The Long Game feat. Elie Mystal

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Native Lampid is a production of iHeart Radio and partnership
with Reason Choice Media. Welcome home, y'all. This is episode
one hundred and nine of Native Lampid, where we give
you our breakdown of all things.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Politics and culture.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
We are your hosts, Angela Rye, Tiffany Cross, Andrew Gillim
and Bacari Sellers. What's going on y'all will get into today?

Speaker 3 (00:23):
Well, I want to get into the same thing I
get into every weekends, so you know, I want to
hear from the viewers, and we have a lot of questions.
So that's my thing for this week. What y'all got.

Speaker 4 (00:34):
It's been a big week.

Speaker 5 (00:37):
Sorry, no, no, no no.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
I didn't want to interrupt, but I was a feeling
well in the middle of the night and took some
medicine and I took the drowsy version. So if I
seem a little slower today, I just want you to
bear with me. I felt like that disclosed you was necessary.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Well I'm glad because I was hoping you weren't drinking
on the clock, So I'm glad to know it's Benadrill
instead or mused X or whatever else they got. Andrew,
we hope you feel better. I know you don't, but
that's why I was so concerned, because I thought somebody
had put something, you know, in your in your in
your hot tea, gave you a hot toddy instead. You

(01:12):
didn't even ask for. Well, here's the thing. It has
not been a big day for Andrew. It's actually a
slow day, not by design, but it is a It's
been a big week for women. So I want to
talk about too, in particular, shout out to Asia Wilson,
who is the Time Athlete of the Year.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Hopefully we talk about that just a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
And also Jasmine Crockett is finally announced that she's going
to run for uh senden seed in Texas, going against
incumbent John Corner, So I definitely want to talk about
that with us.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
Y'all think you God damn did y'all not?

Speaker 3 (01:46):
Like I'm waiting to hear from Bacari and the camera
like this frozen again.

Speaker 5 (01:52):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:54):
Talking what do you want to talk about?

Speaker 5 (02:01):
We're gonna talk about the WI FI in Columbia, South Carolina.
How about we talked about that? Apparently it is the
issue is the issue de jure of the day. I
don't know I mean, there's there's so much, there's so
much to talk about. I actually appreciated uh Angel's topic
about Asia Wilson coming from South Carolina. So I'm a
chiment on that with y'all because I think that she
deserves a lot of props for the weight that she

(02:21):
carries for black women, the w NBA, and a lot
of many a lot of others.

Speaker 4 (02:27):
Beca, didn't you also suggest we talk a little bit
about the consequences of of elections and elections out this
is the Detroit story.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
I thought he was saving that for next week.

Speaker 6 (02:38):
A g.

Speaker 5 (02:41):
Well head you got.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
I cannot handle this delayed ass pace today. Okay, so
here's the next thing. Y'all blame my add but I'm
just gonna say this. The other thing that is very exciting.
This is something where even Andrew in his slow state
is going.

Speaker 2 (02:55):
To get excited about. I just know it. Ellie missed out.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
Our resident Supreme Court Exford is also joining us today.
We have so much to talk about with the Supreme Court.
They cutting up y'all. You ared of citizens United, They
trying to make it even worse. They're also going to
consider birthright citizenship. We're gonna get into all of that
and more with Ellie today. We're gonna get right into
the show.

Speaker 5 (03:14):
Let's go, y'all, how about this new one. They have
their new star, Crockett.

Speaker 4 (03:21):
How about her? She's a new star of the Democrat Party,
Jasmine Crockett. They're in big trouble, but you have this
woman Crockett. She's a very low IQ person.

Speaker 5 (03:32):
I watched her speak to the other day. She's definitely
a low IQ person.

Speaker 4 (03:37):
Crockett. Oh man, oh man.

Speaker 5 (03:40):
She's a very low IQ person.

Speaker 4 (03:44):
Somebody said the other day she's one of the leaders
of the party. I think you gotta be kidding.

Speaker 5 (03:50):
Now, they're going to rely on Crockett's gonna bring the bed.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
So everyone, as we know, Jasmine Crockett announced her run
for the United States Senate. This week, Colin Aureed, who
is a former member of the House of Representatives, announced
that he will run for what is now her seat,
and he's dropping out of the Senate race. I want
to know what you all think about the announcement video

(04:14):
in what you think about Jazzin's run for the United
States Senate.

Speaker 4 (04:21):
I think first I would just acknowledge up front that
the hit pieces that will undermine her math, that will
undermine her politics. To try to drive this to a
radical left versus moderate versus you know, centric centrist, you
know democrat. That stuff is going to happen. We should

(04:43):
just gear it up for it. And it's not unusual
that that's where people start, because what they have to
do is penetrate, pierce, and then destroy your viability. Her
opponents will want to make her look unviable, and unfortunately
a lot of that you know, sort of bag mention
is gonna come the Democratic side. They'll be on shows

(05:04):
today and throughout. Given all the reasons why this is
a full hearted run, but I want to applaud her.
I think it is a brave and courageous run, and
I think she can do as well, if not better,
hopefully much better than some of the more recent candidates
who got close, either going after a cruise or corning.

Speaker 5 (05:24):
You know. I got to echo Andrew sentiment here here,
just because I don't think people get enough credit or
give enough credit for individuals who give themselves to run
for office, particularly statewide in the South. I like to
say that you know, in twenty fourteen, you know, you
help chip away at that glass. You have people like

(05:45):
Andrew Gillim and Stacy Abrams who helped chip away at
that glass after some of us are in. And you know,
I just think that it takes so much courage because
you you know, what I tell folks is that you
have you met anybody halfway pregnant it and that's what
it is with you, and that that that not that

(06:12):
you have in your stomach because you don't know where
the barbs the next day are going, that anxiety, that angst.
So I'm very, very proud of Jasmine Crockett for running.
If we want to have a conversation about her viability
to win, that's another conversation, because I think that she's
running uphill with a couple of mules on her back,

(06:35):
a couple of bouters pulling her back in the other direction.
And I think it's going to be very difficult for
Jasmine Crockett to be the next United States Senator from
the great state of Texas if anybody can do what
she can. But I just don't know if anybody wearing
a D on their lapel can win Texas right now
through no fault of her own. But we can get
to that. I wanted to start it off though by

(06:56):
lauding the fact that she's actually jumping out there and running,
because that in itself as a testament to her strength.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
Yeah, you know, we should let the viewers know that.
Of course, she'll have to go through the primary. The
Democratic primary was hill Face Congressman tallerco. I believe it's
how you say his name, a congressman from Austin, And
I think what you're getting at, Bacari is we have
been promised for so long that Texas is going to
turn purple and it has not yet happened. I mean,
we saw this effort with Betel O'Rourke, who came really close,

(07:26):
and it was a lot of excitement around his campaign,
and I think there are a lot of competing interest
in Texas, right you know. There, our brother Rollad Martin
would want us to point out that Texas has numerically
the highest number of eligible black voters in the state,
and I don't know if that's going to be enough
to carry her across the line. I think one of

(07:48):
the challenges those mules that you were talking about that
she's carrying is the population that leans towards whiteness. So
even though there's this huge Latino population. Within the Latino community,
there are a lot of white presenting, white thinking Latinos
who ascribe to a very conservative ideology and landscape, so

(08:10):
it will be interesting. I definitely applaud her for jumping
in the race, will certainly be watching it and covering
it extensively. I'm looking forward to fair, clear, clean, concise
coverage of the race with proper context. I would love
to see another black woman in the Senate representing the
interests of the folks in the longhorned state, but I

(08:31):
do think it is fair to acknowledge that it's an
uphill battle. I also think this is going to be
one of the Senate races that will morph into a
national race. We've seen Donald Trump laser focus on black women,
particularly effective black women, and so I hope that people
can get behind her because I also think Angela that
there are a lot of times when we're saying, well,
she can't win, and you know, well, you know it's

(08:51):
a good effort, but we're gonna see like sometimes let's
just get in there and say, hey, we plan to win.
You know, when you're on that spade table and your
partner looking at you like, well, no, I always say,
play to win. Play to win. Assume that you want
to win as soon the universe is tilted in your favor.
So I think we have to give that energy to her.
But but what are your thoughts? Because I know she's
a friend of the show, and you've worked on campaigns

(09:13):
before and certainly navigated Capitol Hill.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
What do you think about her chances? Well, I'm going
to tell you what I think. Right after this fire
alarm goes off at the hotel that I'm in. But
I also got to stop smoking.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
So again, it's a fire alarm test.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
You goofball. That's what you do at hotels, not what
I do in hotels. Now, what I would just say quickly,
hopefully y'all can't hear this. I really want to hear
from the guys, in particular because there are her there.
There are a lot of folks who are saying, like,
why would you even try to run statewide in the
South and so, Bakari, you ran for a lieutenant governor,

(09:54):
was the Democratic nominee in South Carolina in twenty fourteen.
What would you implore jazzmin to do different? And Andrew
from your gubernatorial run in twenty eighteen, what would you
implore Jazmin to do differently, and what would you implore
the voters to do differently? Because I think that's the major.

