Full Show: NBA Draft analysis, legal commentary on “Diddy” Combs’ federal trial, political discussion with Rep. Ro Khanna.

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
What's up, everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Welcome to the latest edition of The Steven Aismith Show,
coming at you as I love to do at the
very least three times a week over the digital airways
of YouTube and of course iHeartRadio. As always, I like
to pause and take a moment to take my subscribers
and follows for continuing to support the show the millions
of downloads we received courtesy of iHeartRadio over the last
several months, not to mention a subscriber base that has
now eclipsed one point twenty five million over the digital

(00:34):
airwaves of YouTube. Thank you for the love and support.
Keep it coming and I'm gonna keep on coming. To
continue to like and follow the show, just click the
bell and get notified for all of our newest content.
In you too, shall consider yourself the latest member of
the Steven A. Smith Show family. And while you're doing that,
please make sure to pick up a copy of my
New York Times bestselling book, Straight Shooter, a Memoir of
Second Chances and First Takes, now in paperback. Just go

(00:55):
to Straight Shooter book dot com get yourself a copy
once to get that Straight Shooter book dot com To
get yourself a copy I wanted to get started with
Round one of the NBA Draft last night. That began
with a move that surprised absolutely no one, and that
is Cooper Flag out of Duke going first overall to
the Dallas Mavericks. There's a lot of stuff to get into.

(01:15):
Cooper Flag going number one, Dylan Harper going number two. Obviously,
that was a big, big deal for the San Antonio Spurs,
along with a bevy of other moves that were made
to New Orleans Pelicans under the new leadership of Joe Dumars,
made a whole bunch of moves. To say the least
of Philadelphia seventy six was supposedly in a pitch. The
Phoenix Suns made a deal, drafting a big man and

(01:37):
then acquiring another big man and Mark Williams from Charlotte.
There's so much stuff to get into, and who better
to get into it than who I'm about to get
into it with it now. Joining me now to discuss
the draft and all the other moves teams made in
Round one last night is NBA senior writer Extraordinary inside
of the one and only Brian Winterhors right here on

(01:57):
the Steven Asmith Show, What's Up Wendy, how you doing.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
No, We're in the middle of the most crazy time
of the year in the NBA. So teams are changing,
we got a new champion. This is in a lot
of ways, the best time of the year.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
Well, listen, you look a little bit sleepy.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
I'm not gonna knock you for that, but forgive me
if I don't feel sorry for you, because you know
how exhausted I am. I can tell you that much.
But we are here. Let's get Let's get right to it. Whendy,
let's begin with Cooper Flag going to the Dallas Mavericks.
What does this mean for the team in the Western
Conferencing estimation?

Speaker 3 (02:29):
You know, I really feel like this was such an
incredible turn of events. It is very rare that we
see a team this established get a player this good
in the draft. I don't know if it's quite Tim
Duncan going to the Spurs, but it's possible we could
look back and compare it to that, because not only
is Cooper Flag a tremendous talent, but he is the

(02:51):
perfect modern player. And what I mean by that is
he has great size, he can play multiple different positions,
and one of the things the teams want today is
they want a big who can take the ball out
the backboard and bring it up the court start the
offense so they can flow into their offense. Draymond Green
pretty much redefined that role. Everybody's trying to do it,

(03:14):
you know, Al Parren Shangun for examples, the guy who's
become an All Star doing stuff like that. Jokich has
become a three time MVP doing stuff like that. Cooper
Flag is not a center, but he can do that.
So not only do you have a player who's perfectly modern,
he also wants to defend the hardest thing and stephen A.
You know this from when young players tends to be.

(03:36):
The more talented they are, the less they care about defense.
They have to come in the NBA and learn defense.
This guy wants to defend. Even when I first watched
him playing in high school, I noticed that he really
cares on the defensive end of the ball, and having
that coming in the league is very important. And then third,
you look at this team. They have Hall of famers

(03:58):
at center and point guard. He comes in as a
versatile wing, combo forward, whatever you want to call him.
He fits into what they have like it'ld be one
thing if he was duplicating a position. When Kyrie Irving
is healthy, he fits in there. And so you said
the other day that you thought that Dallas could be

(04:19):
the biggest challenger to Oklahoma City in the West. Obviously
that comes along with the asterisks of Kyrie, because we
know that you don't just spring back off of off
of an ACL when you're ready to play that you're
the same player. But that is not the hottest take
you've ever had. We'll just leave it at that.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
You know, there are people out there that are being
critical of Cooper Flag from this perspective, and I see, No,
I don't understand it because I think the kid is
a stud. There's only four freshmen in the history of
college basketball that have been named National Player of the Year.
He's obviously one of them. But I'm looking at this
kid right now and I love what he brings to
the table. But he's not the greater. Even though he guy.

(05:00):
He's shot thirty eight percent from the three point range,
he's not a marksman per se. And so when people
look at him, obviously he's talented, he's athletic, he's gifted
as a basketball player, and he also happens to be white.
They think about Larry Bird and then that's that's that's
just fonner for the critics to say, no way in hell,
he ain't that dude. I don't think he's a Larry

(05:21):
Bird type either, because he's not that kind of scorer.
But I do think he's gifted enough to be whatever
the hell he wants to be. Considering the fact that
he's gifted is that he is at this age of eighteen.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
I agree. If you're expecting him to score twenty five
twenty eight points a game coming out of the gate,
that's not gonna happen. Not only that he's got other
scorers on his team, and we haven't talked about Klay
Thompson at all. I mean, Klay Thompson is a shooter
on that roster. So look, it's even possible stephen A.
He may not even win Rookie of the Year. You know,
they're you know, Ace Bailey or somebody else you know,

(05:54):
you know, may get on a team where he might
average twenty eight points, twenty five points and put up
huge numbers, and you might see Cooper flag because of
the other guys on this team and because his role
is not be a high score in a lot of way.
A lot of times that defines when people think of
rookies is how much they score. So yeah, if you're
gonna hold him to the standard that he's gonna shoot
the ball like Larry Bird and create and have all

(06:17):
that offensive versatility, you are probably gonna be underwhelmed. But
in terms of his overall impact on the game, I mean,
he has the potential. I mean, look, I'll say is this,
as you know, it is very rare for rookies to
drive winning. Lebron didn't make I mean, Lebron instantly made
the Cavs better, but he didn't make the playoffs till

(06:37):
his third year. Luka Doncic again at one of the
biggest impact players, he didn't make the playoffs I think
until his third year. Kevin Durant he didn't make the
playoffs I think until his third year. You know, you
can come in and help your team, but it you know,
the idea that you're gonna come in and drive winning
from day one. That doesn't happen with rookies. I believe
this player on this team, he can help drive winning

(06:59):
and that should be what the standard is.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
More than anything, Let's go to the number two pick,
Dylan Harper. I know the Spurs had a couple of
picks in the first round. They picked Carter Bryant with
the fourteenth pick, But that Dylan Harper.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
Is he that good? I think he is. I think
he's talented.

Speaker 2 (07:14):
I think that what I'm seeing from that San Antonio
Spurs is that they're a team that's trying to emulate
the Oklahoma City Thunder to some degree in terms of
having players that are interchangeable parts.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
Player is capable of playing multiple positions.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
I viewed Dylan Harper as one of those dudes that's
versatile enough to make some noise at either guard spot.

Speaker 1 (07:35):
Talk to me about your thoughts about that pick.

