Speaker 1: Native Lamp Pod is a re production of iHeartRadio in
Speaker 1: partnership with Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, who Welcome home to the Native
Speaker 2: landing on the podcast face that's a for greatness sixteen minutes.
Speaker 2: It's so hit, not too long for the great ship,
Speaker 2: high level combo politics in a way that you could
Speaker 2: taste it then digest it. Politics touches you even if you.
Speaker 3: Don't touch it.
Speaker 2: So get invested across the t's and doctor Odds kill
Speaker 2: them back to get them staying on business with Rie.
Speaker 2: You could have been anywhere, but you chose us Native
Speaker 2: Land Podcast, the brand that you can trust us.
Speaker 1: Welcome Home you guys is episode twenty sixth of Native Lamppod.
Speaker 1: I am your host, Tiffany Cross. So here's my co
Speaker 1: host Andrew Gillum and Angela Rai and right here we
Speaker 1: give it to you like that crown.
Speaker 4: Wow, straight, no chaser. What's going on you guys.
Speaker 3: It's been a billion rady some milk.
Speaker 1: All the changes, the difficulties we had a so just
Speaker 1: so y'all know we've had a lot of technical little
Speaker 1: difficulties today Getting it.
Speaker 4: Ain't nothing but the devil.
Speaker 5: I mean it can be, but he not over here.
Speaker 5: I think the devil don't want us to get this
Speaker 5: truth to all today.
Speaker 4: But we shall be moved. That's gotta be what it is.
Speaker 4: That's gotta be what it.
Speaker 1: Well, we better get into it before before something else happened.
Speaker 4: We didn't have audio issues, video issues.
Speaker 3: So but we still standing, y'all, We still stand.
Speaker 4: But we get up.
Speaker 1: All right, Nick, we fell down. Gonna get us on
Speaker 1: up and drop that beat, all right, you guys. So
Speaker 1: we have a lot to get into. First of all,
Speaker 1: I know y'all wanted to hear from us after the debate,
Speaker 1: but this is our recording schedule. We dropped the day
Speaker 1: that debate happened, and so unfortunately you did not get
Speaker 1: to hear from us. But we're gonna get into the
Speaker 1: fallout from that, which I think is way more important
Speaker 1: on this episode. So Angela, I know because we were
Speaker 1: in group chats and talking about it, this Trump Community case.
Speaker 4: Yes, here's the thing.
Speaker 5: We all knew that this was going to be one
Speaker 5: of these things that was going to happen. But that's
Speaker 5: what happens when you have insurrectionists on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: So we will talk about the Supreme court ruling, the
Speaker 5: opinion that was just brought down yesterday. We're recording a
Speaker 5: day early this week, and we will talk about my
Speaker 5: favorite part as well, the dissenters, because sometimes it's the
Speaker 5: dissenters who preserve.
Speaker 4: The union, so we'll talk about that.
Speaker 5: I'm looking forward to get into this discussion, although I'm
Speaker 5: not excited about what the ruling was at all.
Speaker 3: No, no, what you bring up, yeah, I mean, and
Speaker 3: follow up to this course ruling, I think the stakes
Speaker 3: of this presidential US and it congressional. You list the
Speaker 3: offices and we can talk about its importance. I believe
Speaker 3: they shifted and I love to sort of get into
Speaker 3: Yes there was the debate, Yes there was the poor performance,
Speaker 3: but yes, there is a presidential election at stake, and
Speaker 3: the six couldn't be much higher. We'll get into that,
Speaker 3: all right.
Speaker 1: Before we get into the show, I'm gonna throw it
Speaker 1: back because I got to disappoint you guys. There are
Speaker 1: no sports in the show this week. So I got
Speaker 1: three throwbacks for you that are all sports. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's good. So July sixth, nineteen fifty seven, ALTHEA. Gibson
Speaker 1: became the first black woman to win Wimbledon. July fifth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy five, Arthur Ash became the first black man
Speaker 1: to win with Wimbledon, and July six, two thousand and two,
Speaker 1: Serena Williams defeated Venus to win her first Wimbledon singles title.
Speaker 1: I haven't given you all my tennis knowledge, so there
Speaker 1: you go.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that. That's our little shot, you know.
Speaker 1: I just want to bring the people to sports, because everybody,
Speaker 1: no matter how you feel about anything, everybody like sports, like.
Speaker 4: Me, any who.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get into that too, because now we
Speaker 1: must depress you with a mayor to the beautiful America
Speaker 1: to ghetto.
Speaker 6: Hello Andrew, Hello Tiffany, and hello Angelum. My name is
Speaker 6: Jason Bowman. I am from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Love Native Land podcast,
Speaker 6: and I'm hoping that you guys can answer my question
Speaker 6: because I'm sure, like most Americans, we are confused over
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court ruling in regards to January sixth insurrection.
Speaker 3: So here goes.
Speaker 6: So I'm confused because I would love to know what
Speaker 6: exactly does the Supreme Court mean? Do they mean that
Speaker 6: Donald Trump has immunity over his behavior that basically excited
Speaker 6: the riot? To happen on January sixth. Does this mean
Speaker 6: that he was on official president duty while sitting in
Speaker 6: lame duck status? Does this mean that he's immune from
Speaker 6: all charges? What exactly does this mean? And from my understanding,
Speaker 6: I assume that when the president was taking office that
Speaker 6: they were under oath to protect the constitution. Everything that
Speaker 6: he did on January sixth did not protect the constitution.
Speaker 6: So I'm just confused. What message does this send to
Speaker 6: future presidents of this nation.
Speaker 5: Apparently the Supreme Court is still bon and so, and
Speaker 5: apparently Justice Clarence Thomas is still dropping it like it's
Speaker 5: hot and the bar couldn't be lower. So we have
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court which talked about Donald Trump having immunity.
Speaker 5: We have absolute immunity, which was on the table, and
Speaker 5: presumptive immunity, which was on the table before this particular ruling.
Speaker 4: This court is John Roberts.
Speaker 5: Justice Roberts starts this decision saying that they've never had
Speaker 5: to consider criminal immunity for a president before, and that's
Speaker 5: what was at stake in this particular case. The most
Speaker 5: critical line in the opinion is this, this case is
Speaker 5: the first criminal prosecution in our nation's history. Of a
Speaker 5: former president for actions taken during his presidency.
Speaker 4: Now, you would think with.
Speaker 5: The line like that that they are going to side
Speaker 5: with morality, that they are going to side with a
Speaker 5: president having to be above reproach, kind of like a
Speaker 5: bishop in the Bible. Right, That's not what happens here.
Speaker 5: They instead say that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. Great, right,
Speaker 5: you meet us.
Speaker 4: Where we are. There's no immunity for our.
Speaker 5: Official or unofficial acts, but that there is absolute immunity
Speaker 5: from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and.
Speaker 4: Preclusive constitutional authority. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 5: And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from
Speaker 5: prosecution for all his official acts. That's a lot of
Speaker 5: word salad, but here's the bottom line. Donald Trump, if
Speaker 5: he takes any number of actions, is not going to
Speaker 5: be criminally prosecuted, should not be as the office of
Speaker 5: the president. And many of you have asked, well, this
Speaker 5: applies to Donald Trump, how's it?
