Full Show: Giannis open to considering trade options. MJ signed as NBC NBA Contributor. Diddy's trial starts.

Stephen A. Smith is a New York Times Bestselling Author, Executive Producer, host of ESPN's First Take, and co-host of NBA Countdown.

Support the show: http://www.youtube.com/@stephenasmith

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What a hell of a show coming your way today. Okay,
the NBA playoffs are in full effect. I gotta talk
about that. Jannis might want out of Milwaukee. I gotta
talk about that. Mjay is coming back to the NBA.
I got to talk about that. Plus Diddy's trial. Gotta
talk about that. And there are people that are saying

(00:24):
that I need to be quiet. One of those people
includes the one and only Charles Barkley. Simple question, albeit rhetorical,
when the hell do I listen to people tell me
what to do when it comes to being me? I'll
address that too. Steven A. Smith Show in the house,

(00:46):
scho what's up, everybody? Welcome to the Lady. This edition
to the Stephen A. Smith Show coming at you over
the digital airways of YouTube and of course iHeartRadio at
least three times a week. As always, I like to

(01:07):
pause for a moment and thank my subscribers and followers
for continuing to support the show, which continues to grow
by leaps and bounds every single day. We've eclipsed millions
upon millions of downloads over the last few months courtesy
of iHeart Radio, and of course we're going over one
point two to one million subscribers over the digital airways
of YouTube. If it wasn't for your love and support,
that would not happen. Please don't think that gets lost

(01:29):
in the source when it comes to me. I thank
you from the bottom of my heart. Keep supporting the
show and I'm gonna keep on coming. To continue to
like and follow the show, just click the bell and
get notified for our newest content and YouTube show. Consider
yourself the latest member of the stephen A. Smith Show family.
And while you're doing that, please, please please take a
moment to pick up a copy of my New York
Times best selling book, Straight Shooter, a Memoir of Second

(01:52):
Chances and First Takes, now in paperback. Just go to
straight shootobook dot com to get yourself a copy. Once
aget in that straight shoot tobook dot com to get
yourself a copy. Before I get into some stuff about Giannas,
some stuff about the NBA playoffs. I don't know if
y'all have heard the news, but the goat himself, Yes,
I said the goat, Michael Jordan, not some other dude

(02:15):
that all of y'all keep mentioning it. Michael Jordan, Michael
Jeffrey Jordan. You know that six time champion. You understand,
you know that first that ten time All NBA First
Team or eleven time All NBA First Team, that ten
times scoring champion, that six time NBA Finals MVP. For
anybody who knows basketball, the guy universally recognizes the greatest
who have ever touched a basketball. That dude, the billionaire,

(02:37):
by the way, owner of the Jordan brand. That dude. Well,
did y'all hear that he is returning to the NBA.
Michael Jeffrey Jordan is coming back to the NBA in fairness,
albeit periodically. It's not every week's not every day. Michael
Jordan will be seen on NBC for their NBA coverage

(03:02):
next season. It will be periodical. Nevertheless, he will be
coming on as a contributor, somebody that's going to be
given commentary expressing his opinion and to use his words
that he is fond of saying. He's not trying to
be brutal, just honest in any way you slice it,

(03:24):
any way you slice it. Let me tell you this
about Michael Jordan. Obviously, he's somebody that I know, got
a lot of love for I've known her for many years.
We talk quite often and clearly He's a brilliant basketball mind.
How could you not be being as great as he was?
My only suggestion would be to NBC, And that would

(03:45):
be even though this is not something that you should
you would normally take into consideration, I would ask you
to do this because I kind of know a thing
or two about television and what works for television, and
I'm just giving you some friendly advice even though it's
not ESPN or ABC. Instead it's a competitor like NBC

(04:06):
Number one. You might want to let him smoke your
cigars because the Michael Jordan smoking a cigar is a
little bit different than the Michael Jordan than a The
Michael Jordan has smoke those cigars gets very very relaxed.
When he's very very relaxed, he tends to be a

(04:27):
bit more outspoken. And that dude, trust me. Y'all, y'all
want to see that brother on television. You want to
see that brother on television, And just think for a second.
Just think for a second. I'm not talking about statistical
data that you can analyze, dissect and refute. If the
man is talking to you about basketball, what the hell
are you gonna say? If Michael Jordan's not that he would.

(04:49):
But let's say, for the sake of argument, if Michael
Jordan was to sit up there and say that brother
can't play, who's gonna refute it? If he's just there
and said that brother can't close. Uh, who you think
is gonna refute it? If he sits there and says, Yo,
this is a dude, I want the ball to when
the game's on the line, as he's analyzing and dissecting

(05:11):
the game of basketball, and he's telling you what's happening
in the moment, and he's telling you what this dude
or that dude is going to do. What you're gonna say.
This is basketball analysis. This is an ownership where you
gotta take a whole bunch of financial things into consideration.
This is pure basketball. And I assure you, outside of

(05:36):
bringing Amar Rashard back to NBC to be the one
talking with him, there's nothing better than putting a cigar
in that brother's hands. Gets very relaxed. And I'm telling
you it's gonna be mussy television no matter what, because
when Michael Jordan speaks, we gonna listen. But especially if
the brother got a cigar in his hand, just trust

(05:57):
me on this seems like a little little thing, like
a stick of something. No no, no, no, no, trust me.
Trust me. Now, let me divert back to a different
subject in a current NBA player. We're gonna get started
in the NBA, and before we get to the players,
I want to talk about the future of Jannis after
the Kompo with the Milwaukee Bucks. League sources tell esping

(06:19):
that Giannis is reportedly open to exploring his best long
term option after three consecutive postseasons in the first round.
Combine that with the fact that Dame Lillard will likely
be out at least a year with the rupture achilles
injury he suffered a few weeks ago. Anthon the Kumpo
was drafted by Milwaukee in twenty thirteen and spent his
entire twelve season career with the Milwaukee Bucks. He's a champion,

(06:39):
a Finals MVP, a two time NBA MVP, and a
Defensive Player of the Year, most Improved Player, and an
eight time All start a boot all right, all NBA,
I'm sorry, a time All NBA, and a nine time
All Star. So this is not a surprise. The Milwaukee
Bucks don't have draft capital for the next five years,

(07:02):
which means that essentially you have to depend on free
agency and who they're gonna go out and get. The
best thing they could do was ship Chris Middleton out
to get in Kyle Kuzman. How did that work out?
They got some decent pieces. They're not scrubs. They can
play Damian Lillard when healthy is a superstar in this league,
make no mistake about it, and Yannis is an all

(07:23):
world player. But the reality is is that he needs
help that the Milwaukee Bucks franchise can't get. A matter
of fact, they need him to bring in additional help
upon his departure. And that's what we have to look
at here. Jannis is in the discussion for the greatest
European player who has ever lived, and one of the

(07:45):
greatest big men the game has ever seen world over worldwide.
And even though the Lakers traded for Luka Doncic and
didn't have to give up but so much in draft capital.
That cannot be the case for the Milwaukee Bucks. If
you're gonna lose Gianna Santha to Kopo, there needs to
be multiple draft picks. It needs to be something along
the lines of what the New York Knicks gave up

(08:06):
for Michel Bridges, which is five first round picks.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
Four.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
I'm protected that's what it needs to be. Something like that,
which means it'll probably require getting a third team involved.
Either way you slice it.