Speaker 3 (07:37):
Yes, so the Spurs, definitely we're gonna have a little
bit of a crowded backcourt here because they're heavily invested
in Deer and Fox. They traded three first round picks
for him, and I believe are going to expend Yeah,
they're going to extend him to the two to two
hundred million dollars in the next few weeks. They've obviously
got Stefan Castle, who's the reigning Rookie of the Year,

(07:59):
who's combo guard. They've got Devin Vessel, who they've invested heavily.
You know, right now he's actually their highest paid player.
And then now they've drafted Dylan Harper. Now you can say,
I don't know if all those guys are gonna stay.
And I mean, already it looks like there's no room
for Chris Paul. You know, I don't know where Chris
Paul's been up. He's actually gonna be one of the

(08:20):
more interesting free agents. They do have a little bit
of a of a crowded backcourt there, but they're gonna
be big into positional versatility. If you listen to Brian Wright,
their general manager, last night, he addressed this question and
he said, yeah, if you look at the game traditionally,
we have too many guards. If you look at the
game in the modern air, in the era where there's

(08:42):
you know, you're you're putting basketball players on the court
and picking out matchups. We like what we're at. And
by the way, it helps when you have a center
in Victor Webber Yama who can play like a wing
and who can you know, bring the ball to the
court as well and and create a little bit offensively.
So I do think there could be some moments there.
I don't think he's an ideal fit. But one thing

(09:03):
that I know talking to scouts from a talent standpoint,
this was in a lot of ways a two player draft. Now,
just because people think that in June twenty twenty five
doesn't mean that's the reality that it'll look like a
year or four years from now. But a lot of
people felt that it was Cooper, it was Harper, and
then there was a golf with everybody else. And so
the Spurs with the number two pick, took the most

(09:25):
talented player. And with where they're at and they're building,
they can't be drafting for fit. When you have the
number two pick, you take the most talented player and
you figure out the fit later. And that's probably what
they're gonna do.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
You know.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
One of the things that one of the people that
was making noise was this kid, Ace Bailey, who was
considered one of the top three talents in the draft,
but because he had refused to be interviewed or work
out for several teams, you know several you know, a
couple of teams passed on him before he was taken.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
We know that the kid is good, is gifted and
what have you.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
My position was no one anybody could it could be
justified in taking him, except the philadelph seventy six is,
after what happened with Ben Simmons, you can't take a
chance on an unknown at the number three pick. If
you're the Philadelphia seventy six ers, that is the one
team that did not have that latitude. And sure enough
they were smart enough not to do it. And they

(10:14):
took this kid, Edgecomb, you know. And so I'm looking
at him and I'm saying, Okay, I believe in this
kid and his potential, this.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
Kid out of Baila, shooting guard out of Baila.

Speaker 2 (10:22):
What were your thoughts about how the Sixers handled their draft?

Speaker 3 (10:25):
Yeah, so, I mean Darryl Moury said last night after
the draft, he said he thinks that they have one
of the best backcourts in the NBA. Now when you look,
you know, not just starting but their whole across. So
you think about Tyrese Maxi, you think about Paul George,
You think about Jared McCain, their first round pick last year,
who was playing like a Rookie of the Year candidate
until he hurt his knee. And you look at edgecumb

(10:48):
who they've now drafted. You know the thing about Edgecomb
that you know where I got positive feedback was, you know,
he played for the Baha Manian national team last year
with a bunch of NBA guys, with DeAndre A, with
Buddy Healed, with Clay Thompson, and like there were stretches
of games where he was the best player on the court,
and that was up against you know, top teams. I mean,

(11:10):
they almost qualified for the Olympics. They got, I think
that the championship game of their regional to try to
qualify for the Olympics. And so there's reason to believe
in him. They obviously were on the fence about as
Bailey stephen A because they really wanted to bring Ace
Bailey in for a workout. That was the only workout

(11:30):
that based that Bailey schedule. Of course didn't matter because
he canceled it. And so you know, I think the
most relevant thing that Darryl Morey said last night after
the game or after the draft was that they expect
Joel and B to be ready by training camp. Now
before before I even see your face on this, expecting
Joel and B to be ready. His statement that we

(11:51):
have heard before, but we haven't really had any update
at all after his knee surgery, so that was at
least some sort of update. Yeah, and here's the other thing.
The Philly could have traded this pick. Okay, like there
was definite interest in moving up into this spot, either
for Bailey or somebody else. But with what's happened to

(12:11):
Philly with trading picks, they don't operate in a vacuum.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
Don't take a chance, you know, So, Edgecombe.

Speaker 3 (12:20):
Was probably the safer pick when it comes to Bailey. Utah,
they have probably bottom three overall talent in the league
and they're in Salt Lake City. They cannot afford to
worry about positional fit or whether or not a player

(12:40):
wants to be in Utah. If you wait for players
who announce they want to be in Utah, you're not
going to feel the team. Okay, let's just be honest.
I live in the Midwest. I'm not throwing stones. They
had to do what they had to do.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
Hold that thought, Wendy, hang on just one second, got
some bills to pay with prospects.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
We'll be right back.

Speaker 2 (12:54):
Hold on for one second, all right, everybody listen up.
We're all in a big time sports action that's happening
each and every single day.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
The Stephen A.

Speaker 2 (13:03):
Smith Show wants to make sure you are taking advantage
of it all. That's why we've partnered with Prize Picks,
the best place to win cash while watching sports.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
The app is really easy to use your up.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
Just pick more or less on a few player stats
and you can win up to two thousand times your
cash on a single lineup.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
Best of all, Prize Picks will get.

Speaker 2 (13:19):
Your fifty dollars in lineups when you play your first
five dollar lineup. Wanna lose, You'll get fifty bucks in lineups.
Just use promo code says and download Prize Picks now again.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
Download the app and use.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
Code says to get fifty dollars in lineups instantly after
your first five dollar lineup.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
Prize Picks, Hey, Hey.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
Run your game today, I'll give you my picks for
UFC three to seventeen taking place this weekend. Saturday night,
felipe A Lima will take on Peyton Talbert and Joshua
Van will face Brandon roy Valve and Sunday night, Charles
Olivieria will face off against Ilia Temporia so let's get
to it.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
First.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
Up, will Felipe A Lima have more or less than
forty nine and a half significant strikes? I'm going to
go with less for some reason. I just think that
this fight is going to get in quickly. Ain't gonna
have time to get in forty nine and a half strikes.
I'm gonna go with less on this one. Next, will
Joshua Van have more or less than ninety point five
significant strikes? I'm going with more on this one. I

(14:17):
think the fight will go longer. I think Van's gonna
be swinging punches, and I think he'll have more than
the ninety. And Finally, will Charles Olivieria have more or
less than thirty one and a half significant strikes? I'm
gonna go with more because I love that brother and
what he brings to the table. I've seen him with
some very big fights. I seen him overcome a lot
of odds. He's the real deal, make no mistake about it.

(14:38):
He's got a tough one here. He's got a tough.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
One here, but nevertheless, I think he can handle it.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
So guess what that's less for Felipe Lima, more for
Joshua Van and more for Charles Olivera joining me today
is Prize Pick's partner book It with Trent. Trent, welcome
back to the show. You know you always welcome, buddy.
Appreciate you man. How you doing.

Speaker 4 (14:59):
I'm feeling great, steven A. How are you doing today?

Speaker 1 (15:02):
I'm doing all right.

Speaker 5 (15:03):
Man.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
It's good to see you. Now, let's get right to it.

Speaker 2 (15:05):
I hear you a die hard ok See thunderfense, So
congratulations in that and you will court sided throughout the playoffs,
included for game seven of the finals. Talk to me
about how exciting that was and whether or not you
got yourself in anything, man, talk to me about that.

Speaker 4 (15:20):
It was an incredible experience. Yeah, I have been a
die hard.

Speaker 6 (15:23):
Ok See fan since the jump from eight when they
moved from Seattle to ok See. All my whole family's here.
I've got some family ties within the organization as well.
That's where my fandom comes from. But it was an
insane experience being on the floor for games five and
game seven, and you know, there might have been a

(15:44):
few things exchanged between me and some Pacers players throughout
the throughout my experience in game five and seven, and
it was it was crazy Honestly, I was pretty shocked
at how easily I was in some of their heads
without really saying much. But I don't want to take
any credit for, you know, any struggles they had offensively,

(16:07):
but I think I definitely was in their head quite
a bit, a lot more than some people think. I
think Obi Toppin, James Johnson, and Tyres Halbert certainly did
not enjoy my presence on the floor in both those games.

Speaker 4 (16:21):
And and they definitely let me know that.

Speaker 6 (16:24):
But I hope they all know that I respect all
of them entirely.

Speaker 4 (16:28):
Uh, and it's all just part of the game. Uh,
there's no bad blood there. I know.