Speaker 4: How does it apply to Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: I just want to give you this one, this one
Speaker 5: observation Joe Biden was being uh, they were considering trying
Speaker 5: Joe Biden for a violation of how of handling classified
Speaker 5: documents that particular case. In that particular case, Special Prosecutor
Speaker 5: Richard Hurst says he's too old to be to be
Speaker 5: to be tried on this matter. There should be no
Speaker 5: criminal liability. Well, now under this case doctrine, he couldn't
Speaker 5: be because he's the president and while it was while
Speaker 5: he was officially in office.
Speaker 4: Maybe they could argue because he was a.
Speaker 5: Vice president at the time right that that he didn't
Speaker 5: do anything that he could actually be liable. It is
Speaker 5: interesting to see how this uh philosophy will be will
Speaker 5: come to pass with other officials in a president's cabinet.
Speaker 5: But the thing that's most interesting to me at this point, y'all,
Speaker 5: and we can get it more into the weasis, but
Speaker 5: I want to say, have a conversation, not just a lecture,
Speaker 5: but the thing that I think is interesting about this
Speaker 5: particular case as well is Donald Trump. And this is
Speaker 5: what we've been talking about on this podcast, kind of
Speaker 5: litigating on this podcast. Is Donald Trump using this immunity
Speaker 5: to say, therefore I should not be convicted or sentenced
Speaker 5: on these other counts. As we know, there are eighty
Speaker 5: eight indictments against against Donald Trump. Eighty eight counts thirty
Speaker 5: four he was found guilty of in a New York court.
Speaker 5: He used this case from yesterday, this holding in this case,
Speaker 5: and said I should not be criminally prosecuted. I should
Speaker 5: have never been convicted and I certainly shouldn't be sentenced
Speaker 5: in this New York case because this should apply even
Speaker 5: in state.
Speaker 4: In state matters.
Speaker 5: Well, the verdict of the sentencing is now postponed by
Speaker 5: two weeks. We are supposed to get lucky on seven
Speaker 5: to eleven, not anymore. And now he's saying that this
Speaker 5: should apply. Here's the problem. Donald Trump was not a
Speaker 5: sitting president when this happened. Donald Trump was running for office.
Speaker 5: That is not an official act. So I'm interested to
Speaker 5: see what this judge does. It makes me nervous that
Speaker 5: he's postponed this. But I want y'all to weigh in
Speaker 5: because it's a lot of things that I want and
Speaker 5: I want to get into some of the what IF's
Speaker 5: and ask y'all my pole questions because you know, y'all,
Speaker 5: y'all know we are poland firm.
Speaker 3: Now, well, one, thank you for helping to break that
Speaker 3: down for us Angela. And on the last point, with
Speaker 3: regard to the New York case, he did sign a
Speaker 3: number of the checks while in the White House, and
Speaker 3: apparently in the in the trial there uh, there was
Speaker 3: evidence allowed to be viewed by the jury of public statements,
Speaker 3: public tweets that were administered by the President from the
Speaker 3: White House. And it is now their contention that because
Speaker 3: that now protected and privileged information was allowed to be
Speaker 3: shown to the jury, and some might say, possibly reasonably
Speaker 3: calculated in their in their verdict, that the entire verdict,
Speaker 3: all thirty four counts ought to be vacated. In fact,
Speaker 3: the first chilling effect that occurred yesterday was the US
Speaker 3: Department of Justice in New York was supposed to submit
Speaker 3: their recommendations to the judge privately to the judge around
Speaker 3: around what he should be facing visa vs. Sentencing. They
Speaker 3: did not submit that document to the judges. New York
Speaker 3: States Attorney Yeah, yeah, no, Well, the United States Department
Speaker 3: of Justice Southern District was supposed to submit recommendations. I'm sorry,
Speaker 3: you're right, I apologize. Angelo's Alvin brageah, And they did
Speaker 3: not submit those recommendations to the judge yesterday when they
Speaker 3: were due. Then, as a result, the Alvin Bragg's office
Speaker 3: that we would be in favor of delaying the sentencing
Speaker 3: by two weeks, and the judge, of course has complied.
Speaker 3: But Angela one of the shocking decision in the sense
Speaker 3: that not only did they get it is because it
Speaker 3: is one thing to give Donald Trump what he asked for.
Speaker 3: They went way above and beyond the simple parameters of
Speaker 3: what Donald Trump asked for. In fact, in one of
Speaker 3: the extreme ways, while they said of president, a former
Speaker 3: president can be prosecuted for actions he's taken that are
Speaker 3: of a personal nature. It precludes being shown as submitted
Speaker 3: as evidence any discussions, conversations planning, his method his thinking
Speaker 3: of those actions taken while he was president. They preclude
Speaker 3: a jury from being able to have access to any
Speaker 3: of that information for fear that it may chill the
Speaker 3: bold actions of a president from doing, saying and acting
Speaker 3: as a bold president should. It confused me because there
Speaker 3: was never, ever, ever an argument that presidents are not
Speaker 3: bold and haven't been bold prior to Donald Trump because
Speaker 3: of fear of prosecution. That's never I've never heard that before.
Speaker 3: In fact, we've seen very activists and strong demonstrations of
Speaker 3: individuals in the presidency. In fact, the court said that
Speaker 3: the reason why we have to go so far to
Speaker 3: protect this president and give him immunity so that this decision,
Speaker 3: which is for the ages, doesn't cause us to have
Speaker 3: presidents who are trepidacious about making the kinds of decisions
Speaker 3: that they must make while in office. But that assumption,
Speaker 3: that statement by the Chief Justice assumes that presidents prior
Speaker 3: to Donald Trump, but we're under the suspension that they
Speaker 3: could never be prosecuted, and that can't be right. Let's
Speaker 3: just look at the case of Lyndon B. Johnson and Ford.
Speaker 3: Why would Ford have pardoned I'm sorry, why would Ford
Speaker 3: have parted Nixon if I didn't But but but why
Speaker 3: would he is to pardon to Nixon if there was
Speaker 3: not a reasonable fear that a president could be prosecuted
Speaker 3: for actions that they took in office?
Speaker 5: Of course, and I think when I was even pushing
Speaker 5: back and tip, I love for you to weigh in here,
Speaker 5: when I was pushing back on that, it was shocking.
Speaker 5: I think that there was a part of us that
Speaker 5: kind of knew this was going to happen.
Speaker 4: We saw just based on what this Supreme.
Speaker 5: Court is ruling around reproductive justice, what they've ruled around homelessness,
Speaker 5: what they ruled in Chevron, what they ruled around assault weapons.
Speaker 4: I mean, we can't keep going. I don't know that
Speaker 4: we were really shocked.
Speaker 5: And then of course January sixth itself just last week,
Speaker 5: So I don't know that we were super shocked because
Speaker 5: of the makeup of this court, not because this is
Speaker 5: what this court would do. So Tip, I want you
Speaker 5: to weigh in here, and then I have some you know,
Speaker 5: I got some focused group questions for you.
Speaker 1: Well, I have to say, like, it's so frustrating when
Speaker 1: I have consumed some of the media around this, in
Speaker 1: both print and broadcast, because I do think people are
Speaker 1: so into the weeds that for people out there who wonder, like,
Speaker 1: why do I care about this, this seems like, you know,
Speaker 1: a thousand miles away from me, this is why you
Speaker 1: should care. Essentially, the court, there is no appeal. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, and
Speaker 1: they have essentially given the office of the president free
Speaker 1: reign to do whatever they like. So Donald Trump, were
Speaker 1: he to win another election, could have a political rival assassinated.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, were he to win reelection, could use that
Speaker 1: office to enrich his pockets, which he did the first term.
