June 12, 2025 • 66 mins
On this week’s filibuster, Jemele gets to the bottom of why there’s only one Black female head coach in the WNBA, despite Black women making up 70 percent of the league. Jemele is then joined by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who gives his thoughts on the Elon Musk-Donald Trump feud, if it was fair for the Knicks to fire Tom Thibodeau, and how the Democrats plan to win the messaging war against Republicans. Jeffries also answers criticisms about his party’s lack of urgency and if the current Democratic leadership is enough during this perilous moment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, what's up everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm Jamel Hill and welcome to politics and I heard
podcast and unbothered production. Time to get spolitical pop quiz,
Boys and girls. How many WNBA head coaches are black women? Now,
(00:24):
before you answer, here are a few things to consider.
Seventy percent of the league is black. At the end
of the twenty twenty two season, half of the league's
twelve coaches were black, with three of those six coaches
being black women, and there were eight head coach openings
this last WNBA offseason. Ready for the answer to the
question one, that's how many black women are head coaches
(00:46):
in the WNBA. Now, that's a bizarre and to be honest,
and embarrassing statistic for a league that is overrepresented with
black women in terms of the players. But the league
having just one black woman is far from a low,
because as recently as twenty twenty there wasn't a single
black woman serving as head coach in the league. But
(01:06):
this isn't a new issue for women's basketball. But just
to carry over from what we've seen at.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
The college level.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Two.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Now, I'm not calling anyone racist. I'm just taking a
closer look at the systems and structures because they are
often designed to be inequitable, even if we're talking about
a women's sport, where there is often an assumption that
equity is a natural byproduct. The WNBA has often received
high praise for its diverse hiring. The Institute for Diversity
(01:34):
in Ethics and Sports has given the league an A
plus for its racial engender hiring practices every year the
league has been in existence. Now full disclosure, Doctor Richard Lapchack,
the director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport,
is someone I have a deep respect for. We've worked
closely together many times, and he is internationally respected as
(01:57):
a civil rights leader. But the numbers from his institute
don't quite tell the story and certainly not the full history.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
People want to know, though, Will you ever be a
head coach for a WNBA team?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
You know what I'm gonna say this, For the first time,
I put my hat name in a hat to coach
this year for two teams all the way down to
the end. I won't say who those two teams are.
But I did not get the jobs, and I felt
like I would never make another attempt to.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Go into coaching.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Really in the WNBA yes, because you know, it's like
you got to be ten times as great as a
black woman in this industry. It's only one land when
I tell you that who these people hired is not
better than me and what I could do for these
team and players. But it's okay because I again am
(02:56):
a very much that what's for you is for you, yes,
and that's not for me, and I'm okay with that.
So I will never attempt to coach in the WNBA again.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Now, if your counter argument to Lisa Leslie not getting
a WNBA head coaching opportunity is that she lacks coaching experience,
keep in mind that she did coach in the Big
Three in twenty nineteen, and that same year she not
only won a Big Three championship, but she was also named.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Coach of the Year. Now, let's say you want to
dismiss that too.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Well, when it comes to mail coaches, the WNBA hasn't
had a problem hiring them despite their lack of.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Experience in coaching women.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Now, sometimes it's worked out, as was the case with
Bill Lambiert and Michael Cooper, who both brought their respective
teams WNBA championships, and sometimes it's been disastrous, as was
the case with Derek Fisher, who was hired to coach
the LA Sparks despite a terrible coaching record with the
New York Knicks. Fisher, who had never coached women before,
(03:53):
finished with a fifty four to forty six record with
the Sparks and infamously benched Candae Parker in a playoff
Line Nation game, which ultimately became one of the reasons
that Parker left the Sparks to play for the Chicago
skuy Now some have questioned whether the hiring pool is
deep enough and if the WNBA is in a position
to attract solid WNBA coaches. But is it lack of
(04:17):
candidates and money or lack of intention? Now there's a
good pool of former players to choose from, including LaToya Sanders,
Breon January, and Christy Tolliver, all of whom are currently
WNBA assistants and have served in the league as assistants
for multiple years, with Tolliver also having coached at the
NBA level. As for money, that's also about intention too.
(04:42):
The Phoenix Mercury hired Nate Tibbets in twenty twenty three
and immediately made him the highest plaid coach in the
WNBA with a reported salary of one point two million
a year. Now, Tibbets was an NBA assistant for twelve years,
but prior to the Mercury he never coached women's basketball.
He came into the league making more money than Las
Vegas Aces head coach Becky Hammond, who won back to
(05:03):
back WNBA championships, played in the WNBA, and was an
NBA assistant under Greg Popovich. Now, this is no shade
to Tibbets, but he's somewhat of an example of the
built in sexism that women coaches face.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
The WNBA has.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
This history of hiring men who have never coached women's
basketball and giving them premium salaries and opportunities, and conversely,
there also is a trend of being more impatient when
it comes to black coaches in the offseason. The Chicago's
Guy fired Teresa Withersfield, one of the league's most decorated
and fiercest players, after just one season. The Atlanta Dream
(05:38):
also fired Tanisha Wright after just three seasons. Now, there
is understandable concern that now that there is more money
in women's basketball and more substantive growth, the fear is
that this will mean more opportunity for men and not
for women. Before the NCAA included women's sports, more like
they were forced to oversee women's sports because of a
court order. Women's sports were governed by the assaul Llciation
(06:00):
for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women. Now, when women were governing
women's sports, over ninety percent of women's teams were coached
by women. By the early nineteen eighties, after the NCAA
took over, that number had declined to fifty one percent,
and today roughly sixty percent of women's sports at the.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
College level are coached by men.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Meanwhile, guess what percentage of men's college sports are coached
by men?
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Ninety five percent.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Black women account for twelve percent of head coaching positions in.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
College basketball across all divisions.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Thirty percent of the players who play women's college basketball
are black. But considering ninety percent of black women who
play college basketball graduate with a degree, that right there
should provide somewhat of a supply of coaching candidates. Now,
the WNBA is writing a strong upward trajectory, and as
the league grows, their standards shouldn't be to do things
exactly as the men, it should be their goal to
(06:52):
not only make money, but create a new standard of
empowerment and opportunity for women, not just do the same
things we've all read be seen before. I'm Jamel Hill,
and I approve this message. Coming up next on politics,
my guest on this episode is one of the most
powerful people in politics. He's in a top leadership position
(07:12):
as the Democrats are facing an identity crisis and still
feeling the effects of losing last year's presidential election. Now
a lot of people have been asking Democrats what's the plan.
On this episode, he'll answer some of those questions. And
since this is a sports.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
In Politics podcast, I had to.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Ask him about his beloved New York Knicks firing head
coach Tom Thibodeau after he got the Knicks to the
Eastern Conference finals. Coming up next on his politics, Straight
out of Brooklyn House, Minority leader a King Jefferies. Well,
(07:50):
Representative Jefferyson, and thank you so much for joining me
here on politics, and I'm going to start the podcast
for the question I ask every guest that appears, and
that is name an athlete or a moment that made
you love sports.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, it's great to be with you and thank you
for everything and that you do in sports and politics,
and probably I should say appropriately what up? Though, well
look at you.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
I think, okay, somebody gave you some insight into all right,
that's our Detroit Green, which, as I often say, can
be a question or just a statement.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
But yeah, you know, I think I grew up. As
you know, I rocked with the Yankees, the Knicks, the Jets,
Saint John's and the Rangers. So really the first time
that one of those teams that I rock with had
(08:44):
a championship run at an age that I could appreciate, right,
I was three years old the last time the Knicks
won the championship. I didn't remember it in nineteen seventy three,
but when I was seven, I was following baseball at
the time, was beginning to play Little League, and that
was the time that the Yankees and the Dodgers were
(09:07):
in the first of two back to back World Series appearances,
and of course famously saw a Yankees fan watching the
World Series. It's great. I remember being in the living
room and the apartment that we lived in. My dad
was there, My grandfather, Papa Gomes was there. He lived
in La so he was actually a Dodgers fan, and
(09:30):
Game six, Reggie Jackson three home runs on three consecutive pitches.
I think that's the date that we actually won the
World Series. But that was of course a magical moment
in baseball history and sports history, and certainly that's what
got me hooked.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Well, it is so.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Ironic, Well maybe ironic is not the right word, but
the timing is impeccable that we are recording this Pack
podcast on the day that I guess, if you want
to consider it is fort the Elon Musz versus Donald
Trump back and forth that's taking place on social media.
But before I get to that, there are pressing Knicks
matters that I need to address with you first. You know,
this week, the Knicks decided to fire Tom Thibodeau. What
(10:17):
did you think about them making this move, doing this
just three days after the Knicks were outsted from the
Eastern Conference Finals.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
You know, it definitely caught me off guard, and I
think it caught a lot of people off guard at
home in New York and Knicks fans. He had a
great run I think five seasons. For those seasons we
were in the playoffs, of course, back to back fifty
win games. Most successful series of runs in terms of
season after season after season since the glory days for
(10:49):
me in the nineties into the early parts of two thousand.
First appearance, of course in twenty five years in the
Eastern Conference Finals, and it's a lovable team. So that
was shocking for me certainly and for a lot of folks.
The question I think moving forward is, you know, had
(11:09):
the team maxed out under tips Is leadership? And clearly
there were adjustments that needed to be made that weren't
necessarily made. Right to start in five played more minutes
than any other starting five in the entire season. That
can't continue, and there was no development of the bench
(11:30):
during the season. You can't develop a bench in game four,
Game five, or Game six of the Eastern Conference Finals.
That's not going to work. So the question I think
moving forward because what's done is done, and I think
reasonable people could conclude that the Knicks did max out
under Tips' leadership, notwithstanding you know the greatness of the
(11:52):
run up until this point, in all the excitement, and
you know that when the Knicks on fire, the is
on fire and it was a great uh, it was
a great run. But I think the question here is
is this our Mark Jackson moment, Steve Kerr moment, because
(12:18):
the firing of Mark Jackson caught a lot of us
by surprise. He had three successful years if I recall correctly.
But the Warriors concluded that the team had maxed out
and decided to go in a different direction, and they
obviously found the right person who went on, you know,
to lead the team to I think four different championships
(12:41):
as it relates to the Golden State Warriors. So hopefully
we can just hit the jackpot in terms of whatever
direction we go in next. And this current management has
had a pretty successful track record in building the team
up until this point, so.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Would you consider and by the way, that's a very
optimistic way to look at it. You know, I do
think there may have been some concern among Knicks fans
and suddenly, just me as an outside observer, is that
typically you know, we don't know yet the details of
how much James Dolan was involved, but it is his team,
so of course he was involved.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
But he has made some decisions before and.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
People have wondered, what was this another rational decision or
is this something like a little bit more calculated kind
of what you were talking about when you just max
out with a particular coach and you need somebody a
new voice in the locker room. That being said, how
would you characterize this season for the Knicks as successful?
Speaker 3 (13:36):
Yes, I would characterize it as successful. I think because
we got the third seed and were lined up against
the world champion Boston Celtics. Most people were of the
view that we ain't getting out of the second round,
and this is going to be the third consecutive year
(13:57):
that we went out in the second round, very disappointing.
I think we lost to Miami, then we lost to
Indiana last year, and the expectation was Boston was going
to run us out the gym, and we win game one.
Then we win Game two. That was incredible, and then
the Celtics come to the guard and they win Game three,
(14:20):
and then we do our thing in game four. Had
it won even before Tatum went out, and certainly our
prayers that would Tatum for a full and speedy recovery.
But it was a great series, and then we smoked
the Celtics in Game six. At that point, I think
for me, of course, a run to winning it all
in the finals would have been ideal, but a competitive series,
(14:44):
showing some heart going out, you know, in six is respectable.
