Speaker 1: It could end in six, but for the moment, I
Speaker 1: got the Knicks in seven, and as that series progresses,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about that. Let me get started, however, with
Speaker 1: today's show with a story percolating in sports media, in
Speaker 1: that sports media space, involving two colleagues of mine, that
Speaker 1: I need to address. It started with Angel Reese and
Speaker 1: Caitlyn Clark's confrontation the other night, and it's something that
Speaker 1: we had discussed on Monday's show with Monica McNutt. Well, anyway,
Speaker 1: Robert Griffin id RG three, as he's affectionately known, my
Speaker 1: former co worker at ESPN, went on his podcast platform
Speaker 1: and said in the aftermath that it was clear to
Speaker 1: him that Angel Reese hates Caitlyn Clark. Before we go
Speaker 1: any further, take a listen to what he said exactly.
Speaker 2: So, why do I think Angel Rees hates Kaitlin Clark.
Speaker 2: It could be the fact that Eliah Boston had to
Speaker 2: save Angel Reese from ending her career. This is a
Speaker 2: still shot after the foul that Caitlyn Clark put on
Speaker 2: Angel Reese. Angel Reese tried to hit her, but if
Speaker 2: it wasn't for a Leah Boston putting her arms in
Speaker 2: the way, Angel Rees would not be playing basketball anymore
Speaker 2: because she was gonna sucker punch Caitlyn Clark.
Speaker 1: Now you tell me a.
Speaker 2: Time when you've seen somebody get filed on a basketball
Speaker 2: court in a professional league where they tried to almost
Speaker 2: sucker punch somebody that they were friends with because of
Speaker 2: a hard foul. So where was this type of reaction
Speaker 2: last year when Angel Rees got choked lamb by Alyssa
Speaker 2: Thomas or the Connecticut son y'all remember that she got
Speaker 2: filed so hard they kicked a Leah Thomas out the
Speaker 2: game with a flagrant two foul.
Speaker 1: What did Angel Rees do?
Speaker 3: Nothing?
Speaker 1: She didn't get up and try to swing on her.
Speaker 2: You know why the reaction was different because of who
Speaker 2: did it, And there is a lot of history there
Speaker 2: with Kaitlyn Clark and Angel Reese. You guys remember last
Speaker 2: year when Angel Reese celebrated Kennedy Carter getting that flagrant
Speaker 2: foul on the hip check against against Kaitlyn Clark.
Speaker 1: You remember that on the sideline? Just yeah, baby, get her?
Speaker 1: You get her?
Speaker 2: Who celebrates like that for a flagrant file on another
Speaker 2: player if they don't dislike that player.
Speaker 1: I'll get into RG three's assertion about Angel Revees getting
Speaker 1: ready to suck a punch Kitlyn Clark in a second,
Speaker 1: But first I wanted to show y'all. Ryan Clark's response
Speaker 1: to what y'all just heard RG three say this is
Speaker 1: on a Pivot podcast. Take a look at what Ryan
Speaker 1: Clark's response.
Speaker 4: Was when RG three jumps on to the hate train
Speaker 4: or to the angry train, and now follows along with
Speaker 4: what we saw from Keith Oberman, what we saw from
Speaker 4: Date Portnoy as they poured on to areuries to make
Speaker 4: her the villain and Caitlyn Clark's heroic or hero story.
Speaker 4: The one thing we know about RG three is he's
Speaker 4: not having conversations at his home about what black women
Speaker 4: have to endure in this country, about what young black
Speaker 4: women and athletes like Andrew Ree have had to deal
Speaker 4: with being on the opposite side of Caitlyn Clark's rise
Speaker 4: and ascension. And to startom, you're a RG three, when's
Speaker 4: the last time within your household you've had a conversation
Speaker 4: about what she's dealing with. You haven't been able to
Speaker 4: do that because in both of your marriages, you've been
Speaker 4: married to white women. You haven't had opportunities to have
Speaker 4: those conversations to educate you on what they're feeling, what
Speaker 4: black women deal with, what they're seeing when they think
Speaker 4: of a young Andrew Rease, and the whole time that
Speaker 4: he's mimicking Angrew Rease and bobbing his head and moving
Speaker 4: his neck. While he's doing this whole piece, his wife
Speaker 4: is in the back a mining and clapping, and so
Speaker 4: to me, it's just another situation that now this young
Speaker 4: lady has to deal with.
Speaker 1: WHOA. That's a little bit deep, and I'll get into
Speaker 1: that as well, because some perceive Ryan Clark to having
Speaker 1: crossed a line there, especially mister RG three himself, who
Speaker 1: did not take colleague to what y'all just heard, posting
Speaker 1: another video in response to RC take a look, but.
Speaker 2: Ran you cross the line, man, You made it personal,
Speaker 2: and so I really believe there should be no space
Speaker 2: in sports media for personal attacks. I've said it before,
Speaker 2: but certainly personal attacks against wife and children have always
Speaker 2: been off limits.
Speaker 5: Ryan.
Speaker 2: You attack me and my family in a public form
Speaker 2: on a level that shows just how low of a
Speaker 2: human being you are. You can disagree with me all
Speaker 2: you want, challenge my takes, but keep my family and
Speaker 2: my wife out of it. That's a boundary that should
Speaker 2: always be respected.
Speaker 6: Man.
Speaker 2: Always Ryan Clark personally attacking me and my family because
Speaker 2: he disagreed with my sports opinion. It's a bad look
Speaker 2: for ESPN. It's cowardly, it's spineless, and it's weak.
Speaker 1: Ooh, I got a problem with the shit that RG
Speaker 1: three just said there, and I'll get into that in
Speaker 1: a second, but not before I read to you what
Speaker 1: Ryan Clark went right back at him after this and said, quote, bruh,
Speaker 1: you know what it is with me and you. I
Speaker 1: saved you the entire season on Monday Night Football. I
Speaker 1: urged people to let you be you, no matter how corny,
Speaker 1: how bad a teammate you were. I had your back.
Speaker 1: You're a phony, bro, one of the worst teammates I
Speaker 1: ever had, both on the field and in TV. You
Speaker 1: gotta do what you gotta do. I didn't attack your wife.
Speaker 1: I spoke on what you do on social media and TV.
Speaker 1: Like I said, I met your wife and she seemed
Speaker 1: like a lovely lady that was worth more than the
Speaker 1: color of her skin. You be good, bro. All of
Speaker 1: this has led some to call for Clark's firing, some
Speaker 1: of those wondering loud if Clarke would still be employed
Speaker 1: if called out a white colleague for marrying a black woman.
Speaker 1: First things, First, couple of things. I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear shit about Ryan Clark being fired. I don't want
Speaker 1: to hear that. Ryan Clark is my colleague, he is
Speaker 1: my friend and brother. He is a good murder, he
Speaker 1: is a good man, and he's a good brother. And
Speaker 1: there is no way on earth that I would be
Speaker 1: quiet if he was fired over something like this. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying he's right, and I'll get into that in
Speaker 1: a second, but this is not a fireable offense. Now
Speaker 1: we're gonna come back, and we're gonna bring it. We're
Speaker 1: gonna bring it home. I don't usually talk about ESPN business,
Speaker 1: and I'm not about to right now, other than to
Speaker 1: say RG three clearly is not like by Ryan Clark.
Speaker 1: What Ryan Clark said, that's not something he normally does,
Speaker 1: corny phony. Those are the kind of things he said,
Speaker 1: specifically about RG three. That's what he feels saving him
Speaker 1: on Monday Night football. I assume, and it is an
Speaker 1: assumption that he's talking about the Shrapneller criticism that folks
Speaker 1: try I had to throw an RG three's direction that
Speaker 1: he try to assist in shielding RG three from. But nevertheless,
Speaker 1: there's a lot to get into here. The first order
Speaker 1: of business to unpack is this RG three. I'm not
Speaker 1: as tight with him as I am with Ryan Clark,
Speaker 1: but I respect RG three and I do know there's
Speaker 1: some sensitivity is there dating back to the days of
Speaker 1: you know, when he was called the cornball and obviously
Speaker 1: by one of our former colleagues, Rob Park on national television.