Speaker 5 (10:09):
Keeler for me, one of the things that has made
me raise an eyebrow. As one of Congressman Crockett's first
interviews on National TV and her rollout when she was
talking about whether or not she had to go after
Trump voters or other voters, and her response was, I
don't necessarily need them, right, And I ascribed to the

(10:35):
notion that elections are more about addition and multiplication than
they are subtraction and division. And I think that she's
talented enough that by not limiting her electorate, she can grow.
So that's one thing. The other thing is she has
to create an entirely new electric That's something Barack Obama

(10:57):
did when he ran in two thousand and eight to
kind of shock the world. And creating that new elector
it means that you have an entire new base of voters,
which I believe she's going to do extremely well. She's
going to raise the money. I think that Texas has
long been Food's goal for Democrats, and we waste a
lot of money in Texas on different races that can

(11:18):
go to other seats where you can possibly fare better.
But I do think that that she's going to add
a new energy, and I regardless of whether or not
I think she can win, I think she will be
a winner win this race is over. And I also
think something about Jasmine Crockett running in this race that
people aren't necessarily giving her credit for. Right now, She's
going to drag along a lot of other Democrats in Texas.

(11:40):
She there is going to be a wave in Texas
because Jasmine Crockett is running. I don't think she'll get
beat like a drum per se, but I just find
it to be extremely difficult. But I do think that
her race still can be a success with other things
I think. I mean, I got over forty percent of
the vote in South Carolina, which is a whole hell
of a lot for Democrats now who don't break you know,

(12:02):
over thirty five And I know Andrew was one megachurch
away from being governor of Florida. What it was it
thirty five thousand voters, So I mean, I do know,
and Stacey Abrams came close the first time, so it's
not this isn't out of the realm if possible. But
when we talk about these type of races, we have
to understand the magnitude the difficulty and get her the

(12:22):
benefit of knowing that she still can be a success
because so many people are going to She's going to
drag along with them with her.

Speaker 4 (12:32):
If she's able to raise the amount of money that
would be typical for a contested a general election. Right
if they believe if Cornyon wins on the Republican side,
and Democrats are really serious about competing and therefore they
resource her race, I don't see her doing any worse

(12:52):
than the latest Democrat who has gotten the closest I think,
so I'll perform the Democratic typical performance. She gets the
resources that are equal because I think her natural instincts
are going to the places that she knows she needs
to be. She will need to camp out between the
largest Black centers in the state and the largest Latino areas,

(13:17):
and progressive whites tend to find you they're determined a
lot of times in that way. But those two groups
trying to demystify where she needs to with the Latino
community around what she does and doesn't know, believes or
doesn't believe what the values they share in common, and
then motivating black folks because what I know about us

(13:39):
is we're extremely sophisticated voters and we do not throw
our votes away. In that sophistication has largely come from
the fact that we've always had to do the math
and the figuring out the psychology of how everybody else
is going to vote, how everybody else is going to perform,
before we then can decide whether or not we're putting
our vote behind a losing cause to make a statement

(14:00):
or negotiating space to share power.

Speaker 3 (14:04):
Just I kinda follow up because I was really interested
in hearing your thoughts on Angela's question about what do
voters need to do differently, particularly given that they're going
to be flooded with it's an uphill battle and you know,
things that are going on. And also just want to
let the listeners know that there's quite the primary on
the other side as well. The incumbent is Senator John Cornyn,

(14:27):
a Trump acolyte. He's being primary by the Attorney General
there Ken Paxton, another Trump acolyte, and joining the race
is also Congressman Wesley Hunt. And these are all Trump
sick of fans, so I'm not sure that she'll be
competing for the same voters that they are. But I'm
curious from you and Bacari, what do voters need to
do differently?

Speaker 5 (14:46):
So, I mean, I think a lot of this is
a little bit premature because I think the way you,
the way you run this race, the way voters think
about it is going to be vastly different. If it's
Kim Paxton, who has the ethical baggage of it's probably
worse than Donald Trump. Right, that's a that is an
easier race. None of them are easy, but that's an
easier race for Jasmin Crockett. I think Cornyn is a
typical type of r beside his name, and he's been

(15:08):
in politics there for a very long period of time
and people are used to pressing the button statewide. And
then the other one is Wesley Hunt, who doesn't stand
a chance in hell. So I think that we're going
to learn a lot about Jasmine Crockett, We're going to
learn a lot about this about the electorate through this
Democratic primary because Tara Leko is very formidable. You know,

(15:29):
he is a messenger that a lot of people have
gravitated towards. He's the type of person who goes out
and speaks to different groups. And one of the things
that Jasmine Crockett has and I think we take for
granted because we live in this media bubble, but this
is an opportunity for her. Like on the Internet, Jasmine
Crockett probably has one hundred percent name ID, but throughout Texas,

(15:53):
her name I D probably doesn't crack one third right.
And that is the type of growth and a runway
that I think that she can. I mean, because me
and Angela were talking about this the other day. People
don't even know and Tiffany, we talked about it several times.
People don't even know her resume. I mean, they don't
know how brilliant she is. They don't know that she
went to law school. They don't know where she went

(16:14):
to law school. You know, they don't know how she
had to be this much better than everybody else to
get to where she is. So she literally has an
opportunity to introduce herself to voters, Tiffany, to kind of
get to your question, and she has to take advantage
of that moment, an opportunity to introduce herself to those voters.
And also it's not voters have to train themselves. And

(16:39):
we're still learning how to do that because very few
voters have ever had the opportunity to press a button
for a black person in that seat, let alone a
black woman. And so you have to go through this
process of actually training the electorate too, giving them kind
of a permission skip to go and do that.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
You know, part of what I think is so important.
And well, actually, Andrew, maybe you were going to answer
the voter question too, but I think that this is
an important piece to add here. And I think both
of you all have done this. When candidates are running,
you also hear them talking about the campaign and they say,
we're going to win in our campaign, right, it's a

(17:24):
collective wi and it's a collective hour because it isn't
just the candidate who is needed to pull off a victory.
It is the responsibility of the voters. The amount of
reliance that you take that you have to have and
people some that you only shook hands with, if at all,
is humbling. And so I would love Andrew for you

(17:47):
to talk about that we that hour and you know
how that we in our has to change in this
moment in time. There are some things that are shifting
for example, for the first time in three decades, I
believe a Democrat one my mayoral race in Miami. So
the tide is changing. Has it changed enough? And what
is needed for the voters Andrew to continue that tithe change?

Speaker 4 (18:08):
Well, no, there's not been a permantive change. I think
there's a realignment every cycle, at least of late so
far as Obama race, where he was getting upwards of
sixty seven percent of Miami Dade County. When you know,
I come around and we're hovering at forty and fifty percent.
So you had these precipitous fall and then now it's

(18:33):
every four cycles, maybe every two cycles, every two years.
Rather for every cycle there's a there is a swing
back from one to the other and another swing, and
in some cases the you know, the the swing is
more extreme than we would have ever thought. I think
what voters have to do, and I you know, I

(18:55):
actually I was real honest with people when I was
running in Florida that this system can't change just because
you send one person there, one man, they're one governor there,
and that if you send me there and you're not
back up, then you're sending me alone and you're stranding me,
and so we can't get the kind of change that
we want to see in this state if we all

(19:15):
aren't in this game. That means coming up and visiting
legislators and talking to your city councils and wrestling resolutions
out of them in support of our legislative reforms. But
it required us all to do something, and I wanted
to be honest about it, because we delude our voters
into thinking that one man changes one thing through one

(19:36):
cycle and voila. And then that thing doesn't happen, and
everybody's like, but you told us that you was going
to do and it doesn't happen, and then that cycle
continues to repeat itself, and it turns people off of politics,
and we spend a whole generation's time trying to recruit
them back.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
Yeah, and to this point, if you asked earlier about
like just my work, I would just say simple. The
most important thing for voters right now is to do
as Reverend Jackson said often, which is to keep hope alive.
I think that we often lose sight of the way
that things change. It is one vote at a time,

(20:13):
and I think, in particular in this environment, it's hard
to stay encouraged. It's hard to know that the power
is in your hands. It's hard to remember that democracy
in and of itself people power, right, It is us
realizing that power. And so that's the first thing that
I would say to encourage, you know, Jasmine in this
particular journey, which is to know like you signed up

(20:35):
to do this because you know you're a formidable fighter.

Speaker 2 (20:37):
You work hard.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
There are people that she knows very well who have
run statewide, some of them who have won black women.
She should talk to them, Tis James, she should talk
to Kamala Harris is not a blue state by any stretch,
but there are some really key lessons that she can
learn because no matter what, we know that racism is
a nonpartisan problem. So she also is up against whatever

(20:58):
happens in that primary. Folks who are already seen, they don't
know that they're gonna get in, they're gonna endorse or
get involved in all of that. So I think it's
important for her to hold on to that hope in
this moment as well. And that's something that's got to
be shared by the voters.

Speaker 3 (21:12):
The balloon Angela, I hope you reiterate all of that.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Men who don't vote.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
So I won't be popping the balloon. But the people
have spoken. They cannot wait for you to go to.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Oh no, it's going too far.

Speaker 1 (21:32):
Where's r hr R falling complete?