I think that's a very successful season. But Game one
was rough. I was in Washington, had it on in
the backdrop. We were actually debating the GLP tax, and
it was kind of late at night, early in the morning,
(15:04):
preparing to speak on the house floor, and I couldn't
believe that it was falling apart in the last few
minutes and that was unfortunate. And that may have been
the point where the next management concluded, Ya, it's time
to move in a different direction.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Well, I'm a Pistons fan, so I was hating.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
We lost all our home games, so you all by
combined six points, and that was tough. And of course,
as fate would have it, over the course of the
next week following that series, I spent a lot of
time in New York doing some CNN stuff, so I
had to have the New York fandom in my face
after a salty, tough series.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
So after that, I have to say I was a
bit bitter toward the Knicks.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
No I got you on that. Needless to say, I'm
not rocking with Indiana in the finals. Go okay, See, as.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
I mentioned, at the top of our conversation.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Right now, in real time, there is a back and
forth playing out between Eli muh Donald Trump over social media,
because of course it's twenty twenty five, and with these
two individuals in particular. Now, the last tweet that Elon Musk,
or one of the last tweets Sea drop was that, Yeah,
that's right, Donald Trump, you were in the Epstein files. Okay,
all right, So with this entire back and forth, given
(16:17):
all the things that are happening in this country from
the disaster's bill that you just mentioned, what is your
perspective of this fight that is going on between Donald
Trump and Elon Musk.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Yeah, it's definitely an intense situation, and of course people
on the hill are following it. I'm on Washington, DC
right now. People are following it with great interest. It
has my colleagues on the Republican side shook right now
because you got Donald Trump, who's one puppet master for them,
and Elon Musk, who's the other puppet master for them,
(16:52):
and they don't know whose side to be on in
this fight, so they're kind of burying their heads in
the sand. Largely interesting to me is that Elon Must's
assessment of the GOP tax scam, what we believe is
one big, ugly bill is correct when he calls it
(17:12):
a disgusting abomination. It is now. Our view is that
it's a disgusting abomination one because it takes healthcare away
literally from more than fifteen million people. The largest cut
to healthcare in American history. That's out of control. And
then they're ripping food out of the mouths of children
(17:33):
and veterans and seniors. Largest cut to nutritional assistance in
American history. That's ridiculous. And this is all being done
in order to provide their billionaire donors with a massive
tax break that would be the largest tax break for
the wealthy, the well off, and the well connected in
American history. And then on top of that, they want
(17:56):
our children, our grandchildren, the next generation of Americans to
pay the bill because they would stick us with more
than three trillion dollars in additional debt and explode the deficit.
And so Elon Musk has said Republicans should be ashamed
(18:16):
of themselves for voting for this bill. I agree with
that position. Now, the fact that this is broken out
into the public domain on social media in such an
extraordinary way. And now it's been personalized like this, I
think has caught a lot of people off guard. I
mean when I saw that Epstein tweet or post, I'm like, whoa,
(18:42):
he just went tupac hit him up? I mean, he
just went there and I rock with Biggie, right, but
hit him up was like a next level in terms
of just the personal assault. And that's basically what Elon
has done. And once you cross that the rubicon, I'm
(19:05):
not sure how the two of them come back from it.
And of course it continues to intensify throughout the day.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
I think just based off you know, of course on
social media, there's a lot of jokes flying around, but
beneath all that, I think there is because we have
seen just so much chaos in this administration since they
took over in January, that there's a part of the
public that is wondering what is this distracting us from?
(19:33):
You know, there's always sort of a watch what a
hook is coming with this administration? And so from a
strategy standpoint, is this something that is useful for the
Democrats seeing two of you know, to.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Kind of not likable people go at it in this way.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Yeah, it's interesting because you're absolutely correct. We've seen from
this administration from day one, a flooding of the zone
that daily outraigs, the parade of marbles, and a lot
of it is designed to create confusion and to disillusion people,
to project this sense that it's all inevitable and that
it's hard to follow what you should be outraged about
(20:18):
because it's so much that takes place that clearly part
of the strategy is to try to distract you from
the things that you really should be concerned about in
any given situation. I think this is different because the
feud exploded onto social media based on Elon's criticism of
(20:39):
the One Big Ugly Bill and his criticism of the
Republicans for trying to jam this down the throats to
the American people. Some of the reasons why he disagrees
with the bill are reasons why we as Democrats disagree
with the bill. The attack on the effort to try
to build the clean energy economy. He obviously has a
(21:00):
problem with it. He's got business interests connected to that.
We have a problem with it because we think standing
up a clean energy economy actually will lower energy costs
for everyday Americans. And we have to be focused on
building an affordable economy, and that's part of the effort
to do that. It also creates jobs in places all
across the country, and it does something meaningful to address
(21:22):
the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now that's necessary.
So the fact that this few the genesis of it
relates to Elon Musk's effort to try to kill the
billings he said, we agree every single House Democrat was
strongly opposed to the GOP tax scam. We're working hard
(21:46):
to kill a bill as we speak. It limped out
of the House of Representatives barely by one vote, and
it doesn't have a clear path towards success in the Senate.
So it's interesting. I don't think this is a distraction
because what they would be trying to distract you from,
meaning Trump, is what they're trying to do and taking
(22:07):
away healthcare, taking away nutritional assistance, hurting veterans, hurting everyday
americans to reward their billionaire donors. They don't want us
talking about that. But at the center of this fight,
or at least how it began, was the criticism around
the GOP tax scam and this reckless Republican budget.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Let's talk about the tax scam bill or I did see.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
I think Chuck Schumer called it that well Everybody's going
to die act after Congresswoman johny Ertz, who had some
very callous comments about the damage that.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
This bill could do to the people who would lose
health care.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
You know, at this point, I think a lot of
people have obviously been very critical of the Democratic Party
in this moment, even though you all are not in leadership,
you don't have the majority in either chamber, but nevertheless,
you are expected to do something. And I'm looking at
the approval rate that you all have, and I know
(23:05):
you've seen the poll about what the Democratic Party's approval
rating has been despite all the chaos, despite the fact
that Trump's approval ratings are falling, the fight, the fact
that people are losing a lot of whatever faith they
had and that he could fix this economy.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Is that honeymoon periods over?
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Like nobody's kind of buying that he's going to be
able to fix this economy. With all that being said,
how is it that Democrats can better control this narrative
in this chaotic moment.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Yeah, it's a great question, and it's a work in progress.
For why variety of reasons. First of all, people are
understandably disappointed and distressed and in many cases disillusion by
the fact that we lost in November of twenty twenty four,
and we've got to own that because we lost to
this guy. And obviously, Kamala Harris and my view, did
(24:00):
a tremendous job in the limited time that she had
one hundred and seven day campaign, the best that she
could under difficult circumstances after President Biden decided that he
wasn't going to seek reelection, and those circumstances led to
a situation where we lost to Donald Trump. We didn't
(24:23):
get the House back, we felt just three seats short,
and then of course lost control of the Senate. So
from the standpoint of Democrats in this country being disappointed
with the party, that's understandable, and so what we have
to do to earn back their trust. One is to
demonstrate that we are functioning as a principled opposition to
(24:48):
stop as many bad things from happening as we can
and pushing back aggressively against the parade of horribles that
Donald Trump is unleashing on the American people. Because this
is an un residented assault on the economy, and assault
on healthcare and assault on social security, in assault on
a democratic way of life, an assault on the rule
(25:08):
of law, and an assault on democracy itself. So it
does require us to engage in an all hands on
deck effort. Now, I do think that what we have
seen is some success in clarifying for the American people.
(25:28):
As you pointed out, Jamail, that Donald Trump promised he
was going to fix the economy, address inflation and lower costs.
In fact, he said he's going to lower costs on
day one. Dude was lying to the American people. He's
not lowering costs. Costs are going up. He's crashing the economy.
(25:49):
These Trump tariffs are going to add thousands of dollars
an additional expense to hardworking American taxpayers, and he's probably
driving us toward a recession. Despite the fact that the
expectation was Donald Trump was going to be able to
control the narrative. Republicans have complete control in Washington. He's
got all these social media relationships and new media relationships,
(26:12):
and Democrats would not be able to break through with
any degree of clarity. Well, actually, Donald Trump was the
most unpopular President at the one hundred day mark in
modern American history. Somebody's paying attention to the things that
are being said. The American people are locking in on
(26:34):
the fact that he's actually not making life better for them,
He's making life worse. So we have to continue to
be the principled opposition stopping bad things from happening, and
I think pivot to articulating our vision for making life
(26:57):
better for the American people that committed to building an
affordable economy. We know the deck has been stacked against
everyday Americans for far too long. The system has been
broken for decades, and we have to earn the confidence
of the American people that were committed to fixing it,
(27:18):
to improving their lives. And to be very clear to
the American people that we hear you, we see you,
we feel you, and we're committed to making life better
for you.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
How can you be principal opposition against an unprincipled enemy.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Yeah, I think we're in a more is more environment,
So I think the key is and we can learn
from those upon whose shoulders we stand. I have the
great honor of serving in Congress with John Lewis, an
American hero who of course always inspired us to show
up and stand up and speak up. And when you
(28:01):
see something that's wrong, never give up, never give in,
get into some good trouble, necessary trouble. As he would
tell us, he was principled in his opposition, but strong
and throughout his life, particularly in the Jim Crow South.
I mean Donald Trump was battling, I mean John Lewis
(28:23):
was battling in authoritarian situation that existed racial oppression enforced
by violence in parts of the Jim Crow South. And
yet they were able to both balance that principled opposition
with the righteous indignation and the ferocity that was necessary
(28:45):
to turn the situation around. And I think for us,
that's what we have to do. We have to stretch.
We're in a more is more environment, meaning more rallies,
more press conferences, more speeches on the House, most speeches
on the Senate floor, all night committee hearings, making sure
that we're having town hall meetings in democratic districts, town
(29:07):
hall meetings in Republican districts, as we're doing, convening democratic
led hearings on Capitol Hill, which we've done democratic led
hearings across the country, and taking our efforts on the road,
which we're continuing to do, sit ins, and you know,
a variety of things, site visits, more is more that's
(29:29):
going to be necessary for us to continue to meet
the moment.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
I've heard you use that terminology about flooding the zone,
not in relationship to Donald Trump, but what you think
Democrats should be doing being on TV more as you
just mentioned hitting essentially the campaign trail, doing the rallies.
People look at the rallies that you know, Alexandria Ocasio
Cortez did, alc and Bernie Sanders, and those seem to
be very successful. But you and I both know, especially
(29:55):
in the time where social media is this prominent, American
loves a good marketing campaign.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
MU is very clear.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
And what was interesting to me in watching the election
was that in so many states you had people approving
very popular Democratic policies that you all were the leaders
on that you all used to try to reshape this country,
and yet still voted for Republicans that were against everything
(30:22):
that you were trying to do. So, how do you
feel like in this time, considering how Republicans have been
able to use social media to their benefit a lot
through disinformation to be honest and misinformation. But nevertheless, they're
still able to control so much of the narrative. So,
how now, with the election fresh behind you, just for
(30:44):
just six months or so, how are you going to
make that connection between the marketing, the Democratic successes, and
what you're talking about better so that people really can
effectively see what you're doing. Like, what were the lessons
learned from the election in terms of how you need
(31:06):
to better connect with the American people.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
Yeah, it's a great question. I think that what's important
for all of us to internalize is that governing is
one lane and communicating with the American people is a
different lane, and they require two different types of skills.