Speaker 1: And RG three admitted with his interview of me on
Speaker 1: his podcast that that's something that has stayed with him
Speaker 1: all of these years, and he felt that it has
Speaker 1: served to have damaged him. So there's certainly a heightened
Speaker 1: level of sensitivity there, and I understand where RG three
Speaker 1: is coming from. I don't consider RG three a bad dude. Again,
Speaker 1: just because I'm tight with R with Ryan Clark doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that I don't respect RG three and we don't
Speaker 1: have a cool relationship because we do. We might have
Speaker 1: had disagreements over subject matters we discussed in the past,
Speaker 1: we might have viewed things differently, but I respect RG three.
Speaker 1: I like him. I appreciated the job that he did
Speaker 1: on First Take, and personally speaking, I wish he was
Speaker 1: still at ESPN, which is what I said on this podcast.
Speaker 1: But what I want to address about to directly to
Speaker 1: RG three, is this number one, How do you know
Speaker 1: Andrew Reis was gonna sucker punch Kaitlyn Clark? What do
Speaker 1: you mean We haven't seen stuff like this before. We've
Speaker 1: seen plenty of times where somebody will get knocked to
Speaker 1: the ground and then they jump up like they gonna
Speaker 1: do something and get in one another's face without punches
Speaker 1: being thrown. You didn't know that Angel Reaese was going
Speaker 1: to suck punch Kaitlyn Clack. You have no evidence of that.
Speaker 1: You could have said it looked that way, but to
Speaker 1: literally declare that that's what Angel reach was going to do,
Speaker 1: that's not factually accurate. So RG three, I think it's
Speaker 1: important to point that out because by saying what you
Speaker 1: said about Angel Reese, that was serving to villainize her
Speaker 1: in a way that would get a reaction from a
Speaker 1: black man like Ryan Clark, along with various others, including myself,
Speaker 1: who didn't want to jump to that conclusion. You are
Speaker 1: right in terms of in my opinion, I don't think
Speaker 1: they particularly like each other. I don't think that Angel
Speaker 1: Reese likes Caitlyn Clark. When you waving a hand in
Speaker 1: her face when you was beating up for the national
Speaker 1: title taunting her. But we have to remember that Caitlyn
Speaker 1: Clark was taunting opponents all the time doing that. So
Speaker 1: when it was her term to get her come up,
Speaker 1: and Angel Reach was more than happy to do so.
Speaker 1: When LS she was en route to win in a
Speaker 1: national title and supplanting Caitlyn Clark in Iowa in the process.
Speaker 1: The very next year, Caitlyn Clark came back and Iowa
Speaker 1: came back and they gave it to him, and as
Speaker 1: a result, LSU went and they fell. In the midst
Speaker 1: of all of that, it was a tough season because
Speaker 1: Angel Reach was receiving vitriol from critics out there, and
Speaker 1: I don't think it was because of basketball. I think
Speaker 1: it was because of our behavior towards Angel Reach, which may,
Speaker 1: in some people's eyes, assist to whatever level of dissent
Speaker 1: she may feel towards Kitlyn Clark. That's neither hear nor dear.
Speaker 1: My only point is you use the word sucker punch.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a big extreme and I thought
Speaker 1: that that was gonna get a bunch of people riled up, potentially,
Speaker 1: particularly black men who are protective of black women. So
Speaker 1: I saw where Ryan Clark was coming from and refuting
Speaker 1: that statement. RG three. Now let me get to Ryan Clark.
Speaker 1: I love my man, RC. I thought he crossed the
Speaker 1: line when he brought up you RG three being married
Speaker 1: not once but twice. It's a white women. There was
Speaker 1: no need to go there. But he don't like your ass.
Speaker 1: That might have had something to do with it. I'm
Speaker 1: not condoning him doing that. I'm not condoning him bringing
Speaker 1: that up. If he if RG, if RC had rather
Speaker 1: and I had spoke about it in depth, I would
Speaker 1: have told him don't go there, don't go there. No
Speaker 1: need for all of that, okay, But I want to
Speaker 1: emphasize something here that's very very important. RG three. He
Speaker 1: never attacked your wife. He never attacked your family. He
Speaker 1: was attacking you, and you know it now. That don't
Speaker 1: make it correct. The mentioning of your wife. I'll can
Speaker 1: see that he did utter a negative syllable about your wife.
Speaker 1: He never mentioned your children. So when you say attacking
Speaker 1: your wife and attacking your family, your children, how did
Speaker 1: he do that? Ryan Clark did not do that. He
Speaker 1: talked about you and your behavior. He talked about how
Speaker 1: you lean towards highlighting her ethnicity. I don't know whether
Speaker 1: it's true or not, I pay no attention to that stuff,
Speaker 1: but I know what he said, and what he was
Speaker 1: saying was that, and he was saying she was much
Speaker 1: more than the color of her skin. He didn't in
Speaker 1: no way denigrate your wife, and he never mentioned your children,
Speaker 1: not with what I saw. If anybody out there has
Speaker 1: an additional clue where you can talk point to RC
Speaker 1: attacking or denigrating the wife of Robert Griffin the third
Speaker 1: or his children, show it to me. I didn't see
Speaker 1: that RG three. I didn't see that. And why am
Speaker 1: I bringing that up? Because this is where it comes home,
Speaker 1: meaning to ESPN, where you worked for years. When you
Speaker 1: sat up there and you said it's a bad look
Speaker 1: for ESPN. I guess it's within your right to hit
Speaker 1: back at RC since you felt hit at yourself. But
Speaker 1: as somebody who works for ESPN, come on, bro, you
Speaker 1: know that was some slick shit you was doing right,
Speaker 1: because when you said it's a bad look for ESPN,
Speaker 1: you know that we work at a place where ESPN's
Speaker 1: gonna be Like, what was he talking about, what's a
Speaker 1: bad look for ESPN? You didn't have to go there.
Speaker 1: That's between you and Ron Ryan said that on The Pivot.
Speaker 1: Ryan shows up on Get Up, Ryan shows up on
Speaker 1: First Take, Ryan shows up on NFL Live, Ryan contributes
Speaker 1: to Monday Night Football. He never mentioned you on any
Speaker 1: of those places. Why on his podcast, on a spot
Speaker 1: that he owns and operates, would you ignore that to
Speaker 1: bring up ESPN because you were trying to get him
Speaker 1: in trouble with ESPN. You look into ESPN for help
Speaker 1: to try and reprimand him when you should have handled
Speaker 1: your own damn self. And I'm talking to you out
Speaker 1: of respect. I don't hate you, bro, I don't have
Speaker 1: any animosity towards you. I said, for public consumption, if
Speaker 1: it was up to me, you still be at ESPN.
Speaker 1: I thought you did a damn good job for various shows,
Speaker 1: Maybe not Monday Night Football, because that's a team. And
Speaker 1: if y'all had vitriol, which is evidently true with one another,
Speaker 1: that's not a pairing that works. I get that part.
Speaker 1: But there's a multitude of other outlets that you contributed
Speaker 1: to on ESPN, and I would have been happy to
Speaker 1: still see you there. Them letting you go downsize and
Speaker 1: and all of that stuff that's above my pay grade.
Speaker 1: I got nothing to do with that, and I'm not
Speaker 1: here to question my bosses any more than y'all question
Speaker 1: then when they let me go in two thousand and nine.
Speaker 1: That's the way it goes sometimes, particularly when you downsize
Speaker 1: and monitoring your budget, your expenditures, and you're making decisions
Speaker 1: as to what'sn't the best interest of what's not in
Speaker 1: the best interest of a network that's business. This with
Speaker 1: you and Ryan is clearly personal. What you bring ESPN
Speaker 1: in it for you. Trying to get the brother fired
Speaker 1: ain't gonna work, not if I can help it. Ryan
Speaker 1: Clark is a hell of a football analyst. He represents
Speaker 1: our company very very well. I think he is outstanding.
Speaker 1: And with all of that that I had to say
Speaker 1: about Ryan as an analyst, it's nothing compared to what
Speaker 1: I think about him as a man. He is real,
Speaker 1: he's authentic. He may not always be right. I don't
Speaker 1: think he was right to bring up your wife at
Speaker 1: all in any capacity. But Rian's a good brother who
Speaker 1: cares and does far more good than bad. I'm proud
Speaker 1: to call him a colleague. I'm proud to call him
Speaker 1: a friend and a brother. And if you're gonna go
Speaker 1: at him, all I'm asking is be accurate. When did
Speaker 1: he attack your wife? When do he attack your family?