Speaker 5 (21:36):
You are the executive producer who okay, okay, they fired already.
I do want to clarify one thing real quick, though,
because I think I said that the voters you got
to train the voters, and I'm not sure people know
what that means. And I think people take for granted
the work that uh Stacey Abrams did in George before

(22:00):
she ran. She went to a sub precinct level, meaning
that it's not just the precinct where you vote, but
she actually went into those communities and met with those
community leaders and had individuals go through and meet with
those community leaders to make sure that the next election,
the school board election, those individuals were trained to go

(22:21):
to the polls to make sure that those city council races,
those individuals were trained to go to the polls. Andrew
knows his state of Florida better than I, but I
would guess that there was a lot of remnants of
you know, Obama for America and the infrastructure that shit
ain't cheap either, you're talking about tens of millions of

(22:43):
dollars that are spent on infrastructure over a period of time.
And so that's when we talk about it being uphill.
This isn't an indictment of Jasmine Crockett. This is more
so an indictment of democratic infrastructure being prepared to catapulta
candidacy like Jasmine Crockets and putting her into place where

(23:04):
you have a puncher's chance to have success. And so
I just wanted to be extremely clear that that those
things have to be in place if you're not in
a blue state like Massachusetts or New York. And then
I wanted to pose a question to y'all because Angela
got me kind of fired up about it. But what
y'all think about a King Jeffrey saying he won't going
to endorse or stay out the race?

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Wait a minute, where play that clip? Where is that at?

Speaker 5 (23:29):
Oh? Okay, I'll drop it in the I will drop
it in the chat. Let me, let me, let me
do my best. Let me do my best, Nicholas, and
y'all gonna hear me tat of tatter on the back of.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
That's and get it because I want to make sure
we got to we got to fact actuals and factuals,
because if he said that there's something that, yeah, we should.

Speaker 2 (23:48):
Definitely discuss that.

Speaker 1 (23:50):
So while Bakari is pulling that, we can just run
that thing back. But in the meantime, we were talking
about people power. So I want us to know that
this show is a we also it's not just the
four of us city here, it also includes our NLP
fam that you are, the viewers.

Speaker 2 (24:04):
So at this point we're gonna run a viewer question.

Speaker 7 (24:05):
Let's go I Native Land Pod, Hi, Angela, Andrew and Tiffany,
and welcome Baccari. My question is, can we have a
mini pod in regards to legacy News media News, who
controls them and how they've become complicit in what Trump

(24:31):
is doing. As of now, you are not going to
hear anybody saying anything that's going to come against what's
going on. They're very.

Speaker 8 (24:45):
Tame.

Speaker 7 (24:47):
I did a little bit of research and I saw
that you know who owns MSNBC, CNN, NBC. But could
you guys go deeper dive into it, especially you put it,
you know, on a bigger platform, because I think people
really need.

Speaker 6 (25:05):
To know.

Speaker 7 (25:07):
Who owns and why the news isn't speaking up like
they should be.

Speaker 4 (25:15):
That's really good. Yeah, that's that's a uh. This Netflix
Paramount Warner Brothers situation is brought into focus for a
lot of people, especially with the threats from the President
about making changes at CNN and the guarantees that they
say are being made being shuttled between Jerry Kushner, who

(25:36):
is on one side of the two deals with regard
to the to the to the takeover at Warner Brothers,
and the number of interconnected, interwoven billionaire millionaire class in
this country who are running our government in a shadowy way,

(25:58):
you know, guiding you know the direction in which the
administration takes on certain issues, you know, impacting all of this,
and much of it is happening behind the veil, not
in public. These are private calls and shuttles that are
being made between Donald Trump and it closest folks to
build this cabal and the Congress that would be ashamed

(26:20):
of not, as the Court says, jealously protecting it's its
responsibilities to hold this president accountable.

Speaker 3 (26:26):
As not everybody knows the Netflix, Warner Brothers things that
do you want to break it down?

Speaker 4 (26:32):
Yeah, it's so so for folks who haven't heard this
last week, Uh, it was heavy in the news the
fact that Netflix the nation's largest I think they've got
the largest customer base as it relates to these uh
streaming apps. Yeah, streaming platforms had made a I think

(26:55):
it was a seventy six billion dollar bid to take
over Warner Brothers. And it's seventy two billion and it's
over one hundred year catalog of entertainment, big shows to
you know, series because what they found in this streaming
space is at over half the folks who are streaming

(27:18):
are streaming old shows, not new things on television. They're
going back to things that they grew up on potentially
in streaming those, which I thought was very fascinating, and
then I thought about my own habits and I sometimes
found myself doing that either way sort of. The Actors Guild,
the arts community writ large are against this because they

(27:41):
believe it's going to one concentrate really power on all
sides of a negotiation to do just one of these
companies fewer games in town, which tends to one layoff
employees and drive up the costs. So for those of
us who get subscriptions, you may be consolidating them, but
in the total you end up paying, you end up

(28:01):
paying more. So it sounds like a deal, but isn't
a deal at all. But the consolidation of media part
we really all have to be paying attention to, because
there's already too many closure relationships to take actions to
then make that Cabald even smaller and thereby stronger I
think Bear's consequences as well.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
So just so folks know, there was quite a bidding war.
So it was one of brothers technically Warner Brothers Discovery,
but then when they merge with this is happening, the
consolidation of a lot of these companies, what is happening.
David Zaslov was over Discovery. David Zaslov is, according to
the reporting, is rumored to lean right and be more
of a conservative. And so as this bidding war was happening,

(28:43):
there were a lot of eyes paying attention to see
who was going to buy this company, because as you
all know, Warner Brothers include CNN, HBO, and when you
think about the really big franchises that people watch Game
of Thrones, think about all your favorite shows on HBO.
The streaming giant will then have access to that. And
so after this, after Netflix has acquired Warner Brothers, a

(29:04):
lot of people held their breast. What does this mean
for CNN? So in this deal they did not they
will not acquire CNN. CNN will now be a part
of its own group that I believe. You guys correct
me if I'm wrong, but I believe that will still
remain under the control of Zaslov. But yet, to your point, Andrew,
what this means for entertainers, what this means for writers, directors?

(29:28):
All these things remains to be seen. As we've seen,
streaming has completely changed the field. But certainly when it
comes to our news outlets and who they feed into.
Comcast owns, MSNBC, CNN, like I said, will remain under
Warner Brothers. Fox, when you think about how incestuous that
is so Fox, Wall Street Journal, HarperCollins, all of these

(29:50):
things feed up, funnel up into the same conservative outlets.
So this is I think the caller for the question.
This is something that I would love to do a
mini pod on.

Speaker 5 (29:58):
We're gonna dig deep into some stuff that is pretty
interesting in the courts with the Courts with our guest
Elie Mistel on the other side of the break, let
us pay some bills.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Well, I wanted to if we can pivot back to
Jasmine Crockett. We were talking just a moment ago about Hakim.
Jeffries said in a recent press conference, Nick, can we
roll that clip?

Speaker 8 (30:30):
Well, I think I'm obviously focused on the House, not
the Senate, and we're only three seats short of taking
back the majority, and we are going to take the
majority back in the next Congress. The Republicans have been
a disaster. They're totally on the run. They failed the
American people. The cost of living is out of control.
Democrats are the only group of people in this town

(30:53):
and across the country actually interested in dealing with the
affordability crisis. That's where our focus continue to be.

Speaker 5 (31:01):
I think that the clip didn't necessarily encapsulate the question,
But the question was asked, are you going to support?
I mean, are you going to endorse Jasmine Crockett? And
that was his response. His response was, I'm focused on
the I'm focused on the House, which of course is
his job. With three seats away. He pivoted and moved on.
I just think that in this in this world where
information moves fast, disinformation misinformation moves fast. He did say

(31:25):
that she was strong and formidable in those type of things.
I just wanted to know your thoughts on it, because
I know that he has been drawing a lot of
heat from all sides, particularly those of us who support him,
are questioning some decisions, and I don't I don't, you know,
I think Nancy Pelosi handles things differently. I don't. I
don't know. I just think that she handled things with

(31:47):
a kind of, you know, a testicular fortitude that isn't
necessarily displayed often or all the time by by Kim Jeffrey.
So that was my that I'm not saying I'm critical it.
I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the non endorsement.
She's cool, though, you know.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
I'm just I'm not going in too deep here, but
I will just say this. I think that context also matters.
I hate when people clip our stuff without context, so
let me just give context.

Speaker 2 (32:17):
People might get mad, but it is what it is.

Speaker 1 (32:19):
This was a press conference in the House, the typical
weekly press conference they have, and the press conference was
about the Republicans refusing to support I really think Andrew's
fall asleep.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
This was about Uh, the.

Speaker 5 (32:40):
I just watching it.

Speaker 4 (32:43):
It's really hard because you're you're want to be like
really intensive in your hearing, but then your body is.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
Like, oh my god, Andrew, go get some water. Put
some water in your face.

Speaker 5 (32:52):
Chet about to about to do Andrew some coffee and
some coked.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
Get like Coca co Jesus, y'all pray for our brother.

Speaker 1 (33:01):
Anyway, The frustration here is that this was about their
many failed attempts to get Republicans to side with voters
and everyday Americans on healthcare subsidies and extending the healthcare subsidies.
They have until the end of the year before people's
subsidies skyrocket. And so he's asked about the announcement, and

(33:22):
that's not the purpose of this particular press conference. It's
policy based, not necessarily political unless he's talking about and
he's been disciplined about it.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
Do I like the response?

Speaker 1 (33:31):
No, No, I don't like the response, but I do
appreciate the fact that the that the context matters. I
think that it sucks because Jasmine has gone so hard
for Hakim hard, and I think that he owes her
not just a bit of gratitude, but also loyalty.

Speaker 2 (33:47):
In that same way.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
So I hope that he comes back around and makes
that clear when the timing is right, maybe get.

Speaker 2 (33:53):
Enough conference.