Speaker 6 (16:32):
Me and James Johnson had a pretty big skirmish there
in game five, and then we ended up squashing the
teach a little bit in game seven.

Speaker 1 (16:39):
Yeah, you do you know who James Johnson is?

Speaker 7 (16:43):
Right?

Speaker 2 (16:43):
You know who that brother is. You know the most
athletes are you? That's the dude you decided to mess with.

Speaker 4 (16:53):
It was completely unintentional.

Speaker 6 (16:55):
I So what happened was Game five, the anthem had
just concluded, and hal burtons within arm's reach of me,
and I said some things there I probably shouldn't have said.

Speaker 4 (17:06):
I said, you're a B word. I said it twice
and he did not like that nice.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
And James Shahnson heard and he started walking straight towards me,
like ready to start throwing hands.

Speaker 4 (17:17):
It looked like he wasn't obviously gonna do that, but uh.

Speaker 6 (17:20):
And then the security guards came in and had to,
you know, let me know that if I do this again,
I'm gonna be escorted out. And so I was on
my best behavior for Game seven, did nothing, but they
came ready to chirp, and I just had to sit
there and take it.

Speaker 4 (17:35):
But they continued to chirp all of Game seven. I
was shocked. Even with four minutes.

Speaker 6 (17:41):
Left, Obie Toppins running up and down the floor saying
you after you and I'm like, all right, dude, you
have Game seven to go win right now?

Speaker 4 (17:47):
Come on?

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Wow? Wow, okay, well you at the championship parade.

Speaker 4 (17:53):
I was at the parade.

Speaker 6 (17:54):
I actually just got back from raising canes with Alex
Caruso serving chicken nuggets some, which was an awesome experience.
When I was at the parade, it was really hot,
but it was I mean, this is this means so
much the city of Oklahoma.

Speaker 4 (18:08):
It's more than just a championship.

Speaker 6 (18:09):
This is like all they have here, you know, besides
OU football, it's ok See basketball, and they cherish it
so much, and it's just really great to finally bring
one home because it's been a long time coming.

Speaker 2 (18:25):
There's been a long time coming, but y'all deserve it.
And guess what, y'all ain't going anywhere because you got
about ten or eleven picks over the next few years
and you still got a crew, so you ain't going anywhere.
But now that the basketball season is over, what do
you think about the upcoming football season? What are your
picks for the NFL season? Long squares on prospects to
be specific.

Speaker 4 (18:43):
Oh yeah, if you.

Speaker 6 (18:45):
Remember, I smacked mine last year five for five and
one one hundred k, and so I am expected to.

Speaker 4 (18:52):
Run it back this year. And I got to get
in the lab and get surgical.

Speaker 6 (18:56):
But a couple that I'm looking at, I don't know
how you're gonna feel about it, but I think Caleb
Williams could have a year with this new offensive coordinator.
I think he was slinging rock. They've got a couple
of new weapons. I agree.

Speaker 2 (19:12):
I like Caleb Williams. Listen, the brother got slaughtered last year, Okay,
he had.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
I think I seck like sixty eight times.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
I mean, I mean, when you think about it, I
mean it was like sixteen or seventeen more than anybody
else in the National Football League. He was getting slaughtered
last year and he stood in there and he took it.
I think that he has a tremendous future. I'm a
big fan of Caleb Williams.

Speaker 4 (19:31):
I love to hear that. I think he's due for
a huge year.

Speaker 6 (19:34):
I mean, if you look at his stats last year,
despite the record, he was still slinging rock quite a lot.
And I think with Ben Johnson under taking things over
on offense, is going to just do wonders for him.

Speaker 4 (19:47):
So I'm I'm looking at him and keep my eye
on him through camp.

Speaker 6 (19:51):
And another one that I want to bring up to
you is Trey McBride's touchdowns. If you remember, he didn't
have a touchdown and until Week seventeen last year, zero
the entire season, and then the last game of the
year they finally fed him and got him won. But
he's way too good of a tight end to go

(20:11):
that long without a touchdown, and I think this year
he's gonna he's gonna shock a lot of people, and
he's gonna get that number way more than I think
four and a half is what it's at right now.
But yeah, that's that's another square I'm looking at.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Well.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
Listen, man, Trent's good to see you one man. I'm
gonna have some time off this summer and all of
that stuff. I want you to have a great summer.
I'm looking forward to this NFL season. It was a
great finish to the NBA season because we had a
great NBA Finals. We can't slatch, I mean, ok see Indianapolis.
We expected it to be two small market teams. The
ratings didn't start off great or whatever because people are

(20:48):
looking at it that way. But it turned out to
be a big time NBA Finals series and I get
both teams props for giving that to us. And now
I'm looking forward to the NFL season, man. So you
take it easy, man, and I look forward to talking
to you down the line. Right, take care of yourself.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Or is she too?

Speaker 4 (21:02):
Steven? And we'll be saying, book it with Trent.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
That's who he is, that's who he is. Booking with him.

Speaker 2 (21:07):
So I'm talking about he won one hundred thousand dollars
last year. I'm listening to somebody that wants a hundred
thousand dollars. I'm gonna listen to him. You should too.

Speaker 1 (21:22):
Listen.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
And I got no problem with what you taught, did
Danny Aingel And obviously it's so know what they're doing
as Bailey and Walter Clayton Jr. When the way I
saw Walter Clayton Junior play during the NCAA tournament and
win the national lead in Florida to a national championship.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
I like what they do it.

Speaker 2 (21:35):
I'm a big fan of Jeremiah Fears out of Oklahoma.
I love the fact that the Pelicans pick somebody like
him up. I think that he has Kyrie Irvin potential.
He's got to develop a shot, but my lord, that
brother can handle the rocket. He's spectacular in the open court.
I love watching him play. Let me transition to the
Pelicans since I brought them up, and I want to
play this sound for you from Bill Simmons because Bill

(21:59):
Simmons was on a podcast and he was talking about
the Pelicans and what the Pelicans elected to do. What's
you know, moving up, you know, trading up to get
this kid Queen out of Maryland and what have you
with Atlanta? I mean, Joe Dumars is getting criticized heavily
about making this decision. I want you to listen to

(22:20):
what Bill Simmons had to say, and I want you
to react to that. Play this for me, guys.

Speaker 8 (22:24):
This was when I lost my mind. I think I
blacked out. I'm so glad the NBA can still give us.
These New Orleans trades up ten spots so they could
take Derek Queen, and they give up their unprotected twenty
twenty six first round pick swap that they have with
Milwaukee where they have the favorable whatever the better pick
is they keep. They send that to Atlanta, who had

(22:44):
to be deliriously happy, like, we only have to move
down ten spots and we're getting unprotected. This was one
of the five dumbest trades of this decade.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
I was speechless. I just can't believe it. And who
is it that our guy, Joe Dumars, and now.

Speaker 8 (23:01):
He just traded away their unprotected twenty twenty six pick
house they're in the West. What the fuck does he
think's gonna happen next year? He think they're gonna be
a five seed.

Speaker 5 (23:12):
What is he doing?

Speaker 8 (23:13):
They should have shown the Hawks war room. As guys
are taking their shirts off doing this and fucking popping
champagnting on each other. They might have the championship belt now.
The biggest mess of a team, I think this is it.
I think giving away next year's first round pick and
making it unprotected, I think they grabbed the belt.

Speaker 2 (23:29):
Before you comment, Wendy, I will tell you this. It
was risky, no doubt. And Bill Simmons certainly certainly was
making some sense. I like Queen because I watched him
ding the NCAA tournament. Didn't mind, didn't pay much attention
to the fact that the Pelicans had moved up to
get him.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
That's a good point because you're in the West. We
need to go do next year.

Speaker 2 (23:49):
I think it was insurance and case Zion Williamson goes out,
even though he's not the player that Zion Williamson is,
I think it was insurance in that regard. But I
also want to say this, this is the same Joe Dumars. Yes,
he made a huge, huge mistake by not drafting Carmelo
Anthony years ago because he had Tayshaun Prince at that's

(24:09):
some more forward spot and drafted someone else number two.
But he did go to six conference five, sixth consecutive
conference finals, back to back NBA Finals appearances, and won
a championship. That's the same jud Joe Dumars we're talking
about here. So I just wanted to throw that out
before I'll let you comment about the decision that Joe

(24:32):
Dumars had to make.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
What could you tell us about this decision?