Speaker 1: And why are you talking about him and then bringing
Speaker 1: up it's a bad look for ESPN when he said
Speaker 1: that on the pivot. He did just say that on ESPN.
Speaker 1: What you're doing that for? If you got a problem
Speaker 1: with him as a man and you say, keep my
Speaker 1: family out your mouth, roll up. I brought him and
Speaker 1: tell him. I promise you he won't be hard to find.
Speaker 1: I promise you that he will not be hard to find. Now, again,
Speaker 1: I want to emphasize you should have never brought up
Speaker 1: your wife. I would have preferred that he not do that.
Speaker 1: But he didn't speak against her, and he never mentioned
Speaker 1: your children that I saw. He mentioned you. He questioned
Speaker 1: your authenticity, your realness, your genuineness. He was talking about you,
Speaker 1: bro you. He was using that as an example to
Speaker 1: highlight who you are, how you think, and what may
Speaker 1: shape and formulate your thinking. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that
Speaker 1: brings us to a different subject, and we don't have
Speaker 1: to go too deep there. I'm a dude who lives
Speaker 1: and let lives. I think Ryan Clark is I think
Speaker 1: RG three is two and you have a lot of
Speaker 1: people who don't have a problem with interracial relationships at all,
Speaker 1: and some who do, and maybe they need to be
Speaker 1: a more advanced than their thinking live and let live.
Speaker 1: But it's not foreign, and it's certainly not foreign for
Speaker 1: somebody to be of the mindset that if you're going
Speaker 1: home to somebody of a different ethnicity, whether you're white, Black, Asian, Hispanic,
Speaker 1: or anything like that. People accuse one another all the
Speaker 1: time of being at least somewhat detached from their own community.
Speaker 1: Of who you're going home to. It's not from your community.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make them accurate, It doesn't make them right,
Speaker 1: But you know what else, it doesn't make them sometime offensive.
Speaker 1: If he had said something negative about your wife or
Speaker 1: your children. RG three, I feel you. He was talking
Speaker 1: about you, and he was talking about the person he
Speaker 1: sees on social media and a person he has directly
Speaker 1: worked with to bring ESPN into the equation. To talk
Speaker 1: about it was a bad look. Seemed to me like
Speaker 1: you would intentionally look into the network to get him
Speaker 1: in trouble instead of dealing with it. Man, the man,
Speaker 1: you and him. That's my biggest criticism RG three, Ryan Clark,
Speaker 1: don't talk about it. Don't even mention his family. Don't
Speaker 1: even go there. Don't even go there. You don't have to.
Speaker 1: You're bigger than that, which I know you are, and
Speaker 1: let's move on. It's that simple. People gonna have their beliefs,
Speaker 1: they're gonna have their stigmas, they're gonna have their interpretations.
Speaker 1: It's an opportunity for all of us to educate one another.
Speaker 1: But what really really turned me off when when Ryan
Speaker 1: Clark said, because you who you've been married to, I said, oh,
Speaker 1: don't like that. Just like when you said andrewe is
Speaker 1: gonna suck a punch Kitlin Clock. Oh I don't like that.
Speaker 1: That's not true. You don't know that. But that last
Speaker 1: part when you said it was a bad look for ESPN.
Speaker 1: Ryan Clark was on the pivot when I talk about
Speaker 1: things that I talk about ESPN is my day job,
Speaker 1: where I talk about first take you yourself. R G
Speaker 1: three said, you don't like when people bring certain elements
Speaker 1: to sports television. Now we disagreed on but the bottom
Speaker 1: line is you were making an argument about what should
Speaker 1: appear on sports television. Now, he did something on this
Speaker 1: podcast which wasn't on sports television. But he's Ryan Clark
Speaker 1: and he's on his own podcast, and you brought up ESPN.
Speaker 1: Handle it yourself, bro, don't look to ESPN to help.
Speaker 1: He violated nothing for ESPN, he violated nothing. And for
Speaker 1: those of y'all out there who's trying to sit up
Speaker 1: there and bring unwanted attention to Ryan Clark in a
Speaker 1: way that could ultimately compromise his career at ESPN, I'm
Speaker 1: letting y'all know in advance, you'll have to come through me.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be saying this if he said it on ESPN,
Speaker 1: because they got a right to police what's on their airwaves.
Speaker 1: He had a personal opinion about RG three that wasn't
Speaker 1: aired on ESPN, that was aired on his own platform
Speaker 1: that he has every right to say about RG three,
Speaker 1: not about anybody else, meaning the family, his family, but him,
Speaker 1: and RG three has every right to respond to him
Speaker 1: directly without bringing ESPN into it. That's all I'm saying,
Speaker 1: Ryan Clark need to be gone from ESPN. Y'all can
Speaker 1: miss me with that shit. Ryan Clark is outstanding, outstanding,
Speaker 1: not perfect, but outstanding none the less. Nonetheless, this personal
Speaker 1: between him and RG three, I hope they work it out.
Speaker 1: I hope they resolve it. We don't need all that
Speaker 1: animosity in the world because, in their own way or
Speaker 1: be it different ways, I happen to believe both are
Speaker 1: good brothers, and I'm proud to know both of them.
Speaker 1: But I ain't trying to hear anything about people being
Speaker 1: fired and all that nonsense. I don't want to hear that.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear that I will raise holy
Speaker 1: hell over something like this leading to somebody's loss of
Speaker 1: a job. I haven't heard anything like that. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine that would happen. I'm not trying to imply that
Speaker 1: I know something that I don't know, because I don't
Speaker 1: not ever even talked of the ESBN about it. I'm
Speaker 1: just talking on behalf of two brothers that I know.
Speaker 1: I think they were both right, and I think they
Speaker 1: were both wrong in certain respects, which I just articulated.
Speaker 1: But miss me with all of this hooplab about Ryan
Speaker 1: Clark need even lose his job, y'all crossing the damn line,
Speaker 1: and that I'm not gonna sit oddly by over something
Speaker 1: like this. Hell no, hell no coming up? Is Bill
Speaker 1: Belichick engaged to Jordan Hudson. I'll welcome the man who
Speaker 1: has been leading the way on reporting about the controversial couple.
Speaker 1: These controversial in some people's eyes, one only Pablo Torre.
Speaker 1: He's up next right here on The stephen A. Smith Show.
Speaker 1: And later Megan Kelly calls Jake Tapper to the carpet
Speaker 1: for possibly withholding important information about Joe Biden in real
Speaker 1: time to benefit the sales of this book down the road.
Speaker 1: I need to get into that too, So don't go away.
Speaker 1: It's the steven Ate Smith Show in the house. Be
Speaker 1: right back, hi. Everybody, listen up with all the big
Speaker 1: time sports action that's happening each and every day, The
Speaker 1: stephen A. Smith Show wants to make sure you are
Speaker 1: taking advantage of it all. That's why we've partnered with
Speaker 1: the Prize Picks, the best place to win cash while
Speaker 1: watching sports. The app is really easy to use to
Speaker 1: make a lineup. All you have to do is pick
Speaker 1: more or less on a few player stats. Choose from
Speaker 1: any of your favorite players Luka, Doncic, Jimmy Butler, and
Speaker 1: Zach Lavine all in the same entry, then sit back
Speaker 1: and watch. The list is absolutely endless. Play prospects in
Speaker 1: over forty states, including California and Texas. Best of all
Speaker 1: Prospects will give you fifty dollars when you play your
Speaker 1: first five dollar lineup. Wanna lose, You'll get fifty bucks.