Speaker 4 (33:55):
That we get enough rope that every other candidate who's
white and male gets Whenever they enter a race, everyone
doesn't rush to They can't raise the money, and oh
are they going to be viable amongst the black constituency,
which is going to be the base vote that will
depend on an election day? You know, none of that
level of scrutiny. But the moment you put a transcending candidate,

(34:16):
you know in there something that's not the norm, then
it's everything's all speculative. Now this is a gamble, and
so much is at stake, And do we really want
to split our resources between this race and a Senate race?
Why don't we just throw all of our money into
one of those? I mean, just the games that are played.
There's no real fealty to sessing out what's the best. Necessarily,

(34:39):
there's this there's this negotiation we do amongst ourselves, negotiating
away from ourselves. It's it's crazy Republicans don't negotiate against themselves.
They go all in.

Speaker 5 (34:52):
To andrew point. They push to Andrew's point that the
context that I also think matters, is I compared to
the Nancy Pelosi but like she is one of his
caucus members, and yeah, and he ain't. Terre Leko ain't.
I mean, it's not like there is a decision to
be made or to be had. And I know Nancy
and I may be wrong, Angela, you actually are way

(35:14):
more keen than in depth. But I do believe that
there was times when Nancy Pelosi had caucus members run
for something else and when they announced, she was I'm
right there with them, you know, I'm missing I love him.
She might not even like them that much, but she
was always ten toes down for her caucus members. And
I just think that people remember that because it's not
that distant and are questioning it now. That's my only point.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
I guess.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
I mean, you could say that, but Hakeim is not
the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's the chair
of or he is the or the Democratic leader of
the House. So technically Talla, Rico, Tyreko, Tyrek and nem
is in his caucus. It's the Democratic Caucus.

Speaker 2 (35:52):
Democratic.

Speaker 5 (35:53):
He's not a member of the House, oh lord, He's
a member of the tech No he's a member of
the Teche.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
Prom but generally speaking, but generally speaking, to be fair,
democratic leadership normally does stay out of things in their
primary stage. I am with you to be fair that
I think he should have said something about Jasmine. I
said that Jasmine was a writer for him. I said
that Jasmine has had his back. Now here's the place

(36:24):
where I'm a different with you on Nancy Pelosi. I've
watched Nancy Pelosi pit members against each other, and we're
talking about her, how she's such a writer. She wasn't
a writer for Kamala Harris. She was calling for an
open premier, open convention, sorry, not an open primary, open convention.

Speaker 2 (36:39):
Since we messing up today.

Speaker 1 (36:41):
Charge that to andrews Cole means getting its way all
the way to Jacksonville where I'm at. Now, Okay, that said,
I did want to tell you all really quickly. We
know our good friend Terrence Woodbury is working with Jasmine
on this campaign, and I asked him to send us
a response into this article from notice UH which talks
about the NRSC, which is the Republican Senatorial Committee having

(37:06):
an astro turf recruitment process, which would have encouraged Jasmin
Crockett to run. They said that they started to include
her name in polling to see if she would bite.
And they try trying to exclaim credit for this, that
they wanted the least viable candidate in this race against
John cornn Er, whoever wins the Republican primary, and they're

(37:28):
trying to say that they they're the reasons why, the
reason why she decided to run. So Terrence Woodbury's response,
I think is worth noting. He says, Republicans recruiting Crockett
because she is less electable is as silly as Dems
recruiting Trump or Republicans recruiting Obama because they are less electable,
because they both have something in common with Jasmin Crockett.

(37:50):
One the ability to expand the elector with frustrated voters
that otherwise think all politicians are the same. Two the
ability to gain and keep media attention long enough to
make the case to those frustrated voters that are ignoring
other politicians. Any generic Democrat Democrat can get to forty
five percent in Texas, Jasmine is the only one that

(38:10):
can break through to the eight million Texas voters that
have tuned other politicians out and if she can get
just ten percent of them to believe in her enough
to vote, she is the next Senator from Texas. I
thought that was a great point from Terrence. I love
the way that he broke it down in numbers only
like Upholster would. Terrence would very of course from hit strategies.

(38:31):
And of course at this point we're gonna pivot to
somebody else that is an expert among us, and that
is to our good friend Ellie Missole, a Supreme Court expert,
the person we always turn to when it's way too
much going down with the Supreme Court. There is a
lot happening, three cases in particular we want to talk
to Ellie about. So let's bring Ellie Mistyle to the show.

Speaker 6 (38:51):
Hi, guys, thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (38:58):
It's crazy.

Speaker 4 (39:00):
I thought the big deserved acknowledgement.

Speaker 5 (39:02):
That's Delhi, Thank you.

Speaker 6 (39:04):
I don't want to let the Democratic Minority leader slide
on his non endorsement of Crockett and basically to right
or or basically the last three weeks of Hakem Jeffries experience,
because what that has told me, beyond a shadow of
a doubt, is that Hakeem Jefferies does not want to

(39:25):
be the leader of the opposition party to fascism and
authoritarianism in this country. What he wants to be is
the leader of the Democratic Party. And the analogy that
I would use here is like, right now we're on
a bus. Right Trump is driving the bus, Mike Johnson
is driving the bus. Hakeem Jeffries is like, hey, I'm
three votes away from driving the bus. I really want
to drive this bus. That is my that is my focus. Angela.

(39:48):
You said he is very disciplined. Absolutely, I'll give them
credit for that. The man knows. The man is disciplined,
and what he thinks he's doing, and what he wants
to do is drive the bus. He doesn't want to
blow up the bus. He doesn't want to get off
the bus. He doesn't want to get us off the bus.
He wants to drive the bus. And he's promising us, Oh,
when I'm driving the bus will go to better places.

(40:09):
We need to blow up the bus and takeem. Jeffries
is not that guy. That's that's not shade, that is fact.
He is not the guy who wants to be the
leader of the opposition to fascism in this country. Cheron
doesn't want it Durwan doesn't want it, the Newsom doesn't
want it, Shapiro doesn't want it. We don't have democrats

(40:30):
right now who want to oppose fascism we want we
have democrats who want to wait for their turn to
be in charge of the wheels of power. They don't
want to use a Game of Thrones analogy. They're just
waiting for their turn on the wheel. They don't want
to break it. And at some point a leader needs

(40:50):
to emerge who is going to tell us how to
break the wheel of fascism, how to break the wheel
of the oligarts, because that is what the country is
crying out for right there. There are not people out there,
are not people out here who just want to replace
the figureheads at the top and find one that's a

(41:11):
little bit more. And that's why Crockett has, you know,
a lot of support right now. That's why Mundami won
in New York. The people who are willing to tell
us how to break the wheel are gonna be our
leaders of the future. And and and Jeffries is not
that guy, which is not saying that I'm not gonna look,
I'm gonna spend the next year of my life until

(41:33):
we get to the twenty twenty six mid terms, telling
everybody within earshot about how Hockeing Jeffries must be the
next Speaker of the House, how the Democrats need to
take control of the House, how that has to happen,
and that we have to support Democrats and we I'm
gonna do all the things, right. I'm not not gonna vote.
I'm not I'm not stephen A. Smith, right, like I'm rational, right,

(41:55):
and and so I understand what needs to happen politically,
but in terms of what this country needs to defeat
the authoritarians and the fascists and the biggots and the
racists and the misogynists that are running roughshod over our
country on over our rights. Hakim Jeffries is not the
leader of the opposition movement, and we need one.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
Well at our reach.

Speaker 5 (42:24):
Resident Collie, Let's take take up an offering.

Speaker 1 (42:28):
Yes, the doors of the church might might now be open,
but now they're going to be open to the Supreme Court. So, ellie,
all hill is breaking loose in every branch of the government,
So please take us over to the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
I don't know where you even want to begin.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
I don't know if you want to start in campaign
finance or if you want to go somewhere else, but
let's get it.

Speaker 6 (42:48):
Yeah, so look at thirty thousand feet. Every time I
come on your show, every time I call on every show,
I try to tell Democrats, liberals, progressives, black people, Latino people,
anybody who will listen to me, that if you do
not control the Supreme Court, you do not control anything.
There is no liberal agenda, there is no democratic agenda,

(43:08):
there is no progressive agenda. There is no black agenda
that can survive. Generational control of the Supreme Court by
six conservatives, Republican fascists in ropes, nothing happens, you don't
get anything. And the Supreme Court this year, since they
got back to work, actually even before they officially got
back to work, this year has has proven my point.

(43:30):
All they have done is rubber snamp the MAGA, administer
the MAGA policies. And it starts. It started in September
on the shadow docket when the Supreme Court in Brett
Kavanaugh reconstitutionalize racial profiling. Like I'm not sure that everybody
fully grasps this, but like racial profiling is back and constitutional,
and Brett Kavanagh says it is just common sense, and

(43:52):
that is what And so Ice is now explicitly by
the Supreme Court allowed to racially profile people as they
arrest and detained in their ridiculous search for illegal immigrants. Right, Like,
that's just back on the table that was September. The
Supreme Court has agreed finally, and I'm not surprised to

(44:13):
hear the birthright citizenship case on the merits and so
I think that's the logical place to start, because birthright
citizenship is a fundamental right in this country, right, a
right given to us after the Civil War by the
Fourteenth Amendment. Right that says that you are a citizen
of where you are born, not where your parents are born.