Speaker 3 (24:35):
Yeah, let's draw a line here on the Pelicans. On
one side, Let's point out that they walk away from
this draft with Jeremiah Fears and Derek Queen. From a
talent standpoint, any team would be happy with that, And
I think you have to evaluate that as their draft night.
Where people are getting on them is the price that
they paid to move up from the twenty third pick

(24:56):
to the thirteenth pick, and specifically that it gives the
Hawks an opportunity to either have the Bucks pick next year,
which I'm not sure what the Bucks are going to
look like right now. Next year maybe there'll be a
playoff team. I don't know what they're going to look like.
And the Pelicans, who have not been a reliable playoff
team in the West and the Western Conference is a beast.

(25:18):
So I'm not gonna lie to you, stephen A. I
had executives text me today saying that this was the
worst Draft Day trade since Luka doncic So, but that's
looking at the value of the trade. That's not looking
at the value of the player. What you are seeing,
if people are talking about Joe Dumars, what you're seeing
here right now is the imprint of Troy Weaver. Troy Weaver,

(25:42):
who was the general manager in Detroit last year. He
spent the year working with the Wizards, and he has
been hired to be Joe Dumar's right hand man. Look
at what they've done in the last two days. They
traded a dating to deal with the Wizards where they
traded for Jordan Poole. You don't think they have inscted
to Jordan Pools. Troy we was there every day, Okay.
The second thing is Troy Weaver is from Washington DC.

(26:04):
In fact, it was Troy Weaver that recruited Carmelo Anthony
to Syracuse all those years ago. He lives at Washington
d C. Troy Weaver's son works for the University of
Maryland program who knows how many games that Troy Weaver
was at to see Derek Queen. I'm not saying Joe
Dumars was in love with Derrek Queen, but this is
Troy Weaver, who, Yeah, he had some mistakes in Detroit,

(26:27):
but he also built the bones of that team that
has now taken off. And he also helped build the
bones of the first contending team that they've had in
Oklahoma City. So I think it's it's both fair to
say they walked out of this draft with a great
two picks in the top in the lottery and yet

(26:48):
also left themselves exposed to next season. They are now
going to play next season with a little bit of
a cloud hanging over their head because if they have
a bad year, if Zion gets hurt again and misses
the punching games and they ended up back of the lottery,
they are in big trouble of having egg on their face.
But let's first watch Derek Queen before we admit that.
You try to, you know, brand this as a terrible decision.

Speaker 2 (27:10):
Totally fair. I only got a couple of minutes left, Windy,
Let's get.

Speaker 1 (27:13):
Right to it.

Speaker 2 (27:14):
Winners and loses in this draft. Give me your winners
and then give me your losers.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
You mentioned the Spurs the wing that they drafted Carter Bryant.
Like I am not a draft expert, but I have
people that are who have compared him to Og Andnobi.
So you get Dylan Harper and that type of three
and D wing defender, which are always in in vital
demand in the NBA. I think they have to feel
good about themselves. I think the Hawks feel good about themselves.

(27:43):
Number one, Again, I am not a draft expert. I'm
not going to sit here and give you the finer
points of Ason Newele's game, but nobody that I saw
had him outside the top twenty. A lot of people
had him inside the top fifteen. They get him a
twenty three. Well, also getting this valuable asset from the
Pelicans a day after they got Chris aps Porzingis for

(28:03):
a song. They traded a pick to get him. That's
why I included in the draft, and they have a
twenty million dollar trade exception that they're going hunting for.
I think the Hawks, in the Eastern Conference, where we're
seeing some teams have to take a step back due
to injuries, are potentially in the process of taking a
step forward. So the Hawks and the and the Spurs

(28:24):
to me, And also, I'm going to give the Jazz
some credit here. You mentioned Walter Clayton. I can't compare
Walter Clayton to the other guys taken around him. I'm
not that kind of expert, but I watched NCAA tournament
and I'd want that guy on my team. They liked him,
see you. They they moved up three spots to get them.
They went into the draft saying we want Walter Clayton,

(28:45):
and obviously Ace Bailey is one of the most talented
players in the draft. Utah is got They are bereft
of impact players, and they drafted two guys with the
potential to be impacts in different ways. So I think
I would say Utah had a good night as well.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Last question, Phoenix, your thoughts about them is one thing
to get to draft this Malowich out of Duke who
I like. I loved that pick by Phoenix, so I
thought that was good. Giving up a first round pick
for Mark Williams, who failed the physical supposedly when the
Lakers had traded Dalton connected and a few other assets

(29:21):
in order to acquire him. Giving up a number one pick,
although it's in twenty twenty nine and it'll probably be
a lower first round pick in all likelihood.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
At least that's Phoenix is thinking.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
I found myself a bit befuddled by that, because you
traded away Kevin Durant in a quest to get assets,
and you're looking to get assets because of the assets
that you gave away over the last few years. I
didn't think that was necessary. Last quick comment, what are
your thoughts about Phoenix and what they did?

Speaker 3 (29:48):
Yeah, I mean it's almost like, what do they know
that the Lakers don't about Mark Williams because they actually
gave two first round picks. They gave a twenty ninth
pick of last night's draft, and the twenty twenty ninth
picks twenty nine not super duper valuable, but nonetheless, I
will say this Phoenix, because they don't control their draft,
they have to compete, they have to put the gas down,

(30:09):
they can't tank, and they've got Devin Booker and everything
like that. So I understand the concept of drafting a
guy who can be your starting center today and then
drafting a player in common maluwatch who is probably going
to be a year or two away. From being ready
to be your starting center if things go well. I
get that concept, but they did kind of pay. In fact,

(30:30):
they paid more. Looking at it a certain way, they
kind of paid more than the Lakers did. The Lakers
traded a pick and a swap. They traded to first.
One of the verse was late, so they have put
themselves in a position where Mark Williams better pass that
physical and Mark Williams better come in and help them.
It was a little bit curious, but people are acting

(30:52):
like it's strange to get two centers. I get that
Maluwatch is not ready to play right now, but the
Suns aren't gonna get the benefit of the doubt. That's
the bottom line.

Speaker 1 (31:03):
One and only.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
Brian Windows appreciate the great work all year, my band.
You take it easy, get some time off as well deserved.
But I'm sure we'll be talking to each other in
the next few days and weeks, considering all this expected
to go on in the NBA over the next couple
few days or so.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
So you take it easier, right.

Speaker 3 (31:17):
Forward to it, and I enjoyed spending so much time
with you during the playoffs.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Take it easy, Brian, We'll talk later.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
Buddy, coming up, will a political stunner in New York
City breathe life into the Democratic Party for the mid terms.

Speaker 1 (31:30):
I'll get into that and more.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
With California Representative Roe Connor straight ahead. But first, closing
arguments have begun in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
For Sean Diddy.

Speaker 2 (31:41):
Combs Legal analyst Ryan Smith joins me next to break
down exactly what the jury needs to consider.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
It's a lot of stuff.

Speaker 2 (31:49):
Going on with p Diddy, by the way, I'm thinking
he might get off. I'm serious, I'm serious gonna talk
about that. That's up next right here on the Steven
Eate Smith Show. Don't go away all right, everybody listen
up with all the big time sports action that's happening
each and every day to Stephen A. Smith Show wants

(32:09):
to make sure you are taking advantage of it all.
That's why we partnered with Prize Picks, the best place
to win cash while watching sports. The app is really
easy to use your enough to create a lineup. All
you have to do is pick more or less on
a few player stats, choose from any of your favorite
players all in the same.

Speaker 1 (32:26):
Entry, then sit back and watch. The list is endless.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
You can play Prospects in over forty states, including California
and Texas. Best of all, Prospects will give you fifty
dollars in lineups when you play your first five dollar lineup.
Wanna lose You'll get fifty bucks in lineups. Just use
promo code SAS and download Prospects Now again.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Download the app and.