Speaker 1: I believe Jared and Ivanka made eighty million dollars the
Speaker 1: first year he was in office, and it continued to grow.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget that this is a man who had
Speaker 1: Kislyak Russian operative in the Oval office. What would stop him?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 1: One thing that the one of the attorneys argued, who
Speaker 1: was arguing on Donald Trump's behalf a question that he posed,
Speaker 1: which I thought was legitimate. If we are going to
Speaker 1: allow presidents to be prosecuted, Let's say a president has
Speaker 1: to make the call to have a foreign adversary taken out.
Speaker 1: Could he then later be subject subjected to criminal charges?
Speaker 1: And I thought, well, you know that is a legitimate question.
Speaker 1: Now that they've essentially said you can do whatever you
Speaker 1: want in office, that should give everyone chills because imagine
Speaker 1: what an unhinged, uh politically inept person whose first job
Speaker 1: in government was president of the United States. Imagine what
Speaker 1: he might do or the second term, well, second term.
Speaker 4: No, one second.
Speaker 5: I was just going to say one second on this,
Speaker 5: I want to roll Katanji Brown Jackson's sound from when
Speaker 5: they heard the oral arguments in April, because she raises
Speaker 5: some of the very points in questions or you make
Speaker 5: made them statements as declarations to she raised the best
Speaker 5: questions to Trumps lawyer, let's robe that sound.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning
Speaker 7: the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal
Speaker 7: activity in this country.
Speaker 8: I don't know if there's any allegation of that in
Speaker 8: this case. And what George Washington said is what Benjamin
Speaker 8: Franklin said is we viewed the prosecution of a chief
Speaker 8: executive as something that everybody cried out against is unconstitutional.
Speaker 8: And what George Washington said is we're worried about factional strife,
Speaker 8: which will.
Speaker 7: No I also let me let me let me put
Speaker 7: this worry on the table. If the potential for criminal
Speaker 7: liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a
Speaker 7: significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit
Speaker 7: crimes with abandon while they're in office. It's right now
Speaker 7: the fact that we're having this debate because OLC has
Speaker 7: said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning
Speaker 7: of time have understood that that's a possibility. That might
Speaker 7: be what has kept this office from turning into the
Speaker 7: kind of crime center that I'm envisioning. But once we
Speaker 7: say no criminal liability. Mister President, you can do whatever
Speaker 7: you want. I'm worried that we would have a worse
Speaker 7: problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to
Speaker 7: follow the law while he's in office.
Speaker 5: So I want I wanted to play that clip because,
Speaker 5: as Tiff said, we are very much in the weeds
Speaker 5: on this.
Speaker 4: It is important for me to try to lay out
Speaker 4: how many layers and how detailed they were and meticulous
Speaker 4: they were about showing all of the ways that Trump
Speaker 4: is protected in this role. When we learn Civics, and
Speaker 4: this is the danger of taking textbooks out of schools,
Speaker 4: we learn that the legislative branch makes laws, that the
Speaker 4: judicial branch interprets or evaluates laws, and that the executive
Speaker 4: branch carries out the laws. What they're saying now is
Speaker 4: that the executive branch will make the law, will break
Speaker 4: the law, will take the law, and will do as
Speaker 4: they see fit with the law. That's the point, and
Speaker 4: I think when we look at those pieces, that is very,
Speaker 4: very scary. This isn't about what Donald Trump will do
Speaker 4: in office.
Speaker 5: This is about what anybody elected to the highest office
Speaker 5: of the land can do. And Justice Jackson Kazanji Brown
Speaker 5: Jackson was absolutely right. There are people who would have
Speaker 5: never considered running for office, Tiffany and Andrew, who now
Speaker 5: will consider it because they see it as a way
Speaker 5: to get away with all of the things that they
Speaker 5: never could potentially unless they're a CEO of a big company.
Speaker 5: Some of those folks have been running circles and running
Speaker 5: game for a long time. I'll lie in Ron, but
Speaker 5: I think that we have to really consider what all
Speaker 5: this means. Now you have a court not just turning
Speaker 5: a blind eye, but putting pen to paper.
Speaker 4: To say this is these are the things you can
Speaker 4: do that.
Speaker 5: Even and this was the part that was scary for
Speaker 5: me too. I don't know if this if you all
Speaker 5: saw this, but they talked about the outer perimeter of
Speaker 5: official responsibilities and that outer perimeter it still covers your
Speaker 5: actions as long as they are not manifestly or probably
Speaker 5: beyond his authority. But they go on to say all
Speaker 5: these things that are beyond authority. Clarence Thomas went into
Speaker 5: talking about how you know, even the role of a
Speaker 5: special prosecutor should not be a thing.
Speaker 4: They're perimeter like when you say it, because I mean,
Speaker 4: I'm as basically like yeah, and I don't know either.
Speaker 5: But tip, what I'm saying is they look like what
Speaker 5: it looks like they were doing is like, here are
Speaker 5: these things that are your official responsibilities. Here are these
Speaker 5: things that are like kind of related to your official responsibilities.
Speaker 5: And even if it looks like you were signing the
Speaker 5: checks for the hush money, even though you already made
Speaker 5: some payments in a twenty sixteen campaign, That's what I
Speaker 5: was going to say earlier, Andrew. But if you sign
Speaker 5: the checks because you were sitting in the taxpayer paid
Speaker 5: chair in the oval office, that is the outer perimeter
Speaker 5: of your official responsibility, because you were signing them while
Speaker 5: in aging in the course of other activity. They didn't
Speaker 5: use that example specifically, but I can see that saying
Speaker 5: it's not manifestly or probably beyond his authority, because if
Speaker 5: he were convicted of this, it could be frowned upon
Speaker 5: and looked bad upon by the you know, the rest
Speaker 5: of the world leaders, or it could look bad for
Speaker 5: the country. So because it looked bad for the country,
Speaker 5: we should allow this in as an official activity or
Speaker 5: out of perimeter activity.
Speaker 3: And Angela, I don't think they were opake about that.
Speaker 3: I think they were very clear, which is even if
Speaker 3: it is a act that is non presidential outside of
Speaker 3: your duties and responsibilities, nothing, you can't get any evidence
Speaker 3: gathered from why you were president and support of you
Speaker 3: having broken the laws. So they've made it, they've handicapped.
Speaker 3: They say he can be accountable, but then they handicap
Speaker 3: his responsibility. And I just want to cite a few examples.
Speaker 3: One the Department of Justice, which we all previously fought,
Speaker 3: was the chief attorney on behalf of the United States.
Speaker 3: The court was explicit. In fact, they said all charges
Speaker 3: regarding his conversations and his directions given to the Attorney
Speaker 3: General to take certain actions like a letter saying we
Speaker 3: need to investigate your state and send fake electors or
Speaker 3: send a whole another slate which Donald Trump asked the
Speaker 3: attorney the acting internet a General to do, and he
Speaker 3: refused to do it and say he will resign the court.