Speaker 1: Just use promo code says and download Prospects right now again,
Speaker 1: download the app and use code essays to get fifty
Speaker 1: dollars instantly after your first five dollar lineup. Prospects, run
Speaker 1: your game. Welcome back to Stephen A. Smith show. Bill
Speaker 1: Belichick is back in the news again today thanks to
Speaker 1: his girlfriend Jordan Hudson or is she his fiancee? I
Speaker 1: don't know. After The New York Times reported earlier this
Speaker 1: week that the Miss Main pageant contestant shared with someone
Speaker 1: that she was engaged to Belichick. TMZ published photos yesterday
Speaker 1: showing that Belichick's boat, famously called eight Rings in honor
Speaker 1: of the Super Bowl wins with the Patriots and the Giants,
Speaker 1: has a new paint job that now reads one plus
Speaker 1: eight rings end quote. This is fueled the already rampant
Speaker 1: speculation about their relationship status moving toward marriage, as reports
Speaker 1: continue to come in that those in Belichick's in the
Speaker 1: circle have serious concerns. Joining me now to discuss this
Speaker 1: is the man who has been leading the charge on
Speaker 1: reporting on this romance. He was a longtime colleague of
Speaker 1: mine at ESPN and is now the host of the
Speaker 1: Peabody Award nominated Pablo Torre finds Out podcast. Pablo Torre
Speaker 1: is in the house. What's going on, Pablo? Long time,
Speaker 1: no speak man.
Speaker 3: How you doing, Rene. It's good to see you. Beyond
Speaker 3: just from afar when you're court sided at a game.
Speaker 3: It's been too long, and this is a strange circumstance
Speaker 3: under which we meet again.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely concerned, strange, but it's really really good to
Speaker 1: talk to you. It's been a while, man, Good to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Good to see you doing so well.
Speaker 1: Let's get right to it. What have you heard about
Speaker 1: whether or not Belichick and Jordan Hudson are engaged. What
Speaker 1: can you tell the world.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I've been deeping this rabbit hole for months now,
Speaker 3: and what I can tell you is that as recently
Speaker 3: as March, Bill Belichick was asked by a close friend,
Speaker 3: are you engaged to Jordan Hudson, who at that point,
Speaker 3: by the way, was twenty three. Now she's twenty four,
Speaker 3: And Bill Belichick told that friend directly, no, I am not. Simultaneously, though,
Speaker 3: Steven A. As we examine what the most highly paid
Speaker 3: public employee in the state of North Carolina is up
Speaker 3: to his personal and professional lives being merged and blended.
Speaker 3: What we're also hearing, what I am also hearing, at least,
Speaker 3: is that Jordan Hudson has in fact been telling multiple
Speaker 3: people that they are engaged. And so this is one
Speaker 3: of those classic messes that are familiar to anybody who's
Speaker 3: been following this saga. And I've been reporting on this,
Speaker 3: talking to eleven different people who have directly dealt with
Speaker 3: both of them in this new phase of Bill Belichick's life,
Speaker 3: all of whom observe that the man is acting in
Speaker 3: a way that, as you well know, is so deeply
Speaker 3: opposite to the man that we thought we understood for
Speaker 3: about twenty years.
Speaker 1: Why is this story so compelling, particularly to somebody like yourself.
Speaker 1: I mean, he is so I think it's seventy three,
Speaker 1: she's twenty four. That's a forty nine year different. A
Speaker 1: lot of people are uncomfortable with that stuff. A lot
Speaker 1: more people don't care. Why does Pablo Tory care talk
Speaker 1: to us about that?
Speaker 3: It's a great question. My mom asks me this question
Speaker 3: as she's wondering why I go from being nominated for
Speaker 3: a Peabody winning an Edward R. Murrow or to caring
Speaker 3: about this and to me, this is a story about power,
Speaker 3: dievn A. It's a story about public figures. It's a
Speaker 3: story about what it means when a guy gets a
Speaker 3: job at North Carolina to lead young men and is
Speaker 3: hired under the pretenses of him being a lot like
Speaker 3: the guy that everybody at Carolina remembered from when he
Speaker 3: was the coach of the New England Patriots, the GM
Speaker 3: of the Patriots, a guy known for a couple of things, right,
Speaker 3: a lack of distraction, discipline, privacy, and truly an undefeated
Speaker 3: record against the media. And so this story is not
Speaker 3: merely like an age gap relationship story. And frankly, I
Speaker 3: don't care about the age gap so much, even though
Speaker 3: I think it is certainly interesting. I'm not here to
Speaker 3: yuck Bill Belichick's youngs. Right, He's not the first older
Speaker 3: man to be intrigued by a younger woman. That's not
Speaker 3: what's new here. What's new is the fact that we
Speaker 3: knew this guy in a very distinct way, such that
Speaker 3: he was one of the most defined characters we've ever
Speaker 3: seen before, with all of those ways that he defined
Speaker 3: himself very deliberately and proudly. And now the question is
Speaker 3: why is he acting so differently, who is advising him,
Speaker 3: and what does it mean that he has handed power
Speaker 3: to a twenty four year old that he met on
Speaker 3: a plane when she was nineteen.
Speaker 1: I want you to explain how he's acting so differently.
Speaker 1: I don't see much of a difference. I remember seeing
Speaker 1: him at Boston Celtics games with a former girlfriend after
Speaker 1: he had gotten divorced. I remember seeing him as an
Speaker 1: individual that really didn't want to talk to the media
Speaker 1: at all, and when he did, it was certainly begrudgingly.
Speaker 1: In this particular instance, he was coming out with a book.
Speaker 1: I saw this interview. She was pretty assertive in that
Speaker 1: interview or whatever, and to me, that fell right in
Speaker 1: line with him, only from the standpoint of he's only
Speaker 1: talking to you because he's promoting the book, and oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, having her be so invasive and so
Speaker 1: demanding during that interview that prevented him from having to
Speaker 1: be the bad guy for once. I really didn't see
Speaker 1: much of a difference. So when you say there's a
Speaker 1: difference in his behavior, articulate to our audience what you're
Speaker 1: seeing in terms of his behavior that so diametrically opposed
Speaker 1: anything that we've seen from him before.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say, yeah, that CBS the Sunday Morning interview.
Speaker 3: That was just the glimpse, the first glimpse that the
Speaker 3: public had into the ways in which, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: there's a new person who seems to be having influence
Speaker 3: over Bill Belichick. The reason he's acting so differently, as
Speaker 3: I have observed it is because when he left the Patriots,
Speaker 3: when the NFL basically said you are no longer wanted
Speaker 3: here as a coach, certainly as a GM you had
Speaker 3: to pivot to being a public figure, which means that
Speaker 3: a guy who has protected Steven and you know how
Speaker 3: this works, a guy who was protected did by an
Speaker 3: inner circle in a football building, a professional football building,
Speaker 3: had to figure out what do I do now? And
Speaker 3: so when he is not insulated by the structures, truly
Speaker 3: the structures and scheduling of the NFL, he, as we
Speaker 3: all saw, hiboted to media. He launched about half dozen
Speaker 3: different media projects in which it was now you're coming
Speaker 3: to Bill Belichick because he now for the first time,
Speaker 3: wants to talk to the public, and he wants to
Speaker 3: be accepted and followed and subscribed to and appreciated as
Speaker 3: somebody who has many interesting things to say. And certainly
Speaker 3: when he was a coach, we saw him give you know,
Speaker 3: fifteen hundred word paragraph log answers about long snappers. But
Speaker 3: this now was Bill Belichick saying I'm here to be
Speaker 3: in public, and the person behind the scenes who was
Speaker 3: steering him. What I'm reporting is that the person behind
Speaker 3: the scenes who was in charge, the boss of his
Speaker 3: media ventures, the COO of Belichick Productions, is Jordan Hudson.
Speaker 3: And so when it comes to how is he behaving,
Speaker 3: it is the part about what his business was, And
Speaker 3: now it's the part not merely going to Carolina and
Speaker 3: being a college coach, in which he has to appeal
Speaker 3: to young men, young people and be online in this
Speaker 3: era of name, image and likeness, right, he has to
Speaker 3: be somehow fluent in the Internet for the first time,
Speaker 3: which is what he has turned to Jordan Hudson initially for.
Speaker 3: When I talked to former players or Bill Belichick at
Speaker 3: the Patriots, what they say is that the most shocking
Speaker 3: part is that this man, his private life was supposed
Speaker 3: to be private. You saw him court site. You saw
Speaker 3: him on Nantucket. You saw his former longtime girlfriend of
Speaker 3: fifteen years, Linda Holliday, bring him out to parties, bring
Speaker 3: him around to those things. But this kind of thing
Speaker 3: where he's being held up rather, I mean he is
Speaker 3: holding her up by his feet, doing yoga on the beach.