(44:36):
And the Supreme Court and the Conservatives want to take
that away and return us to truly an antebellum, a
pre Civil War state of affairs. And I say that
because you have to understand why birthright citizenship is here
in the first place, right, Like, yes, it was here
to provide citizenship to newly freed Africans after the Civil War. Yes, great,

(44:58):
but what was it really changed? What the Fourteenth Amendment
did was create an entirely new concept in this country
called the American citizen. See before the Fourteenth Amendment, in
the pre Civil War War days, citizenship did not flowed
down from the federal government. It flowed up from the states.

(45:18):
So whether you were a citizen of the United States America,
there was no such thing. You were a citizen of Georgia,
you were a citizen of Missouri, you were a citizen
of New York. That's how they did it, and that's
why we had a war, because obviously Missouri was like,
black people can't be citizens, and Illinois was like, actually,
black people can't be citizens, and you can't have a
country with those. You can't have a country where your

(45:41):
citizenship changes depending on which side of the railroad track
you live on. That's unworkable and led to the bloodiest
war in American history. The Fourteenth Amendment solved all that
by saying, all right, we're not going to have every
state doing what they want. One standard of citizenship, a
federal standard citizenship, an American standard of citizenship. Right, So

(46:02):
that's number one why it's here. The second reason why
it's here, and you'll see Republicans always talk, well, you know,
Western Europe doesn't do birthright citizenship no, they don't because
they're colonialists. Having citizenship be based on where your parents
are from, specifically where your father is from, is a

(46:22):
colonial idea because it allowed the French and the British
and the Dutch and whatever to go all over the
world rape and pillage other people's countries and when they
produced offspring and other places of the world. Oh no, no, no,
you weren't a citizen of Vietnam. No no, no, you
were still French. No no, no, you're not a citizen of Ghana.
You're still English. Like that is why they did it

(46:44):
that way. When you get to the New World, which
is a country of immigrants, having citizenship tied to where
your parents are from was unworkable because then you're all
English citizens, then you're all Dutch citizens, then you're all right.
So the New World adopted an idea that your citizenship
was tied to your both birth and that existed for

(47:05):
white people before the Civil War, right like when people
are saying saying, oh, it's how Western Europe does it,
why don't we do that? White folks before the Civil War,
their citizenship was based on the state that they were
born in, not the state where their parents were born
in right, you didn't have William Pennah, I'm not a
citizen of Pennsylvania. I'm actually a citizen of jolly old England. No,

(47:26):
that's not how white people rolled, right. So the idea
that your citizenship is tied to your parents is a
colonial idea. The New World rejected that. And not just America, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Brazil, El Saltley the name a country in the
New World, almost all of them have birthright citizenship as
opposed to Old World citizenship. And that leasing to my

(47:48):
third and final point. I'm talking to you about the law,
about why the fourteenth Amendment is written the way it is.
But there's also a level of disgusting moral apocrisy when
a nation of colonizers, usurpers, and thieves purports to say

(48:09):
that a person born in these lands is not a
citizen of these lands, and actually it's based on where
their parents are born. Right. We stole this country from
people who wait for it. We're born here, we're born here.
We stole this country from people who were born here.
And now we're gonna where the Republicans want to say,

(48:31):
even if you're born here, you don't get to be
a citizen in this nation that we've created on stolen land.
There is a disgusting layer of moral hypocrisy underlying the
entire project to end birthright citizenship. Of course, you didn't
bring me on to tell you why birthright citizenship of supportant.
You brought me on to explain why the Supreme Court

(48:52):
is about to take it away, and on that particular question.

Speaker 1 (48:55):
But Ellie, Ellie, this is important context, and I want you,
if you can, in this next portion of your response,
to talk about why folks who may be at home,
folks who look like us, you know, parents are born
here here for multiple generations, we're stolen from, you know,
our original land.

Speaker 2 (49:13):
Right.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
But there are some of us, some folks who look
like us, who are like, well, this isn't going to
apply to us, because this is really about the immigrants
that we're mad at for taking our opportunities and they
got our jobs and this and that. So they're thinking
that this birthright citizenship case, if they've heard about it,
is going to target children of immigrants, not necessarily us.

Speaker 2 (49:36):
Can you talk about why.

Speaker 5 (49:37):
That is also inherently really really good question, Angela, particularly
about the politics around a really good question.

Speaker 6 (49:42):
Yeah. So for people who think that this is only
going to affect Latino or legal immigrants, I would ask you, guys,
this proven prove that you prove that your parents were
citizens in the United States. When they ask you, how
are you going to do that? Right? They don't always
keep great req on where we were stolen from and

(50:03):
where we came from, not all of us. I happened
to be able to trace at least a part of
my lineage all the way back to a plantation that
was freed when Sherman came marching through the South. Most
black people aren't that lucky. Most black people don't have
that kind of record keeping in their family tree. So
when the ice agent, when the government agent comes into

(50:24):
the maternity ward and says, well, I don't think that
you are that your baby is a citizenship is a
citizen because I can't prove that you're a citizen, because
I can't prove that your citizenship is not also derived
from birthright citizenship. How are you going to prove that
it's not? How are you going to prove that you
actually were brought over here on the second ship of

(50:47):
Dutch settlers that had fourteen slaves to build the wall
on Wall Street, Manhattan. How are you going to prove
that you go back that far? I know that there
are atos people out here just like this is great
for us. Prove it, prove it. And because you, the
black person will be asked to prove it, while John
Hinton Meister, the third with that German ass name, is

(51:12):
never gonna be asked to prove that they are citizenship
by dentt of their fathers. There's also an issue about
when they if they try to change this, citizenship will
be directed through who the father or the mother? Right,
because they're all anchor babies or shit all that. So
how how do you do what if you have one

(51:34):
parent who is a citizen and one who wasn't. Is
that gonnaccount? And which parent? And do you have records
of that parent?

Speaker 5 (51:40):
Right?

Speaker 6 (51:40):
Maybe your mother was an illegal immigrant who came here,
but your father was you know, not only your father.
You can't even find him to pay child support, much
less find him to produce his birth certificate.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
Right.

Speaker 6 (51:54):
So again, if you think that this is only gonna
affect the obvious Latino illegal immigrants, prove it. How are
you going to prove that you were allowed to be here,
because that is a That is the second question that
these people will ask you when they try to send
you back to wherever the hell they think that you're
supposed to be from.

Speaker 4 (52:17):
Nobody knows.

Speaker 2 (52:24):
I want to just really quickly.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
Andrew is not feeling well, So Andrew's gonna gonna go
for the rest of the day. I know he's gonna
go get some rest, so we're gonna let him go
so you can sleep, sleep off this mucinex or whatever
he took to get better. But Ellie, because Andrew's leaving,
I got a quick follow up. That question is you
guys that don't know that I've been dealing with medical
stuff with my mom, so I had to find her

(52:48):
birth certificate recently.

Speaker 2 (52:50):
And this is crazy.

Speaker 1 (52:51):
Like to Ellie's point, think about these technicalities, which we've
also seen like with voting records too. On my mom's
original birth certificate, they re ordered her name and her
first name, so she had to get an updated birth
certificate with her name as it is originally ordered. But
who's to say that these folks won't say no, you

(53:11):
know that doesn't count. This is not so now even
maybe her citizenship is challenged our elders.

Speaker 2 (53:17):
My grandmother when she passed was one hundred and five.

Speaker 1 (53:19):
When you talk about one hundred years ago, our records
in the South weren't tight.

Speaker 2 (53:23):
So our names are wrong, birth years are wrong.

Speaker 1 (53:26):
My dad's mom, y'all, she has three different Social Security
guards with three different from three different birth years. She's
now passed. But if we start really peeling the layer
of this onion back, this is treacherous for black folks
in this country who have been here for most situations.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
I will yield hied.

Speaker 6 (53:45):
Citizenship should not be tied to clerical stuff, right, Like
we shouldn't be relying on the white racist matron at
the maternity Ward and Selma, Alabama in nineteen oh for
to figure out whether or not your grandkid is a
citizen of the country that they were born in. That's

(54:07):
just not a And again I go back to the
pre Civil War or situation. It's not a workable solution,
right because what happens if the Supreme Court takes away
birthright citizenship is that will probably devolve back into separate states. Right,
so they'll say, Okay, you're not a citizen in the
United States. So if you're a legal immigrant and immediately,
Kathy Hokel Gafa Newsom, they'll pass a law saying, well,

(54:30):
you're a citizen of California regard if you're born in California.
Like that. That is the next thing that that's the
liberal response to all of this, and that brings us
right back to where we were in eighteen fifty seven
in the dread Scott decision, where you're going to have
a class of people who are citizens in one state
but aren't citizens in another state. You'll have a class

(54:51):
of people who are who are citizens in California but
then lose their citizenship when they travel to Texas, who
lose their ability, their record, their record, the providence of
their records when they travel across state lines. And again,
we have literally tried it this way before and it
led to war. So I don't understand always people's apathy

(55:19):
towards this particular issue, and I do think that part
of it is racialized. They think it's only going to
hurt a certain class of people and not all classes
of people that white folks want to hurt, and that
is just not true. But because of its unworkability, that's
why I say I'm not sure that Trump wins this one.
This is one of the only cases up where I

(55:39):
can't immediately say, oh, Trump has six votes, right, he might,
and oral arguments haven't happened, and I will listen to
those closely and have much better sense after these people
start talking. But on spec I can't fully I can't
necessarily count to six votes count to five votes for

(56:00):
Trump on this issue. I'm not saying that he won't win.
I'm just saying that of the cases, you know, there's
a class of cases that I know he's gonna win,
and this is not one of them. I don't know
that he's gonna win this one because blowing up the
fourteenth Amendment, remember by executive fiat, Like he's trying to
change the text and the meaning of the fourteenth Amendment,