Speaker 3: The US Supreme Court said it will be it is
Speaker 3: not permissible for you to account that as a charge
Speaker 3: against the president because the Department of Justice is his
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice and the Attorney General reports to him,
Speaker 3: and the President can give direction, have conversation with the
Speaker 3: Attorney General as well about active investigations, direct who he
Speaker 3: should investigate, Direct who they can bring charges against. All
Speaker 3: of this they have, they have, they have quote in
Speaker 3: the universal unitary Executive, Donald Trump or whomever else may
Speaker 3: come after him. The president can also take a bribe
Speaker 3: for pardoning somebody. Pardon power is exclusively in the jurisdiction
Speaker 3: of president of the United States, which means it is
Speaker 3: a core function, constitutional function, and anything that he does
Speaker 3: regarding pardons cannot be questioned and he cannot be prosecuted.
Speaker 3: So if you went to him to with a million
Speaker 3: dollars and say I give you a million dollars if
Speaker 3: you give me a pardon, that cannot be prosecuted in office,
Speaker 3: out of office, no day of the week.
Speaker 5: And that's absolute immunity too. So pardoning if he does
Speaker 5: anything associated with partner, that's absolute immunity. Anything associated with
Speaker 5: any member of his cabinet that he wants to remove
Speaker 5: because he's trying to break the law, absolute immunity. But
Speaker 5: there's presumptive immunity for pressuring Mike Pence to reject the
Speaker 5: state's electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures.
Speaker 5: So I don't understand they're saying that because it's an
Speaker 5: official act, but it's not associated specifically with his constitutional
Speaker 5: powers that that is presumptive, it is presumed that he
Speaker 5: would be immune from this, but absolute for anything that
Speaker 5: is that is written and enshrined in the Constitution. So
Speaker 5: I want to ask you all, based on what you've
Speaker 5: seen from this Supreme Court, if you think they will
Speaker 5: try to expand this doctrine to qualified immunity, where that,
Speaker 5: of course you know, has been in debate and in
Speaker 5: hot contention around law enforcement and police in this country.
Speaker 5: Do you think that they will try to extend this
Speaker 5: doctrine to police officers who are pursuing qualified immunity for shooting,
Speaker 5: killing injuring us And.
Speaker 1: Just to explain to the listeners, qualified immunity, is it
Speaker 1: basically you're shielded from.
Speaker 3: Your actions that you're taking your capacity as a law.
Speaker 5: Enforcement from from yes, from being civilly serious, so any
Speaker 5: civil liability, and in some instances it is extended to
Speaker 5: criminal liability.
Speaker 3: Sure no, they operate in my state, at least under
Speaker 3: the cloak of of immunity from prosecution through anything that
Speaker 3: they do in the in the in the course of
Speaker 3: their work as a law enforcement officer, civil criminal I
Speaker 3: honestly tell you, Angela, I wish I could even get
Speaker 3: to that concern. I mean, I in so many ways
Speaker 3: it's already been extended, if not, if not in black
Speaker 3: and white, certainly in practice. Remember our friend Marilyn Moseby
Speaker 3: one of the very first about the first prosecutor to
Speaker 3: take these law enforcement officers on. And that's not because
Speaker 3: they've never done anything wrong before. It's because the norms
Speaker 3: of society say that you can't you know that it
Speaker 3: is that it's beyond the pale, you can't pursue them
Speaker 3: in that way. But this, honestly, this.
Speaker 5: This is, this is in writing as the law now though,
Speaker 5: So I'm wondering, kids, this is now going to be
Speaker 5: extended like you cannot write. So that's what I'm curious about, Like, yeah,
Speaker 5: if we and I know, we got to take a break,
Speaker 5: I know we gotta take a break. But I want
Speaker 5: to know, do we think it's going to be extended
Speaker 5: to captains? Do we think it'll be extended to mayors
Speaker 5: and governors? Do we I think this would be extended
Speaker 5: to other people on the federal level, But do we
Speaker 5: think that this same.
Speaker 4: The same letter of the.
Speaker 5: Law, interpretation of the law well, and really the making
Speaker 5: of a brand new law will be extended to other
Speaker 5: folks who are acting on behalf of the government in
Speaker 5: these roles, or is it only going to be the president.
Speaker 1: No, I think the Court has already proven that they
Speaker 1: they know no bounds with the egregiousness of some of
Speaker 1: these decisions that they issue. I would say, though, specifically
Speaker 1: to your question around qualified immunity as it relates to officers,
Speaker 1: my understanding is that would only extend to federal officers,
Speaker 1: which is why we always talk about the first step.
Speaker 1: Act needs a second step and a third step. I
Speaker 1: think in terms of shielding law enforcement officers who are
Speaker 1: not federal police, that would have to happen at the
Speaker 1: local level, like you know, like the state rights Ye,
Speaker 1: state supreme courts. I'm just talking about Yeah, But I
Speaker 1: but I think the question you're raising is a legitimate point.
Speaker 4: I understand your question.
Speaker 1: I'm making a different point and that if that has
Speaker 1: to happen like at the state supreme court level. And
Speaker 1: that is also a potential challenge because while we pay
Speaker 1: so much attention to the Supreme Court, before something makes
Speaker 1: it to the Supreme Court, they've gone through the lower
Speaker 1: courts first, So it's even more I think a reason
Speaker 1: to pay attention to those down ballot issues that are
Speaker 1: on that are on the ballot when when you're voting
Speaker 1: for something, because I can see particularly in the state
Speaker 1: like Florida that Andrew was talking about, where we absolutely
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis could do something like that. You think about
Speaker 1: red states like Alabama Governor k Ivy and already the
Speaker 1: abysmal decisions that she's made, especially when it comes around
Speaker 1: criminal justice in prisons Mississippi with Tate Reeves like, I
Speaker 1: can't even imagine where this might go.
Speaker 3: So yes, I think they already started rolling back that.
Speaker 3: Taken to your point, states have already in this legislative
Speaker 3: session have already preempted the Court by laying down law
Speaker 3: in the states that are shredding doctrines around ethics, around
Speaker 3: being able to be prosecuted for what they do in
Speaker 3: their office. So this, this is a steping that to Angela,
Speaker 3: now that I understand your question better, the Court said
Speaker 3: that in the executive branch, the executive branch is the
Speaker 3: President of the United States, singularly, that the Congress has
Speaker 3: four foun nd and thirty five members. The Court has
Speaker 3: nine members. And thousands of judges underneath it. But in
Speaker 3: this case, what makes him so exceptional is that he
Speaker 3: alone is the executive branch. So as it relates to
Speaker 3: extending immunity to officers, people who work with under him,
Speaker 3: cabinet members, so on, and so forth, that's off the table.
Speaker 3: But what isn't off the table is that the president
Speaker 3: can direct them to take an action, and he can
Speaker 3: then immediately part them, immediately pardon them from any future prosecution.
Speaker 5: Or anyone he deputizes, which some of that is enshrined
Speaker 5: in the Constitution, which is absolute immunity, and any other
Speaker 5: official act again is that presumed immunity.
Speaker 4: I know we're over time.
Speaker 5: To take a break, so we hit this brake, and
Speaker 5: I do want to make sure we hear a question.
Speaker 5: We have a I'm gonna say, but maybe that's gonna
Speaker 5: being at the top. I skipped over that I was
Speaker 5: ready to jump.
Speaker 1: We're going to pay some bills. But when we come
Speaker 1: back on the other side, we want to bring you
Speaker 1: into the conversation. And this is a reminder please remember
Speaker 1: to keep submitting your videos. We want to make sure
Speaker 1: that this is a confrehensive conversation that involves our listeners.