Speaker 3: She's dressing as a mermaid, all of this stuff. You know,
Speaker 3: this is where his former players are like whoa, whoa
Speaker 3: wa whoa, willingly posting that that's not the bill that
Speaker 3: we knew.
Speaker 1: Well, what about the awe argument that the bill that
Speaker 1: we knew had to alter his way of life and
Speaker 1: his way of thinking to some degree because the NFL
Speaker 1: didn't want a six time champion as a head coach
Speaker 1: an eight time champion overall, when you take into account
Speaker 1: the two defensive coordinator positions that I'm sorry, the two
Speaker 1: titles that he won as a defensive coordinator with the
Speaker 1: New York Giants, but the Atlanta Falcons job in particular,
Speaker 1: along with various other jobs that were available and mentioned,
Speaker 1: he couldn't get those jobs because he was considered the past.
Speaker 1: You had young thoroughbreds, You had young bloods that were
Speaker 1: now running organizations that didn't want a football genius like himself,
Speaker 1: as somebody that they would have to communicate with an
Speaker 1: ultimately answer to in some kind of way because he
Speaker 1: would be the head coach of a franchise. What about
Speaker 1: the notion that that forced and compelled him to make
Speaker 1: this shift, because obviously he took a college job when
Speaker 1: we all know he would have preferred to be in
Speaker 1: the NFL.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Look, the biggest signal was in the contract he
Speaker 3: signed at UNC because June first, which is right upon us,
Speaker 3: is a big day. Even a before Jordan Hudson became
Speaker 3: this public figure in the CBS interview and elsewhere, we
Speaker 3: knew that there was a clause in that contract that
Speaker 3: said the buyout that Bill Belichick could exercise on June
Speaker 3: first dropped from ten million dollars to one million dollars, right,
Speaker 3: ten times less. That was his option if he wanted,
Speaker 3: in fact, if he got, in fact, the offer that
Speaker 3: never came from the NFL and is not forthcoming in
Speaker 3: any regard at this point. So it's always been about
Speaker 3: him wanting the NFL and having to settle for a
Speaker 3: different version of his life. And look, I don't have
Speaker 3: a lack of sympathy for anybody who does one thing
Speaker 3: at a genius level forever and then is said, with
Speaker 3: no uncertain terms, he is told, with no uncertain terms,
Speaker 3: you're not wanted here anymore. You're over the hill. Right.
Speaker 3: That is a human experience as well. I am not
Speaker 3: saying that that is not at play here, But the
Speaker 3: question of what you do next is where we're discovering
Speaker 3: Bill Belichick. Really for the first time, Bill Belichick, not
Speaker 3: in the NFL context. I remember what Bob Kraft, of course,
Speaker 3: the owner of the Patriots, once said to our colleague
Speaker 3: Seth Wickersham. He said Bill Belichick was an idiot savant,
Speaker 3: which is to say he is an absolute, unimpeachable genius
Speaker 3: when it comes to the football, but everything else, right,
Speaker 3: he's not. And we're just discovering the ways in which
Speaker 3: that might be true, which we haven't had visibility into
Speaker 3: for twenty years.
Speaker 1: Just about a couple more questions before I let you
Speaker 1: get on out of here, Pablo, And I really appreciate,
Speaker 1: because I know you got to run soon. Do we
Speaker 1: even care about this? If Jordan Hudson is not twenty
Speaker 1: four years of age, if she's considered.
Speaker 3: I would right now listen the tabloid storm the hurricane.
Speaker 3: You're absolutely right. This is catnip for everybody who wants
Speaker 3: to say. This is a story that you probably can
Speaker 3: deduce already without even clicking on the story.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: It is an age gap relationship. This is a gold digger.
Speaker 3: This is worse. This is somebody who is I've seen
Speaker 3: her accused of being an only fans model A and
Speaker 3: works a call girl. Right, My reporting does not indicate
Speaker 3: that that is the case at all. This is the
Speaker 3: story to me of an ambitious young woman who in
Speaker 3: some ways reminds me of Silicon Valley. And I'll explain
Speaker 3: why I say that, because I went to school. I
Speaker 3: went to college with these Silicon Valley people, and they
Speaker 3: are ambitious, and they are young, and they don't know
Speaker 3: what they don't know. But they go into industries and
Speaker 3: they blow them up. They blow them up, and they
Speaker 3: leave a trail of wreckage behind them because they don't
Speaker 3: understand a really key thing, which is unintended consequences. So
Speaker 3: it's not that Jordan Hudson isn't in some way clever
Speaker 3: or ambitious or driven or determined or a real aspiring
Speaker 3: PR person. It's even that you've worked in comms around
Speaker 3: comm's people pr people for as long as anybody at
Speaker 3: this point, and you know that when you are the story,
Speaker 3: you have failed in your job. And so the question becomes,
Speaker 3: is Bill Belichick keeping her around in this way because
Speaker 3: she is good at her job? Or is it because
Speaker 3: as his own family only fears. According to sources around
Speaker 3: the Belichicks, he doesn't totally realize the damage being done
Speaker 3: to his legacy, to Carolina, to that program, to this
Speaker 3: understanding of him. Wait, we were so.
Speaker 1: Close out about that. Listen. First of all, let me
Speaker 1: say this, in the interest of full disclosure. I remember
Speaker 1: when I covered the Philadelphia seventy six ers and Larry
Speaker 1: Brown was the head coach and at the time he
Speaker 1: was fifty six years of age and his wife was
Speaker 1: twenty six. I mean, and that wasn't the only person
Speaker 1: that I saw with someone considerably younger than them. I
Speaker 1: don't understand how that could potentially equate to tarnishing the
Speaker 1: legacy of a Bill Belichick when his legacy is completely
Speaker 1: tied to football excellence. That's it. Outside of his foot
Speaker 1: of football excellence, nobody has pretty much given the damn
Speaker 1: about Bill Belichick and his life or his quality of
Speaker 1: life or how he lives his life. All they've ever
Speaker 1: cared about was what he did on the football field
Speaker 1: as a coach. So, now that he's on a collegiate
Speaker 1: level instead of a repro level, if he goes to
Speaker 1: Carolina and win, or whether he wins or loses, that
Speaker 1: might be a determining factor as it pertains to how
Speaker 1: his legacy has looked upon. But I don't think his
Speaker 1: personal affairs with who he chooses to have as a
Speaker 1: girlfriend or a wife there we say, is going to
Speaker 1: impact his legacy. Is that what you're implying.
Speaker 3: No, I'm saying that the football stuff on the field,
Speaker 3: his coaching record unimpeachable, the decision making around it has
Speaker 3: been what's been called into question by everybody. And so
Speaker 3: when it comes to look, when I'm God forbid we
Speaker 3: write the oh bit for Bill Belichick one day, the
Speaker 3: first paragraph absolutely needs to be around the football. The
Speaker 3: question is the Carolina experiment right now, And what I'm
Speaker 3: told from Carolina is that his own inner circle, the
Speaker 3: higher ups, the administrators at the university are all saying
Speaker 3: that Jordan Hudson cannot be involved with our program. She
Speaker 3: is not welcome in the building. They don't want her
Speaker 3: around because as there have been records now public records
Speaker 3: requests that have shown that she is asked to be
Speaker 3: c seed on every single email, She has been spotted
Speaker 3: in videos on the field. She is his representative, his
Speaker 3: first lady in lots of ways. It's not merely that
Speaker 3: this is a younger woman. Is that this is a
Speaker 3: woman who seeks power and has received it. Okay, And
Speaker 3: now the question is how do you deal with that?
Speaker 1: Part last question? Two? Parts number one, has she been
Speaker 1: officially banned by the university or is it just that
Speaker 1: they don't want her around? And they've made that clear,
Speaker 1: but they're not demanding that she be banned and that
Speaker 1: she not be around. That's number one. And number two,
Speaker 1: do you think that Bill Belichick ever coaches a game
Speaker 1: at North Carolina? Do you think that's a job he
Speaker 1: walks away from before this season even begins because of
Speaker 1: all of this stuff involving her.
Speaker 3: Last on what I'm reporting, Yeah, I no, two great questions.