(31:29):
And the challenge that we have traditionally faced as Democrats
in terms of communicating is that Republicans tend to communicate
in headlines and Democrats communicate in fine print. Now, there's
a reason why Democrats sometimes default to fine print. It's
because in order to govern, you actually have to master
(31:54):
the fine print. And as Democrats, we care about governing
because we care about the American people and we care
about getting things done. And when you look at the
modern day Democratic Party, which really dates back to the
presidency of FDR, and think about the things that we've
worked hard to deliver to the American people's social security,
(32:16):
rural electrification, the GI Bill, the Civil Rights Act, the
Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Immigration and
Nationality Act of nineteen sixty five, the Higher Education Act,
the Elementary and Secondary School Act, Medicare, Medicaid, head Start,
the Affordable Care Act, the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure
(32:38):
Investment and Jobs Act, the Pact Act, and standing up
for our veterans. And then, of course the Inflation Reduction Act,
which helped to lower the high price of life saving
prescription drugs, amongst doing other things, including the largest investment
in combating the climate crisis in the history of the world.
(32:59):
All of these things were brought to you by your
friendly neighborhood Democratic Party. That's an amazing track record of success.
Of course, much more needs to be done on behalf
of the American people, particularly in terms of building an
affordable economy and addressing the inflationary crisis that we are
(33:22):
dealing with in this country. But that's a great track
record of success to build upon. You don't produce all
of those things unless you have committed to mastering the
fine print of governing. But the challenge for us is
that while you govern in fine print, you message, you persuade,
(33:45):
you communicate and headlines, particularly in the era of social
media and new media, and we just have to do
a better job of making sure that we do what
we need to do in the communications lane so that
the American people actually give us the opportunity in the
governing lane to build upon the progress that we've tried
(34:09):
to make for everyday Americans over the last seventy five
eighty plus years.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
I look at it as you all are the party
of policy and they're the party of personality, And to
be honest, a lot of times it feels like the
personality part wins out just because of that communication gap
that you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
You know.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
With that being said, again, given how people feel so
frustrated right now with the party, how much do you
think the criticisms of the party, What do you think
is fair criticism of the Democratic Party, and what do.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
You think is unfair?
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Well, I think it's fair that at the end of
the day, notwithstanding all of the things that were accomplished
under the prior administration, that there were a lot of
Americans who believe that Donald Trump was better positioned to
deal with inflation and to lower the high cost of
(35:01):
living in the United States of America, and we did
not do a good enough job overall as a party
and communicating that one we understand that the cost of
living is too high, that we actually have a plan
to lower housing costs, lower grocery costs, lower energy costs,
lower childcare costs, and lower insurance costs, and that we
(35:25):
do actually believe with every fiber in our body that
in the United States of America, the wealthiest country in
the history of the world, no one should be living
paycheck to paycheck. No one should be struggling when they
work hard and play by the rules, but yet can't
(35:45):
find a good paying job, or purchase a home, or
live a comfortable life, or have access to healthcare, go
on vacation every now and then, or be able to
retire with grace and dignity. Everybody should have that opportunity
in the country, but everybody does not. And I think
that we have to do a better job of connecting
(36:09):
how we actually feel with making sure that the American
people feel us in terms of our commitment to making
their lives better. So that. You know, we just need
to do better in that area. And I think the
(36:29):
other thing we've got to do is convince a greater
number of Americans that we actually are fighting for them,
because there's no circumstance where the Republican Party under Donald Trump,
who is all about the wealthy, the well off, and
(36:49):
the well connected. I mean, if you just looked at
the inauguration, who was there. It wasn't everyday Americans, it
wasn't working class Americans. It was the billionaire boys Club.
It was a super villain convention, and it was wild.
And this is who he chose to surround himself with
because this is who he's fighting for. But yet Donald
(37:10):
Trump has somehow managed to convince a significant number of Americans,
or at least he did in connection with the election.
As you pointed out to Mail, he's falling apart right
now in terms of the perception that the American people
have as it relates to his ability to actually deal
with the economy. He lied not focused on lowering costs,
but he did managed to convince a significant number of
(37:33):
people that he would do that in connection with the election.
So we have to do a better job there now
in terms of the concern that Democrats on Capitol Hill
and the House and the Senate aren't fighting and pushing
back against Donald Trump and the administration aggressively, I think no,
(37:58):
every single House Democrat and every single Senate Democrat is
working hard to do the best that they can to
aggressively push back at what we all believe is an
unprecedented situation. And that's why I've acknowledged that all of
us are going to continue to be called upon to
(38:18):
do more, to engage with a level of intensity previously
unseen at any time in a Congress in modern American history.
And it requires extraordinary things to be done, including but
not limited to what you know, our brother Corey Booker
(38:39):
did when he delivered that historical speech on the floor
of the Senate. They're trying to cancel our history, he
canceled strom Therman.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
I want to ask you about that intensity, because I
think there's been some questions there. Also want to ask
you about I got a biggie question for you, since
I know you're a biggie.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
Guy and being.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
In represent and being from Brooklyn and representing there, so
this biggie question. I'm hoping this is the headline from
this podcast, but we just got to take a very
quick break and we'll be back with more with Representative
I came, Jeff mister Minority House Leader. Okay, before we
(39:25):
took a break, Representative Jefferies, you mentioned the intensity, and
I think that is where a lot of people, a
lot of people I talk to just in everyday life,
and that's the part that I think has people the
most frustrated. I don't think people doubt the effort. I
think at this point people want to know what are
the Democrats actually willing to do? And I say that
because we see Trump define court orders, we see him
(39:49):
like we're wondering. People are wondering, like, yes, you can
fight this battle through the courts, but if he don't
care what they say, where does that leave you. So this,
I think this idea that you all aren't doing enough
is coming from the fact that we don't know what
the next level of accountability actually looks like.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
So can you.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Explain if he is ignoring these court orders, he's not
following the rules, his administration isn't following it. What is
the next level of accountability that you have available?
Speaker 3 (40:18):
Well, there's a couple of things, right, So you've got
congressional accountability, and ultimately, the clearest path to bring that
about is to make sure that Democrats get the gavels
back in November of twenty twenty six, that we take
the House back, take the Senate back, that we can
end this national nightmare legislatively. And but you know.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
That's a long way from now though.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Listen, No, listen, that's I'm just saying. That's in terms
of congressional accountability. We got to be real. Why Because
unless a handful of Republicans in the House or handful
of Republicans in the Senate decide to actually grow a
spine and stop acting like rubber stamps for Donald Trump's
(41:07):
extreme agenda and engaging in their cult like behavior, then
it's going to be hard to get actual accountability on
a sustained basis at the congressional level until we defeat
the MAGA extremists next year in the midterm elections. That's
(41:29):
not to say they aren't important elections that are already
taking place. Every single special election that's been a high
profile race since the Trump presidency, Democrats have won, including
but not limited to the race in Wisconsin for the
state Supreme Court seat that was expected to be hotly contested.
(41:50):
Elon Musk spent twenty to twenty five million dollars trying
to elect the conservative candidate the progressive candidate one by
eleven points. But that's not the only high profile our
special election that we've won. We've won others, and you'll
have governors races that will be important in New Jersey
and in Virginia in November. Now, that's not to say
(42:12):
that we can't use the levels of authority and capacity
that we have as members of Congress, even if the
Republicans continue to be sick offense, and we continue to
do that as it relates to our engagement and committees,
our engagement on the House floor, our engagement across the country.
(42:34):
Republicans refuse to have town hall meetings, and so we decided,
you know what, We're going to have town hall meetings
in your districts to engage with your constituents, to tell
them what you are trying to hide, particularly as it
relates to ripping healthcare and Medicaid from tens of millions
(42:54):
of Americans, closing hospitals, shutting down nursing homes, and creating
a situation where people are actually going to die because
healthcare is being ripped away from them, and care in
terms of these institutions is being ripped away from them.
So I think again we're in a more is more environment.
(43:15):
We just have to continue to do more. Now on
the court side of things, right, it is important to
recognize we got three branches of government. We all learn
that in social studies as we have come up, and
you've got the legislative branch, you've got the executive branch,
(43:36):
and you've got the judicial branch. And we have seen
an unprecedented number of lawsuits that have filed last time
I checked, Because we work closely with a variety of
different groups, civil rights groups, democracy protection groups, organized labor,
civil liberties groups, democratic attorney generals. More than two hundred
(44:01):
and fifty lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration
and the unconstitutional and unlawful executive orders, and I believe
it's more than one hundred and eighty five different court
orders have been issued halting these executive actions and orders.
(44:23):
Now it has been the case literally in a handful
of instances. All that just happened to relate to the
immigration space where Donald Trump is pushing the envelope aggressively
as it relates to defiance, and in those cases handful
(44:44):
of cases, every single one of them in the immigration
space related to deportations or potential deportations, where our view
is that the courts need to be more aggressive in
a its authority if they've concluded that the Trump administration
(45:06):
is not complying with a court directive, and what they
have available to them is both civil contempt they can
find the heck out of whoever is not complying or
criminal contempt, and I think the courts have generally been
(45:28):
reluctant to use those tools against a sitting administration, but
extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures, And if we see
non compliance continue in different ways, then I think the
courts are going to have to get more aggressive. But
it's important for all your people to understand that in
(45:50):
the overwhelming majority of cases, Donald Trump ain't winning, he's losing,
and he's been forced to back down repeatedly.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
Well, I guess when you look at also the intimidation
that judges are facing now, I think people probably feel
a little a little less hopeful about that just because
of how this administration has gone after judges and called
them activists just because they even judges they appointed. The
(46:21):
judge is that he appointed, they have put a bullseye
on their back. You mentioned before about how really ultimately,
when it comes to the congressional accountability, it's going to
require Republicans who know better and theoretically should do better
to have us fine, which is something they haven't shown.
So I'm wondering from you, what do Republicans say to
(46:43):
you privately that they won't say publicly.
Speaker 3 (46:46):
Well, a lot of them mcnow is that privately that
some of the things that Donald Trump is the administration
they're doing are out of control. And then our response,
of course to them is well, why don't you step
up and communicate that, either directly to your colleagues in
(47:09):
the administration or forcefully publicly when necessary. And of course
the answer in many cases is people are concerned that
Donald Trump will end their political lives, that he will
(47:29):
primary them and they will lose. And of course they
point to the Liz Cheney situation where she actually demonstrated
some principle and voted to impeach Donald Trump talked about
his lack in her view of patriotism and the danger
(47:51):
that he represented to democracy, and Liz Cheney at one
point was the number three Republican in the House of Representatives,
the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, and it didn't
matter because she spoke out against them. Donald Trump targeted
her electorally primary her and she lost. And the same
(48:15):
thing happened to Adam Kinzinger, of course, particularly when those
two decided to participate in the January sixth Commission, which
exposed a lot of what took place in that violent
assault on the Capitol. So I think many of them
are in fear of their political lives, and that's been
part of the challenge. But we continue to say to them,
(48:39):
you were elected to defend your constituents, to stand up
for your constituents, and there's life after Congress, and you
should be willing to actually want to be able to
look back on your time in the House of Representatives
knowing that you can keep your head held high because
(49:03):
you did the right thing. Donald Trump is gone in
three and a half years, but their legacy, or their
failure to stand up to the extremism and the unprecedented
assault on America as we know it, will be with
them forever. Unless just a handful of Republicans, all we
(49:28):
need is four on the House side or four on
the Senate side to do the right thing. They're two
hundred and twenty Republicans in the House, we just need four.
That's less than two percent. And if less than two
percent of the Republicans in the House actually decide to
do the right thing, we can stop a lot of
(49:51):
the foolishness, the malignant foolishness, from taking place. And so
over these next eighteen months, we just continue to work
on that every day, every week, every month, privately, publicly.
What are colleagues on the other side of the eut Uh?