Speaker 1: So on the other side of this break, we're gonna
Speaker 1: hear from one of our favorite viewers, Phoebe. She's got
Speaker 1: a question, so we'll see you on the other side.
Speaker 9: Phoebe Smith, California. Welcome home, y'all. I love saying that
Speaker 9: inspirational Angela that you thought about that. I loved the
Speaker 9: last segment where y'all were talking about the poll question. Hilarious.
Speaker 9: I was clapping my hands in laughter.
Speaker 6: So good.
Speaker 9: And I love how Andrew can keep his self together
Speaker 9: and sustain himself in a room of women rolling their
Speaker 9: eyes to the back of their head because they think
Speaker 9: he's missing the point when he's the one who understands
Speaker 9: the point right, which is we have to value ourselves
Speaker 9: higher than they value us.
Speaker 4: And that's what he was standing on. I love that
Speaker 4: and he did it with tin toes.
Speaker 2: Love it.
Speaker 9: This is my question, y'all, what are the true basic
Speaker 9: values of Republicans and why would any Republican ever think
Speaker 9: that they are sustaining values that would support and speak
Speaker 9: to the needs of all community members in America. What
Speaker 9: were those values and how would they ever possibly serve
Speaker 9: Black people? Thanks y'all, love.
Speaker 4: The show and out so you should probably jump in
Speaker 4: there and answer her question.
Speaker 3: I would, first of all, Phebe, thank you and thank
Speaker 3: you for your support and love for the show. We
Speaker 3: love you back, welcome home.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 5: The truth is this is probably I not be rolling
Speaker 5: my eyes and my brother, Oh.
Speaker 3: No, I should be punching menab But I'm joking. I'm
Speaker 3: I'm joking. But it's all love here. We're siblings. We're siblings.
Speaker 3: It's all love. But I will say, you know what.
Speaker 5: Welcome home y'all? Was you welcome home? The whole home
Speaker 5: idea is you?
Speaker 4: That is not I can't claim credit for that.
Speaker 5: So since you love Andrew so much, Phoebe, it was
Speaker 5: actually Andrew's welcome home y'all.
Speaker 3: Oh, I thought it just organically kept like welcome home, y'all,
Speaker 3: and it just stuck right we're in Atlanta. But anyway,
Speaker 3: I don't know about you, Tiff and angel Love. Maybe
Speaker 3: twenty years ago I could have given a more cogent
Speaker 3: response to what Republicans stand for, even if I disagreed.
Speaker 3: There's just none of that these days. I think, from
Speaker 3: top to bottom, the party right now it's composed of sickophants,
Speaker 3: and it's not just the party it is now bled
Speaker 3: it's way and deeply ensconced itself and what was supposed
Speaker 3: to be the justices blind right aspect of our constitution,
Speaker 3: the judiciary, and at the highest levels this court has
Speaker 3: been bought, paid for, and delivered by Donald Trump, the thief,
Speaker 3: Mitch McConnell, and all of their Republican culprits in the
Speaker 3: United States Senate who stole to US Supreme Court justice
Speaker 3: seats and now have seated on this court six conservatives
Speaker 3: against three constitutionalists. And I think it's a damn shame,
Speaker 3: and I think for those of us who have been
Speaker 3: trepidacious about this upcoming election, I don't think the stakes
Speaker 3: can be any clearer than what they are right now.
Speaker 3: Our freedoms, our very democracy is at stake thanks to
Speaker 3: a court that is on the take, unethical, unconstitutional, creates
Speaker 3: new law out of whole cloth. Thank you Katanji Brown
Speaker 3: Jackson and Justice Sonya Soda Mayor for pointing that out
Speaker 3: in your dissents this week. I'm aggrieved, and I hope
Speaker 3: everybody out there feels agreed by the fact that, No,
Speaker 3: it wasn't a great debate for Joe Biden the other day,
Speaker 3: but y'all. One of the men on that stage at
Speaker 3: least told the truth. The other win for ninety minutes
Speaker 3: told straight lies period. Enough said, and if nothing else
Speaker 3: motivates us, let the idea that Donald Trump can choose
Speaker 3: to go after any one of us and prosecute us
Speaker 3: and never ever have to answer for why it is
Speaker 3: that he started a prosecution against us. And some people say, well,
Speaker 3: you don't lose your constitutional right, you can still fight
Speaker 3: it in court. Well, guess what, Try to remake your
Speaker 3: life after you've been drugg through the damn gutter defending
Speaker 3: yourself against the government of the United States of America.
Speaker 3: Because that's the seal that the man carries by his
Speaker 3: name when he's president. It is him the United States
Speaker 3: government versus little old us. And there are no limits
Speaker 3: to this dude. When he has unchecked, unfettered, unaccountable power,
Speaker 3: He's coming for all of us, y'all. So you know what,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden can be sleepy on some days, he can
Speaker 3: be lame, on some days, he can be sharp and gregarious,
Speaker 3: and I'm going on other days, I'll take him and
Speaker 3: his administration any day over one day, one hour, one minute,
Speaker 3: one second of Donald Trump and that White House again
Speaker 3: being able to wreck havoc not over only our democracy,
Speaker 3: but over any one of us that he chooses to.
Speaker 3: The stakes are just that high this week. And petty
Speaker 3: conversation about little stuff I don't have time for.
Speaker 5: Anymore, you know, I think the piece about the debate,
Speaker 5: I don't think is petty. But it just feels like
Speaker 5: the both like on both sides, not Donald Trump both sides,
Speaker 5: but on both sides it feels like there are two
Speaker 5: different they're operating in two different universes. So we know,
Speaker 5: like with Donald Trump, it's like the end of all democracy,
Speaker 5: and on Joe Biden's side, like people who say legitimately
Speaker 5: like we really ain't got nobody else, Like I understand
Speaker 5: the sentiment, and also, yeah, we really ain't got nobody
Speaker 5: else at this point, like no candidate is willing to
Speaker 5: challenge it. But I think one of the things I
Speaker 5: appreciated earlier, at least in our pre pro call Andrews,
Speaker 5: you were talking about there are some solutions, there are
Speaker 5: some things that the people could do to make sure
Speaker 5: that we don't just stay stuck Tiff in our gloom
Speaker 5: and doom and like just you.
Speaker 4: Know, God, now I'm America, Like, we just don't stay there?
Speaker 4: So what do we do to not stay there? Andrew?
Speaker 4: You got to bring us home and welcome us home, y'all.
Speaker 3: We got to figure this some of those thoughts. But
Speaker 3: if I wanted to just throw it back to you
Speaker 3: our hostel today, whether or not you had other, you know,
Speaker 3: thoughts to offer, just on this, this this idea, I
Speaker 3: think well.
Speaker 4: To her question.
Speaker 1: And I'm kind of stealing this from you, Andrew, because
Speaker 1: you say this all the time. But we have to
Speaker 1: stop talking about the Republican Party like it's a separate
Speaker 1: entity from Donald Trump. There is no Republican Party. There
Speaker 1: is only the Maga party now. And I think it's
Speaker 1: important to address how we got here because so many
Speaker 1: people have been given a pass, you know, like Donald
Speaker 1: Trump just came on the scene and changed everything. That
Speaker 1: is not true. The devil is a lie. This is
Speaker 1: the only Republican Party we have ever known. Ronald Reagan,
Speaker 1: George H. Bush, George HW.
Speaker 4: Bush.