Speaker 2 (32:46):
Use code sas to give fifty dollars in lineups instantly
after your first five dollar lineup.

Speaker 1 (32:52):
Prize picks. Hey, Hey, run your game. Welcome back to
Steven Natesmith shows.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
Now, let's get to the latest Son of Sean Diddy
Combs Federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York City.
After six weeks of testimony, the government today has started
to present closing arguments in their case against the music mogul.
The Fed's characterized Combs as the leader of a criminal
enterprise and that enterprise service to Comb's personal desires through
a pattern of quote, violence, coercion, and manipulation end quote.

(33:29):
In addition to that, the fed's alleged Combs committed several
crimes that include kidnapping, arson, forced labor, bribery, and sex trafficking.
Combs is pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted
on all counts, he could face up to life in prison.
Joining me now to break it all down. As an
attorney in legal Analysts Extraordinaire for ABC News. You can

(33:51):
also catch him on Sports Center hosting Sports Center on ESPN.
Please welcome back to the show to one and only
Ryan Smith.

Speaker 1 (33:57):
What's going on?

Speaker 5 (33:58):
Ryan?

Speaker 1 (33:58):
How are you doing?

Speaker 5 (33:58):
Man? Man?

Speaker 1 (33:59):
I'm good.

Speaker 9 (34:00):
Steven A, how you doing.

Speaker 1 (34:03):
I'm todd as hell, but it's always good talking to you,
my brother.

Speaker 2 (34:05):
I've been working like crazy for the last three months,
but I'm here. Let's get started with the news yesterday
that the fedes were withdrawing some of the criminal allegations
against Colmbs ahead of closing arguments today. The move was
made as part of an effort to quote unquote streamline
instructions to the jury. Break this down for us. Please,
what exactly happened there and what does it mean?

Speaker 7 (34:25):
They are saying they're not going to argue the attempted
arson and the attempted kidnapping parts of this case.

Speaker 9 (34:30):
Now, I want to specify this does not apply.

Speaker 7 (34:32):
To the arson that's being alleged against Kid Cutty's car.
So that's one that I think a lot of people
know about, that they've heard about, that's attracted a lot
of attention.

Speaker 9 (34:41):
That's still going to be part of what they're arguing.

Speaker 7 (34:43):
But what they're trying to do this kind of to me,
relates more to the Rico case than anything else. In
a Rico case, which is the big charge against Sean
Bitty Combs, you get to bring in all this evidence,
all this information. You're trying to basically say Diddy and
somebody else or other people, maybe his authorized other people
in his orbit, got together committed two crimes, at least

(35:03):
two crimes in a ten year period in furtherance of
the criminal enterprise. But the problem is they've offered so
much information in this thing that they have to try
to streamline things for the jury.

Speaker 9 (35:14):
They have to.

Speaker 7 (35:14):
This is why in this kind of case, closing argument
becomes everything, because you have to take all this evidence,
all this information, all these witnesses, and you've got to
show that Rico, you've got to show that he others
got together, they did these two crimes or more.

Speaker 9 (35:30):
In this period of time.

Speaker 7 (35:31):
But after you start throwing in attempted arson, attempted kidnapping,
and you don't think you have a good case against that,
you run the risk of the jury saying, well, I
don't believe those things, so I don't believe the whole thing. Instead,
they're focusing a lot on bribery as some of the
crimes committed. They're going to probably talk about Kid Cutty's car.
They're talking about things like drugs and things like that.

(35:52):
All these things are the crimes they're saying are part
of RICO, are part of the sex trafficking, and they're
doing this so that jury of eight men and four
women ages thirty to seventy four don't get confused in
all this information.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
Yeah, but you say they're doing it not to get confused.

Speaker 2 (36:07):
What about those who would argue that they're trying to
modify the allegations and the accusations against Joan Dini Cones
because they didn't make a strong enough case and now
they're trying to cover themselves.

Speaker 1 (36:17):
What about those who believe.

Speaker 7 (36:18):
That, you know, it's not a bad argument, because in
some ways you got to wonder if somebody on that
it only takes one. I always want to say that
it only takes one because this didn't have to be
unanimous It only takes one juror to say, I'm not
buying something here.

Speaker 9 (36:31):
I don't believe this.

Speaker 7 (36:32):
I see reasonable doubt, And you could argue that maybe
a juror will look at this and say, well, what
about this thing that I thought I heard about an
attempted arson or kidnapping. Now what the prosecution of trying
to do is trying to say that's not going to
be part of the instruction. So you're not even supposed
to think about that stuff. But we can't control human
nature of what they might have heard. I do understand

(36:53):
people saying, hey, they didn't prove something here.

Speaker 9 (36:56):
So they're trying to cover themselves. But this does happen
in cases.

Speaker 7 (36:59):
Sometimes you present a lot in a case, you're trying
to determine what is part of the case, especially as
you're trying to tie it up in closing arguments and
you try to get in the instructions, Hey, tell the
jury not to consider these things because this is not
part of what we're trying to do.

Speaker 9 (37:13):
And stephen A.

Speaker 7 (37:13):
The flip side of I think people trying to criticize
the prosecution on this is the fact that the prosecution
is in there right now saying there are a whole
host of crimes that we're part of the criminal enterprise.
We don't need those two because we got scores of
others that did he did here. And so that to
me says the prosecutor is just trying to say, we
don't have to consider everything we've talked about, but we

(37:36):
have a lot of stuff that he did wrong that's
criminal that we can still convict him on, and jury
you should look at that.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
But Ryan, what really really resonates with me, Man is
that it's been six weeks of testimony and then defence
has its turn and they don't put on a single witness.
It's almost like this saying, we ain't worried about this,
this is nothing. They have no case against us. Why
should we even waste dot Tom. That's how they're coming
across right now. Ryan, a bad It's not a good

(38:05):
sign of prosecutors.

Speaker 7 (38:06):
And in some ways this is something I love talking
about when you talk about juris. I think sometimes people
look at that and they say, well, that's a problem
for the defense. They got to put somebody on. They
put Ditty on. First of all, the last thing you
want to do is put him on the stand. That's
a last ditch effort.

Speaker 1 (38:20):
We have no chance.

Speaker 9 (38:21):
We got to go for this, and that's not where
they are right now.

Speaker 7 (38:24):
But more than that, you're right, stephen A. They're trying
to portray to the jury we got this. There's nothing
to see here, and we're going to show you that
in our closing arguments. You know what I've found interesting.
The thing they did present in the twenty three or
so minutes they had was the loving text messages between
Cassie and Diddy. That's the defense trying to restate one

(38:44):
very important thing, all of it, in all of this
and sent that's the defense's whole case consent. Yes, he
might be a bad man. Yes, you might think the
freak COFs are terrible. Yes, you might even think he's
an abusive man. But are these consensual relationships, say, for example,
of sex trafficking, the whole idea that Jane and Cassie
were compelled to engage in commercial sex acts under fear

(39:08):
of horse or coersion. They're gonna undermine that, the defense
will by saying, look at these loving text messages, look
at how these women wanted to do.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
This, Because not just the loving text messages, Ryan am
I wrong when I say I could have sworn I've
seen where there were freak offs that occurred without him
by those two Jane and Cassie. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm wrong about Cassie or Jane, please correct me right.

Speaker 1 (39:33):
Here on camera.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
My understanding is that every freak off didn't involve Pee Diddy.
It involved them doing it on their own with others
of their own volition, not forced at all.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
Am I correct.

Speaker 9 (39:46):
I think you're right about that. But here's the thing.

Speaker 7 (39:48):
The prosecution even tried to touch on that in their
closing arguments by saying, you don't have to believe that
he orchestrated and did something wrong in every free cough.

Speaker 9 (39:57):
All you gotta believe is it happened once. That's it
for the sex traff.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
No, it's true. So hold a on, excuse me for interrupted.
So you're trying to tell.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
Me that if on their own they engaged in several
freak offs, but then there was one that he was
involved in that they could literally try to instruct the
jury pay attention to the one, not the others, that
you did of your own volition.