Speaker 3 (08:17):
The bottom line is this somebody brought up the Knicks.
Did somebody bring up the Knicks? I'm like a genie.
You mentioned it, Nickson, I'm popping up.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
Did you walk in the middle of my damn satment?
I did, cause I'm trying well listen just because you
of age, don't mean as your uncle, I won't get
up this chin whip your ass. You don't walk in
and interrupt my openness a little. QUI my opening monologist
rub with you.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
I'm here to make sure I shadow you. I don't
have a ticket, so I'm with you. Be attached at
the Hit until ten o'clock tonight.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Looking like that with the damn towel on your head.

Speaker 3 (08:58):
I look like I'm supposed to be in that front
road intimidating the Celtics, unlike all you celebrities.

Speaker 4 (09:03):
I'm here.

Speaker 1 (09:05):
Could you at least shut the hell up so I
can finish this before I get to you? Can you
shut up anyway? My point is, if you're Yannis and
you want to depart, here's the question to throw out
to all of y'all for consideration. You don't have to
answer it today. You definitely not answer it today. Do
you tell the Milwaukee Bucks I want to become a

(09:25):
New York Knick. Do you tell them Milwaukee Bucks I
want to become a Los Angeles Laker? Or do you
tell the Milwaukee Bucks. I'm open to going to Oklahoma
City to join SGA, I'm open to going to San
Antonio to join Victim and Bianna. Y'am a rather, what
do you do Andy Aaron Fox? Let's not forget him.

(09:45):
What do you do if you're are Yannis at the compo? Now,
my first order of business will say the New York Knicks.
That would be me. It's a Matison Square garden, It's
the mecca. You understand, I'll let you I'll let you
comment about that real quickly. Do you agree with that
absolutely that he could become to New York?

Speaker 4 (10:03):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (10:03):
Who do you give up for the statue of Liberty?
Tom Thibodeau one of my kids. It doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
We need anything for Janness, anything including.

Speaker 4 (10:12):
Brunton, not Michael Jaylen.

Speaker 3 (10:14):
That's the that's the that's the pair we need everybody else.
We got macau for five picks. Give the five picks
five more.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
So you to give up Og, Michel, Karl, Anthony Towns,
all of that, right, Yeah, the liberty too.

Speaker 3 (10:29):
Whoever it is you honestly talking about you, anything about
it is.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
I can't even disagree with I can't even disagree with you.
I'm with you on that. But we can talk about
that another day because i gotta get onto another subject.
The NBA Draft lottery is tonight with the Jazz, Wizards,
and Hornets all having a fourteen percent chance of landing
the number one overall pick, which is the most which
most expect to be Cooper Flag. And this is where

(10:53):
I'm at with this Cooper Flag. This is clearly his draft,
and I like the kid. The kid is special, make
no mistake about it, Cooper Flag Ball. But there were
four occasions this year when he had an opportunity to close,
and not only did he fail to close, but half
the time it involved turnovers. And so I'm looking at
it from that standpoint, and clearly he's too young to
judge or whatever, and the skills a real big time.

(11:15):
There's no doubt about that. I think he's got a bright,
bright future. He's got Utah written all over him, even
though I would like to see if somebody like Houston
could get their hands on them, or if somebody like
Saying Antonio could get their hands on them, because the
one thing about Cooper Flag in this draft is that
whoever gets the number one overall pick is going to

(11:37):
have major, major leverage when it comes potentially to acquiring
somebody like a Gianni Sante Takumpo. You just never know. Now,
I will allow my nephew to come in here to
talk to me about the NBA playoffs. How are you
feeling about our Knicks as they approach Game four to
night against the Bosston Celtics after getting she lacked in

(11:58):
Game three and in the vast majority of the first
three games in this series, being down twenty even though
they came back and won in games one and two.
How you feeling about the Knicks right now?

Speaker 3 (12:09):
I'm not feeling too good, and it's it's because of
the coach. And I hate to sound like a dead horse,
but Tom Thibodell played Jalen Brunson forty minutes last game
and we was down twenty for forty out of the
forty eight minutes. At what point do you rust them
and think about the next round if we beat the Celtics.
We lost to the Pacers last year and they run

(12:30):
up and down Michael Jalen twenty seven now for twenty one.
I mean, what we gotta do is start Mitchell Robinson.

Speaker 4 (12:38):
That's the answer.

Speaker 1 (12:39):
Start Mitchell Robinson, who's shooting seven of twenty three from
the free throw line thirty That Mitchell Robinson. You say,
start him?

Speaker 3 (12:46):
Why because they're fouling him when we're in the penalty,
so he goes to the line. Start him the first
five minutes of a quarter when we're not in the penalty.
So if you're gonna foil him, she's not gonna go
to the line.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
Simple things.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
Or if you foul him an a motion of shooting,
then he will go to the loft.

Speaker 4 (13:03):
You know, he'll never have the ball motion to shooting.

Speaker 1 (13:05):
But sometimes he does get the ball. Sometimes he is
getting found when he grabs a rebound and he goes
for a footback of something that is true.

Speaker 4 (13:11):
Now strict to strictly dunk the ball or something like that.

Speaker 3 (13:14):
Okay, if you're gonna fil him in, but to foul
him when we just dribbling up the court and you're
slowing down the game, it's almost like watching a football game.
You're stopping in between. They got to set up some
type of rule. Y'all just gonna let that happen.

Speaker 1 (13:24):
Well, you sound like a person that's really really upset
because you expected the Knicks to win this series? Did
you really expect him to win the series of where
you're just trying to be a contrarian and act like
you were just you was feeling differently because you want
to show that you different from everybody else, even with
that weak ass towel on your head like everybody else wears.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
I'm I'm a ftan of knowing what you know? Now,
Jalen Brunson, is he better than you, Holliday?

Speaker 2 (13:50):
Right now?

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Right now?

Speaker 4 (13:51):
He is Macal Bridges. Is he better than Jaylen Brown?

Speaker 1 (13:56):
No?

Speaker 4 (13:57):
Is OG better than Tatum?

Speaker 1 (14:00):
Not that after the last game, OG did nothing, but
it matters, It matters, and overall Tatum is better than OG.
We love OG, but OG ain't Jason Tatum?

Speaker 4 (14:10):
What towns?

Speaker 1 (14:11):
What about towns? He's a shooter. He's a shooter. But
his post game is suspect. His defense has been suspect
as well, and just watching it run up and down
the floor, it's uncomfortable to watch. He don't look like
the healthiest cat out there.

Speaker 5 (14:24):
You know what it is?

Speaker 3 (14:26):
We gotta fire Tom Tibberda on high and mellow about
Carmelo Anthony as the coach was JJ Reddick.

Speaker 4 (14:34):
What's the different?

Speaker 1 (14:34):
Carmelo Anthony has never shown any inclination to coach whatsoever.
He's never said that he wanted to coach, never said
that is, yes, he did, JJ Reddick. Everybody and the
mother knew that JJ Reddick wanted to be a coach.

Speaker 4 (14:44):
So what does he do about it?

Speaker 3 (14:45):
He wasn't coaching, So you go on first take when
you want to be a coach, I guess I want
to be a coach.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
To that that that that that is? I mean some people,
I mean Doc Rivers was on TV before before and
everybody looked at that and they hired him, Mark Jackson
and Jeff Van Gundy and others. I mean, these positions
in television do lead to head coaching jobs.

Speaker 3 (15:03):
Well, I think we should switch it up or the
coaching jobs. Mello has a podcast, so we respect his voice.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
That's one too, So you respect the voice of him
just because he has a podcast as opposed to anybody else.

Speaker 4 (15:14):
That's just one of the reasons. But the other reason would.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
Be he could tell kat Listen, Drew Holidays behind you
bury him, what are you at the three point line?

Speaker 5 (15:23):
For?