(56:22):
not through legislation, not through a constitutional amendment, just through
some like podunked executive order. It's a lot for the
Supreme Court to say Trump can change the Constitution by
executive order. They might, they might say it, but they also,
like literally they just might not that might. This might
be actually the bridge too far. And there's also the

(56:44):
political balance here that I'm sure McCary thinks about a lot.
You if you're if you make Trump lose here, you're
gonna have a whole series of center right stories from
mainstream media, from the New York Times in the Washington Post,
from all those guys saying, ah, as we can clearly
see the Supreme Court is legitimate and reasonable. Right, the

(57:06):
Supreme Court is taking a lot of heat right now
and having this one decision, which is completely coogle for
cocabus bonkers away from Trump will will trigger a bunch
of mainstream and right wing media being like, ah this, ah, yes,
the Supreme Court totally reasonable, toyal, legitimate, so we should
so now we can clearly see that all the other
things that they've done, like taking away voting rights, jerrymandering,

(57:29):
anti trans stuff, all of that is fine because clearly
they're just following the law. They're not beholden to Trump. So, like,
you also have political value for the Supreme Court and
standing up to Trump on this issue, which is so
is so beyond the pale of normal constitutional law. That's
another reason why I think he could lose this, and

(57:51):
then I'll have to come on all the shows explaining
why the Supreme Court still sucks even though you had
this one good.

Speaker 5 (57:56):
Decision isn't this the politics of John rob though more
so than anything else. I mean, what we've seen is
there that John Roberts will. You know, we've had some
surprises from Amy Cony Barrett as well. But John Roberts
oftentimes will take the side with the liberal justices or
pull somebody with him to preserve the quote unquote integrity,
or if he sees the court slipping away in the

(58:18):
pages of history, he attempts to salvage his court.

Speaker 6 (58:21):
I mean you said often. I don't know that it's
often anymore.

Speaker 5 (58:24):
Not often, but at every every blue moon or so.

Speaker 6 (58:27):
Every now and again, Roberts will will join levels. And
really I have a little bit more faith on a
llegit tempt at rapist Kavanaugh than Barrett because Caveall is
also more susceptible to the political wins one, you know,
to armchair psycle analyze Kavanaugh. He desperately wants to be liked.
He desperately wants to be treated in the press like

(58:49):
Roberts is treated in the press. Now he will never
be because he's an alleged tempt at rapist and also
a freaking idiot. But he wants what Roberts has and
so sometimes Kavanaugh can be pulled on these political strings,
I think even more so than than Barrett can can,
who to the extent that she's ever moderated, it comes
from a very doctrinal position, as supposed to Kavanaugh, who's

(59:11):
just trying to get a good press hit. And then Roberts,
I think for Cari, you're right that he will occasionally
at least pretend to care about the legitimacy and stature
of the Supreme Court. So all of that can again,
I can listen to oral arguments and in an hour,
I can tell you, wait, no, I was wrong. But
as I stand now, before they've heard arguments on the case,

(59:32):
I don't know that he has five votes for this.
I know he's got to I know he's got Thomas,
and I know he's got Alida, but I don't know
that he's got Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh. And then Gorsich
can get really Gorsich can get really textual on these issues.
And there's also with Gorsish you also have to remember,

(59:54):
you know, I sometimes jokingly call him the last Justice
of the Mohicans, Neil Gorsich, those Native Americans. He is,
he is Dale Day Lewis, he is out there. Any
decision involving Native Americans is something where where Gorcious can
be relied upon to vote with the liberals. It's it's
the one good thing in his portfolio. And you can

(01:00:16):
make an argument that taking away birthright citizenship also significantly
negatively impacts Native Americans, and if you hit that argument right,
you'll get Gorsic too. So again, I could be I
don't want to I hate. I never want to sound naive.
I know exactly what this court is capable of. They're
capable of giving Trump the win on birthright citizenship. I

(01:00:37):
just don't know that they will.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
Elliott.

Speaker 5 (01:00:41):
I gotta go ahead, Go ahead, Tiffany, because I was
gonna ry something up to you, Tiffany and Angela. But
go ahead, Tiffany. I want to hear you perspective jump in.

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:00:52):
I don't want to take us away from where you
were going. So remember where we were, because I'd love
to hear your question. But I just wanted to ask you.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Ellie.

Speaker 3 (01:01:01):
You know, the Scotus is off limits to cameras, so
we never hear what's being said. And I've asked this
question before, but I've never posed this question to you.
Is it helpful to us that we don't get to
see what's being said during SCOTUS hearings or is it
more harmful, Like would it become kabuki theater if there

(01:01:24):
were cameras there? Would people you know, be like you said,
Kavanaugh wants the next press hit. Or would it provide
more transparency for the American people even though we can
see the opinions and read the transcripts, there might be
a little bit of a difference. So just curious your thoughts.

Speaker 6 (01:01:40):
Yeah, So before I answer that question, I'll kind of
attack the premise a little bit. My views shouldn't matter
on whether or not there should be cameras in the courtroom,
because courts are public hearings in the public has a
right to see their leadership in action. And it actually
doesn't matter whether or not it's good or bad for lag,
Like you have a right, you should have a right
to see it and not sing it is unnecessarily secretive

(01:02:04):
of the courts. Secret courts are bad, are big b
bad for democracy, and so the courts should be the
court proceeding should be televised, just because whether or not
that would be a good thing for the court itself.
Right now, I do think that if you had cameras
in the courtroom, there would be more grand standing from
the lawyers. I think there would be more grand standing

(01:02:26):
from the justices. I don't particularly think that's I don't
think that's particularly good.

Speaker 5 (01:02:32):
Lawyers don't lawyers don't grandstand. I ain't never seen nothing
like that before.

Speaker 6 (01:02:35):
I right, you know, that's a thing that would happen.
But the other thing that would happen if there are
cameras in the courtroom is that you would have more
of this on TV. I was talking with a TV
producer that I will not name, but a very important
TV person, and they were saying how hard it is

(01:02:57):
to cover the courts on the TV news, on cable
news because you don't have video, because you can't just
play a clip of the Yes, you can play the audio,
but you can't play the video. And TV's a video medium,
and so by not having cameras, it prevents a lot
of otherwise what would happen television coverage of these unelected

(01:03:20):
rulers of our country. So I think whatever the bad
grandstanding issues are overcome by the need for more transparency
and for people to be able to see and learn
what their actual rulers are doing. So I'm one hundred
percent in favor of cameras in the courtroom, even though
I think it would probably be bad in terms of
like the quality of arguments. I don't think those concerns

(01:03:43):
are are misplaced. I just think they're completely overtopped by
both the democratic necessity of being able to see your
leaders in action and the ability to cover those cases
on television.

Speaker 5 (01:03:59):
But you just all yesterday. I think the cannon or
the US Code of Judges Code of Conduct for Judges
says that I say yesterday, Tiffany, dammit, I'm sorry you
just saw this week.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (01:04:10):
And it's from the US conduct US Code of Conduct
for Judges or their cannons that they should refrain from
political activity. But I believe he's in the third Circuit
quarter third Circuit Court of Appeals. Yeah, I don't. I'm
a I'm a I'm gonna fuck his name all up.
But Judge Emil bouve bove both, it's really it's really

(01:04:33):
pronounced like it's spelled both. Okay, he showed up at
Trump's rally last night like it wasn't nothing.

Speaker 6 (01:04:38):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (01:04:38):
I've never seen a judge on a federal Court of
Appeals show up at a political rally where it evolved
in this partisan rhetoric like it was nothing. But I think,
Elly correct me if I'm wrong. But we don't have
any recourse as part of this democracy for a judge
who just simply flaunts the United States Code of for judge.

Speaker 6 (01:05:01):
Republicans do not DGAF. They do not care about any
ethical strictures. And it's why I keep saying, my first bill,
if you know you elect me a dictator for a day,
my first bill is expanding the Supreme Court. My second
bill is ethics reform for the Supreme Court. We need

(01:05:21):
ethics reforms for the entire federal judiciary so that Bakari,
we have a recourse when these judges are openly corrupt. Right.
I call it the Clarence Thomas Anti Corruption Bill, right,
or the Harland Crow Anti Corruption Bill. But you need
something where an independent body can hold these judges accountable

(01:05:42):
when they clearly flout what should be ethics ruled. We
don't have any ethics rules, so I almost can't even
say they're can't clearly flout what doesn't exist. But you know,
when they clearly flout the simple, the mere idea that
they should be nonpartisan, impartial arbiters of the law. They

(01:06:03):
don't even pretend to be that anymore, and they never
will until there's an ethics bill. Now, legal scholars will
say that there's a separation of powers problem because the
Court has defined powers and they're punished by another branch
of government. Then that the offends. That makes Thomas Jefferson
cry or something. I don't really care, but if you

(01:06:24):
want it to go down that roll road, I always
point out that the Supreme Court's budget is controlled by Congress,
and so again dictator for a day, I cut their
budget until they agree to third party ethics oversight, right,
like that is a congressional power. The Constitution says there
should be a Supreme Court. Doesn't say where they should meet.