Speaker 1: They may have been more articulate and less clumsy and
Speaker 1: what they said, but their policies were just as damaging
Speaker 1: and we are still They've rippled through generations and time
Speaker 1: and destroyed generations of black and brown folks in this
Speaker 1: country and poor white people. We've all been impacted by this.
Speaker 1: And so even the people the never trumpers, You'll know,
Speaker 1: a lot of these people voted just like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: They just don't like the way he presents himself. So
Speaker 1: you have to ask him, do you not like him
Speaker 1: as a person or do you not like his policies?
Speaker 1: Because the battle we've been fighting has always been on
Speaker 1: a policy side of things, less so than the politics
Speaker 1: side of things.
Speaker 4: So you know, I.
Speaker 1: Don't think the Republicans have values anymore. Their value seem
Speaker 1: to be whatever Donald Trump's values are. And he recognized
Speaker 1: that he could tap into a base by saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you're losing because they're winning and they look like you
Speaker 1: and me. And I'm here to tell y'all, we ain't winning.
Speaker 1: We are still very much in a battle, buying battles
Speaker 1: our grandparents fought. So I get a little frustrated with
Speaker 1: the media trying to sanitize some people. I mean, you
Speaker 1: see people who worked for the insurrections alongside the insurrections
Speaker 1: taking up space on cable news panels, writing books, appearing
Speaker 1: on Dancing with the Stars like it's all good, And
Speaker 1: we have to remind the folks that Frankenstein's my brother
Speaker 1: Michael Eric Dyson says frank Ztein was the doctor.
Speaker 4: He was not the monster.
Speaker 1: So every single person who was ever a part of
Speaker 1: this Republican party, you are the doctor that created this
Speaker 1: monster and now you're being cannibalized.
Speaker 3: That's real. And angela intitive to your point around moving
Speaker 3: forward and what folks can do, particularly around this issue
Speaker 3: of the courts. One I just got to underscore you
Speaker 3: can't separate the courts from the presidency. The president makes
Speaker 3: those appointments to the federal judiciary and those are confirmed
Speaker 3: or not by the US by the United States Senate.
Speaker 3: So to the point of the US Senate, the president
Speaker 3: by himself can't get the kind of sweeping change that
Speaker 3: we want to see. It matters that we compete for
Speaker 3: and we work for candidates who are supportive of in
Speaker 3: the US Senate in the US Senate contests. And just
Speaker 3: to give you some information, the last I think it's
Speaker 3: fifteen of the last eighteen appointments to the United States
Speaker 3: Supreme Court have been Republican appointees. Fifteen of the last
Speaker 3: eighteen have been Republican presidential appointees that have been confirmed
Speaker 3: to the High Court, even though Democrats, progressive, liberals, whatever
Speaker 3: you want to call call it, represent forty million more
Speaker 3: residents of the United States and the US Senate. So
Speaker 3: how do we get here. We have a system that
Speaker 3: is disproportionately disempowering states that are more diverse, states where
Speaker 3: black folks and brown folks are living, paying their taxes
Speaker 3: without the kind of equitable representation that we deserve and
Speaker 3: that we need in Washington. And the fallout from that
Speaker 3: is that they're able to make last stands like what
Speaker 3: we've seen happen at the Supreme Court, and even worse
Speaker 3: in other decisions because they're unchecked. Mitch mccona can still
Speaker 3: a seat and never have to pay the consequence of
Speaker 3: what that's like. And so let's presume we get the
Speaker 3: White House hold the Senate and get the House Democrats.
Speaker 3: My suggestion, and this has come forth through other people's
Speaker 3: voices as well, need to enlarge the United States Supreme
Speaker 3: Court to thirteen members, add four new appointments to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court that a Democrat Joe Biden, will appoint and
Speaker 3: that a Democratic Senate will confirm and move forward after
Speaker 3: they abolish the filibuster, and then they ought to incorporate
Speaker 3: term limits for the United States Supreme Court. That way,
Speaker 3: a Clarence Thomas and his grift and his take and
Speaker 3: his lavish vacations and millions and millions of dollars and
Speaker 3: gifts can't ever get so comfortable on a court without
Speaker 3: recognizing that he's got to be accountable at the end
Speaker 3: of the day on the other side of that term.
Speaker 3: And guess what, even though they are lifetime appointments, it
Speaker 3: doesn't say a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: It is to the court. And so they can spend
Speaker 3: eighteen years on the US Supreme Court and then go
Speaker 3: into service under a lower federal court and continue for
Speaker 3: the rest of their lives until their force retirement or
Speaker 3: their voluntary retirement or demise.
Speaker 4: This is awesome, Trew.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I was just going to say really quickly sometimes
Speaker 5: as Typic was saying earlier, and I do think it's
Speaker 5: important for us to always remember this because we live,
Speaker 5: eat and breathe this that we are in the.
Speaker 4: Weeds a lot.
Speaker 5: Like just show how practical what you're saying is thirty
Speaker 5: four of the United States Senates one hundred seats are
Speaker 5: up for election this election year in November on November
Speaker 5: twenty four, or thirty four of those seats. Two of
Speaker 5: them are special elections, but thirty four of those seats
Speaker 5: are up for grabs.
Speaker 4: Most of them are Democratic seats, that's right.
Speaker 5: So it's about preserving what is already existing. Hopefully these
Speaker 5: folks vote in alignment with your values and also working
Speaker 5: to fight back against Republican senators who have not represented
Speaker 5: your best interest in values and expanding the court is
Speaker 5: absolutely something Congress can do, and.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to. I want to give an example,
Speaker 3: some examples of things that can happen as a result
Speaker 3: of us having voted, because some folks may throw up
Speaker 3: their hands and say, all right, the Supreme Court aside it.
Speaker 3: What are we going to do about it? What can
Speaker 3: a new democratic president do about it? What can it
Speaker 3: do a Democratic Congress do about it? There are a
Speaker 3: lot of things that can be done about it, but
Speaker 3: it can't happen unless we sweep, unless we sweek this thing,
Speaker 3: and that requires our full put to disipation in the process.
Speaker 3: A lot is being said about Joe Biden. Obviously it's
Speaker 3: the top of the ticket, but I make these comments
Speaker 3: out of a plea for folks to see that it's
Speaker 3: not just the presidency that we've got to be concerned about.
Speaker 3: You can't sent a president in there and then handicap
Speaker 3: him with the left and the right hand tie behind
Speaker 3: their back because we didn't then vote for the US
Speaker 3: Senate and the US House. I want to just quickly
Speaker 3: name check these states, and then I'm off West Virginia.
Speaker 3: I don't know who all in West Virginia, but you
Speaker 3: all have a Senate seat that is now occupied by
Speaker 3: a Democrat that is likely going to go allegedly, well
Speaker 3: anyway another time.
Speaker 6: He is.
Speaker 3: He's an independent of caucuses with the Democrats, which is
Speaker 3: how we're still able to hold the allegedly well, he
Speaker 3: may not vote with us all the time, but he
Speaker 3: does caucus with with the Democrats.
Speaker 4: Allegedly.
Speaker 3: Okay. In Maryland, a lot of y'all are in Maryland.
Speaker 3: We have the former governor of Maryland who is also
Speaker 3: running and has made this now a closer contest Democrats,
Speaker 3: black folk folk period. There. We've got to organized, organized,
Speaker 3: organized to ensure that that seat in Maryland, that Senate
Speaker 3: seat remains in Democratic hands.