Speaker 4 (15:23):
You got him fore arming you out to the three.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
Point He is the best shooting big man in basketball,
but his lower extremities are not that's big. Is not
that strong. Rather and his feet, his feet, his side
twenty one feet. I hear the brother has bad feet.

Speaker 4 (15:38):
Did you hear that before we go?

Speaker 1 (15:39):
Before we traded everybody fan? Yes, But because he could
shoot so well and we needed somebody to the assistant shooting,
we didn't mind the giving up of Julius random and
Dante's Vincenzo. Even though I will concede this as I'm
watching the Knicks in this series and I'm seeing even
though they won the first two games, or what have
you just watch, I shouldn't say this series, Eason, I

(16:01):
have found myself watching Julius Randall and saying to myself
in this postseason and saying to myself, if we could
have kept Hartenstein with Randall and Devincenzo. That might have
been better than having called Anthony Towns and Michel Bridges.
That's how I'm feeling right now. That's what it is
you think, which means that you have a problem with

(16:21):
what Leon Rose did.

Speaker 4 (16:23):
No, not really. We lost toughness with Julius Randall, which
I said off the beginning.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
We went for talent over toughness, and right now against
the Celtics, that's what we need.

Speaker 4 (16:31):
It's gonna be.

Speaker 3 (16:32):
It's gonna be series with Carling, Anthony Towns, talent shines.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Hold on whose watch you got on? What? Whose watch
do you have on mine? Where do you get it?
Joe the jewry at the jewelry store.

Speaker 4 (16:48):
You're not gonna keep saying, I'm still people watching.

Speaker 1 (16:51):
When it looked like you looked like an old watch
that I had that was in my jewelry box. I
just looked at it the other day. And when when
you have when when you have my hot mouse? When
you at my house? When when you at my house
that was in my jewelry box.

Speaker 3 (17:08):
Josh, listen, your friend Michael Jilden, Let's get to him.
Why are you talking like he's some some basketball guru?

Speaker 2 (17:17):
Genius.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
Is he not? Is he not? I'm talking about just
talking about analysis. You can't go about all the ownership
and all of that stuff because you're purchasing a team
in a small market, obviously you got to take finances
into consideration. You're trying to make money and stuff like that,
and then sometimes that goes a rod, which is why
he's not really really doing that anymore. But that doesn't
mean he doesn't know the game.

Speaker 4 (17:38):
Did he draft Brown?

Speaker 1 (17:40):
Yes, he did.

Speaker 4 (17:41):
Did he draft Cody Zellen?

Speaker 2 (17:42):
Number four?

Speaker 1 (17:43):
Three? I believe. I believe it was three.

Speaker 4 (17:47):
I believe about Frank Kaminski over Devin Booker.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
That's true.

Speaker 3 (17:51):
You see drafted Shade, which was a good draft, traded
him for miles of ridges.

Speaker 4 (17:59):
Why I don't want to listen to Michael Jordan talk
about basketball.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
We know what he did. You know what. You're not
gonna be on this show. We're gonna change the subject.
You will not disrespect the great Michael Jordan. That will
not happen. That will not happen. Not the greatest player
who has ever lived, good, good, great, great, the greatest,
the greatest. Let's be very very clear, watch your mouth,
mind your manners. You know what you're talking about here?

(18:23):
One minute youre talking about your mama. The next who,
by the way, is the Disney World right now? Enjoining usself? Right?
And stuff like that? Why would you care about that?
Why wouldn't you just be thankful that that's such your
own mother? Don't you want her to be happy? You
think about what about me? That's the name of your
production company. It should be what about Me? Because that's
what it should be, because that's all you think about.
What about me? I sent your mother to Disney World

(18:46):
because that's what she wanted with her friends. And instead
of being happy for her, who works hard, who took
care of you and what have you, you're thinking about
why you didn't get what she has.

Speaker 3 (18:56):
You're right, I'm glad she's in Disney World.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
Why you're waving over there for cameras right here? I
really didn't mean it. I really didn't mean He didn't
really mean to say, you're wrong about your own ID.

Speaker 3 (19:10):
Because I want to go my call. This's mad stuff
we got to talk about.

Speaker 1 (19:15):
Like what what a celebrity road that's on your mind?

Speaker 3 (19:19):
Well, as far as today goes right, the city is
looking for me to be courtside the city.

Speaker 4 (19:26):
It's not just me talking.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
In He says, who how do you know this? How
do you know what the city is looking for?

Speaker 3 (19:32):
I'm on the internet, you know what it is. You
don't even be on your phone. He only texts people.
All of these celebrities at courtside. All they do is
text each other set up business meetings. You're not even
watching the game. I need to be court side. Look
at Spike, you know what I give spite credits.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
You don understand you're not tearing into the right camera, right'
It's such an amateur. It's such an amateur. That's the
camera right in front of you.

Speaker 4 (19:57):
Look Look at fat Joe. Look at Fat Joe.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Orange on it all.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
It's a fashion show to y'all. All y'all do is
meet up Tracy Morgan?

Speaker 1 (20:05):
So what would you call? What would you call how
you're dressed?

Speaker 3 (20:09):
I look like a player almost. I look like I
need to be subbed in. That's why I throw the tiler.
I had shades on just so I can look a
little different from the player or people might think I belong.

Speaker 1 (20:23):
What would you do if you were sitting course? I mean,
I wasn't even gonna ask this question. Do I get
you the hell out of here. What would you do
if you were sitting courts?

Speaker 3 (20:31):
I would make Jason Tatum uncomfortable?

Speaker 1 (20:34):
How using my voice.

Speaker 4 (20:36):
I'm not texting.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
I'm not talking to Chris rot about a movie that
we might do next week. I'm not doing none of that.
Jason Tatum pulled up to New York and Timberlands. He's disrespectful.
Nobody said nothing about him.

Speaker 4 (20:48):
Good thing. I'm a part of the media now thanks
to you.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Come on, no, we got bills to pay and I'm
tired of looking at him right now?

Speaker 4 (21:00):
See yaa nay back on the more and then attash
that they hit.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
Alright, everybody listen up with all the big time sports
action that's happening each and every day, The Stephen A.
Smith Show wants to make sure you are taking advantage
of it all. That's why we've partnered with the Prize Picks,
the best place to win cash while watching sports. The
app is really easy to use to make a lineup.
All you have to do is pick more or less
on a few player stats. Choose from any of your
favorite players. Luka, Doncic, Jimmy Butler, and Zach Lavine all

(21:34):
in the same entry, then sit back and watch. The
list is absolutely endless. You can play Prizepects in over
forty states, including California and Texas. Best of all, prospects
will give you fifty dollars when you play your first
five dollars. Lineup wanna lose, You'll get fifty bucks. Just
use promo code says and download Prizepects right now again,
download the app and use code sas to get fifty

(21:54):
dollars instantly after your first five dollars lineup Prize Picks.
Run your game. Now, Let's get to some headlines or
should I say advice from Charles Barkley in regards to me. Barkley,
who's a friend and a brother, appeared on Outkicks, Don't

(22:19):
Act Me Podcasts with Dan Dakish. Dan asked Barkley about
the myriad of places I've been seen recently talking about sports, politics,
and even acting on General Hospital in recently Law in Order.
Here's what Barkley had to say, take a look at
this police So I don't want to be on TV more.
I want to be on TV less. I don't think

(22:42):
that's the Stephen A.

Speaker 4 (22:43):
Smith method right now.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
I don't think that's hotelience.

Speaker 6 (22:47):
That's not listen, that's not As a matter of fact,
I was in a studio last night and I see he's.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Gonna be on Law and Order tonight.