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Yeah, I mean I would.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
I guess it's hard for me to have any sympathy
for them when they feel that way, because I'm like, well,
what are you elected for? Yeah, you were elected to
actually be a public servant. And this is part of
the responsibility. I want to pivot quickly to an issue
that became a very big issue for Democrats in this
last election that Donald Trump has continued and the Republican
(50:29):
Party has continued to use and weaponize against the Democratic Party,
and that is trans athletes in sports, and let's be
real specific, trans women in sports. You know, you saw
the ads that you know, one campaign of Kamala Harris
is for they them, not not you. And what was
never said and I never saw any Democrats in a
(50:51):
very you know, sort of a very bold or very
aggressive way is say that policy where prisoners are able
to get gender affirming care existed under Donald Trump, the
first time it's been existing for quite a long time.
It's a court order, so legally you are following the
law by allowing gender affirming care. And they use that
(51:13):
ad and you know another case in California where's a
trans woman competing in volleyball. Nevertheless, it feels as if,
rather than address this issue, that Democrats have chosen to
shrink from it.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
Given everything that.
Speaker 2 (51:27):
Has happened, and even though what you had the NCAA
president Charlie Baker, he was on the hill, he testified
there are five hundred thousand college athletes, ten are trans,
and he didn't say women or men. Nevertheless, this issue
has become one for your party that it doesn't seem
that has been addressed. How do you plan to strategize
(51:50):
against these attacks using a very vulnerable group of people
in a way where you don't abandon them and they
still feel like there is room under your take for them,
but also in a way that the American public can
get behind.
Speaker 3 (52:06):
Yeah, well, the bullying of trans kids is unacceptable, and Republicans,
of course have tried to weaponize this issue in many ways.
As you've laid out, one of the first pieces of
legislation that Republicans brought earlier this year in a new
term was to try to jam Democrats up as it
relates to trans women in sports and what they were
(52:31):
seeking to do, and the way they framed it was
a nationwide band and I think our explanation. We voted
against the Republican bill in overwhelming numbers, and we were
very clear that their effort actually was going to unleash
bad behavior on girls in sports all across America. In fact,
(52:56):
we framed their bill Child Predator Empowerment Act because they
were calling for inspections of Genitalia in a circumstance where
we know abuses have taken place. Abuses have taken place
in football, abuses have taken place in gymnastics, abuses have
(53:20):
taken place in wrestling, and instead of responsibly trying to
deal with the issues of competition in sports and how
do we work through that in a community based way
that of course promotes the values of fairness, competitiveness, and participation.
(53:44):
They want to just weaponize the issue politically and so legislatively.
They tried to jam us up, and we didn't run
away from the issue. We exposed their hypocrisy, and they're
politicizing the issue in ways that would actually hurt the
young girls that they were purporting to want to help. Now,
(54:08):
I think my view at least is that these issues
should be resolved locally, at the local level, with maximum
parental involvement and maximum community involvement. And I think when
it comes to the what happened on the campaign trail,
(54:32):
you're absolutely right in terms of the policy that was
used against Vice President Harris was a policy that had
also been carried out by Donald Trump and the Trump
Justice Department connection with the court order. And I think
(54:52):
that if the campaign had it to do over again,
I presume, given the outcome, it would have been a
more forceful response to that add and the weaponization of
the issue against Kamala Harris. I can tell you that
(55:14):
moving forward, we will never allow Republicans to mischaracterize our
views on the issue, and we will never allow them
to run ads against our candidates that aren't forcefully responded
to immediately, and often before.
Speaker 2 (55:39):
I get to the biggie question that we can wrap
up the pod, I do have a question for you
about Joe Biden. Obviously, there's a book out now, Jake Tapper,
Original Sin, that essentially accuses the Democratic Party and those
close to Joe Biden of covering up his declining mental health.
And as somebody who was in close contact with Joe
Biden quite a bit, what is your perspective or what
(56:05):
are your thoughts about how this narrative has now played out.
Did you see anything, were you aware of any kind
of mental decline? What was your view as someone who
had to work closely with the president?
Speaker 3 (56:17):
Yeah, listen, I mean I think it was very interesting
because just a few months before that debate, Joe Biden
had come to Capitol Hill and the most significant high
profile appearance of his presidency, which is to deliver the
Joint Addressed to Congress. In that instance, it was actually
a State of the Union speaking of tens of millions
(56:37):
of Americans, and as you may recall, he came out
like smoking Joe Frazier and was getting at Republicans who
in real time people like Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren
Bobot and others were trying to distract him and thw
them off his game and what was a hostile work environment.
(56:57):
Now at the same period of time, it's clear that
Joe Biden, who did acknowledge this, was slowing down as
he was getting older, and he made the right decision
in terms of not seeking reelection.
Speaker 1 (57:18):
But did he make it at the right time.
Speaker 3 (57:19):
Well, it came late and Vice President Harris only had
one hundred and seven days, and that clearly was a challenge.
And so my view is the best thing we can
do at this moment, as opposed to looking backward, is
to look forward and create a situation where something like
(57:40):
that never happens again, where we have an opportunity to
make sure that decisions are made about whether someone's going
to run or not, that we have next generation Democrats,
which I believe will be the case in the context
of both the candidates that we feel to take back
the House in twenty twenty six. But perhaps most importantly,
(58:04):
I think a competitive field of candidates who are going
to step forward in January or the early part of
twenty twenty seven to raise their hand and run for president,
and they'll be governors, and they'll be senators and maybe
some members of the House of Representatives and maybe former
cabinet secretaries. But I believe each and every one of
(58:25):
them are going to be next generation Democrats, the type
of candidate that can potentially emerge from a field of
great candidates and then excite the country in the way
that Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, or even Jimmy Carter
(58:48):
in the nineteen seventy six election, or certainly John F.
Kennedy when he ran in nineteen sixty excited the country.
Speaker 2 (58:57):
All Right, we've reached the last question of the podcast,
and I call the Messing question. This is where we
make all the blogs and all the headlines representative Jeffries.
As many people know who know you, and they're familiar,
especially with your work when you're on the House floor.
Speaker 1 (59:11):
You are a unabashed notorious Big fan. Biggie's your guy.
Speaker 2 (59:14):
So how should jay Z feel about the fact that
you called Biggie the King of New York?
Speaker 3 (59:21):
Well, listen, I mean, I think jay Z throughout his
career has always paid the greatest degree of respect to
the notorious Big He of course had the title meaning
Biggie the King of New York as he emerged in
nineteen ninety four and then in a few years there after.
(59:44):
And part of the reason why he got that title
is remember, right, you had run DMC and ll CUJ
and then kras won and rock Him and Big Daddy
Cain in Public Enemy and like New York hip hop
(01:00:05):
was killing it in the nineteen eighties. And then you know,
toward the end of the nineteen eighties, of course you
had NWA emerge and Straight out of Compton was a
big hit. But then Ice QB emerges when he breaks
(01:00:26):
from NWA, and then Doctor Dre and Snoop and deth
Row dropped the chronic and that's one of the greatest
records of all time. And gangster rap was emerging in
(01:00:47):
a way that was capturing large parts of the country.
And so the question was, you know, is is the
I mean, is the East Coast ever going to be
able to come back right from being knocked down by
the rise of Doctor Dre and Snoop ice Cube right,
(01:01:10):
and all these artists are on fire the Dog Pound,
and a lot of people credit Biggie Smalls Ready to
Die nineteen ninety four though you also have to give
credit to Wu Tang, You have to give credit to
Nas when you drop Illmatic, the Fujis and others. There
was a new generation hip hop artist that was emerging,
(01:01:32):
you know, in ninety three, but that really culminated with
Ready to Die in September ninety four, and then of
course Biggie just capturing the country by storm King of
New York. But I think he's given that title in
part because a lot of people view him, amongst others,
but first amongst equals in bringing the East back. And
(01:01:53):
I think even jay Z would acknowledge that. Now, we
never got to see what Biggie would become in terms
of his body of work. We did get to see
what jay Z would become, and it's been amazing, both
his legendary hip hop career and then of course his
legendary career as an entrepreneur. I'm not a business man.
(01:02:15):
I'm a business man. Let me go handle my business. Damn.
I mean, jay Z said it, he forecasted it, and
then he went out and did it right. So you
got to you gotta respect that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
So that answer, Loan, I see why you're in politics.
Well done, Well done, Representative Jeffrey's well done. Well listen,
you know, I know right now this is a very
perilous time in this country. But yeah, I mean there's
a lot of frustration, as you know, if you as
you have heard i'm sure from your constituents, from Democrats
(01:02:52):
just nationally what that is. But I am super curious
as to how, you know, moving forward, this party is
able to pick itself off the ground after obviously going
through a very very tough period.
Speaker 1 (01:03:06):
So we will see.
Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
I am fine to calling this Trump administration that whos
gonna check me buo administration because right now they just
they're just out here doing stuff. So we will see
what comes of it. But I want to thank you
for giving your time and more importantly for continuing to
communicate messages that you feel like will be helpful to
the American people.
Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
And good luck.
Speaker 3 (01:03:27):
Well, thank you. I appreciate you definitely wilding out in
terms of the Trump administration. But we're gonna end this
national nightmare. It's going to happen. Part of it will
involve us taking back control of the House. But then
we of course have to finish the job, and we will.
We'll get past this and bring about a brighter day
in the United States of America. All right, thank you,
(01:03:49):
thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:03:51):
One more segment to go, coming up next, the Final Spin.
All right, time for the Final Spin.
Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
This week's topic the riots, and I'm using air quotes
there in Los Angeles the spin.
Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
According to some.
Speaker 2 (01:04:14):
In the right wing media, mostly the streets have been
taken over by herdened criminals, and those of us who
live here in Los Angeles are under sieged by roving
bands of undocumented people who have committed a ton of primes.
Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
The truth. Let me tell you what I see right
now as.
Speaker 2 (01:04:29):
I'm looking out my window of my office, which is
in the heart of Los Angeles. It's eighty degrees. A
few pedestrians are on the streets and parked cars. Nothing
is on fire. They are not bands of undocumented criminals
being out of control, nor any out of control protesters.
The media often acts like Los Angeles is a small
town in Georgia.
Speaker 1 (01:04:48):
There are over four million people who live here.
Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
These protests are taking place on a few blocks in
downtown Los Angeles, which right now, if I got in
my car tried to make it downtown, it take me
probably about forty five minutes to get there. Because a
track Los Angeles is not experiencing some crisis despite what
is being said by the President and others who simply
want to gaslight the public to justify them sending the
military into an American city.
Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
Now, Donald Trump desperately wants to be the bull conner
of this era.
Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
He wants to retaliate against Los Angeles because he didn't
like the governor Gavin Newsom, he didn't like the mayor
Karen Bass, and he doesn't like that this state was
also very supportive of Kamala Harris. And it just bothers
him that a city like Los Angeles just doesn't fuck
with him like that. Now the President is petty, He's
also petulant, and the sad thing is he's got the
full force of the government behind him to support his
(01:05:38):
worst instincts. Lucky ess all right, This concludes another episode
Does Politics. Make sure that you get at me on
social media or via email.
Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
I'm at Jamel Hill across all social media.
Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
Platforms Twitter, Instagram, fan base, Blue Sky and threads. Please
use the hashtags politics. You also have the option of
emailing me at spolitics twenty twenty for at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
You can also send me a.
Speaker 2 (01:06:03):
Video if you have any questions, but please make sure
the video is thirty seconds or less. Don't forget to
follow Spolitics and to subscribe to Spolitics on iHeart and
followspolitics pod on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Politics is spelled SPO l I t i c s.
Speaker 2 (01:06:20):
A new episode of Politics drops every Thursday on iHeart
podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. This is politics,
where sports and politics don't just mix, they matter. Politics
is the production of iHeart Podcasts and the Unbothered Network.