Speaker 7 (40:27):
No, they're saying this here. I get what you're saying,
and here's what I'm saying. They're trying to show the jury.
They're trying to show the jury that this happened over
and over again, these women were forced in some ways
to be a part of this, and that all of
these things show what he was doing all along. And
what they're trying to show to the jury, though, is
maybe something.

Speaker 9 (40:47):
That you're reflecting a good thing.

Speaker 3 (40:49):
You're fucking the.

Speaker 7 (40:50):
Point of somebody might look at one of these freak
offs and say, where's did he and all this They
even in their closing arguments said you don't have to
believe that every single freak off was him threatening violence
or coercion just once, just once, either to Cassie or Jane.
That is sex trafficking, because it's an act of sex trafficking.
It's an act of the predicate offensive sex traffckings. They're

(41:11):
trying to forward here, So I get your point, but
they're trying to battle that point as we speak in
the courtroom by saying, we offered all this evidence. We
offered all this evidence to show you the world that
he created in this criminal enterprise that he was in
charge of. But you don't have to believe that every
single moment he was threatening violence. Every single moment he

(41:31):
was threatening coercion. It can be once, it.

Speaker 9 (41:33):
Can be twice.

Speaker 7 (41:34):
And if you see that, you have to convict him.
But your point is what about.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
The ones the twice? What about the once or twice
or five times or ten times they did it on there?
Oh listen, I'm not trying to get him off. I
got no, I got no nothing in this game. If
he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's innocent, he's incid.

Speaker 1 (41:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
I know what I saw on that video with him
hitting Cassie, and no getting around that.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
He can't come back from that.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
But anything else involved in the sex trafficking racketeering, I'm
in no position to judge them.

Speaker 1 (42:02):
But what I'm saying is, not only have we heard.

Speaker 2 (42:05):
Testimony about them having freak offfs without him, we even
saw or heard of them having their preference about who
was going.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
To be involved in the freak offfs.

Speaker 2 (42:17):
So all of that points to consensual more so than
anything else, would it.

Speaker 7 (42:22):
You say, right, the problem is in some way yes,
and let me touch on reasonable doubt in that. But
what they're saying is, think about the rest of the
testimony with Cassie the rest of the testimony with Jane,
because that was part of what the defense pushed back
on when they were both on the stand and they
both mentioned I felt like this would happen if I
didn't do these things.

Speaker 9 (42:41):
I thought.

Speaker 7 (42:42):
Jane even mentioned the point of, hey, if I didn't
get to choose the escorts, if I'm going to be
put in this horrible situation that I'm coerced to being,
at least I want to have a say on who
I have to have sex with.

Speaker 4 (42:52):
And so that's the.

Speaker 9 (42:52):
Situation they're trying to build out here.

Speaker 7 (42:54):
But what I like about what you're saying, stephen As
is you are channeling one of those eight men and
four women possibly in that jury box.

Speaker 9 (43:02):
And I say this again, the ages are thirty to
seventy four.

Speaker 7 (43:05):
I say that because you never can really account for
how that wide range of ages might look at this thing.
They might look at that and say exactly what you're saying. Well,
wait a second, they were setting up some of these things.
Well wait a second, I didn't see Diddy in all
of this. And if just one has reasonable doubt, you
lose that conviction. I think that's the risks that the
prosecution ran in a case like this, and I think

(43:26):
it's the problem with a Rico case. You bringing all
this evidence, but if all the evidence doesn't necessarily point
to what you're trying to prove, it can be a problem.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
As it pertains to jury selection.

Speaker 2 (43:37):
When you talk about the wide range thirty to seventy four,
who does that favor the defense of the prosecution having
a wide range in a jury, because again, all it
takes is one, right, So chances are from thirty to
seventy four cats are.

Speaker 1 (43:51):
Going to think differently.

Speaker 2 (43:52):
And if they're going to think differently and all it
takes is one, it would seem to me that a
jury saw, you know, ranging with that that why would
benefit the defense.

Speaker 7 (44:03):
I always say this, if the prosecution can't do a
fantastic job of time all this together and making it
crystal clear to everybody in that courtroom, Yes he ran
this enterprise.

Speaker 9 (44:14):
Yes he and others got together and.

Speaker 7 (44:17):
Did these criminal acts over this ten year period and
further into the enterprise for Rico at least the sex trafficking,
the transportation of prostitution. That seems like they can get
a conviction there. But unless they can do that. Clearly
it favors the defense. Why because the defense looks at
this jury and they see one person they think might
be favorable, and they act. They just talk to that person,

(44:38):
or talk to those two people, or talk to those
three people.

Speaker 9 (44:41):
You don't look at a.

Speaker 7 (44:42):
Closing argument in a case like this with that wide range.
And the wide range isn't uncommon for cases like this.
But what I'm saying is for defense attorneys, you look
at a case like this and you say, I only
got to convince one. I don't have to convince all
of them. All I gotta do is convince one strongly.
Who can go in that jury room and say, you, guys,
I see what you're saying, but.

Speaker 9 (45:00):
I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it.

Speaker 7 (45:02):
And if you can get somebody to do that, then
you win. I think that favors of defense. Unlet's prosecution.
You could do a stellar job.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
Let's get down to it when it comes to you,
Ryan Smith, based on what you've heard, did defense make
their case on all the charges facing Diddy?

Speaker 9 (45:15):
Transportation of individuals to engage in prostitution?

Speaker 7 (45:18):
Yes, sex, because there's definitely evidence of there's witnesses who
come forward, talk about calling this person they come across
state lines that I think is easier to solve. That
is not the biggest charge though in terms of RICO.
In terms of sex trafficking, I don't know, and I'm
not I wouldn't say no because we're not in that courtroom,

(45:42):
and so much is relying on them tying everything together
today right now with what they're saying in those clothing arguments.
But here's my problem. They talk about Diddy getting together
with all these people. They talk about that leaders, one
of his assistants, people like Krista Korum, Christina Quorum, who's
one these people who sets these things up, who people

(46:02):
were talking about along in the courtroom. I had a
little bit of a problem that I didn't hear from
all of these people because you're saying Diddy, and in
order to do RICO, you have to say Diddy and
others did these things in furtherance of the enterprise.

Speaker 9 (46:16):
Where are the others? Some of the others came forward.

Speaker 7 (46:19):
But if you're that jury and you don't believe that
all these others have the are part of his enterprise,
then you're searching for the other people. Then doubt comes in,
so right now, I would say, based on what we've seen,
I think the prosecution has a strong case, but it
is definitely not a slam dunk. It is definitely not clear.
There's big differences between this and our Kelly case and

(46:40):
Rico for example, and this is not something that I
think is an easy one to prove for them.

Speaker 1 (46:44):
So I think it's fifty to fifty jury deliberations.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
How long you anticipate this could this could go because
the trial could end whether it's tomorrow, or it could
end by Monday, and then jury deliberations kick in. How
long do you anticipate that'll take and go days?

Speaker 7 (46:57):
But I'll say one thing what's gonna be interesting to
me and what I think people should keep an eye on.
Will the judge give the jury this case on Friday.
It's a very small point, but sometimes when juries have
a case on Fridays and they really want to go
home and they really want to be done, they rush
it and you could have a verdict on Friday. My
sense here is the judge might have them start on Monday,
so they're really thinking it through and being thorough. And

(47:19):
if that's the case, I think it can go on
for days and it's mostly because of that rico charge.
I think it is a very complicated thing that prosecutors
have to do here to try it all together to
prove that case. And I think we see clearly. Look
Steve and I, we can look at this case no
matter what you think. We see that Diddy is a
bad guy. We see that he did bad things. But
are they criminal things? Are they criminal things? And I

(47:43):
don't know if we see that here, And I think
that's going to take the jury a long time to
sort out.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
Very last question. I know this trial hasn't been televised.
The judge didn't want that. That's why we see, you know,
the drawings and all of this other stuff. Is it
possible that the judge may allow a verdict to be televised.

Speaker 7 (48:00):
No, I don't think so. I think this is going
to be shut down the whole way through. I think
one thing that people can look for though, even as
they hear about the decision, is he convicted on one
thing and not on others.