Speaker 6 (22:57):
I mean he's already on the God, he's already on
General Hospital. Now he's gonna be on Law and Order tonight.
And I was just laughing. I'm like, yo, man, you're
starting to be too much right now. Like you're gonna
be on CNN, You're gonna be on Foxing Friends, Now
you on General Hospital, now you're on Law and Order.

(23:19):
I'm like, yo, man, knock it off. Stop being on
every TV show because at some point people are going
to regret. They're gonna be like, they're gonna get sick
of you, and you're gonna be like, yeah, I probably
did too much. But once you do too much, it's
too late and then people don't take you serious. And
I think he's gotta be careful in that aspect.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
First order of business as a full warning. Anything I
shouldn't say a full warning, just a heads up. Anything
that I say that is critical of Charles Barkley is
all in fun. One That is my friend, that is
my brother. I love him daily. I always have I

(24:08):
always will. He is as real and as authentic as
it gets. And oh, by the way, weeks ago when
he was critical of me as it pertained to my
response to Lebron James, when Lebron James and I, you know,
had our little spiel, Charles Barkley and I spoke on
the phone, and what he said publicly is exactly what

(24:30):
he said privately. That's my guy. But that doesn't mean
I always agree with him, and it doesn't mean that
I'm devoid of the right to call him a flaming
hypocrite when it's called upond. Do y'all have any idea
how many commercials Charles Barkley does a year. He'll tell
us too. Have you seen Charles Barkley in two commercials?

(24:53):
Are you kidding me?

Speaker 5 (24:55):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (24:56):
By the way, the cat that you work with at
least twice a week during the NBA season, it's Shaquille O'Neal.
Can we count the amount of endorsements he has, how
often he's seen everywhere? What new product he's pitching? Did
you say that about him? No, you didn't. But when

(25:17):
it comes to me, I need to be careful. Oh,
by the way, Dan Dowkish see you know, you know
slickly brings up you know me with politics and all
of this other stuff. Wasn't it Charles Barkley who made
news for years talking about his aspiration to run for
the governor of Alabama because that's where he's from before

(25:38):
starring in Orburn and all of this other stuff. Wasn't
that him? I mean, it just amazes me how people
could say some of the things that they say. Sometimes
it absolutely positively blows me away. Okay, because I'm not
the one with commercials everywhere I'm working Fox and Friends.

(26:00):
Know that involves early mornings. That's a rare appearance that
almost never happens. That's not accurate. ESPN is the worldwide leader.
They have a multiple multitude outlets, plus they put me
on their dot com sites. Outside of that, you saw them.
You see me occasionally on Sean Hannity occasionally. You see

(26:21):
me pretty much weekly on Chris Cuomo's show New on
News Nation. He's a friend and he asked me to
come on, and I come on, Where else have I
been seen? Can we really really get to the heart
of the matter. And this is a director that Charles Barkley,
This is the director that all the folks out there,
I'm making people very uncomfortable, and I don't give a shit.

(26:46):
You can sit there and talk about people not taking
me seriously all you want to, We'll see. Because I'm
a serious brother. That doesn't mean I don't know how
to laugh and smile and have fun. But I know
who the hell I am. We're talking about me on
General Hospital? Why now, I've been on General Hospital for
seven years. It's a soap opera. That's not a sports show.

(27:08):
It's a different audience. I went on Law and Order.
That's the first time I've been on prime time television
for anything outside of working for ESPN. That's Law and Order.
That's not sports. So if you're watching sports, chances are

(27:30):
you're not watching those other things. You might not be
watching soap, but you might not be watching Law and Order.
So one would argue I'm reaching a different audience and
I'm expanding and showing that I'm somewhat of a renaissance man,
that I have the versatility to do the things that
I'm doing. People saw me acting, they say, hey, does
a good job, and I'm supposed to scale that back

(27:54):
because of my conspicuous presence. Last time I checked. That's
what we're in this business for, and the very people
laughing and dismissing it. Are you trying to tell me
you would turn down those opportunities if it came your way?
Why are you in this business? Yes, it's easy for
Charles Barkley to sit up there and say two commercials

(28:14):
a year, even though that's a lie because he's definitely
doing more than two. But when you're making the money
that you're making, that you have been making for years,
you could afford to turn down those opportunities. Don't bring
up my contract now that was just signed last month.
You've been making that money for years, So when we

(28:36):
look at it from that standpoint, what's that about? And oh,
by the way, when you see me at other places,
whether it be podcasts or other shows, I don't volunteer
to go talk to these people y'all calling ask. Yet
you'll call and ask and then say I want to
be seen. Where you're the one to call or ask
me to be seen? Could it be because I speak

(28:58):
with substance that I have something to say that will
draw viewers and listeners to your respective shows. Isn't that
what we're supposed to be doing? In this business. So
Charles Barker, you continue to do the great job that
you've been doing for TNT, and next year the start
at ESPN. Unlets Shaq market the hell out of himself

(29:22):
the way that he does significantly better than almost anybody
on this planet, and let me do what I do.
I have no desire to rough office. I have no
desire to be a politician. I love talking about politics.
I love talking about social giving social commentary or social issues,
and I love talking about sports. And if that's somehow,

(29:46):
some way translates into me being in the mix and
people talking to me about a potential political position, so
be it. It's not where my interest lies. But I
don't rule it out because I believe I could win.
And I'll be damned if anybody, especially my friend and

(30:11):
my brother, who did nothing for years other than play
basketball yet repeatedly announced his desires to one day run
for the governor of Alabama, is gonna sit here and
tell me is a bit too much? It's too much?
When I say it's too much, that's how I roll. Respectfully.

(30:37):
Of course, i'mb love for you, my brother, Dan Dawkish.
You're asking that question, I wonder why if you're uncomfortable
with the situation my brother and you got questions to ask,
just call me. I'll come on under one condition. Don't

(31:00):
turn around and say, oh, he just wants to be
on another show. I actually have things to say. I
don't think anybody can deny that. I'll leave it at
that until a later date. Anyway, coming up could AOC

(31:21):
that is Alexandria oor Cassio Cortez becoming a Democratic front
runner for the President of the United States of America
in twenty twenty eight. She's not ruling it out. I'll
get into that ahead, but first, a jury is seated
in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial for Showan
Diddy Combs. What can we expect this week? I'll get
into that with our legal analyst extraordinario, the one and

(31:43):
only Ryan Smith. He's up next right here on the
stephen A. Smith Show, over the digital airways with YouTube
and of course iHeartRadio. Back with more in a minute.
Welcome back to stephen A. Smith Show. Opening arguments were
set to begin today in the holly endnticipated federal trial
for hip hop mogul Sean Diddy Combs, Colmbs has been

(32:04):
accused of sex trafficking by force, transportation to engage in prostitution,
and racketeering conspiracy as part of a federal indictment originally
filed in September of last year. The Feds later added
two more superseding indictments. Combs and his legal team have
pleaded not guilty to all of the chargers. Joining me

(32:26):
now to break this all down as a friend of
the program, He's an outstanding attorney who moonlights as a
sports center anchor for ESPN. He's also a legal analyst
for ABC News all over the Disney family. The one
and only Ryan Smith is right here with yours, truly, Ryan,
always good to see you, my brother, always good to
see you. Let's get right to it. The trial started
today with six female prosecutors presenting the case against Colmes.

(32:50):
What impact, if any, could that have on a jury.

Speaker 5 (32:54):
Well, that has a big impact, and the goal of
that is not only to use some of the top
prosecutors in the land to prosecute the case, but it's
also to show that this case is not just about
Seawan Didy Combs, but it's about what.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
He did to primarily women.