(01:06:40):
I'm your host Jamel Hill. Executive producer is Taylor Schakoigne.
Lucas Hymen is head of audio and executive producer. Original
music for Spolitics provided by Kyle VISs from wiz Fx
Hey, what's up everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm Jamel Hill and welcome to politics and I heard
podcast and unbothered production. Time to get spolitical pop quiz,
Boys and girls. How many WNBA head coaches are black women? Now,
(00:24):
before you answer, here are a few things to consider.
Seventy percent of the league is black. At the end
of the twenty twenty two season, half of the league's
twelve coaches were black, with three of those six coaches
being black women, and there were eight head coach openings
this last WNBA offseason. Ready for the answer to the
question one, that's how many black women are head coaches
(00:46):
in the WNBA. Now, that's a bizarre and to be honest,
and embarrassing statistic for a league that is overrepresented with
black women in terms of the players. But the league
having just one black woman is far from a low,
because as recently as twenty twenty there wasn't a single
black woman serving as head coach in the league. But
(01:06):
this isn't a new issue for women's basketball. But just
to carry over from what we've seen at.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
The college level.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Two.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Now, I'm not calling anyone racist. I'm just taking a
closer look at the systems and structures because they are
often designed to be inequitable, even if we're talking about
a women's sport, where there is often an assumption that
equity is a natural byproduct. The WNBA has often received
high praise for its diverse hiring. The Institute for Diversity
(01:34):
in Ethics and Sports has given the league an A
plus for its racial engender hiring practices every year the
league has been in existence. Now full disclosure, Doctor Richard Lapchack,
the director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport,
is someone I have a deep respect for. We've worked
closely together many times, and he is internationally respected as
(01:57):
a civil rights leader. But the numbers from his institute
don't quite tell the story and certainly not the full history.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
People want to know, though, Will you ever be a
head coach for a WNBA team?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
You know what I'm gonna say this, For the first time,
I put my hat name in a hat to coach
this year for two teams all the way down to
the end. I won't say who those two teams are.
But I did not get the jobs, and I felt
like I would never make another attempt to.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Go into coaching.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Really in the WNBA yes, because you know, it's like
you got to be ten times as great as a
black woman in this industry. It's only one land when
I tell you that who these people hired is not
better than me and what I could do for these
team and players. But it's okay because I again am
(02:56):
a very much that what's for you is for you, yes,
and that's not for me, and I'm okay with that.
So I will never attempt to coach in the WNBA again.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Now, if your counter argument to Lisa Leslie not getting
a WNBA head coaching opportunity is that she lacks coaching experience,
keep in mind that she did coach in the Big
Three in twenty nineteen, and that same year she not
only won a Big Three championship, but she was also named.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Coach of the Year. Now, let's say you want to
dismiss that too.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Well, when it comes to mail coaches, the WNBA hasn't
had a problem hiring them despite their lack of.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Experience in coaching women.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Now, sometimes it's worked out, as was the case with
Bill Lambiert and Michael Cooper, who both brought their respective
teams WNBA championships, and sometimes it's been disastrous, as was
the case with Derek Fisher, who was hired to coach
the LA Sparks despite a terrible coaching record with the
New York Knicks. Fisher, who had never coached women before,
(03:53):
finished with a fifty four to forty six record with
the Sparks and infamously benched Candae Parker in a playoff
Line Nation game, which ultimately became one of the reasons
that Parker left the Sparks to play for the Chicago
skuy Now some have questioned whether the hiring pool is
deep enough and if the WNBA is in a position
to attract solid WNBA coaches. But is it lack of
(04:17):
candidates and money or lack of intention? Now there's a
good pool of former players to choose from, including LaToya Sanders,
Breon January, and Christy Tolliver, all of whom are currently
WNBA assistants and have served in the league as assistants
for multiple years, with Tolliver also having coached at the
NBA level. As for money, that's also about intention too.
(04:42):
The Phoenix Mercury hired Nate Tibbets in twenty twenty three
and immediately made him the highest plaid coach in the
WNBA with a reported salary of one point two million
a year. Now, Tibbets was an NBA assistant for twelve years,
but prior to the Mercury he never coached women's basketball.
He came into the league making more money than Las
Vegas Aces head coach Becky Hammond, who won back to
(05:03):
back WNBA championships, played in the WNBA, and was an
NBA assistant under Greg Popovich. Now, this is no shade
to Tibbets, but he's somewhat of an example of the
built in sexism that women coaches face.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
The WNBA has.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
This history of hiring men who have never coached women's
basketball and giving them premium salaries and opportunities, and conversely,
there also is a trend of being more impatient when
it comes to black coaches in the offseason. The Chicago's
Guy fired Teresa Withersfield, one of the league's most decorated
and fiercest players, after just one season. The Atlanta Dream
(05:38):
also fired Tanisha Wright after just three seasons. Now, there
is understandable concern that now that there is more money
in women's basketball and more substantive growth, the fear is
that this will mean more opportunity for men and not
for women. Before the NCAA included women's sports, more like
they were forced to oversee women's sports because of a
court order. Women's sports were governed by the assaul Llciation
(06:00):
for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women. Now, when women were governing
women's sports, over ninety percent of women's teams were coached
by women. By the early nineteen eighties, after the NCAA
took over, that number had declined to fifty one percent,
and today roughly sixty percent of women's sports at the.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
College level are coached by men.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Meanwhile, guess what percentage of men's college sports are coached
by men?
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Ninety five percent.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Black women account for twelve percent of head coaching positions in.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
College basketball across all divisions.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Thirty percent of the players who play women's college basketball
are black. But considering ninety percent of black women who
play college basketball graduate with a degree, that right there
should provide somewhat of a supply of coaching candidates. Now,
the WNBA is writing a strong upward trajectory, and as
the league grows, their standards shouldn't be to do things
exactly as the men, it should be their goal to
(06:52):
not only make money, but create a new standard of
empowerment and opportunity for women, not just do the same
things we've all read be seen before. I'm Jamel Hill,
and I approve this message. Coming up next on politics,
my guest on this episode is one of the most
powerful people in politics. He's in a top leadership position
(07:12):
as the Democrats are facing an identity crisis and still
feeling the effects of losing last year's presidential election. Now
a lot of people have been asking Democrats what's the plan.
On this episode, he'll answer some of those questions. And
since this is a sports.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
In Politics podcast, I had to.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Ask him about his beloved New York Knicks firing head
coach Tom Thibodeau after he got the Knicks to the
Eastern Conference finals. Coming up next on his politics, Straight
out of Brooklyn House, Minority leader a King Jefferies. Well,
(07:50):
Representative Jefferyson, and thank you so much for joining me
here on politics, and I'm going to start the podcast
for the question I ask every guest that appears, and
that is name an athlete or a moment that made
you love sports.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, it's great to be with you and thank you
for everything and that you do in sports and politics,
and probably I should say appropriately what up? Though, well
look at you.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
I think, okay, somebody gave you some insight into all right,
that's our Detroit Green, which, as I often say, can
be a question or just a statement.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
But yeah, you know, I think I grew up. As
you know, I rocked with the Yankees, the Knicks, the Jets,
Saint John's and the Rangers. So really the first time
that one of those teams that I rock with had
(08:44):
a championship run at an age that I could appreciate, right,
I was three years old the last time the Knicks
won the championship. I didn't remember it in nineteen seventy three,
but when I was seven, I was following baseball at
the time, was beginning to play Little League, and that
was the time that the Yankees and the Dodgers were
(09:07):
in the first of two back to back World Series appearances,
and of course famously saw a Yankees fan watching the
World Series. It's great. I remember being in the living
room and the apartment that we lived in. My dad
was there, My grandfather, Papa Gomes was there. He lived
in La so he was actually a Dodgers fan, and
(09:30):
Game six, Reggie Jackson three home runs on three consecutive pitches.
I think that's the date that we actually won the
World Series. But that was of course a magical moment
in baseball history and sports history, and certainly that's what
got me hooked.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Well, it is so.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Ironic, Well maybe ironic is not the right word, but
the timing is impeccable that we are recording this Pack
podcast on the day that I guess, if you want
to consider it is fort the Elon Musz versus Donald
Trump back and forth that's taking place on social media.
But before I get to that, there are pressing Knicks
matters that I need to address with you first. You know,
this week, the Knicks decided to fire Tom Thibodeau. What
(10:17):
did you think about them making this move, doing this
just three days after the Knicks were outsted from the
Eastern Conference Finals.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
You know, it definitely caught me off guard, and I
think it caught a lot of people off guard at
home in New York and Knicks fans. He had a
great run I think five seasons. For those seasons we
were in the playoffs, of course, back to back fifty
win games. Most successful series of runs in terms of
season after season after season since the glory days for
(10:49):
me in the nineties into the early parts of two thousand.
First appearance, of course in twenty five years in the
Eastern Conference Finals, and it's a lovable team. So that
was shocking for me certainly and for a lot of folks.
The question I think moving forward is, you know, had
(11:09):
the team maxed out under tips Is leadership? And clearly
there were adjustments that needed to be made that weren't
necessarily made. Right to start in five played more minutes
than any other starting five in the entire season. That
can't continue, and there was no development of the bench
(11:30):
during the season. You can't develop a bench in game four,
Game five, or Game six of the Eastern Conference Finals.
That's not going to work. So the question I think
moving forward because what's done is done, and I think
reasonable people could conclude that the Knicks did max out
under Tips' leadership, notwithstanding you know the greatness of the
(11:52):
run up until this point, in all the excitement, and
you know that when the Knicks on fire, the is
on fire and it was a great uh, it was
a great run. But I think the question here is
is this our Mark Jackson moment, Steve Kerr moment, because
(12:18):
the firing of Mark Jackson caught a lot of us
by surprise. He had three successful years if I recall correctly.
But the Warriors concluded that the team had maxed out
and decided to go in a different direction, and they
obviously found the right person who went on, you know,
to lead the team to I think four different championships
(12:41):
as it relates to the Golden State Warriors. So hopefully
we can just hit the jackpot in terms of whatever
direction we go in next. And this current management has
had a pretty successful track record in building the team
up until this point, so.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Would you consider and by the way, that's a very
optimistic way to look at it. You know, I do
think there may have been some concern among Knicks fans
and suddenly, just me as an outside observer, is that
typically you know, we don't know yet the details of
how much James Dolan was involved, but it is his team,
so of course he was involved.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
But he has made some decisions before and.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
People have wondered, what was this another rational decision or
is this something like a little bit more calculated kind
of what you were talking about when you just max
out with a particular coach and you need somebody a
new voice in the locker room. That being said, how
would you characterize this season for the Knicks as successful?
Speaker 3 (13:36):
Yes, I would characterize it as successful. I think because
we got the third seed and were lined up against
the world champion Boston Celtics. Most people were of the
view that we ain't getting out of the second round,
and this is going to be the third consecutive year
(13:57):
that we went out in the second round, very disappointing.
I think we lost to Miami, then we lost to
Indiana last year, and the expectation was Boston was going
to run us out the gym, and we win game one.
Then we win Game two. That was incredible, and then
the Celtics come to the guard and they win Game three,
(14:20):
and then we do our thing in game four. Had
it won even before Tatum went out, and certainly our
prayers that would Tatum for a full and speedy recovery.
But it was a great series, and then we smoked
the Celtics in Game six. At that point, I think
for me, of course, a run to winning it all
in the finals would have been ideal, but a competitive series,
(14:44):
showing some heart going out, you know, in six is respectable.