(01:06:45):
Doesn't say that they get to have a fancy court house.
They can meet out on the lawn. They can hold
their hearings out on the lawn, on the Washington Mall
for all the Constitution cares. Right, doesn't say they get
fancy clerks. Doesn't say they get security. That's something that
Congress has provided these people. They are armed security forces,
so they do not face the gun violence that they
have inflected upon the rest of the nation. I would

(01:07:07):
take it back. I would take it back. I would
I would let Harlan Crowe to provide their security for
all I care. But if you're gonna get money from
the federal government, goddamn a, your gunna follow some ethics rules.
That is the hard ball I would play. And then
Nick Dick Durbin emails my magazine yells at me for
being too radical.

Speaker 3 (01:07:27):
Well, we appreciate it. I have a question, not well
for you, Ellie, but I also want to hear from
Angela and Baccari on this, because I'm outnumbered by these
three lawyers. And so Bacary just brought up a really
interesting point, a really poignant point about this judge, a
federal judge on the Court of Appeals at a Trump rally.
You're talking about how the structure you know, these are

(01:07:51):
just words in the Constitution. I keep saying this, I
don't have the knowledge of the Supreme Court that you do,
or the law that all you eyes do. I keep saying,
the courts will not hold. We keep talking about these
infrastructures as though they're going to be around in five years,
ten years fifteen years before we came on, Ellie and
I were talking about our love for and or the

(01:08:12):
series and or that that reads that I watch it
like a documentary. Do you guys think the courts are
going to sustain ten years from now? Are we going
to be talking about the Supreme Court and Congress controlling
their budget? Do you think this infrastructure we're trying to
navigate is indestructible given that we've already seen the norms
of it erode. We're seeing it every single day erode.

(01:08:34):
So how important is this the Supreme Court going to be?
When Donald Trump is like, Oh, I don't like what
you said, so poof the Supreme Court doesn't matter. I
don't like these rules you're putting in place, so poof
Congress doesn't matter. I'm just curious child's thoughts.

Speaker 5 (01:08:46):
Everybody I think. I think that. I think that the
Supreme Court God's democracy and God society, not the other
way around. I think the courts God society, and society
doesn't dig take what happens to the courts. And the
only reason I believe that is because I've deduced the
three most consequential political events in my lifetime actually are

(01:09:10):
centered around the courts. I mean, the three most consequential
political events I've had since nineteen eighty four, since I
was born, was replacing Thirdgod Marshal with Clarence Thomas, Conservative
pressure on the right to remove Harriet Myers and replace
her with Justice Alito, and the election of Donald Trump
over Hillary Clinton and him being able to put three

(01:09:32):
justices on the Supreme Court. So in my forty one
years of living, I believe that the court the courts
have dictated societies machinations, not the other way around. So yeah,
I don't think the courts will be at the whim
of society. I think it's the other way around.

Speaker 1 (01:09:52):
And yeah, I want to say first that I think
it's really important that we understand and the court's role here.
Agreeing would be to an extent, but I think that
they are the reason for the demise, whether we're talking
about extending presidential immunity to criminal cases or we're talking

(01:10:13):
about these other two cases that we haven't gotten to yet.
But in particular, and this is kind of where I
want to transition Elie to next is we've talked about
the long standing impact now of Citizens United. You know,
the case with FEC or no McCutchen McCutchen versus the
FEC where campaign contributions were no longer capped for individuals.

(01:10:36):
So this is democracy is now a numbers game, and
if you don't have money to play the game, then
you're out. And so what they're getting ready to do
in this case where JD Vance frankly should no longer
have standing with this in a in a n S
r C case against the the FEC. Also, I think

(01:10:56):
is an important note because I think it expands Citizen
United and its intent and McCutcheon to a very very
dangerous place where it is purely pay to play, and
it sounds like they're gonna win on the merits on
this case. So Ellie, I want to hear you on this,
and I'd love to hear if there's time on the
FDC as well.

Speaker 3 (01:11:15):
But before you weigh in, Ellie, can I just say
because if I don't follow this stuff, I'm so confused.
So I just want to in R s C, I
just want to be clear you're saying National Republic Senate campaign,
that's what you're talking about.

Speaker 2 (01:11:25):
Yes, Yes, go ahead.

Speaker 6 (01:11:28):
So for the thirty thousand foot question, people need to
remember courts are extremely useful, useful to fascists. Right, courts
have always been in the fascist corner because courts are
what legitimizes the fascist regime. Right, the fascist does something
that's illegal and the courts say, actually, it's not illegal,
and then everybody's like, oh, well it's not illegal, We're fine.

(01:11:49):
Like the fascists throughout history have always used the courts
to their own ends. That's why taking over the courts
is always like step one in any fashion authoritarian takeover.
Which is why I've been screaming about court expansion for
the past ten years, because it is the courts or
a leading indicator of fascism, not a lagging indicator of fascism.

(01:12:11):
So that's to Tiffany's thirty thousand foot question, and we're
seeing it on Angela's on the ground question about campaign
finance reform. What the Court is essentially doing, big picture wise,
is making corruption legal, right, Like, that's how we have
to think about it. They're making corruption in our political
system legal. Two years ago, Brett Kavanaugh issued an opinion

(01:12:33):
where he basically said that you couldn't charge people for
corruption for taking legal bribes if they took the illegal
bribe after they had already performed the service that they
were bribed to do. At that point, it's just a gratuity.
That is me quoting capital. It's a gratuity for job
well done. If you pay a politician after they've taken
the vote that you wanted them to take, no mention

(01:12:56):
of that you promised to pay them that money only
if they voted the way that you want it. Right.
That is, there was a case with Bob McDonald and Virginia.
Like the Supreme Court is trying to make corruption in
our political system legal, and that is really at the
heart of this NRS, this Republican National Committee case. What
they're trying to do is remove the cap on spending.

(01:13:18):
Right so, like, right now you have a limited amount
of money that you can give to political candidates. They're
trying to take that away. I'm just trying to say,
is if you're a rich if you're a billionaire, if
you're Elon Musk, you can pay these guys as much
as you want. Right So, again, it's allowing more corruption
to be in the system, and that the Supreme Court
is very interested in doing. Why because they're a leading

(01:13:40):
indicator of fascism because they're a leading indicator of oligarchy, Like,
this is how you make the oligarchs and the fascist
legal by allowing them to spend as much money as
they want to influence and quite frankly buy political candidates
and political campaigns. And that's absolutely what they're doing and
what we're saying right now, and it's bad. It's it's

(01:14:09):
very bad.

Speaker 5 (01:14:10):
We it didn't sound it didn't sound good. It ain't
sound good. I can tell you that much, right.

Speaker 2 (01:14:14):
And again, this is.

Speaker 6 (01:14:17):
That really bothers me about this case is that obviously
the legal jargon for why they're saying that they can
remove the limits is that they're saying corporations are people right,
that corporations have free speech right. Money is speech, corporations
have a personhood's free speech right to to spend as
much speech as they want to if you will. And that, again,

(01:14:38):
on the hypocrisy level, rocks into their birthright citizenship thing. Right,
So they're basically protecting the personhood of corporations but not
protecting the personhood of actual fucking people, Like that's what
they're that's what they're doing. And again, the hypocrisy is
rife and and disgusting.

Speaker 5 (01:15:00):
Well, I need to argue in front of Supreme Court
one day. That's one of my dreams because one of
my goals is to not get rid of, but limit
qualified immunity. I know you have your dreams. I have.
That's that's one of my judicial dreams because.

Speaker 6 (01:15:11):
It's if you ever get the opportunity, can I ask
you just to blow these people up? Because so many
of the people who argue in front of the Supreme Court,
and obviously there are lawyers, they're trying to win their case,
and so they're really solicitous and nice and and play
along with the justices. And I just want one person
to show up at court and just call these people

(01:15:33):
out on their hypocritical bull craft, because that never happens,
and that's what I want to see. That's why my
dream is to be nominated for a Circuit Court appointment.
I don't want the actual job. I think I would
actually be probably a bad judge because I'm pretty freaking biased.

Speaker 5 (01:15:49):
I don't know, man.

Speaker 6 (01:15:50):
I think the confirmation hearing, the confirmation hearing where I
get to sit in front of the center judicial community
and do not care if they vote for me.

Speaker 2 (01:15:59):
Oh perview, that would.

Speaker 5 (01:16:01):
Be I want to see you and you buddy from
h You and buddy from Louisiana. Right, I would, just
I would. What's his name, John Kennedy, John Kennedy.

Speaker 3 (01:16:16):
I was like my Louisiana Republican centator from Wisiam.

Speaker 5 (01:16:19):
Yeah, we're blaking on name today. I argued in front
of the South Carolina State Supreme Court one time. Our
domestic violence laws specifically stated one man, one woman, and
so gay couples did not get domestic violence protection, meaning
that the charges didn't escalate, you didn't get an order protection,
all those things. Uh. And so I actually won that

(01:16:40):
case in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court when
I had a young lady who was the victim of
domestic violence here. So now South Carolina loss cover same
sex couples. Very proud of that, Eli, but it's not
the big dogs, but it was big enough for me.
Right for your service, Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (01:16:58):
Well sorry, I just if you could ellie in thirty seconds.
This is another pain point for me in this slaughter case,
of course, is where Donald Trump may get the ability
to overrule what happens traditionally with the FTC. That's the
Federal Trade Commission and I just remember a point where
the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Barack Obama couldn't even

(01:17:22):
make a recess appointment for the nation National Labor Relations Board.
So if you could really quickly just go into this,
because I think this is a case that Trump is
likely to win.

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
So if you could really quit this.