Speaker 5 (33:10):
And when you show that kind of front in the
prosecution all women prosecution team prosecuting this case. It focuses
the jury for prosecutors on what they want them to
be focused on. This was a man who might not
have done every single elements of the crime, but racketeering
is not about that. This kind of charge of conspiracy
is not about that. It's about a man who used

(33:30):
his power to force women into sexual situations. And so
that is part of what they're trying to show. But
I don't want it to be missed in all of this,
stephen A, that these are some of the top prosecutors
in the land. So I think sometimes in a tendency
to say, oh, it's all women, they're doing that to
put on a show. No, they're using some of the
best prosecutors in the land to make the case by

(33:52):
their presence that this is about holding someone accountable.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Okay, Ryan, you said top prosecutors in the land with me?
Because is that to imply these ain't just the top
prosecutors in New York. This is not a local thing.
They went all over the country and got the six
of the best prosecutors in the country who happen to
be female. Is that what you're saying no.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
It's more like the top the prosecutors in New York.

Speaker 5 (34:17):
The New York Office is one of the best in
the world, and so these are their best.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
These are their top.

Speaker 5 (34:23):
These are people who have handled cases like just Lady
Maxwell connected to the Epstein case.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
That's the lead prosecutor in this case, handle that case.

Speaker 5 (34:31):
So these are some of the best women in some
of the best office in the world.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
Break down the demographics, the dynamics and the demographics of
this jury. How many females, how many males, how many blacks,
how many whites? What can you tell us about the
actual jury and the alternates that have been assigned to
this case.

Speaker 5 (34:50):
Yeah, you've got a full jury, You've got six alternates.
They're a bit all over the map, and I think
that's what you want in a case like this. Men
and women, different hues, different colors, different races, but they
also come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Some come from different
higher level jobs. Other there's one juror who's a clerk
at a store in New York. So I think that's

(35:11):
what prosecutors wanted to paint here, a broad swath of
New York society of people who are there to try
to judge this case. It can be an advantage for prosecutors.
It can also be an advantage for the defense because
the defense can look at this and say, we are
going to try in many ways to show you that
Shawncombs might not be a great guy, might be a dirk,
might be angry, might have committed domestic violence. But was

(35:33):
he a racketeer? Was he someone who we should hold
accountable for? What the prosecution is saying. So this jury
is a diverse broad swath of people in New York,
But we will see how that plays out on either side.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
One of the things that I'm looking at right now,
this is called the fresh CNN update. I wanted to
know what you could validate, what you can elaborate upon,
if at all, It says the jury was shown additional
footage from the hotel hallway. The jury is being shown
footage from the north hallway of the sixth floor of
the Intercontinental Hotel. This is where p Diddy ran around,

(36:07):
ran out in the hallway with just a towel wrapped
around himself, naked up top, going after casting in Ventur,
trying to prevent her from getting on the elevated He
grabbed it, he shoved her down, he kicked her, et cetera,
et cetera. He acknowledged you know how hainus the video
was in his own social media posting in the aftermath
of this being publicized. Could you tell us what happened

(36:28):
today inside that courtroom as it pertains to evidence that
was shown to the jury and any testimony that was given.

Speaker 5 (36:35):
Yeah, that evidence that that video right there, that is
the most powerful piece of evidence the prosecution has, and
they put it right up front. First witness in the trial,
they called they put that on full display.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
You talk about the extended view of this.

Speaker 5 (36:48):
What they're trying to show is the defense will try
to say, hey, this was an argument.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
This was an argument between a couple that went awry.

Speaker 5 (36:54):
Yes there was domestic violence here, but this isn't any
evidence of racketeering or conspiracy. So the prosecution year is
trying to show an expanded view. What that does is
it kind of undercuts any defense argument that says, you're
not showing the whole context of what happened, You're not
showing what really happened, and there was so much more
that went on that tells a story of more of
some a couple that got into an argument, rather than

(37:15):
something that builds more into a criminal racketeering conspiracy or
something that is a broader issue that comes from it.
So that's what they're showing there, Steven. The big part
of today though, was opening statements. The prosecution gets up
first and lays out their case, and their case is
essentially this Son Comb's big music mogul committed these crimes,

(37:37):
had these freak offs, had coerce women into fource sex,
all as a part of a criminal enterprise, and others
were involved to facilitate that enterprise. But the defense part
of this, they come second. And how they contrasted it,
I think is very interesting. They didn't try to say
Shawn Commes did none of this. They said, look, he's
a bad guy, he's a jerk, he has anger issues,

(38:00):
he took drugs, and they even took the step of
saying that he had some domestic violence in his past.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
That is important because in.

Speaker 5 (38:07):
A way you put to the jury, hey, if he
had these things, doesn't that build into what the prosecution's saying.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
What the defense is going.

Speaker 5 (38:14):
To try to do here is say just because he
is a bad person doesn't mean he is a person
who did illegal things. We do commit We do not
convict people for being bad people. We convict people for
doing illegal activities. So was what we're seeing here in
this case jury? Is what the defense is trying to say.
Was what we're seeing here evidence of a racketeering enterprise,

(38:35):
conspiracy things like that? Or was this a person with
anger issues that you or I might have septual proclivities
that we may not understand or agree with.

Speaker 2 (38:43):
But are these things that should lead to a conviction
in this case?

Speaker 5 (38:46):
And I think that's a risky thing to do in
some ways, but it's what they have to do because
they've got a very imperfect client.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
Let's stick to that word risky that you just do
out there. I would imagine youth surmised and deduce that
this is risky because the times that we're living in.
This is not the nineties, This is not the eighties,
This is not even the early two thousands. This is
a time where domestic violence has really really come to
the forefront of the mind's eye of American citizens and

(39:13):
beyond because of the heinous behavior of a lot of people,
most of them being men against women. The Me Too movement,
the aftermath of all of that and what have you.
You're looking at those kind of things, and I find
myself saying, why in God's name with the defense team
believe that that's a strategy to employ in light of

(39:34):
how sensitive we are to those things in these times
compared to how we were in years past. Is that
why you use the word risky? It is.

Speaker 5 (39:45):
It is because we are in a time where we
are believing people who are accusing big titans of industry
like Sean Combs. So in the past, a lot of
times you could undercut that in so many ways.

Speaker 2 (39:59):
In the defense team.

Speaker 5 (40:00):
You could try to dismiss a victim, you could try
to attack people who are accusing people of other things.
That is a much tougher thing to do today. That's
why it's risky. And in a way, it's risky because
you're painting part of the prosecutor's picture. The prosecution is
trying to show this was a man who had these
freak offs, did all these coerced women into sexual, horrendous

(40:21):
sexual engagements, all because he's trying to further this enterprise.
And then you're getting up and saying, yeah, you're seeing
a video he did do some domestic violence, he did
have angers who he did take drugs for example, even
the drugs part if he took drugs part of the
prosecution cases he drugged women to do some of these things.
That helps a jury build into the prosecution's case. But

(40:43):
you do this because in some ways you don't have
another choice. You do this because you know there's a
video out there that jurors are seeing today in that
courtroom that shows what he did. You see that there
is information they're going to see evidence in that jury
of these free cofts and things like that, so you
know this is the situation. The way you can paint

(41:04):
this is to try to humanize Shawn Combs to this
jury and say, look, I know you might not engage
in these things.

Speaker 2 (41:11):
I know he might live a different life.