Speaker 4: Angela also also.
Speaker 3: Brooks the county executive. Which county is it? County Arizona?
Speaker 3: Current independent holds that seat, retiring caucuses of the Democrat retiring.
Speaker 3: That seat is now open, y'all. Remember that?
Speaker 10: Uh uh.
Speaker 3: Wild right? Huhga, Yes, but I was trying to think
Speaker 3: of Kerry Lake who he is running against. You remember
Speaker 3: the wild Carry Lake who just went crazy over Trump. Well,
Speaker 3: ran for governor of the least election Denier and is
Speaker 3: running for the US Senate. That is a seat that
Speaker 3: we have got to compete for. We got a whole Michigan, Michigan, Michigan, y'all.
Speaker 3: Debbie stabbing Ow is out, she's leaving, she's retired. That
Speaker 3: seat is an open contest. Michigan is a close state.
Speaker 3: Pennsylvania Senator Casey is up for re elections Bob Casey
Speaker 3: Junior in Pennsylvania another closely contested state. We got to
Speaker 3: show up there, y'all. Wisconsin, I know we in Wisconsin,
Speaker 3: Tammy Baldwin, incumbent Democrat, up very close race. We need
Speaker 3: us there. Montana. I don't know who all out there, y'all,
Speaker 3: but if you're out there, we need you to show up.
Speaker 3: We need you to count Nevada not to be confused
Speaker 3: with Nevada. There is a competitive US Senate seat organized
Speaker 3: get connected, plug in there, and then last and certainly
Speaker 3: not least Ohio Share It Brown sitting incumbent. But Ohio
Speaker 3: is the state the Democrats in the presidential column lost
Speaker 3: by double digits. We have got to, got to got
Speaker 3: to hold that seat for a Senator Shared Brown, who
Speaker 3: for some reason, strange reason, is an alien there because
Speaker 3: he has been able to win reelection even when his
Speaker 3: state has gone wildly for Donald Trump and presidential contest.
Speaker 3: Those are the states that are are are seemingly most
Speaker 3: consequential to Democrats holding onto the US Senate. Y'all, I
Speaker 3: hope you'll plug in, and we'll plug in our in
Speaker 3: our analysis of this episode. Some sites that you can
Speaker 3: visit three sixty five, five thirty eight Cook Political Report.
Speaker 3: There are a number of others that you can visit
Speaker 3: and learn which seats in the House as well as
Speaker 3: in the Senate are competitive that you can plug in
Speaker 3: to help out.
Speaker 5: If I could just say really quickly, right now, the
Speaker 5: House Republicans have a very very very slim majority to
Speaker 5: nineteen to Democrats two thirteen, and there's a vac there
Speaker 5: are vacancy possible.
Speaker 4: Possible to flips.
Speaker 5: Of course, four hundred and thirty five total voting members.
Speaker 5: If the House flips, it is likely that Hakim Jeffries
Speaker 5: would become speaker. So again, this is all about turnout,
Speaker 5: and it's about turnout down ballot. We often talk about voting,
Speaker 5: but we don't always talk about voting in off your elections.
Speaker 5: It matters during midterms, it matters during presidentials, and it
Speaker 5: matters not to just fill in that circle on that
Speaker 5: top of that ballot. It matters to go all the
Speaker 5: way down ballot for initiatives in your community. Council members, mayors,
Speaker 5: county commissioners. Andrew was both a county commissioner and he
Speaker 5: was a mayor, and he should have been governor. I
Speaker 5: maintained that we'll talk about that on another bitty pot
Speaker 5: when we're ready. But I think that what we need
Speaker 5: to understand and there's is there so much at stake.
Speaker 5: I'm talking through what should be a break, and so
Speaker 5: we shall toss to this break.
Speaker 1: We gotta pay some bills. But on the other side
Speaker 1: of this break, we're bringing you back into the conversation.
Speaker 1: We have another viewer question, and this time we're hearing
Speaker 1: from Breonte, so don't go anywhere. We'll see you on
Speaker 1: the other side.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome.
Speaker 10: Hey, good day Native Land family. Hey, I got a
Speaker 10: quick question for y'all. You know names Breontam from Texas
Speaker 10: in Dallas texts to be specific. Uh, but my question
Speaker 10: for y'all is, you know, last night, you know, we
Speaker 10: watched Jamaal Bowman taking al last night in New York
Speaker 10: and it's really frustrating to watch because Jamal Bowman, you know,
Speaker 10: he represents the best of us.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 10: He represents everything that needs to be in DC fight
Speaker 10: for changes that we want to see. My question is,
Speaker 10: what is it that we need to be doing as
Speaker 10: black people. Rather it's contributing our dollars or putting our
Speaker 10: attention towards, what do we need to be doing to
Speaker 10: make sure we're protecting representatives or senators or whoever. Politicians
Speaker 10: that are like jamalro Bowman, that are there fighting so
Speaker 10: they won't fill alone. So when they do have these challenges,
Speaker 10: these primary primary challengers, but they're able to with stand
Speaker 10: against all the money that's being thrown black folks.
Speaker 6: We have some.
Speaker 10: Of the highest spending power in the world, but we
Speaker 10: don't seem to have a collective situation to when it
Speaker 10: comes to making sure our dollars come together. So what
Speaker 10: is it that we can be doing or building to
Speaker 10: make sure we're getting to that point to where you know,
Speaker 10: Apek was funded well funded by Jewish and others.
Speaker 3: What can we do to get to that point?
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 10: Appreciate y'all, thanks for taking a question. Also a little
Speaker 10: man back. Yeah, thanks y'all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, came over from the Baby. I love it, and
Speaker 1: I love that question. I think it's such a good
Speaker 1: question because so many people. I think when we present
Speaker 1: information sometimes people can feel blanketed. They don't you know
Speaker 1: fully I know I feel that way. I don't fully
Speaker 1: grasp you know, all these acronyms and inside baseball talk,
Speaker 1: and so you can feel just like, if I'm being
Speaker 1: asked to care about everything, it's easy to care about nothing.
Speaker 4: So I really appreciate that question.
Speaker 1: And I'm stealing this from Angela when we were in
Speaker 1: Miami at our first stop on our Native Land tour
Speaker 1: and we were talking about being tired, and Angela, you
Speaker 1: made the point like if you're sitting next to someone like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're all tired, but maybe someone else isn't tired in
Speaker 1: the same way. You know, maybe you're tired of hearing information,
Speaker 1: maybe you're tired of canvas and whatever that is. So
Speaker 1: I would say every little bit helps. If everyone does
Speaker 1: a little, no one has to do a lot. If
Speaker 1: you have the financial resources, fund a candidate that speaks
Speaker 1: to your interests, your issues. If you don't have the
Speaker 1: financial resources, show up. There's always bodies need a canvas.
Speaker 1: You can knock door to door. If you don't have
Speaker 1: financial resources and you don't have time capacity learn, be informed,
Speaker 1: share responsibly. You can post something on social media from
Speaker 1: a reputable source that you have personally looked at and
Speaker 1: you understand this information to be true and it's verified.
Speaker 1: Be sure that you're sharing responsibly. Vote obviously, we always
Speaker 1: say that, but show up on election day and make
Speaker 1: your voice heard, and not just during presidential election years.