Speaker 6 (01:17:34):
Is a hugely important case. It's called Trump Freesolary. It
basically deals not just with the FTC, but Trump's ability
to fire everybody in the executive ranch. It's that unitary
executive theory. All executive power is vested in the president,
and so you can fire the head of any federal agency.
He can fire any commissioner on an independent federal commission commission.

(01:17:56):
He can fire any employee of the federal government if
they just happen to be black, happen to be gained,
doesn't like them. Because everything is everybody starves with the
pleasure of the president. According to this made up unitary
executive theory, it is the end of the administrative state,
is the hollowing out of the state bureaucracy. And I
know that when I say that defending the bureaucrats and

(01:18:16):
the experts doesn't sound particularly sexy, But people need to
understand that one of the some thrusts of constitutional liberal democracy,
one of the reasons for the bourgeois revolts of the seventeenth, eighteenth,
and nineteenth centuries was to take away the power of
the absolute monarch to fire government ministers and functionaries at will.

(01:18:42):
That was actually one of the huge points of contentions
between constitutional democracy and absolute monarchy. That you shouldn't be
able to fire federal officials just because they don't do
what you say. You shouldn't be able to fill the
federal bureaucracy with your cronies and friends as opposed to
experts and people represented by the elective branches, right Like,

(01:19:06):
That's actually part of what the revolutions are about. And
so when the Supreme Court gives this power back to
Trump to fire any federal official at his whim and will,
what they're doing is truly giving him a monarchical power
in the same way that Trump the United States gave
him immunity from criminal protection, which is the power of

(01:19:26):
a king. This also is the power of the king
that they are regiving to Donald Trump, and it's part
of a long term conservative legal project to destroy the
administrative state to destroy the regulatory state, and they are
absolutely winning and they're absolutely going to win this. And
so in my article in the Nation, I wrote, like

(01:19:48):
people might not think that they see the importance of
the bureaucracy now, but y'all will You will when you
can't get a vaccine because Trump has fired everybody who
is able to provide you a vaccine. You will see
it when there's uranium and mercury in your drinking water
because Trump fired all the people at the EPA, because

(01:20:08):
groundwater studies are too woke for the Trump administration. You
will see. You will see it as AI turns into
the terminator because it's completely unregulated by the federal government.
All of these issues are actually issues of whether or
not we're allowed to have a state bureaucracy run by
experts or a state bureaucracy run by cronies. And the

(01:20:31):
Supreme Court and Donald Trump have decided to go all
in on the crony system, and that is going to
have significant consequences for how we live every day in
this country. And he's going to win sixty three, He's
gonna win six three, and that's it.

Speaker 1 (01:20:48):
This case, of course, is argued this week, please make
sure you all check out Ellie's peace on this court case.
And with that we are going to jump into our
cost to action.

Speaker 6 (01:21:03):
Who cares about truth? When the last.

Speaker 1 (01:21:05):
Morning saying it, Ellie, you are here, you lighten it up,
no pun intended. But I also want to ask you
if you have a call to action for our audience
since you're still here with this oh.

Speaker 6 (01:21:16):
My god, packed the court. I mean, like I can't.
I say it all the time, and I know it
almost sounds like broken record, but like we even at
this late date, even when all the Supreme Court is doing,
we still do not have Democratic candidates running explicitly on
a court reform package.

Speaker 5 (01:21:33):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:21:34):
We still do not have the Democrat who wants to
be running for president in a couple of years saying
that when they are president day one, they will expand
the Supreme Court and roll back all of the horrible
decisions that we're talking about. So pay attention to who
is on the side of court reform and vote for
those people and reject the people who think that the

(01:21:56):
saying that politics as usual are when it comes to
Supreme Court is what's going to get us through this.

Speaker 1 (01:22:03):
Thank you, Ellie. Tip what you got.

Speaker 3 (01:22:06):
I will just use this time quickly to say thank
you to the National Council of Negro Women. Chavn Arleen
Bradley honored Joy Reed, Melissa Harris Perry, and myself at
their dinner this week. Please support the National Council of
Negro Women. Learn about the legacy of doctor Dorothy Height
and Mary McLeod Beffoon, who founded the organization. I've been

(01:22:27):
a member since I was twenty one years old, and
so I just want people to make sure that we
carry the legacy of our people who may not be
household names to some people, who may be household names
to others, but carry the legacy of our civil rights
leaders into the work that we're doing today. So thank
you Shavon and the NCNW for honoring me and my
sisters this past weekend and Karen Finney. They also honored

(01:22:47):
Karen Finney as well, so congrats to her.

Speaker 2 (01:22:50):
Congrats Tip.

Speaker 5 (01:22:51):
It is much deserved, well deserved, well deserved. Yeah, no, y'all, don't.

Speaker 3 (01:23:03):
You know we're pretty unfiltered, right, That's okay.

Speaker 2 (01:23:08):
Truth is welcome here.

Speaker 5 (01:23:09):
Yeah, yeah, I love it. Congratulations Tiffany, you deserve all
those blessings and many many more. Truly. Indeed, I remember
my mama used to get that mail from the uh
what is it U N CW and that what I
and that is that the acronym. Did I get it right? Yeah, y'all, Yeah,

(01:23:31):
that's why I don't talking to Adam. But it's been
around a long time, great women, and you all are
part of that lineage. Mineus quick. It's only about three
weeks or so, less than three weeks left in the year.
Go get your physicals. Man, y'all gotta go get your
yearly physicals. I get really depressed around this time because
one of us are going to have somebody who drops
dead who need not be dead, around this holiday season.

(01:23:55):
Go get your yearly physicals. If you haven't, you still
got time. If you got the ACA, Obamacare is free,
even go to urgent care. I like to get the
Cadillac because I'm a little bit of a hypochondriac. So
I make them test me for everything, eatbola, eat cola,
all the stuff. So I want you all to get
get get your physicals, particularly black men, if you're over

(01:24:18):
the age or whatever it is, let them let them
get real intimate with you, touch you in all the
places you don't necessarily want to be touched, but go
get your physicals so we can live a little bit
longer this holiday season.

Speaker 1 (01:24:31):
I actually, Bakari, I appreciate you going there for two reasons.
One is a good friend of ours, Stephanie Brown James
lost her best friend this week. The young woman is
just forty four years old. Erica makes she rest in power.
But it also reminded me of I have like reiki

(01:24:53):
sessions weekly that are virtual, and in my reiki session
from last week, Danielle told me that this was a
season for me to really engage in clearing out any negativity,
so any old wounds that I may have, any old baggage,

(01:25:14):
any you know, points of bitterness, any places where I
needed to release someone or ask for forgiveness, to really
deepen into that. And I was re listening to that
session on Monday of this week, and I just want
y'all to know and hold me accountable to it. And
I also invite you into the journey to do the same,
to release any of.

Speaker 2 (01:25:32):
That baggage I got stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
Y'all clearly know that I need to resolve with my brother,
you know, I just I want to make sure that
when I go into twenty twenty six, I'm leaving all
of that behind. Whether there are places where I've offended
or hurt people, I've seen comments from people said I
was mean to them when I saw them, Please forgive me.
I don't know what was going on, But more often
than that, it's not me being the beat. It's just

(01:25:55):
anxiety and I'll be spending and Tiff will be like,
you gotta calm down, says, and she's right, and so
to that, I want to be much more intentional about
how you are encountering me and make sure that I
clear the air. So for those of you who I
don't have your phone numbers or emails, if I've done
anything to offend you or cause you harm, please forgive me.
Charge it to my head and out my heart, and

(01:26:15):
I ask that you and you join me on this
journey at the end of the year for us to
clear out any of that negativity so we can go
into this next year with much more positivity.

Speaker 5 (01:26:25):
Apology accepted, Apology accepted. Thank you for finally acknowledging that
I'm glad we got took years, but I'm glad. I'm
glad I finally took Ellie coming on the show to
get the apology.

Speaker 1 (01:26:36):
I'm here so glad his WiFi is breaking up me in.

Speaker 6 (01:26:40):
Again.

Speaker 2 (01:26:43):
That's what happened. The Laura won't let him have the floor.
Thank you Jesus with that, y'all. This show is a rap.

Speaker 1 (01:26:50):
Thank you again to our guests, our favorite Supreme Court expert, Elie, Vesta,
tiff And Bakari and Andrew. Y'all pray that our good
brother Andrew gets better with this od y has when
you got that many kids that do bring the germs home,
So pray for our nist and our nephews as well.
We are Angela, Rie, Tiffany Cross, Andrew Gillim and Macari Sellers.

Speaker 2 (01:27:09):
Welcome home, y'all.

Speaker 1 (01:27:10):
There are three hundred and twenty seven days in token
in termolation.

Speaker 9 (01:27:14):
Welcome home to the native landing on the podcast face
that's a for greatness.

Speaker 6 (01:27:18):
Sixty minutes is so hit, not too long.

Speaker 9 (01:27:20):
For the grave shit, high level combo politics in a
way that you could taste it then digest it. Politics
touches you even if you don't touch it.

Speaker 6 (01:27:29):
So get invested.

Speaker 9 (01:27:30):
Across the t's and doctor I kill them, got them
ass Sellers Staying on business or why you could have
been anywhere, but you trust us. Native Lampard is a brand.

Speaker 6 (01:27:39):
That you can trust.

Speaker 1 (01:27:58):
Native Lampard is a production of iHeart Radio and partnership
with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or

Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
Wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Hosts And Creators

Tiffany Cross

Andrew Gillum

Angela Rye

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Long Game feat. Elie Mystal