I think that's a very successful season. But Game one
was rough. I was in Washington, had it on in
the backdrop. We were actually debating the GLP tax, and
it was kind of late at night, early in the morning,
(15:04):
preparing to speak on the house floor, and I couldn't
believe that it was falling apart in the last few
minutes and that was unfortunate. And that may have been
the point where the next management concluded, Ya, it's time
to move in a different direction.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Well, I'm a Pistons fan, so I was hating.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
We lost all our home games, so you all by
combined six points, and that was tough. And of course,
as fate would have it, over the course of the
next week following that series, I spent a lot of
time in New York doing some CNN stuff, so I
had to have the New York fandom in my face
after a salty, tough series.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
So after that, I have to say I was a
bit bitter toward the Knicks.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
No I got you on that. Needless to say, I'm
not rocking with Indiana in the finals. Go okay, See, as.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
I mentioned, at the top of our conversation.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Right now, in real time, there is a back and
forth playing out between Eli muh Donald Trump over social media,
because of course it's twenty twenty five, and with these
two individuals in particular. Now, the last tweet that Elon Musk,
or one of the last tweets Sea drop was that, Yeah,
that's right, Donald Trump, you were in the Epstein files. Okay,
all right, So with this entire back and forth, given
(16:17):
all the things that are happening in this country from
the disaster's bill that you just mentioned, what is your
perspective of this fight that is going on between Donald
Trump and Elon Musk.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Yeah, it's definitely an intense situation, and of course people
on the hill are following it. I'm on Washington, DC
right now. People are following it with great interest. It
has my colleagues on the Republican side shook right now
because you got Donald Trump, who's one puppet master for them,
and Elon Musk, who's the other puppet master for them,
(16:52):
and they don't know whose side to be on in
this fight, so they're kind of burying their heads in
the sand. Largely interesting to me is that Elon Must's
assessment of the GOP tax scam, what we believe is
one big, ugly bill is correct when he calls it
(17:12):
a disgusting abomination. It is now. Our view is that
it's a disgusting abomination one because it takes healthcare away
literally from more than fifteen million people. The largest cut
to healthcare in American history. That's out of control. And
then they're ripping food out of the mouths of children
(17:33):
and veterans and seniors. Largest cut to nutritional assistance in
American history. That's ridiculous. And this is all being done
in order to provide their billionaire donors with a massive
tax break that would be the largest tax break for
the wealthy, the well off, and the well connected in
American history. And then on top of that, they want
(17:56):
our children, our grandchildren, the next generation of Americans to
pay the bill because they would stick us with more
than three trillion dollars in additional debt and explode the deficit.
And so Elon Musk has said Republicans should be ashamed
(18:16):
of themselves for voting for this bill. I agree with
that position. Now, the fact that this is broken out
into the public domain on social media in such an
extraordinary way. And now it's been personalized like this, I
think has caught a lot of people off guard. I
mean when I saw that Epstein tweet or post, I'm like, whoa,
(18:42):
he just went tupac hit him up? I mean, he
just went there and I rock with Biggie, right, but
hit him up was like a next level in terms
of just the personal assault. And that's basically what Elon
has done. And once you cross that the rubicon, I'm
(19:05):
not sure how the two of them come back from it.
And of course it continues to intensify throughout the day.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
I think just based off you know, of course on
social media, there's a lot of jokes flying around, but
beneath all that, I think there is because we have
seen just so much chaos in this administration since they
took over in January, that there's a part of the
public that is wondering what is this distracting us from?
(19:33):
You know, there's always sort of a watch what a
hook is coming with this administration? And so from a
strategy standpoint, is this something that is useful for the
Democrats seeing two of you know, to.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Kind of not likable people go at it in this way.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Yeah, it's interesting because you're absolutely correct. We've seen from
this administration from day one, a flooding of the zone
that daily outraigs, the parade of marbles, and a lot
of it is designed to create confusion and to disillusion people,
to project this sense that it's all inevitable and that
it's hard to follow what you should be outraged about
(20:18):
because it's so much that takes place that clearly part
of the strategy is to try to distract you from
the things that you really should be concerned about in
any given situation. I think this is different because the
feud exploded onto social media based on Elon's criticism of
(20:39):
the One Big Ugly Bill and his criticism of the
Republicans for trying to jam this down the throats to
the American people. Some of the reasons why he disagrees
with the bill are reasons why we as Democrats disagree
with the bill. The attack on the effort to try
to build the clean energy economy. He obviously has a
(21:00):
problem with it. He's got business interests connected to that.
We have a problem with it because we think standing
up a clean energy economy actually will lower energy costs
for everyday Americans. And we have to be focused on
building an affordable economy, and that's part of the effort
to do that. It also creates jobs in places all
across the country, and it does something meaningful to address
(21:22):
the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now that's necessary.
So the fact that this few the genesis of it
relates to Elon Musk's effort to try to kill the
billings he said, we agree every single House Democrat was
strongly opposed to the GOP tax scam. We're working hard
(21:46):
to kill a bill as we speak. It limped out
of the House of Representatives barely by one vote, and
it doesn't have a clear path towards success in the Senate.
So it's interesting. I don't think this is a distraction
because what they would be trying to distract you from,
meaning Trump, is what they're trying to do and taking
(22:07):
away healthcare, taking away nutritional assistance, hurting veterans, hurting everyday
americans to reward their billionaire donors. They don't want us
talking about that. But at the center of this fight,
or at least how it began, was the criticism around
the GOP tax scam and this reckless Republican budget.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Let's talk about the tax scam bill or I did see.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
I think Chuck Schumer called it that well Everybody's going
to die act after Congresswoman johny Ertz, who had some
very callous comments about the damage that.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
This bill could do to the people who would lose
health care.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
You know, at this point, I think a lot of
people have obviously been very critical of the Democratic Party
in this moment, even though you all are not in leadership,
you don't have the majority in either chamber, but nevertheless,
you are expected to do something. And I'm looking at
the approval rate that you all have, and I know
(23:05):
you've seen the poll about what the Democratic Party's approval
rating has been despite all the chaos, despite the fact
that Trump's approval ratings are falling, the fight, the fact
that people are losing a lot of whatever faith they
had and that he could fix this economy.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Is that honeymoon periods over?
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Like nobody's kind of buying that he's going to be
able to fix this economy. With all that being said,
how is it that Democrats can better control this narrative
in this chaotic moment.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Yeah, it's a great question, and it's a work in progress.
For why variety of reasons. First of all, people are
understandably disappointed and distressed and in many cases disillusion by
the fact that we lost in November of twenty twenty four,
and we've got to own that because we lost to
this guy. And obviously, Kamala Harris and my view, did
(24:00):
a tremendous job in the limited time that she had
one hundred and seven day campaign, the best that she
could under difficult circumstances after President Biden decided that he
wasn't going to seek reelection, and those circumstances led to
a situation where we lost to Donald Trump. We didn't
(24:23):
get the House back, we felt just three seats short,
and then of course lost control of the Senate. So
from the standpoint of Democrats in this country being disappointed
with the party, that's understandable, and so what we have
to do to earn back their trust. One is to
demonstrate that we are functioning as a principled opposition to
(24:48):
stop as many bad things from happening as we can
and pushing back aggressively against the parade of horribles that
Donald Trump is unleashing on the American people. Because this
is an un residented assault on the economy, and assault
on healthcare and assault on social security, in assault on
a democratic way of life, an assault on the rule
(25:08):
of law, and an assault on democracy itself. So it
does require us to engage in an all hands on
deck effort. Now, I do think that what we have
seen is some success in clarifying for the American people.
(25:28):
As you pointed out, Jamail, that Donald Trump promised he
was going to fix the economy, address inflation and lower costs.
In fact, he said he's going to lower costs on
day one. Dude was lying to the American people. He's
not lowering costs. Costs are going up. He's crashing the economy.
(25:49):
These Trump tariffs are going to add thousands of dollars
an additional expense to hardworking American taxpayers, and he's probably
driving us toward a recession. Despite the fact that the
expectation was Donald Trump was going to be able to
control the narrative. Republicans have complete control in Washington. He's
got all these social media relationships and new media relationships,
(26:12):
and Democrats would not be able to break through with
any degree of clarity. Well, actually, Donald Trump was the
most unpopular President at the one hundred day mark in
modern American history. Somebody's paying attention to the things that
are being said. The American people are locking in on
(26:34):
the fact that he's actually not making life better for them,
He's making life worse. So we have to continue to
be the principled opposition stopping bad things from happening, and
I think pivot to articulating our vision for making life
(26:57):
better for the American people that committed to building an
affordable economy. We know the deck has been stacked against
everyday Americans for far too long. The system has been
broken for decades, and we have to earn the confidence
of the American people that were committed to fixing it,
(27:18):
to improving their lives. And to be very clear to
the American people that we hear you, we see you,
we feel you, and we're committed to making life better
for you.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
How can you be principal opposition against an unprincipled enemy.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Yeah, I think we're in a more is more environment,
So I think the key is and we can learn
from those upon whose shoulders we stand. I have the
great honor of serving in Congress with John Lewis, an
American hero who of course always inspired us to show
up and stand up and speak up. And when you
(28:01):
see something that's wrong, never give up, never give in,
get into some good trouble, necessary trouble. As he would
tell us, he was principled in his opposition, but strong
and throughout his life, particularly in the Jim Crow South.
I mean Donald Trump was battling, I mean John Lewis
(28:23):
was battling in authoritarian situation that existed racial oppression enforced
by violence in parts of the Jim Crow South. And
yet they were able to both balance that principled opposition
with the righteous indignation and the ferocity that was necessary
(28:45):
to turn the situation around. And I think for us,
that's what we have to do. We have to stretch.
We're in a more is more environment, meaning more rallies,
more press conferences, more speeches on the House, most speeches
on the Senate floor, all night committee hearings, making sure
that we're having town hall meetings in democratic districts, town
(29:07):
hall meetings in Republican districts, as we're doing, convening democratic
led hearings on Capitol Hill, which we've done democratic led
hearings across the country, and taking our efforts on the road,
which we're continuing to do, sit ins, and you know,
a variety of things, site visits, more is more that's
(29:29):
going to be necessary for us to continue to meet
the moment.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
I've heard you use that terminology about flooding the zone,
not in relationship to Donald Trump, but what you think
Democrats should be doing being on TV more as you
just mentioned hitting essentially the campaign trail, doing the rallies.
People look at the rallies that you know, Alexandria Ocasio
Cortez did, alc and Bernie Sanders, and those seem to
be very successful. But you and I both know, especially
(29:55):
in the time where social media is this prominent, American
loves a good marketing campaign.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
MU is very clear.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
And what was interesting to me in watching the election
was that in so many states you had people approving
very popular Democratic policies that you all were the leaders
on that you all used to try to reshape this country,
and yet still voted for Republicans that were against everything
(30:22):
that you were trying to do. So, how do you
feel like in this time, considering how Republicans have been
able to use social media to their benefit a lot
through disinformation to be honest and misinformation. But nevertheless, they're
still able to control so much of the narrative. So,
how now, with the election fresh behind you, just for
(30:44):
just six months or so, how are you going to
make that connection between the marketing, the Democratic successes, and
what you're talking about better so that people really can
effectively see what you're doing. Like, what were the lessons
learned from the election in terms of how you need
(31:06):
to better connect with the American people.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
Yeah, it's a great question. I think that what's important
for all of us to internalize is that governing is
one lane and communicating with the American people is a
different lane, and they require two different types of skills.