Speaker 1: And I will be honest, I have challenges to votevoing
Speaker 1: in some of those off year elections where it might
Speaker 1: just be a ballid initiative that accounts or a special election.
Speaker 4: But those are all.
Speaker 1: Just some basic things that you can do. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure my co hosts have thoughts I haven't even thought of.
Speaker 3: I just want to plug collective Pack as an avenue
Speaker 3: of concentrating our giving power, multiplying our giving power so
Speaker 3: that resources can go to progressive black and brown candidates,
Speaker 3: or in the case of Collective you know, concentrating on
Speaker 3: black candidates who are running particularly for these higher offices
Speaker 3: that people never give a shot to, but because they
Speaker 3: can come in with real resources, our collective resources, it
Speaker 3: can make a real big difference. So look them up.
Speaker 3: Collective Pack.
Speaker 1: Oh, just to clarify for the listeners really quickly, Collective
Speaker 1: pack pack as a political action committee. Collective Pack is
Speaker 1: something that's run by a husband and wife couple, Stephanie
Speaker 1: Brown James and Clinton James, and they raise money for
Speaker 1: candidates running.
Speaker 4: At the federal level.
Speaker 1: I'd imagine they're probably similar organizations for people running at
Speaker 1: the state and low And if there isn't something like
Speaker 1: this that exists at the state and local level in
Speaker 1: your area, then be that started. You know, make sure
Speaker 1: you look up those campaign finance laws. But if you
Speaker 1: don't see what you need, then created sorry.
Speaker 3: Support at this by the way they do for correct
Speaker 3: and its Collective pack dot org. I'm sorry. I had
Speaker 3: to look it up real quick collective.
Speaker 5: And there are some additional packs as well. Of course,
Speaker 5: shout out to Quentin and Stephanie, we see we love y'all, like,
Speaker 5: thank you for the work that you do every single day.
Speaker 5: There's also Higher Heights, there's Black pack, and then the
Speaker 5: CBC pack, which just so you all know, I do
Speaker 5: sit on that board. I want to just acknowledge some
Speaker 5: of the other pieces that Brionte raised in his question.
Speaker 5: So one of the things that I heard in Brionta's
Speaker 5: question is something that we didn't get to and we
Speaker 5: talked about Jamal Bowman last week. Sometimes what we have
Speaker 5: to know it and I'm so glad that he talked
Speaker 5: about with black folks can do with our dollars, how
Speaker 5: we can support our candidates. We talked about some of
Speaker 5: those packs, and I'm thanking him for thrusting us right
Speaker 5: into the heart of our calls to action for this week.
Speaker 5: But I was really frustrated by the need for Hillary
Speaker 5: Clinton to get involved with this primary contest. You will
Speaker 5: see overwhelmingly a number of packs, including where there are
Speaker 5: incumbents involved.
Speaker 4: The CBC, even.
Speaker 5: When there is a black primary challenger, will often not
Speaker 5: get involved when the incumbent is one of their housemates,
Speaker 5: it's somebody that is one of their colleagues.
Speaker 4: And so even though Hillary Clinton did.
Speaker 5: Not serve with Jamal Bowman, I am hard pressed to
Speaker 5: understand why she felt the need to engage in this
Speaker 5: race when there are the Joe Manchins of the world,
Speaker 5: when there are the Curesten Cinemas of the world, and
Speaker 5: I have not heard her say anything about challenging them,
Speaker 5: or of course Cinema's out now, but I haven't heard
Speaker 5: the need for them to push back on these folks,
Speaker 5: and that rhetoric is one single issue so important for
Speaker 5: you to undermine history. Right, this is a black member
Speaker 5: that may get that got the CBC over fifty to
Speaker 5: sixty members when we are finally seeing representation. The same
Speaker 5: CBC that ensured that you had an opportunity right had
Speaker 5: a credible run in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4: So it is beyond me that she would get involved.
Speaker 5: And I think that my call to action here would
Speaker 5: be that we always remember that our actions don't always align.
Speaker 4: Just because we.
Speaker 5: May align in how we vote or what policy priorities
Speaker 5: we have based on party, sometimes our interests collide and
Speaker 5: it is okay for us to represent and protect our
Speaker 5: interests even when they are not aligned with people who
Speaker 5: we may look up to, with people who we may
Speaker 5: have supported, with people who we may have ended, and
Speaker 5: with folks we may have even donated to. I also
Speaker 5: don't think it is it is it is it is
Speaker 5: unnecessary for us to remind them of where their loyalties
Speaker 5: should and must lie when we did stand with them
Speaker 5: when we didn't have to. And I think that that
Speaker 5: will be how we get to the other side of
Speaker 5: recognizing and harnessing our collective black political power.
Speaker 1: I feel like we've given some calls to action, but
Speaker 1: we it's that time and the show where we give
Speaker 1: calls to action. So you guys want to go first
Speaker 1: and give one or you feel like you already gave yours.
Speaker 3: I know this was a dense that was mine.
Speaker 4: Brionta thrusted me into mind. I'm good, Okay, A.
Speaker 3: More dense and substantive uh you know, pod And sometimes
Speaker 3: these things can be heavy. But I trust your intelligence.
Speaker 3: I don't want to underestimate based off the questions that
Speaker 3: you all asked, the way the various specifics that you
Speaker 3: already know, you've picked up, you've read, you've looked at
Speaker 3: that this isn't too heavy for any one of us
Speaker 3: to carry our own respective pieces. And so I'll just
Speaker 3: you know, just my ass would be. While it feels
Speaker 3: like sometimes like we're breathing down of fire hose, please
Speaker 3: resist the urge to check out, to tune out, to
Speaker 3: turn the page. In fact, I think oftentimes people in
Speaker 3: higher office and power and positions of influence, they want
Speaker 3: you to check out. They want to say this is
Speaker 3: too hard, They want you to feel like you don't
Speaker 3: have the brain capacity to take it all in. I
Speaker 3: know different, I trust different, I believe different, and so
Speaker 3: I'm never gonna I'm never gonna talk down to you
Speaker 3: and talk at you and with you in conversation and
Speaker 3: the way that I would anyone else who I believe
Speaker 3: to be interested in these kinds of subjects. And just
Speaker 3: thank you for your support of Native Land and allow
Speaker 3: us to hopefully bring you yes some fun as then
Speaker 3: as we can, but also as much as we can
Speaker 3: the real the substance.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you guys for tuning in. Before we
Speaker 1: end the show, I want to let you all know
Speaker 1: remind you to please leave a review, subscribe to native
Speaker 1: Land Pod. We're available on out all platforms and YouTube.
Speaker 1: New episodes drop every Thursday. You can also follow us
Speaker 1: on social media. We are Tiffany Cross, Angel Riot Angie Gillum.
Speaker 1: Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 4: There are one hundred and twenty five days the election day.
Speaker 2: Thank you for joining the Natives. Attention to what the
Speaker 2: info and all of the latest rock gulum and cross
Speaker 2: connected to the statements that you leave on our socials.
Speaker 2: Thank you sincerely for the patients. Reason for your choice
Speaker 2: is clear, So grateful it took to execute roads. Thank
Speaker 2: you for serve, defend and protect the truth, even if PA.
Speaker 2: We welcome home to all of the Natives wait, Thank you,
Speaker 2: Welcome y'all.
Speaker 3: Welcome.
Speaker 4: Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership
Speaker 4: with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 4: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 4: your favorite shows.