Speaker 5 (41:13):
But just because he lives a different life, would you
want someone coming in and saying, hey, you live a
different life, so now we're going to prosecute you. I
think that's what they're trying to do. But you make
the great point, stephen A. In this day and age,
doing that is a tough needle to thread because when
you do that, you open the door of well, are
we not supposed to believe these women.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
Are we not supposed to believe what they say Shawn
Coombs did?

Speaker 5 (41:36):
Are we not supposed to believe what we're seeing on
video and how Shawn Combs in our minds, Yes, he
could have paid off people at the hotel or done
certain things to try to cover some of this uff.
And isn't that part of the criminal enterprise they're trying
to prove? So that's where it becomes risky.

Speaker 1 (41:50):
Define for our audience the word racketeering and the word
enterprise because that those words are thrown out obviously as
part of this indictment, of course, but I don't think
people understand those two words when you say criminal and
they understand where criminal, criminal enterprise, racketeering, explain enterprise, explain

(42:13):
racketeering for the purposes of these specific charges against Sean
Diddy Goombs.

Speaker 5 (42:17):
Okay, that racketeering and criminal enterprise, I think people can
look at it as where it started from years and
years ago, when the government was trying to go after
organizations like the mob. It was so tough because in
that kind of situation, the person you're trying to accuse
of the crime didn't do every part of the crime.
So let's say a mob boss ordered to hit on somebody,

(42:40):
They might not have done the actual hit, so how
do you connect them to that racketeering?

Speaker 2 (42:44):
And when you talk about criminal.

Speaker 5 (42:46):
Enterprises is where the government tries to set up a
scenario where they say and enterprise was set.

Speaker 2 (42:51):
Up to do the crime.

Speaker 5 (42:52):
In order to do the crime, multiple people had to
be involved, but there was somebody at the.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
Top who started the whole thing.

Speaker 5 (42:58):
So we're going to try to get all of those
people to paint the picture of the enterprise and convict
the person who started the thing. So when Shawn Colmes' case,
the way it breaks down is to say he set
up a criminal enterprise. He wanted to do things like
freak offs and this coercion of women and these abusive
things that they're accusing him of, So he set up
an enterprise. That enterprise had people going to get the women,

(43:20):
had people procuring the drugs, had people paying off people
when evidence got out, and then prosecutors can take all
that information and paint a picture of an enterprise that
was all set up to further Sean Colmes's freak coughs.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
Or proclivities sexually.

Speaker 5 (43:35):
So that's how it breaks down it's almost helpful to
look at it like the person you're trying to convict
didn't touch every element of the crime that you're trying
to convict him of.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
So you're trying to show that he set.

Speaker 5 (43:45):
Up an organization all in furtherance of that criminal purpose,
and when you do that, you can get him on
that racketeering charge.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
So we've heard about him being charged, we haven't heard
about anybody else being charged. Is that because they can't
find these other people they can't find enough evidence against
these other people, or is it because they're utilizing those
people to make the case against him.

Speaker 5 (44:12):
I would say it's probably part of the latter, which
is using people to make the case against him. I
would say in some ways, they're probably speaking all these
people who are involved in what they see as the enterprise.

Speaker 2 (44:24):
They got these people in.

Speaker 5 (44:25):
They try to see who could flip in different areas,
and that's why in this case, everybody should be watching
the witnesses that testify and look at the witnesses if
they have any that relate to people who are Incomes's organization.
Those are the people that you're talking about, the people
that in some way might have been involved with what
they're saying, is this criminal enterprise, who are in a
sense flipping on Diddy. Now the other side of it

(44:46):
is not being able to find people. I always like
to say when you talk about prosecutors and government cases,
the key for them is patience. They need to have
evidence to win a case if they believe there's a
good faced case, good faith basis in which a crime
has been committed. That takes time, like even in Ditty's case,

(45:06):
it took years to try to iron this thing out.
So I think sometimes when you think of Ditty's case,
you think, well, is there going to be another start
coming next month or the month after. I think for
them it's about let's prosecute this case and what we
learn here, if we can use that for other people,
we will do that. But we need to preach patience because,
just like in Ditty's case, if we do not have

(45:27):
all our ducks in a row, then you are not
going to get a conviction. And if you don't get
a conviction, it becomes harder to bring other cases like
this where you think crimes have been committed.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
Any idea how long you anticipate this struggling.

Speaker 5 (45:38):
I think weeks, it could be anywhere from six to
eight weeks, and it could be a little bit shorter.
But the key is the prosecutor is going to take
all the time they need to lay.

Speaker 2 (45:45):
Out all their evidence.

Speaker 5 (45:46):
I think one thing you can look for is the
defense is not going to need nearly as much time
as the prosecution because their idea is going to be
to try to shoot down a lot of what prose
what the prosecution has. But I think this is going
to be a week's long trial. You are going to
see a lot of evidence come out because what the
prosecution has to do is, like what we talked about,
taint this entire picture of an enterprise, but here the

(46:08):
Kief Stephen, and they've got to do it in a
way that makes it simple for the jury. It can't
be so complicated that jurors sit back and say, I
can't really get what they're trying to do here.

Speaker 2 (46:18):
I mean, what are you trying to say to me?

Speaker 5 (46:20):
What prosecutors are trying to say is here's a broad
picture of an enterprise all in further int of a crime.
They've got to be able to focus on that every
step of the way and not make it too complicated.
And for the defense, the key is going to be
poke holes. They want to show a man who was
maybe mean, maybe angry, maybe had unconventionable sexual proclivities. That
would be their way of wanting the jury to look

(46:42):
at it, but never force anybody to do anything.

Speaker 2 (46:45):
They're going to poke holes.

Speaker 5 (46:45):
They're going to try to knock down a lot of
the witnesses by saying they willingly participated in a lot
of the conduct, maybe even in some ways try to
facilitate some of the conduct if Combs asked for it.
And they're going to try to paint the picture of
he may be a bad guy, but he's not a criminal.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
Last couple of questions. We know how eccentric showan P.
Diddy comes was, and particularly with his wardrobe, how fly
he liked to look, et cetera, et cetera. Yet he
shows up the court today he's dressed down, wearing a
white dress shirt, a light colored pullover in khaki pants.
Is not how the public is used to seeing the
music Mogul, what do you make of that?

Speaker 5 (47:20):
That's by designs and it's always by design. I don't
want people to think that, oh he's doing that. That's
not what we would see with other people. This happens
in every single case. The defense is trying to humanize him,
and in order to humanize him, they got to make
him look like other humans. And other humans don't come
in look and fly wearing ten thousand dollars watches or more.
You know, other humans are wearing regular clothing, a suit,
a tie, just there to be humble. And one of

(47:43):
the pictures that the defense is trying to paint with
Ditty is to say, and you saw this in Diddy's video,
I know I did something wrong. I know I was
not always my best, And so what they're trying to
do is in his appearance, paint a man who.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
Is humble, who is just there.

Speaker 5 (47:58):
I will sit through this case, but I did not
do what prosecutors said, and that's the.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
Image they want to show.

Speaker 5 (48:04):
So I think when people say, well, where's all that
flyiness that we used to see him, you would never
want to have that in court because that would make
him look less human.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
To the jury.

Speaker 5 (48:11):
You want the jury to almost look at him and say,
even though we know he's a billionaire, he's a music mogul.
When I look at that man in that defense chair,
he looks like a man who did the wrong thing,
but isn't a criminal.

Speaker 2 (48:23):
That's what the defense wants to show in his appearance.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
The jury opted to choose the jury. The judge rather,
I'm sorry, opted to choose the jury today out of
concern that if given the weekend to think about it,
jurors may have second thoughts about serving could move on
a part of the judge.