(31:29):
And the challenge that we have traditionally faced as Democrats
in terms of communicating is that Republicans tend to communicate
in headlines and Democrats communicate in fine print. Now, there's
a reason why Democrats sometimes default to fine print. It's
because in order to govern, you actually have to master
(31:54):
the fine print. And as Democrats, we care about governing
because we care about the American people and we care
about getting things done. And when you look at the
modern day Democratic Party, which really dates back to the
presidency of FDR, and think about the things that we've
worked hard to deliver to the American people's social security,
(32:16):
rural electrification, the GI Bill, the Civil Rights Act, the
Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Immigration and
Nationality Act of nineteen sixty five, the Higher Education Act,
the Elementary and Secondary School Act, Medicare, Medicaid, head Start,
the Affordable Care Act, the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure
(32:38):
Investment and Jobs Act, the Pact Act, and standing up
for our veterans. And then, of course the Inflation Reduction Act,
which helped to lower the high price of life saving
prescription drugs, amongst doing other things, including the largest investment
in combating the climate crisis in the history of the world.
(32:59):
All of these things were brought to you by your
friendly neighborhood Democratic Party. That's an amazing track record of success.
Of course, much more needs to be done on behalf
of the American people, particularly in terms of building an
affordable economy and addressing the inflationary crisis that we are
(33:22):
dealing with in this country. But that's a great track
record of success to build upon. You don't produce all
of those things unless you have committed to mastering the
fine print of governing. But the challenge for us is
that while you govern in fine print, you message, you persuade,
(33:45):
you communicate and headlines, particularly in the era of social
media and new media, and we just have to do
a better job of making sure that we do what
we need to do in the communications lane so that
the American people actually give us the opportunity in the
governing lane to build upon the progress that we've tried
(34:09):
to make for everyday Americans over the last seventy five
eighty plus years.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
I look at it as you all are the party
of policy and they're the party of personality, And to
be honest, a lot of times it feels like the
personality part wins out just because of that communication gap
that you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
You know.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
With that being said, again, given how people feel so
frustrated right now with the party, how much do you
think the criticisms of the party, What do you think
is fair criticism of the Democratic Party, and what do.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
You think is unfair?
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Well, I think it's fair that at the end of
the day, notwithstanding all of the things that were accomplished
under the prior administration, that there were a lot of
Americans who believe that Donald Trump was better positioned to
deal with inflation and to lower the high cost of
(35:01):
living in the United States of America, and we did
not do a good enough job overall as a party
and communicating that one we understand that the cost of
living is too high, that we actually have a plan
to lower housing costs, lower grocery costs, lower energy costs,
lower childcare costs, and lower insurance costs, and that we
(35:25):
do actually believe with every fiber in our body that
in the United States of America, the wealthiest country in
the history of the world, no one should be living
paycheck to paycheck. No one should be struggling when they
work hard and play by the rules, but yet can't
(35:45):
find a good paying job, or purchase a home, or
live a comfortable life, or have access to healthcare, go
on vacation every now and then, or be able to
retire with grace and dignity. Everybody should have that opportunity
in the country, but everybody does not. And I think
that we have to do a better job of connecting
(36:09):
how we actually feel with making sure that the American
people feel us in terms of our commitment to making
their lives better. So that. You know, we just need
to do better in that area. And I think the
(36:29):
other thing we've got to do is convince a greater
number of Americans that we actually are fighting for them,
because there's no circumstance where the Republican Party under Donald Trump,
who is all about the wealthy, the well off, and
(36:49):
the well connected. I mean, if you just looked at
the inauguration, who was there. It wasn't everyday Americans, it
wasn't working class Americans. It was the billionaire boys Club.
It was a super villain convention, and it was wild.
And this is who he chose to surround himself with
because this is who he's fighting for. But yet Donald
(37:10):
Trump has somehow managed to convince a significant number of Americans,
or at least he did in connection with the election.
As you pointed out to Mail, he's falling apart right
now in terms of the perception that the American people
have as it relates to his ability to actually deal
with the economy. He lied not focused on lowering costs,
but he did managed to convince a significant number of
(37:33):
people that he would do that in connection with the election.
So we have to do a better job there now
in terms of the concern that Democrats on Capitol Hill
and the House and the Senate aren't fighting and pushing
back against Donald Trump and the administration aggressively, I think no,
(37:58):
every single House Democrat and every single Senate Democrat is
working hard to do the best that they can to
aggressively push back at what we all believe is an
unprecedented situation. And that's why I've acknowledged that all of
us are going to continue to be called upon to
(38:18):
do more, to engage with a level of intensity previously
unseen at any time in a Congress in modern American history.
And it requires extraordinary things to be done, including but
not limited to what you know, our brother Corey Booker
(38:39):
did when he delivered that historical speech on the floor
of the Senate. They're trying to cancel our history, he
canceled strom Therman.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
I want to ask you about that intensity, because I
think there's been some questions there. Also want to ask
you about I got a biggie question for you, since
I know you're a biggie.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
Guy and being.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
In represent and being from Brooklyn and representing there, so
this biggie question. I'm hoping this is the headline from
this podcast, but we just got to take a very
quick break and we'll be back with more with Representative
I came, Jeff mister Minority House Leader. Okay, before we
(39:25):
took a break, Representative Jefferies, you mentioned the intensity, and
I think that is where a lot of people, a
lot of people I talk to just in everyday life,
and that's the part that I think has people the
most frustrated. I don't think people doubt the effort. I
think at this point people want to know what are
the Democrats actually willing to do? And I say that
because we see Trump define court orders, we see him
(39:49):
like we're wondering. People are wondering, like, yes, you can
fight this battle through the courts, but if he don't
care what they say, where does that leave you. So this,
I think this idea that you all aren't doing enough
is coming from the fact that we don't know what
the next level of accountability actually looks like.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
So can you.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Explain if he is ignoring these court orders, he's not
following the rules, his administration isn't following it. What is
the next level of accountability that you have available?
Speaker 3 (40:18):
Well, there's a couple of things, right, So you've got
congressional accountability, and ultimately, the clearest path to bring that
about is to make sure that Democrats get the gavels
back in November of twenty twenty six, that we take
the House back, take the Senate back, that we can
end this national nightmare legislatively. And but you know.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
That's a long way from now though.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Listen, No, listen, that's I'm just saying. That's in terms
of congressional accountability. We got to be real. Why Because
unless a handful of Republicans in the House or handful
of Republicans in the Senate decide to actually grow a
spine and stop acting like rubber stamps for Donald Trump's
(41:07):
extreme agenda and engaging in their cult like behavior, then
it's going to be hard to get actual accountability on
a sustained basis at the congressional level until we defeat
the MAGA extremists next year in the midterm elections. That's
(41:29):
not to say they aren't important elections that are already
taking place. Every single special election that's been a high
profile race since the Trump presidency, Democrats have won, including
but not limited to the race in Wisconsin for the
state Supreme Court seat that was expected to be hotly contested.
(41:50):
Elon Musk spent twenty to twenty five million dollars trying
to elect the conservative candidate the progressive candidate one by
eleven points. But that's not the only high profile our
special election that we've won. We've won others, and you'll
have governors races that will be important in New Jersey
and in Virginia in November. Now, that's not to say
(42:12):
that we can't use the levels of authority and capacity
that we have as members of Congress, even if the
Republicans continue to be sick offense, and we continue to
do that as it relates to our engagement and committees,
our engagement on the House floor, our engagement across the country.
(42:34):
Republicans refuse to have town hall meetings, and so we decided,
you know what, We're going to have town hall meetings
in your districts to engage with your constituents, to tell
them what you are trying to hide, particularly as it
relates to ripping healthcare and Medicaid from tens of millions
(42:54):
of Americans, closing hospitals, shutting down nursing homes, and creating
a situation where people are actually going to die because
healthcare is being ripped away from them, and care in
terms of these institutions is being ripped away from them.
So I think again we're in a more is more environment.
(43:15):
We just have to continue to do more. Now on
the court side of things, right, it is important to
recognize we got three branches of government. We all learn
that in social studies as we have come up, and
you've got the legislative branch, you've got the executive branch,
(43:36):
and you've got the judicial branch. And we have seen
an unprecedented number of lawsuits that have filed last time
I checked, Because we work closely with a variety of
different groups, civil rights groups, democracy protection groups, organized labor,
civil liberties groups, democratic attorney generals. More than two hundred
(44:01):
and fifty lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration
and the unconstitutional and unlawful executive orders, and I believe
it's more than one hundred and eighty five different court
orders have been issued halting these executive actions and orders.
(44:23):
Now it has been the case literally in a handful
of instances. All that just happened to relate to the
immigration space where Donald Trump is pushing the envelope aggressively
as it relates to defiance, and in those cases handful
(44:44):
of cases, every single one of them in the immigration
space related to deportations or potential deportations, where our view
is that the courts need to be more aggressive in
a its authority if they've concluded that the Trump administration
(45:06):
is not complying with a court directive, and what they
have available to them is both civil contempt they can
find the heck out of whoever is not complying or
criminal contempt, and I think the courts have generally been
(45:28):
reluctant to use those tools against a sitting administration, but
extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures, And if we see
non compliance continue in different ways, then I think the
courts are going to have to get more aggressive. But
it's important for all your people to understand that in
(45:50):
the overwhelming majority of cases, Donald Trump ain't winning, he's losing,
and he's been forced to back down repeatedly.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
Well, I guess when you look at also the intimidation
that judges are facing now, I think people probably feel
a little a little less hopeful about that just because
of how this administration has gone after judges and called
them activists just because they even judges they appointed. The
(46:21):
judge is that he appointed, they have put a bullseye
on their back. You mentioned before about how really ultimately,
when it comes to the congressional accountability, it's going to
require Republicans who know better and theoretically should do better
to have us fine, which is something they haven't shown.
So I'm wondering from you, what do Republicans say to
(46:43):
you privately that they won't say publicly.
Speaker 3 (46:46):
Well, a lot of them mcnow is that privately that
some of the things that Donald Trump is the administration
they're doing are out of control. And then our response,
of course to them is well, why don't you step
up and communicate that, either directly to your colleagues in
(47:09):
the administration or forcefully publicly when necessary. And of course
the answer in many cases is people are concerned that
Donald Trump will end their political lives, that he will
(47:29):
primary them and they will lose. And of course they
point to the Liz Cheney situation where she actually demonstrated
some principle and voted to impeach Donald Trump talked about
his lack in her view of patriotism and the danger
(47:51):
that he represented to democracy, and Liz Cheney at one
point was the number three Republican in the House of Representatives,
the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, and it didn't
matter because she spoke out against them. Donald Trump targeted
her electorally primary her and she lost. And the same
(48:15):
thing happened to Adam Kinzinger, of course, particularly when those
two decided to participate in the January sixth Commission, which
exposed a lot of what took place in that violent
assault on the Capitol. So I think many of them
are in fear of their political lives, and that's been
part of the challenge. But we continue to say to them,
(48:39):
you were elected to defend your constituents, to stand up
for your constituents, and there's life after Congress, and you
should be willing to actually want to be able to
look back on your time in the House of Representatives
knowing that you can keep your head held high because
(49:03):
you did the right thing. Donald Trump is gone in
three and a half years, but their legacy, or their
failure to stand up to the extremism and the unprecedented
assault on America as we know it, will be with
them forever. Unless just a handful of Republicans, all we
(49:28):
need is four on the House side or four on
the Senate side to do the right thing. They're two
hundred and twenty Republicans in the House, we just need four.
That's less than two percent. And if less than two
percent of the Republicans in the House actually decide to
do the right thing, we can stop a lot of
(49:51):
the foolishness, the malignant foolishness, from taking place. And so
over these next eighteen months, we just continue to work
on that every day, every week, every month, privately, publicly.
What are colleagues on the other side of the eut Uh?