Speaker 9 (48:11):
And I will say this stephen A.

Speaker 7 (48:13):
If he's convicted, say for example, on the transportation to
commit prostitution, but not on the other two, that is
a loss for the prosecution a huge loss because you
want to get him on that top charge. You mentioned
it at the very beginning. He faces life in prison.
That's for those things like sex trafficking, for Rico, conspiracy,
and if they don't get convictions on that, that is

(48:35):
a huge loss, not only for this case, but for
a prosecutor's office that is trying really hard to hold
powerful people accountable for what they consider to be criminal
acts created by an enterprise. If they can't get a
conviction here, that's a problem on those big two charges.

Speaker 2 (48:52):
Wow, the one and only Ryan Smith ABC News ESPN
right here with your boy, Steven.

Speaker 1 (48:56):
I appreciate you as always, my man. Take care of yourself.
We'll talk sooner.

Speaker 9 (48:59):
Right yeah, man, you too, get some rest.

Speaker 1 (49:01):
I do my best. We'll do my best.

Speaker 2 (49:03):
Coming up a political stunner in New York City's mayoral
race as President Trump attacking the Democratic front runner. What
does this mean for the Democratic Party? I'll get into
that and more with California Representative Roe Connor. All that
and more coming up right here next on the stephen A.
Smith Show back for more in a minute.

Speaker 1 (49:24):
Welcome back to Steven E. Smith Show.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
My next guest represents California's seventeenth Congressional district. Please welcome
back to the show, Representative Roe Connor. How are you, sir,
how's everything going.

Speaker 5 (49:36):
It's been a while, man, It's good to be back on.
Good to be back on with you. Not on Bill Maher.
My recommendation for anyone watching do not debate stephen A
on Bill Maher won't turn out well for you. So
I'm glad.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
Like this. I would to go that far.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
But on a more serious matter, before I even get
into Trump and Israel, the Iran situation and what have you,
how is the state of California doing in your mind
and your estimation, we know what's been going on over
the last few weeks. Obviously the Israeli iron situation distracted
us from what was transpiring in California. We're fourteen hundred

(50:16):
National Guardsmen, seventeen seven hundred Marines United States Marines descended
upon the state of California, the city of Los Angeles
courtesy of the President sending them there. What has life
been like for you guys in California, jud I.

Speaker 5 (50:31):
Have a common sense perspective on this. First, no one
should be on way mos burning them down. No one
should be engaged in violence or harassment against law enforcement officers,
and no one should be engaged in violence against anyone,
And we need to make sure in California, our local

(50:52):
police and our state officials make sure that people are
safe and that there's zero tolerance for violence or the
destruct property. At the same time, no one in California
was asking for the National Guard or the Marines, and
the President, in my view, clearly overreached. And I guess
people just want common sense. They want California to take

(51:13):
care of this. The sheriff can, the police can. They
don't want the president sort of grandstanding about it. But
they also don't have sympathy for people, you know, burning
down down cars, and they want politicians to condemn that.

Speaker 2 (51:27):
You know what about the notion because you got a
lot of people on the right that they're looking at
California as a sanctuary state and they think that that's problematic.
And ultimately you have elected officials trying to get in
the way of ICE doing its job and what have you.
All of that conflict has stirred up and flagrantly. So
I might add, what are your thoughts about that as
a representative of the state of California, it being essentially

(51:50):
a sanctuary state, the role that a lot of people
believe that's played in forcing and compelling the President to
take the position that he has taken. You're not a Republican,
you're not a member or the GOP, You're a Democrat.
But obviously you know what you exercise common sense in
a lot of ways, and that's why you should be
applauded for it.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
What are your thoughts about that situation.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
In terms of whether or not the President was right
in doing what he's done in terms of because of
what's existing in the state of California.

Speaker 5 (52:19):
The reason I disagree with what the President did is
it was not like there were people who were willfully
standing in the way of ice enforcement. I mean, if
that was the case in a large level, that is
very different. But I think what most Americans want is
if you're a violent gang member, if you're a part
of committing violence against anyone and you're here undocumented, that

(52:43):
you should be deported after you have your due process.
I mean, they want you to have due process, and
they're fine, But I don't think what most Americans want
is if you're working in a farm job, if you're
working in a hotel, if you're working in a restaurant,
even if you're undocumented and you're paying taxes, that we
need to rip you away from your families and deport you.

(53:04):
I think they believe you should be having some path
to stay in the country and work. And you know what,
even President Crumb has said that that if you're a
farm worker, if you're in the hospitality industry, if you're
in the restaurant industry, if you're working here, if you're
paying taxes, if you're law abiding, then let's have some
path to legalization. So my I wrote a pop ed
in the on Fox News saying, Okay, mis for president,

(53:25):
why don't we find common ground there? Why don't we
look to a path to legalization for hardworking tax payer
of people who are undocumented and focus the ICE resources
actually on the violent criminals. That's what you said you
would do when you won the presidency.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
I'll get back to that in terms of let's find
common ground that issue a little bit later on in
this discussion, but for the moment, I want to transition
to the Iran Israel situation.

Speaker 1 (53:51):
That has unfolded over the last few days.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
You introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump
from escalating tensions with Iran, co sponsored with Kentucky Republican
Representative Thomas Massey, the lone Republican involved in the effort.
How did you two come together on this?

Speaker 5 (54:08):
We both believed that this country has been in too
many endless wars overseas, and by the way, that's been bipartisan. Yes,
George W. Bush got us into the Iraq War. That
was a mistake, but there were a lot of Democrats
who voted for that war, including people like Senator Chuck Schumer.
Then we got into a war in Afghanistan for twenty years. Now,

(54:29):
I supported the initial strikes on Afghanistan, but we should
not have been there for twenty years. Then we struck Libya.
I mean that was I deeply in my President Obama,
but he was wrong in striking Libya in an unconstitutional way.
And then we were involved in Yemen. We were funding
the refueling of Saudi planes to strike Yemen. That was unconstitutional.

(54:51):
So Massey and I have been consistent, this is not
a part of an issue. This is not against President Trouble,
whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. We're saying two things. One,
you've got to come to Congress first before you go
into a overseas war, because that's what the Constitution requires,
that's what two thirds of the American people want. And Second,
the American people are sick of this. They don't want

(55:11):
more troops in the Middle East, they don't want billions
of dollars in the Middle East. They want the focus
here at home, and they want war to be a
last resort and that's why we introduced it.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
But Representative of Connor, you and I both know, particularly
in the climate that exists in today's in today's politics,
there's no way on Earth you're gonna get anything done
if you got to go to Congress to get something done,
because you're gonna have people vote against you, just because
I mean, there are people that have given indication we're
gonna vote against anything Trump.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
We don't give a damn what it is.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
And obviously on his side, there are gonna be people
that are going to vote for whatever he wants just
to be in his good graces. So what's gonna get
accomplished if you have to go through Congress.

Speaker 5 (55:56):
Do you think if there's an actual national security threat,
you will get Congress to authorized, and look who were
w Bush. Even though I disagree with the war in Iran,
he got Congress's authorization to go in there. For Afghanistan,
he got Congress's authorization to go in there. Now I'm
someone who has introduced a resolution to codify Trump's executive
order on lowering prescription druz. So I'm not one of
these people who says everything Donald Trump does is wrong

(56:19):
and I'm going to oppose it. I try to look
at things issue by issue. In fact, when Donald Trump
was trying to get a deal with Iran and others
were criticizing him, Chuck Schumer was criticizing him. Chuck Schumer
was saying, no, don't make a side deal with Iran,
don't trust Donald Trump. I was say, no, let Trump
try to get a deal with Iran. But bib nettanyaw

(56:40):
who forced his hand, bb Nettanyewe who bombed Iran, they
didn't let the negotiation to play out. And then I
think that Trump has two people on his shoulders. One
of the folks are the Lindsey Graham saying let's do
regime change, let's keep going. Trump tweets out Kamani should
be assassinated, and maybe we should have Iran regime change.
But fortunately there's another side to the MAGA base. Steve Bannon,

(57:01):
Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey. They're saying you
campaigned on no more wars, and I'm glad he listened
to them. I'm glad he listened to some of us
in Congress and after the strikes he said, Okay, we're done,
and we're gonna get us ceased fire and no more
and we're not going to send more of our troops
and risk getting into an escallation. So I do think

(57:21):
it was important that Congress spoke out, and I think
Congress has to in this case. If Congress is a
little slow, that's probably good because I don't think the
American people need more money, more wars overseas.