Speaker 5 (48:38):
Yeah, excellent move on the part of the judge. You
want to get this thing underway fast. And I know
a lot of people actually said to me today, wowy,
just see to the jury and now we're getting going
right away. That happens all the time. This is a
big commitment for jurors. And I know the jurors' names
won't be revealed. That's a big part of this. That's
a big part of our justice system. But think of
the pressure these men and women face. Think of the

(48:59):
fact that they have to say it through six to
eight weeks of a trial, pay attention to every detail
of perhaps the biggest trial in the world right now.
And so for them there might be feelings of I
don't want to be a part of this. You know
what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go home and I'm
not gonna come back. Let him say something about that.
Use one of the alternates. No, this judge is looking
at this saying, we have a jury, let's get this

(49:19):
thing going. And at every stage you will see this
judge trying to move this case along. If he has
to stop it, he will, but his key is not
to elongate it because the longer it goes, the more
a chance that you might lose a juror, and that's
the last thing you want. Yes, you have the alternates,
but the people sitting on that jury right now, they
are focused on making a decision, and you don't want

(49:40):
to lose one of those decision makers. Bring in an
AlterNet or worse, have it happen to multiple people, and
then you start opening this case up to questioning. So
the faster you go, the better off you are. And
this judge is handling that right.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
Last question, we've heard nothing about character witnesses for Sean
Dinny Combs A. Have you heard of any the If
you haven't heard, what kind of effect could that potentially
have on a case of this magnitude in sensitivity.

Speaker 5 (50:11):
I have not heard yet, but I think it could
have a huge effect. The question is who are those
witnesses and what do they say?

Speaker 1 (50:19):
Now?

Speaker 2 (50:19):
If they use a character witnesses.

Speaker 5 (50:21):
The defense decides to go that way and use a
character witness that's a member of his family. You have
a jury looking at that person and you say, many
juries might think well, that's self serving. You know him,
you want to get him off, You're going to say
nice things. Of course, the question would be do you
have character witness who in some way could transcend that
for curves and make them think, hey, this is somebody
who I wouldn't expect to say this about him, or

(50:41):
somebody who I believe and support everything they say. And
here they are saying that, didd he is not guilty
of the things that the prosecutors trying to prove here.
So it's always a little bit of a risky proposition
with character witnesses, because if it just seems self serving,
then the jurors are starting to hear a witness after witness,
especially if you have multiple.

Speaker 2 (50:59):
Ones, and they're saying, well, what are you doing here?

Speaker 5 (51:02):
You're just telling me like what I expected you to
tell me, which is the great guy shouldn't be convicted.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
And the more you hear that, the less you believe
the defense's case.

Speaker 5 (51:11):
So I think in many ways it's gonna be a
tough road to hoe for these defense attorneys because you
want somebody to bolster Diddy. But at the same time,
the more you have somebody who's in his corner, the
more you open yourself up to jurors saying, can I
really believe these witnesses?

Speaker 1 (51:25):
One of the best in the business, Lee, the analysts extraordinary.
Ryan Smith right here with Steven A. Smith and Steven
Nis Smith Shaw. Appreciate you, buddy, man, Thank you so much.
You know I'm gonna call you back because I want
to hear more of what you have to say as
you continue to monitor this trial. Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
Anytime, man, I'll hop my island go.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
Right coming up, the White House, de escalates the trade
war with China, and could aoc as An Alexandria Ocasio
Cortez be the next Democratic nominee for president. I'll get
into all of that tough neck right here, Steve Wismer,
show you don't go away. Welcome back to Stephen A.

(52:01):
Smithshel Now let's get to Washington. In an early look
at the race for the White House in twenty twenty eight.
According to The Wall Street Journal, sources close to AOC
say she isn't ruling out the possibility of a president
you run. The Democrats suffered major losses in the November election,
as everybody in their grandmama knows, and the party is
frankly struggling to find a strategy to take on President
Trump and his policies. AOC, who is thirty five years

(52:24):
of age, has emerged as a leading voice for Democrats,
but some within the party are concerned she'll turn off
centrist voters who are needed in the swing states that
Trump swept in November. For the record, they are absolutely right,
she will turn off centrist I am not casting any
aspersions on this young lady. I think that if you

(52:47):
are a Democrat, if you are a leftist who rails
against the system, who believes that free market capitalism headed
by billionaires is not the way to go, if you
believe that not enough attention is being paid attention to
the desolate and disenfranchised, if you believe that higher taxes

(53:13):
is the way to go, that a focus shouldn't be
on securing the borders. If you believe those kind of things,
and that's where you stand ideologically, AOC is your candidate,
no doubt about that. Here's what I will say to you.
I have no questions about her heart and the place

(53:36):
that it is in. I think that anyone that she
represents knows that she's a fighter. She's a fighter for
them poverished. She's a fighter for urban America. She's a
fighter for union workers and things of that nature. I
get that part. I'm just talking about whether or not
it's a winning strategy. Most people in the country are centrist,

(54:01):
their moderates, whether they're Republican moderates or Democratic nominates or moderates,
or just flat out centrist to our independence. That's most
of the American population. They are not Magarite, and they
are not progressive left. She clearly is, and not to
be literal, not to be taken literally, but she gives

(54:22):
the impression that when you talk about universal health care,
and you talk about other things, if it equated to
taxing Americans seventy percent of their income, she wouldn't be
against it. That ain't gonna win you elections. That's not
gonna win you elections. If you're living in this day
and age and you're talking about fighting for certain rights

(54:44):
is in particular as it pertains to transgender individuals, athletes transitioning,
and men competing in women's sports and stuff like that,
which she's not about to speak against. If you think
that's gonna win you an election, you've got your head
in the sand. See. The real issue that I'm having
right now with the Democratic Party is I'm waiting to

(55:06):
hear what your plan is. It can't be we're just
against all things Trump. What's your plan? What's your plan
for the economy? What's your plan as it pertains to
comprehensive immigration reform? What is your plan when it comes
to foreign affairs? What is your plan as it pertains

(55:26):
the Israeli Palestinian conflict or should I say Israel with Hamas?
What is your plan with Russia and Ukraine? Is it
just giving Ukraine more money like Bidom was willing to do?
What are your plans? We got to pay attention to
all of this stuff. Jobs in America, recidivism in our jails,

(55:48):
all of these things. What's the plan? What's the plan
as it pertains to the vast majority of Americans in
this country? What is your plan? I don't have one yet.
That's why I keep telling y'all if I ever run
for the presidency, Oh trust me, that's not a decision
I'm gonna make for years, for at least the next

(56:10):
two years, and I sincerely hope that it's not me.
You got a lot of people that look at Wes Moore,
the governor of Maryland. They look at Joshapiro, the governor
of Pennsylvania. That look at Gavin Newsom, the governor of California,
that looks at Andrew Cormo, the former governor of New York,

(56:30):
New York State, who's now running for mayor of the
City of New York. The key operative word and all
of that is governor, meaning you ran a state, as
opposed to being one of four hundred and thirty five
representatives whistling into the wind about what you think is
wrong with this country. It'll equipped to do something about

(56:50):
it because you're relatively limited, because you're only one voice
of many, as at four hundred and thirty five. You
got people talking about how she should run for a
Senate seat. That's true. Maybe she's just supplant Senator Chuck Schumer,
who's been there for ages and people have been critical
against because he sided with the Republicans a month ago
instead of the Democrats. Either way you slice it, here's