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Yeah, I mean I would.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
I guess it's hard for me to have any sympathy
for them when they feel that way, because I'm like, well,
what are you elected for? Yeah, you were elected to
actually be a public servant. And this is part of
the responsibility. I want to pivot quickly to an issue
that became a very big issue for Democrats in this
last election that Donald Trump has continued and the Republican
(50:29):
Party has continued to use and weaponize against the Democratic Party,
and that is trans athletes in sports, and let's be
real specific, trans women in sports. You know, you saw
the ads that you know, one campaign of Kamala Harris
is for they them, not not you. And what was
never said and I never saw any Democrats in a
(50:51):
very you know, sort of a very bold or very
aggressive way is say that policy where prisoners are able
to get gender affirming care existed under Donald Trump, the
first time it's been existing for quite a long time.
It's a court order, so legally you are following the
law by allowing gender affirming care. And they use that
(51:13):
ad and you know another case in California where's a
trans woman competing in volleyball. Nevertheless, it feels as if,
rather than address this issue, that Democrats have chosen to
shrink from it.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
Given everything that.
Speaker 2 (51:27):
Has happened, and even though what you had the NCAA
president Charlie Baker, he was on the hill, he testified
there are five hundred thousand college athletes, ten are trans,
and he didn't say women or men. Nevertheless, this issue
has become one for your party that it doesn't seem
that has been addressed. How do you plan to strategize
(51:50):
against these attacks using a very vulnerable group of people
in a way where you don't abandon them and they
still feel like there is room under your take for them,
but also in a way that the American public can
get behind.
Speaker 3 (52:06):
Yeah, well, the bullying of trans kids is unacceptable, and Republicans,
of course have tried to weaponize this issue in many ways.
As you've laid out, one of the first pieces of
legislation that Republicans brought earlier this year in a new
term was to try to jam Democrats up as it
relates to trans women in sports and what they were
(52:31):
seeking to do, and the way they framed it was
a nationwide band and I think our explanation. We voted
against the Republican bill in overwhelming numbers, and we were
very clear that their effort actually was going to unleash
bad behavior on girls in sports all across America. In fact,
(52:56):
we framed their bill Child Predator Empowerment Act because they
were calling for inspections of Genitalia in a circumstance where
we know abuses have taken place. Abuses have taken place
in football, abuses have taken place in gymnastics, abuses have
(53:20):
taken place in wrestling, and instead of responsibly trying to
deal with the issues of competition in sports and how
do we work through that in a community based way
that of course promotes the values of fairness, competitiveness, and participation.
(53:44):
They want to just weaponize the issue politically and so legislatively.
They tried to jam us up, and we didn't run
away from the issue. We exposed their hypocrisy, and they're
politicizing the issue in ways that would actually hurt the
young girls that they were purporting to want to help. Now,
(54:08):
I think my view at least is that these issues
should be resolved locally, at the local level, with maximum
parental involvement and maximum community involvement. And I think when
it comes to the what happened on the campaign trail,
(54:32):
you're absolutely right in terms of the policy that was
used against Vice President Harris was a policy that had
also been carried out by Donald Trump and the Trump
Justice Department connection with the court order. And I think
(54:52):
that if the campaign had it to do over again,
I presume, given the outcome, it would have been a
more forceful response to that add and the weaponization of
the issue against Kamala Harris. I can tell you that
(55:14):
moving forward, we will never allow Republicans to mischaracterize our
views on the issue, and we will never allow them
to run ads against our candidates that aren't forcefully responded
to immediately, and often before.
Speaker 2 (55:39):
I get to the biggie question that we can wrap
up the pod, I do have a question for you
about Joe Biden. Obviously, there's a book out now, Jake Tapper,
Original Sin, that essentially accuses the Democratic Party and those
close to Joe Biden of covering up his declining mental health.
And as somebody who was in close contact with Joe
Biden quite a bit, what is your perspective or what
(56:05):
are your thoughts about how this narrative has now played out.
Did you see anything, were you aware of any kind
of mental decline? What was your view as someone who
had to work closely with the president?
Speaker 3 (56:17):
Yeah, listen, I mean I think it was very interesting
because just a few months before that debate, Joe Biden
had come to Capitol Hill and the most significant high
profile appearance of his presidency, which is to deliver the
Joint Addressed to Congress. In that instance, it was actually
a State of the Union speaking of tens of millions
(56:37):
of Americans, and as you may recall, he came out
like smoking Joe Frazier and was getting at Republicans who
in real time people like Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren
Bobot and others were trying to distract him and thw
them off his game and what was a hostile work environment.
(56:57):
Now at the same period of time, it's clear that
Joe Biden, who did acknowledge this, was slowing down as
he was getting older, and he made the right decision
in terms of not seeking reelection.
Speaker 1 (57:18):
But did he make it at the right time.
Speaker 3 (57:19):
Well, it came late and Vice President Harris only had
one hundred and seven days, and that clearly was a challenge.
And so my view is the best thing we can
do at this moment, as opposed to looking backward, is
to look forward and create a situation where something like
(57:40):
that never happens again, where we have an opportunity to
make sure that decisions are made about whether someone's going
to run or not, that we have next generation Democrats,
which I believe will be the case in the context
of both the candidates that we feel to take back
the House in twenty twenty six. But perhaps most importantly,
(58:04):
I think a competitive field of candidates who are going
to step forward in January or the early part of
twenty twenty seven to raise their hand and run for president,
and they'll be governors, and they'll be senators and maybe
some members of the House of Representatives and maybe former
cabinet secretaries. But I believe each and every one of
(58:25):
them are going to be next generation Democrats, the type
of candidate that can potentially emerge from a field of
great candidates and then excite the country in the way
that Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, or even Jimmy Carter
(58:48):
in the nineteen seventy six election, or certainly John F.
Kennedy when he ran in nineteen sixty excited the country.
Speaker 2 (58:57):
All Right, we've reached the last question of the podcast,
and I call the Messing question. This is where we
make all the blogs and all the headlines representative Jeffries.
As many people know who know you, and they're familiar,
especially with your work when you're on the House floor.
Speaker 1 (59:11):
You are a unabashed notorious Big fan. Biggie's your guy.
Speaker 2 (59:14):
So how should jay Z feel about the fact that
you called Biggie the King of New York?
Speaker 3 (59:21):
Well, listen, I mean, I think jay Z throughout his
career has always paid the greatest degree of respect to
the notorious Big He of course had the title meaning
Biggie the King of New York as he emerged in
nineteen ninety four and then in a few years there after.
(59:44):
And part of the reason why he got that title
is remember, right, you had run DMC and ll CUJ
and then kras won and rock Him and Big Daddy
Cain in Public Enemy and like New York hip hop
(01:00:05):
was killing it in the nineteen eighties. And then you know,
toward the end of the nineteen eighties, of course you
had NWA emerge and Straight out of Compton was a
big hit. But then Ice QB emerges when he breaks
(01:00:26):
from NWA, and then Doctor Dre and Snoop and deth
Row dropped the chronic and that's one of the greatest
records of all time. And gangster rap was emerging in
(01:00:47):
a way that was capturing large parts of the country.
And so the question was, you know, is is the
I mean, is the East Coast ever going to be
able to come back right from being knocked down by
the rise of Doctor Dre and Snoop ice Cube right,
(01:01:10):
and all these artists are on fire the Dog Pound,
and a lot of people credit Biggie Smalls Ready to
Die nineteen ninety four though you also have to give
credit to Wu Tang, You have to give credit to
Nas when you drop Illmatic, the Fujis and others. There
was a new generation hip hop artist that was emerging,
(01:01:32):
you know, in ninety three, but that really culminated with
Ready to Die in September ninety four, and then of
course Biggie just capturing the country by storm King of
New York. But I think he's given that title in
part because a lot of people view him, amongst others,
but first amongst equals in bringing the East back. And
(01:01:53):
I think even jay Z would acknowledge that. Now, we
never got to see what Biggie would become in terms
of his body of work. We did get to see
what jay Z would become, and it's been amazing, both
his legendary hip hop career and then of course his
legendary career as an entrepreneur. I'm not a business man.
(01:02:15):
I'm a business man. Let me go handle my business. Damn.
I mean, jay Z said it, he forecasted it, and
then he went out and did it right. So you
got to you gotta respect that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
So that answer, Loan, I see why you're in politics.
Well done, Well done, Representative Jeffrey's well done. Well listen,
you know, I know right now this is a very
perilous time in this country. But yeah, I mean there's
a lot of frustration, as you know, if you as
you have heard i'm sure from your constituents, from Democrats
(01:02:52):
just nationally what that is. But I am super curious
as to how, you know, moving forward, this party is
able to pick itself off the ground after obviously going
through a very very tough period.
Speaker 1 (01:03:06):
So we will see.
Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
I am fine to calling this Trump administration that whos
gonna check me buo administration because right now they just
they're just out here doing stuff. So we will see
what comes of it. But I want to thank you
for giving your time and more importantly for continuing to
communicate messages that you feel like will be helpful to
the American people.
Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
And good luck.
Speaker 3 (01:03:27):
Well, thank you. I appreciate you definitely wilding out in
terms of the Trump administration. But we're gonna end this
national nightmare. It's going to happen. Part of it will
involve us taking back control of the House. But then
we of course have to finish the job, and we will.
We'll get past this and bring about a brighter day
in the United States of America. All right, thank you,
(01:03:49):
thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:03:51):
One more segment to go, coming up next, the Final Spin.
All right, time for the Final Spin.
Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
This week's topic the riots, and I'm using air quotes
there in Los Angeles the spin.
Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
According to some.
Speaker 2 (01:04:14):
In the right wing media, mostly the streets have been
taken over by herdened criminals, and those of us who
live here in Los Angeles are under sieged by roving
bands of undocumented people who have committed a ton of primes.
Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
The truth. Let me tell you what I see right
now as.
Speaker 2 (01:04:29):
I'm looking out my window of my office, which is
in the heart of Los Angeles. It's eighty degrees. A
few pedestrians are on the streets and parked cars. Nothing
is on fire. They are not bands of undocumented criminals
being out of control, nor any out of control protesters.
The media often acts like Los Angeles is a small
town in Georgia.
Speaker 1 (01:04:48):
There are over four million people who live here.
Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
These protests are taking place on a few blocks in
downtown Los Angeles, which right now, if I got in
my car tried to make it downtown, it take me
probably about forty five minutes to get there. Because a
track Los Angeles is not experiencing some crisis despite what
is being said by the President and others who simply
want to gaslight the public to justify them sending the
military into an American city.
Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
Now, Donald Trump desperately wants to be the bull conner
of this era.
Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
He wants to retaliate against Los Angeles because he didn't
like the governor Gavin Newsom, he didn't like the mayor
Karen Bass, and he doesn't like that this state was
also very supportive of Kamala Harris. And it just bothers
him that a city like Los Angeles just doesn't fuck
with him like that. Now the President is petty, He's
also petulant, and the sad thing is he's got the
full force of the government behind him to support his
(01:05:38):
worst instincts. Lucky ess all right, This concludes another episode
Does Politics. Make sure that you get at me on
social media or via email.
Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
I'm at Jamel Hill across all social media.
Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
Platforms Twitter, Instagram, fan base, Blue Sky and threads. Please
use the hashtags politics. You also have the option of
emailing me at spolitics twenty twenty for at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
You can also send me a.
Speaker 2 (01:06:03):
Video if you have any questions, but please make sure
the video is thirty seconds or less. Don't forget to
follow Spolitics and to subscribe to Spolitics on iHeart and
followspolitics pod on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Politics is spelled SPO l I t i c s.
Speaker 2 (01:06:20):
A new episode of Politics drops every Thursday on iHeart
podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. This is politics,
where sports and politics don't just mix, they matter. Politics
is the production of iHeart Podcasts and the Unbothered Network.
(01:06:40):
I'm your host Jamel Hill. Executive producer is Taylor Schakoigne.
Lucas Hymen is head of audio and executive producer. Original
music for Spolitics provided by Kyle VISs from wiz Fx
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.