Speaker 3: What I'm reporting is that number one, there has been,
Speaker 3: in no uncertain terms, the message from the top of
Speaker 3: the university to the football program that she cannot be
Speaker 3: associated with the program anymore. She shouldn't be in the building.
Speaker 3: She shouldn't be on the field. Now they have pushed
Speaker 3: back on that by saying, in a bit of an
Speaker 3: interesting PR statement Sandwich, that Jordan Hudson is not employed
Speaker 3: by the university. They confirm that for the first time
Speaker 3: in refonse of my reporting, and that she is only
Speaker 3: involved with Bill Balichick in the personal capacity as his
Speaker 3: PR representative, but that she is welcome in the building.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: So, I cannot speak to how North Carolina maybe adjusted
Speaker 3: what their messaging was since my report came out. They
Speaker 3: did not answer my request for comment, nor do they
Speaker 3: fulfill my Public Record's request on that front. But the
Speaker 3: second question about whether he makes it a game, my
Speaker 3: suspicion right now is that the way he is handling
Speaker 3: his press tour indicates and which he says to Michael Strahan,
Speaker 3: he says to Christine Williamson at the ACEC meetings. He
Speaker 3: says it to Ryan Clark, our colleague, right, he says,
Speaker 3: she is off to the side. This is only personal,
Speaker 3: This is not football. If he's going to agree to
Speaker 3: that in real terms, and everybody at Caroline is going
Speaker 3: to get to frankly calm down because they can do
Speaker 3: their jobs in the way that they were hoping to
Speaker 3: as a normal program might then I think he makes it,
Speaker 3: of course, to week one. Do I think he lasts
Speaker 3: for more than a year, steven A for a team
Speaker 3: that you know didn't win seven games last year. I
Speaker 3: would set the line absolutely at one season, a one
Speaker 3: and done scenario.
Speaker 1: So what I especially since he's got the one million buyout,
Speaker 1: because I think an NFL team could potentially come calling,
Speaker 1: especially if he's successful at North Carolina and that one
Speaker 1: million dollar buyout as opposed to being ten million dollars.
Speaker 1: I think it's something that is doable, and I think
Speaker 1: they hear return to the NFL. Pablo Torre, appreciate you man,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for taking time out of your
Speaker 1: business schedule. I know you got to run, so get
Speaker 1: on out of hend.
Speaker 3: Thank you again, anytime, Stevin A anytime?
Speaker 1: All right went on with Pablo Torre. He's doing a
Speaker 1: good job obviously covering this story. I mean for me personally,
Speaker 1: ladies and gentleman, I mean, Towe eat his own. When
Speaker 1: I thought about his personal life, I'm like, damn, if
Speaker 1: it's consensual. She's an adult, he's an adult. Ain't my
Speaker 1: cup of tea going with somebody that damn young. But
Speaker 1: that's that's his thing. That's his thing. Like I said,
Speaker 1: I've covered numerous executives, coaches, et cetera that messed around
Speaker 1: with people considerably younger than them. I don't think that,
Speaker 1: you know, this is something that could potentially affect his legacy.
Speaker 1: What I will say, however, is this, it is interesting
Speaker 1: that she's his pr representative because that is him empowering
Speaker 1: her to some degree when she kept interfering, you know,
Speaker 1: with the questioning to Bill Belichick during that interview. It's
Speaker 1: one thing I know that she's his girlfriend. It's one
Speaker 1: thing for people to look at her and say, hey,
Speaker 1: as his girlfriend. You know, look at how invasive she was.
Speaker 1: It's another thing entirely when you us PR rep. Because
Speaker 1: I've seen many PR reps conduct themselves that way during interviews.
Speaker 1: I've seen PR reps stop interviews from people when they
Speaker 1: didn't like the line of questioning. So that does change
Speaker 1: things a little bit. I didn't realize she was his
Speaker 1: pr representative. No matter which way you slice it, the
Speaker 1: man is older, he's divorced, he's got three kids. He
Speaker 1: had a girlfriend for a while and then they broke
Speaker 1: up with her, and now he's doing this. In the end,
Speaker 1: it is entirely possible that Bill Belichick may have the
Speaker 1: last laugh, because he's happier than the pig and mud
Speaker 1: than most of us. Some would say that if indeed
Speaker 1: it ends up going to that point, I don't know,
Speaker 1: And to be quite under with you, I don't give
Speaker 1: a damn. All I care about is what he's doing
Speaker 1: in the breaking any laws, all right, and he's not
Speaker 1: committing any crimes, and they're in a consensual relationship. That's
Speaker 1: their damn business. What I care about is how he's
Speaker 1: gonna look coaching the Carolina Tar Hills as head coach
Speaker 1: on a collegiate level, and whether or not he's gonna
Speaker 1: ever get back into the NFL as a head coach
Speaker 1: because he's not somebody that deserved to be without a
Speaker 1: head coaching job. Think about the teams that would be
Speaker 1: better off in the National Football League if Bill Belichick
Speaker 1: was coaching them, as opposed to some of the other
Speaker 1: coaches that they have to answer to. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. Coming up. Jake Tapper himself of CNN
Speaker 1: is facing a lot of questions about his newly released
Speaker 1: book on the Biden administration from Meghan Kelly. Are the questions,
Speaker 1: fear Lord, You'll see what I'm talking about. Plus Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio Butt's heads with Democrats over Trump's foreign policy, and
Speaker 1: I've got some thoughts on that as well. All of
Speaker 1: that coming up next right here on The Stephen A.
Speaker 1: Smith Show. Don't Go Away. Welcome back to steph A.
Speaker 1: Smith Show. After a long build up of promotion and
Speaker 1: leaked excerpts, a new book by journalist Jake Tapper and
Speaker 1: Alex Thompson is shedding new light on the cognitive decline
Speaker 1: of former President Joe Biden. The book, entitled Original Sin,
Speaker 1: depicts alleged attempts by the president's family and close aids
Speaker 1: to shield his mental lapses from the public. This may
Speaker 1: be one of the most highly anticipated political book releases
Speaker 1: in sometime, but it has many including the Daily Shows
Speaker 1: John Stewart and The Women of the View, questioning if
Speaker 1: one of CNN's lead anchors was with holding information critical
Speaker 1: to the public for the benefit of selling copies. Another
Speaker 1: one of those people was Megan Kelly. Please take a
Speaker 1: look at this.
Speaker 7: Over here in my ecosphere. We were covering all of
Speaker 7: these It wasn't just falling down, it was getting lost.
Speaker 7: It was some of the stuff you report in your
Speaker 7: book we knew and we were reporting on, like the
Speaker 7: multi jump cuts in the videos of him, or it
Speaker 7: was obvious he couldn't get through a one minute take.
Speaker 7: It was clear to us that he was using teleprompter,
Speaker 7: and there was some reporting on that at the time,
Speaker 7: all of which the White House was denying. Now with
Speaker 7: the current White House, I have some connections with the
Speaker 7: Joe Biden White House.
Speaker 3: I had none, but you did.
Speaker 7: There was an attempted cover up. It could only ever
Speaker 7: work if you allowed it, if the press allowed it.
Speaker 3: Some of us tried not to, and some of us
Speaker 3: were complicit.
Speaker 6: The Biden white House did not like me. Okay, this
Speaker 6: is I do not have great connections with the Biden
Speaker 6: White House.
Speaker 3: Well, clearly a lot of s.
Speaker 7: We talked to over two hundred sources for this book
Speaker 7: called and worked.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 1: That's the point is that they were not being honest.
Speaker 3: That's how the Street Journal get it.
Speaker 7: In June of twenty twenty four and Jake Tapper and
Speaker 7: CNN couldn't find sources for this story.
Speaker 3: Then before he dropped out.
Speaker 6: Annie Lynsky and Shavon Hughes did an amazing job in
Speaker 6: their reporting and they should be heralded.
Speaker 3: And I heralded them.
Speaker 6: I had them on my show right after the debate
Speaker 6: to talk about their great reporting.
Speaker 1: To the debate.
Speaker 7: But you did not put them on when they published
Speaker 7: that story, which was before the debate.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 6: I don't know what the booking situation was, but it
Speaker 6: wasn't because I didn't want them. I'm sure I will book.
Speaker 6: I'm sure I said that day. Let's book that did they? You?