(57:16):
the point. Are you really just talking and railing against
the establishment. Are you railing against the new establishment that
is the MAGA wright led by Trump, or are you
strategizing as it pertains to what's going to work. I
saw her go on tour with Bernie Sanders. Okay, if

(57:41):
that man mentions the word oligark one more time, I'm
gonna lose my mind. He's been saying this since nineteen
eighty three. Haven't you noticed that folks ain't buying that.
Right now, you're having these rallies, flying on jets and

(58:03):
doing all of these things, which is basically the same
kind of thing you've been complaining about. Where's the consistency,
where's the abbosens of hypocrisy? These are the kind of
questions people are going to ask. Do you have the
answer to that other than railing against the establishment. I've
listened to Jasmine Crockett. Both AOC and Jasmin Crockett are
welcomed on this show. I respect the hell out of

(58:23):
both of them. I'm not here to disrespect anybody. I'm
only talking about what strategy is going to work. When
I hear Jasmine Crockett talking about how I'm just against
all things and everything Trump, is that legislating. Isn't it
an obligation that you have to come up with something

(58:44):
if the other party is in office. You have to
go from thinking that you're going to get what you
want if your party was in a White House and
instead transitioning to how can I work with the other
party to get some of what I want because I
know I'm not going to get most of what I
want because they won the election. How do we notice

(59:04):
that was Obama's approach when he beat Senator John McCain
for the presidency in two thousand and eight. That's what
he said, I won, we won, It's our turn. I
remember Mitch McConnell, the senator, the Republican senator, speak of
the ouse. I'm sorry, speak of the Senate. I remember

(59:26):
what Mitch McConnell said at that time. My goal is
to make Obama one term president. That's not somebody that
was willing to work across the aisle. I'll get that.
But it compromised the White House because ultimately the kind
of power that they had in having a House the
Senate and the White House was lost a couple of
years later. With what alc is doing, with what Bernie

(59:49):
Sanders is doing, and with what Jasmine Crockett is doing,
I don't know if that's going to win you back
one of the Houses of Congress come twenty twenty six.
It is your strategy, That's all I'm asking is a
question for Democrats everywhere, because if you don't come up

(01:00:11):
with an answer soon, Trump and his peeps are gonna
answer it for you, and they're gonna win the mid
terms in twenty twenty six, and then you'll really be
of shit's creek. Now, let's get to the White House
and the ladies. On the trade wars with China. The
White House touted a quote quote China trade deal on Sunday,

(01:00:36):
and the President spoke on it today. The announcement comes
after two top US officials alluded to a potential agreement
yesterday with China following talks in Switzerland. What we know
is that the US and China agreed to drastically roll
back tariffs on each other's goods for an initial ninety days.
The move de escalates the trade war and sparks increases
in the global markets. Which rallied today. By May fourteenth,

(01:00:59):
the US will temporarily lower its overall terroriffs on Chinese
goods from one hundred and forty five percent to thirty percent,
while China will cut its levees on American imports from
one hundred and twenty five percent to ten percent. That's
an accomplishment, ladies and gentlemen. You know why, Because the
Dow increased by one thousand, forty four points and all

(01:01:19):
of a sudden, all of this noise about how our
four one k's have been lost and our iras have
been compromised, and all of this stuff going on in
the stockwalket that's compromised, American lives and social security is
in jeopardy, and all of this other stuff. I got
news for you. This ninety day reprieve forced the markets
to react in a positive way. If a deal is

(01:01:41):
struck within ninety days, and if it is a deal
deemed successful by the Trump administration. Remember what I just
said about AOC Jasmine Crockett, Bernie Sanders, et cetera. Toast
Democrats will lose the mid terms if Trump finds a
way to win this terriff war. And make no mistake,

(01:02:02):
this is where the war was. All of this stuff
where he's tagged throwing terrorists at everybody else that was
smoke screen. The target was China, third largest economy in
the world. Target was China, the third largest trade apartment.
I'm sorry, that's what happened. If this is ultimately deemed
a success by the Trump administration, the GOP will win

(01:02:26):
the midterms. And you think this perceived power on the right, now,
imagine how it will be then. So somewhere along the way,
as Democrats plot and they're willing to point to everything
about Trump about a tar you know, giving you know,
you know, assistant and getting a new plan, new Air

(01:02:47):
Force one, and you know what what Howards Trump and
his family business padding their own wilence and all of
this other stuff that everybody wants to bring up America
has deduced it to such a degree. I'm gonna make
it very simple for you. When it comes to the
political landscape and the apparatus that runs our country, we assume,

(01:03:12):
in some way or another, all of y'all are getting paid.
We don't assume for one second that you're just doing
it for the good of the country without doing it
for the good of yourself. We believe there's something in
it for every elected official. Does it make it corrupt,
does it make it illegal. We're just saying that there's
something in it for each and every single one of you.

(01:03:34):
So with Trump willing to get his along the way,
whether it's directly or via his son's running his family business,
or whatever of the method he chooses to use, it's
not a surprise. It's not something that throws us aback.
What we really really care about in the end is
whether or not something is best for America, and there's
substantial evidence that proves it, not just slip service, not

(01:04:00):
just pledges, not just guarantees, but actual acts in writing
that shows the nation stood to benefit. If that happens,
the GOP wins the midterms, and a Democratic Party as

(01:04:21):
we know it will be eviscerated, because it would be
the latest nugget of evidence that the American citizen has
completely lost faith in the Left, even when they believe
in the moral message that is spewed, because we've lost
faith in your ability to execute. Just because somebody is

(01:04:46):
in office that you do not like, that you do
not agree with, doesn't absolve you from the obligation to
do your job, which is working across the aisle when
necessary to get at least some things done on behalf
of your constituency. That's your job. And to just be

(01:05:10):
going after the president because you don't like him and
you want to call him every reprehensible name under the
sun to decry his leadership and that of his administration.
You might think that's doing your job. It's not. There
are plenty of people we work with that we don't
like every single day. But when it comes to getting

(01:05:33):
it done, whatever it takes to get as much for
your base your constituents is what you're supposed to be doing,
as opposed to having built in excuses about your disdain
for somebody else as to why you can't get it done.
That is not what's supposed to be happening, and the

(01:05:53):
Democrats would be very very smart to recognize that. Again,
I've had a slew of Republicans on this show. I've
had a whole bunch of Democrats as well. They are
all welcome on this show. That includes AOC, that includes
Jasmine Crockett, that includes Bernie Sanders, that includes any of them.

(01:06:15):
The goal is to help America be the very best
it can be and that all of us get served
advantageously in some way, shape or form or fashion. That's
the goal. You can't pull that off by just screaming
about how the other side is awful and having people

(01:06:36):
in the crowds echoing your sentiments. That doesn't get policy
on the table. It doesn't get things done. It only
provides rationale as to why they didn't get done, which
people have grown tired of a long time ago. That's

(01:06:58):
it for this addition to Stephen Smith Show. I gotta
get on out of here because I got a knixt
game to cover the night and Madison's square guarden against
the Boston Celtics. But I'll be back in a couple
of days. Hope y'all enjoyed the show. Thanks again to
Ryan Smith, Legal Landla is extraorden there for ABC News
as well as the Sports and an anchor for ESPN
for coming on the show, blessing us with his presence
and his knowledge. Always appreciate him. And I'm in a

(01:07:19):
good mood, so I'll even take a moment to thank
my nephew Josh, who is gonna bun rush me and
follow me the Madison square guard and so he getting
the damned building, all of this stuff I have to
deal with, but I'm in a good mood, so I'll
tolerated today until next time. Ladies and gentlemen, Stephen, They
signing off, see you in a couple of days. Peace
of love,