Speaker 7: You put on a Democrat and you allowed the Democrat
Speaker 7: to rip on the report as a Rupert Murdoch sponsored
Speaker 7: hit piece.
Speaker 6: No, it's just that that's what we're going to do,
Speaker 6: if we're going to do this, let's just stick to
Speaker 6: the facts here, Okay, when there is a damn.
Speaker 7: That's what I've been doing all along. Didn't miss the
Speaker 7: biggest story of the century when it comes to presidential politics,
Speaker 7: and one of us did out.
Speaker 1: Let me say this, ladies and gentlemen, just as an aside,
Speaker 1: I've been a guest on Megan Kelly's show at least
Speaker 1: a couple of times. I'll probably be back on in
Speaker 1: a week or so. You don't say to Megan Kelly.
Speaker 1: Let's stick to the facts. I've seen on a real
Speaker 1: time with Bill Mark. I saw her there. I've been
Speaker 1: watching her for years. I respect the hell out of
Speaker 1: that woman. She does not play, she does not pull punches.
Speaker 1: She gives you facts, she lives on them, and on
Speaker 1: top of it all, when there are personal relationships involved,
Speaker 1: as was the case with Pete Hegseth in route to
Speaker 1: him becoming our secretary of Defense, she was very transparent
Speaker 1: about her relationship with him. She does not play. She
Speaker 1: is not a joke. She is legit. I respect the
Speaker 1: hell out of that woman, I really do. And to
Speaker 1: say let's stick to the facts, I would like to
Speaker 1: say Jake Tapper was in trouble then, but it was
Speaker 1: actually before then, but certainly at that particular moment in time,
Speaker 1: he's supposed to be coming on this show soon. I
Speaker 1: hope I do half as good of a job as
Speaker 1: she did, because she had it all. The fact remains
Speaker 1: that there were people who had come on CNN, who
Speaker 1: had appeared on Jake Tapper's show, like Laura Trump Dead,
Speaker 1: and he summarily dismissed them, which he openly admits. He
Speaker 1: confessed to having a private conversation in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: learning the facts and essentially apologizing to Laura Trump at
Speaker 1: that particular moment in time. Does that make up for
Speaker 1: how dismissed if he was towards her, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I would encourage everybody to go and watch that interview
Speaker 1: from start to finish. I would encourage everybody to look
Speaker 1: at what she was saying and to really really get
Speaker 1: into the weeds of it all. I was afraid I'm
Speaker 1: gonna throw myself out here now. I called out Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and the diminished mental acuity and a lack of
Speaker 1: ferv and the incapacitation that so many that people were
Speaker 1: alluding to. I called it out a year in advance.
Speaker 1: I got a viscerated, a viscerated and I'm not quote
Speaker 1: unquote conservative, so I can relate to Megan Kelly sitting
Speaker 1: before him and being pretty pissed off because the conservative
Speaker 1: media was right, the conservative media was right, and the
Speaker 1: liberal media wasn't just wrong. The challenge is wasn't intentional. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not here to accuse Jake Tapper that I'll ask
Speaker 1: him when I speak to him, but there is no
Speaker 1: doubt that one of the issues that's really permeating that
Speaker 1: can't be avoided is that the Democrat the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: was demanding that you flow with and you vibe with
Speaker 1: what they wanted you to, and if you did it,
Speaker 1: they were ready to have your ass canceled. Which is
Speaker 1: why you had so many people lamenting cancel culture. Which
Speaker 1: is why you have somebody like me Vinnie from the
Speaker 1: PbD podcast, Love you, bro, Love you. But this is
Speaker 1: why you have people like me saying, Yo, we're pretty
Speaker 1: ticked off because those are not things we knew. And
Speaker 1: when you see the Democrats engaging in the level of
Speaker 1: duplicity that you don't like, you're offended by it. Now,
Speaker 1: somebody like him would say, well, we were there with
Speaker 1: Trump all along, Well, that sounds like a loyalty the
Speaker 1: Trump instead of loyalty to America. Just because that's your
Speaker 1: dude and you were vibing with him, don't mean you
Speaker 1: knew factually and definitively that there was truth being told
Speaker 1: about the Democrats that the rest of us were oblivious to.
Speaker 1: Meggan Kelly came to find that out along with others.
Speaker 1: My Man Sean Hannity says, religiously, Hey, liberal media is dead.
Speaker 1: This is what he was talking about, the Mark Levinz,
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity's, the Clay Travis's of the world, and others,
Speaker 1: the Magan Kelly's of the world. What can we say
Speaker 1: to them at this particular moment in time, if you
Speaker 1: are a Democrat who bought in to the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: willing to engage in cancel culture when it came to
Speaker 1: anybody who would dare verbalize a dissenting opinion to what
Speaker 1: they were putting out there, what can we say. CNN
Speaker 1: was clearly guilty of it. We all show. We saw
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough, saw Joe Scarborough going on MSNBC with Morning Joe.
Speaker 1: We saw him on the national airwaves saying raving about
Speaker 1: President Biden's health and acuity. We saw it. But there
Speaker 1: was clearly evidence to the contrary, and when that evidence
Speaker 1: was revealed, people on the left engaged in condemnation towards
Speaker 1: those who did have the guts to tell what clearly
Speaker 1: has now become the truth. You can get into the
Speaker 1: timing of Jake Tapper and his book coming out and
Speaker 1: how the publicity of it all is venturing around Biden's
Speaker 1: announcement that he has an aggressive form of prostate cancer.
Speaker 1: You can lament that all day till the cows come home.
Speaker 1: You're trying to sell a book. You're trying to sell
Speaker 1: a book. You wrote the book, you put in the work,
Speaker 1: You got a right to promote the book. But the
Speaker 1: point is CNN and other platforms, if indeed you engaged
Speaker 1: in the kind of behavior that dissuaded and minimized and
Speaker 1: dare I say condemned those who were dare challenge the
Speaker 1: mental acuity and the health and the overall health of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. What do you have to say for yourself? Now?
Speaker 1: It is a legitimate question. It is a legitimate question.
Speaker 1: Our poored Jake Tapper for showing up to Megan Kelly show.
Speaker 1: He knew it wasn't gonna be easy, but boy did
Speaker 1: he get raped through the Kohls by her with nothing
Speaker 1: but facts, Nothing but facts. And now, if you're the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, please understand that when I said Monday, you're
Speaker 1: the political version of Lance Armstrong, Please understand I'm not
Speaker 1: backing up from that statement one minute, one bit.
Speaker 5: I mean it.
Speaker 1: Lance Armstrong was lying through his damn teeth about taking
Speaker 1: performance enhancing drugs when he was accused of it. He
Speaker 1: didn't just deny it. He tried to ruin the lives
Speaker 1: of those who were telling the truth about them. And
Speaker 1: now that we reflect on what transpired with Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and how complicit the Democratic Party appears to have been
Speaker 1: in all of that, what are we to say about them?
Speaker 1: It ain't about Trump, it's not about Kamala Harris. It's
Speaker 1: about that party from won't coachure to cancel culture vibe
Speaker 1: with us, or you gotta get bounced out of here.
Speaker 1: You got rid of your own. Andrew CMO's a problem
Speaker 1: until he leaves office. Then all of a sudden, practically
Speaker 1: all the cases go away. Ol Franken and his behavior
Speaker 1: as a comedian is a problem, even though you had
Speaker 1: him lock Stock and Barrel in a Senate seat for
Speaker 1: the Democrats in Minneapolis, and then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: he's out, and now stuff don't matter that much anymore.
Speaker 1: Time and time and time again, the Democrats have eaten
Speaker 1: their own and spit them out. Hell. Listening to Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders speak, one would argue, you're doing it to him.
Speaker 1: This is bad, this is very bad. And I think
Speaker 1: that as Jake Tapper goes around a circuit promoting his
Speaker 1: book and the more facts we learn from this book,
Speaker 1: I think irreparable harm is going to be done to
Speaker 1: the Democrats. I think the midterms are in jeopardy. I
Speaker 1: think the presidency in twenty twenty eight is in jeopardy.
Speaker 1: It's really bad, y'all. It's really bad. Moving on to
Speaker 1: my last subject, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senator
Speaker 1: Chris van Holland, a Maryland Democrat, engaged in the heated
Speaker 1: exchange Tuesday as the nation's top diplomat defended the Trump
Speaker 1: administration's foreign policy. While testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Speaker 1: Van Holland criticized Rubio on his handling of issues ranging
Speaker 1: from the freezing of humanitarian assistance in Sudan during a genocide,
Speaker 1: deportations to El Salvador El Salvador without due process, and
Speaker 1: revoking student visas. Rubio did it back down. Take a
Speaker 1: look at this exchange.
Speaker 5: We didn't always agree, but I believe we shared some
Speaker 5: common values, a belief in defending democracy and human rights
Speaker 5: abroad and honoring the Constitution at home.
Speaker 3: That's why I voted to confirm you. I believed you.
Speaker 5: Would stand up for those principles.
Speaker 1: You haven't.
Speaker 5: You've done the opposite, and I have to tell you
Speaker 5: directly and personally that I regret voting for you for
Speaker 5: Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: I yield back.
Speaker 8: I respond, well, first of all, your regret for voting
Speaker 8: for me confirms I'm doing a good job. First of all,
Speaker 8: I'm actually very proud of the work we've done with USAID.
Speaker 8: For example, I don't regret cutting ten million dollars for
Speaker 8: male circumcisions in Mozambique. I don't know how that makes
Speaker 8: a stronger and more prosperous as a nation. I don't
Speaker 8: regret psychosocial support services I raised.
Speaker 5: I respond, Senator, i'd ask you to suspend. You had
Speaker 5: seven straight minutes. I chose to use my time that way,
Speaker 5: Mister Chairman, that's my right.
Speaker 3: To please suspend that way.
Speaker 1: Secretary review, Well, I can go on.
Speaker 8: I mean, there's other things here. We spent two hundred
Speaker 8: and twenty seven thousand dollars for Big Cat's YouTube channel
Speaker 8: from USAID. We spent fourteen million dollars for social cohesion
Speaker 8: in Malli, whatever the hell that means. So I can
Speaker 8: go on and on. I got the list here, and
Speaker 8: there's more that I didn't even bring the whole list
Speaker 8: in the case of El Salvador. Absolutely, absolutely, we deported
Speaker 8: gang members, gang members, including the one you had a
Speaker 8: margarita with, and that guy is a human trafficker, and
Speaker 8: that guy is a gangbanger, and that and and the
Speaker 8: evidence is going to be clear in the days that.
Speaker 3: Rubio has the chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated.
Speaker 5: That Secretary of Rubio has the floor, and Ruo should
Speaker 5: take that testimony the federal Senator, United States, because he
Speaker 5: hasn't done it under oath.
Speaker 1: Good Lord, let me say this, perhaps will reflect on
Speaker 1: some of the decisions that the Trump administration has made
Speaker 1: and will continue to make regarding El Salvador, regarding Sudan
Speaker 1: and other nations, regarding foreigner foreign relations, and we may
Speaker 1: find that we are appalled by some of those decisions.
Speaker 1: With respect however, to Chris van Holland, Senator Chris van Holland,
Speaker 1: their administration has the right to make it. You lost
Speaker 1: their party one, and we will see through the prism
Speaker 1: of history what decisions were right and what decisions was
Speaker 1: wrong based on an administration. I am not getting into
Speaker 1: specifics about what Senator Chris van Holland was lamenting, nor
Speaker 1: am I going to favor Marco Rubio's response, even though
Speaker 1: I loved how he started off by saying, the fact
Speaker 1: that you object shows that I'm doing a good job
Speaker 1: because he's letting them know I don't agree with you,
Speaker 1: ass and I got that part. But we have to
Speaker 1: understand that Marco Rubio officially one of the most powerful
Speaker 1: people in America, Okay, overseeing not just our country, not
Speaker 1: just in terms of Secretary of State, but national security.
Speaker 1: This man is a incredibly influential individual. Are we gonna
Speaker 1: sit here and question the qualifications of Marco Rubio, who
Speaker 1: has been a senator for years, who is a former
Speaker 1: presidential candidate who got re elected in the state of Florida.
Speaker 1: We know who Marco Rubio is. He's not unqualified. He's
Speaker 1: not incoherent, he's not inarticulate. He's not devoid of intelligence.
Speaker 1: He certainly isn't absent or devoid or oblivious to an
Speaker 1: understanding of policies that affect the United States of America.
Speaker 1: Last time I checked Senator Chris van Holland, he's not
Speaker 1: there to agree with you or to be agreeable to you.
Speaker 1: Their administration one the Democrats laws because you were focused
Speaker 1: on things not like this. You were focused on other
Speaker 1: stuff in an effort to win an election, and as
Speaker 1: a result it cost you. Then have an elected official
Speaker 1: go over to El Salvador to be with Abrego Garcia.
Speaker 1: Forgive me if I don't have his full name in
Speaker 1: front of me. Where were you when Biden was in office?
Speaker 1: Were you willing to go there? All I'm saying is,
Speaker 1: this is Senator Marco Rubio, who is now the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense and is in charge of our national security
Speaker 1: or national intelligence. He's a very influential individual, very experienced,
Speaker 1: knows what goes on, knows the inner workings of Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: He just may now I agree with you and you
Speaker 1: saying that you wouldn't have voted for him. So what.
Speaker 1: I don't like the fact that the Ukraine Russia war
Speaker 1: has not been resolved. I don't like the fact that
Speaker 1: we see pro Palace Indian supporters in the streets of
Speaker 1: America and beyond in an uproar off of the things
Speaker 1: that we're being told is happening over in Gaza and beyond,
Speaker 1: and that hasn't been resolved by the Trump administration. Who
Speaker 1: swear mister Trump himself, who saw up and down President
Speaker 1: Trump himself, who swore up and down we're gonna resolve
Speaker 1: this in a one day, even though we all knew
Speaker 1: that wasn't true. And perhaps whether it's usaid, whether it's
Speaker 1: foreign affairs, no matter what, perhaps we would look at
Speaker 1: them and find down the line they were more wrong
Speaker 1: than right. But I love how we act. Like when
Speaker 1: we lose an election, you got the right to try
Speaker 1: to dictate what the winning party and then winning administration
Speaker 1: elects to do. That's why they're in office and you
Speaker 1: are not. So I just think we need to think
Speaker 1: about those things along those lines and understand what's going
Speaker 1: on here. I think it's important.
Speaker 3: I know this much.
Speaker 1: We want to question the intent of Mark Rubio. He
Speaker 1: works for President Trump. As a subordinate. You might have suggestions,
Speaker 1: and you might have things that you want to do,
Speaker 1: and there we say, you might do things differently, but
Speaker 1: damn it. When you're subordinate, you're subortinate. For a reason,
Speaker 1: he's the boss. President Trump is the boss. Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: has to flow with what he wants. When Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: gets into the presidency, if that ever happens, he might
Speaker 1: do things differently, but as long as he has to
Speaker 1: answer to that man, he's gonna have to capitulate, at
Speaker 1: least to some degree to what the man wants. I
Speaker 1: watch y'all going off about Trump going at the President
Speaker 1: of Ukraine when they were in the office. In the
Speaker 1: Oval office. What's Walko Rubiore supposed to do? Stand up
Speaker 1: and go off to the president right in front of
Speaker 1: the cameras. Y'all are reaching. When you're the subordinate, you
Speaker 1: can make suggestions, but ultimately you have to capitulate to
Speaker 1: the person in charge period. Y'all know that, Which makes
Speaker 1: what was going on yesterday or the other day with
Speaker 1: Van Holland grandstanding and getting back to Jake Tapper, here's
Speaker 1: what I will say, based purely on the Megan Kelly interview,
Speaker 1: not knowing anything else at this particular moment in time
Speaker 1: because I haven't read the book, obviously, If all of
Speaker 1: these assertions are true, it's gonna be real interesting to
Speaker 1: watch the fallout directly involving Jake Tapper because other people
Speaker 1: have been let go for what some would surmise is
Speaker 1: less feel me. I'm just saying it's gonna be really
Speaker 1: interesting to watch what happens. That's it for this edition
Speaker 1: of the Stephen A. Smith show. I got to get
Speaker 1: on out of here, but i'll holler at y'all in
Speaker 1: the next couple of days. Until then, peace and love.
Speaker 1: Everybody be safe. God bless