Speaker 2 (57:33):
Representative Connor, I just want to make sure, if I
move on to my next question, that you understand what
you just said right here over the digital airwaves of YouTube,
with millions of people watching you. You just said that
you actually agree with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie
Taylor Green.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
I wanted are you sure you want to be on camera?
On the record stating such a thing. So I'm just checking.

Speaker 5 (57:56):
I'm just checking absolutely when it times to keeping us
out of the Warner Ron, let me tell you, those
folks did more than some of the people in my
own party. They were vocal. They said that Donald Trump,
this is the end of your presidency. This is a
betrayal of your base. And I give them credit for
credits you. There are a lot of places we disagree,

(58:18):
but you know what, it's even one of the things
that I get criticized for my own party. Oh, you're
saying that Stephen Bannon is right on something. But I
think the American people want folks to just call it
as they see it. They don't want us in partisan products.
When they say something I agree with, I'm going to
be honest and say, yes, I agree with them. When
they say thank something I disagree with, I'll make that
clear too.

Speaker 1 (58:40):
I completely agree with you. Let me move on to
my next question.

Speaker 2 (58:42):
Because you and Thomas Massey structured the resolution as privileged,
which could allow it to quickly come to a House vote,
Republicans largely align with Trump. As I just stated, how
will you move to war House resolution forward?

Speaker 1 (58:54):
And can you get more Republicans on board.

Speaker 5 (58:58):
I do think we can get more of apts. We've
got Chuck Edwards. There are a number of Republicans who
do not want this war. Now, hopefully the ceasefire holds
and that we don't need it to come for a
vote if Donald Trump doesn't threaten any further action. But
if the action is threatened, it should come for a vote.
And by the way, this is not against Donald Trump.

(59:20):
It's not even about Iran. It's simply saying that we
need to listen to the people and listen to people
in Congress before we commit our troops, before we commit
young men into a fight overseas. One of the things
Josh Holly, another Republican who I agree with, he said, well,
here's the problem. Now we've sent more troops into the
Middle East. We've got more young men and women being

(59:41):
called up. We're going to have to go to the
Middle East. We put our troops at risk. We're spending
more money on the Middle East. Why aren't we spending
the money in building manufacturing here, on helping people with
health care here, on childcare here. So I hope that
they do not remove the privilege of this war prowers resolution,
They allow it to get a vote if it's need,
and they make it clear that we're not going to

(01:00:03):
allow presidents to get us into more unless words. Regardless
of the party.

Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
You've repeatedly stated that anti establishment left and right must
find a way to work together. But how much hope
is there really in your mind and in your heart
of that actually happening?

Speaker 5 (01:00:18):
On some issues there is real hope. Let me give
you three issues. The biggest problem money in politics. I mean,
you should not have people spending two hundred and fifty
million dollars on a super pack and then getting someone elected.
And here's where I think Democrats get into trouble. We
talk about Elon must spending two hundred and fifty million dollars,
we conveniently forget the billionaires who spend hundreds of millions

(01:00:40):
of dollars on I At our side, there was more
super pac money for Kamala Harris than there was for
Donald Trump. So get rid of all of it. No
ban these super packs. Why should someone be allowed to
only give me thirty five hundred dollars if they're contributing
to a politician, but then go write a fifty million
dollars check to a super pac That's one area where
we the left and the right can come together. Second,

(01:01:03):
prescription drugs they're ripping off the American people. They go
charge three times less in Japan, in England, in Europe
than they charge order Americans. Now, I understand, if you're
going to sell medicine into Mexico, into some countries in Africa,
developing nations, you got to charge them less. That's humanitarian.
But why are we paying three times more than people

(01:01:23):
in the Western world and in places like Japan. So
Donald Trump comes on, he says, I'm going to take
it to big Pharma. I don't I don't want to
make I want to make sure they aren't charging Americans
anymore than they're charging people in other countries. I introduced
exactly his executive order as a bill with Republicans and Democrats.
Let's get a vote on that. That's a second area

(01:01:43):
left and right can come together. And third, focus here
on home and don't get us into this huge wars overseas,
a defense budget over fifty six percent of federal money.
People don't want that. They wanted money in their communities.
I think that that is a left right coalition that
is coming together and then we'll take all the establishment

(01:02:03):
on both parties.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Any thoughts on all the noise being made by some
Democrats that the bombing by us to attack those nuclear
sites that existed in Iran was a successful venture on
a part of the President of the United States Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
Do you have people on the left.

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
Are saying it's not nearly as successful as he's claiming.
And obviously we saw Secretary of Defense Pete haig Seth
say that's absolute nonsense. But also give us some time
to analyze and.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
Evaluate the situation.

Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
We believe it was highly successful and that we've derailed
their nuclear aspirations for a long time to come.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
Where do you stand on all of that.

Speaker 5 (01:02:42):
Let's look at the facts. First of all, you can't
bomb know how Iran knows how to enrich uranium. Second,
President Obama under the JCPOA had a verifiable agreement where
Iran could not enrich more than five percent at one
facility in the Tans and there was no vile by
the IEA recorded until twenty eighteen. Then Trump came in.

(01:03:06):
He ripped up the deal and by the time we
were bombing it was sixty percent enrichment and Fourdeaux but
it was also enrichment across the country. Now we don't
know exactly how much damage they've done. They have done
some damage, and I hope it's a lot of damage.
I don't want i Ran to have a nuclear bomb.
It's a national security interest to keep Iran from having
a nuclear bomb. But the problem is that whether it's

(01:03:29):
six months, a year, two years, we know from JD
Vance that they've kept some of the enriched nuclear fuel.
They can make at least ten new bombs from there,
and we know that they have the know how in
some capacity with centrifuges left to be enriching uranium. So
we're going to need a new agreement to actually prevent

(01:03:49):
iron from getting a nuclear bomb. There's someone on my
party to say, well, Donald Trum ripped up the deal,
let's just bash him. I actually don't even have that view. Fine,
he ripped up the deal, you shouldn't have ripped up
the deal. Now he wants to do diplomacy, I'm all
for it. Go win the Nobel Peace Prize if they're
going to give it to you. Go just get a
deal where Iran is actually committing to inspections, where Iran
is committing not to have ballistic missiles, and let's have

(01:04:10):
diplomacy go forward, not this idea that we're going to
go bomb Iran every years or two years when they
start to develop a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
So you believe that Israel and its efforts have been
justified as it pertains to Iran, considering the fact that
Amas and has blot people like that were proxies for
Iran in terms.

Speaker 1 (01:04:31):
Of their terrorist acts.

Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
Obviously to Wodi's and Yemen, we had to deal with
them or what have you. You don't have any issue
whatsoever with Israel and its influence over America, with America
doing some of the things that it has done. You
believe that Israel was in the right in America, was
in the right in terms of the actions we took.

Speaker 1 (01:04:48):
Is that a fair assessment, Sir No, I think we
were in the wrong.

Speaker 5 (01:04:52):
I mean, we should not have bombed them. We should
have engaged in diplomacy. And I think then now who
forced President Trump's hand he should not have been bombing Iran,
not just I think it's fair to say that it's
in the United States interest to deny Iran a nuclear weapon.
The way to achieve that was not through bombing the
way to achieve that was through the diplomatic type of

(01:05:14):
painstaking work that President Obama did where you got an
agreement where Iran was not going to get rich more
than five percent. So why does NETANYAHUO not go along
with that? Because the reality is net Nyah who has
had a mission, a stated mission of regime change in Iran,
and some of the Hawks who want from bombing, they
want a new regime. I don't think we should have

(01:05:36):
a regime change war. So I think that Yao was
wrong to bomb and we should have allowed Trump to
continue the negotiation. I'm glad there's a ceaspar now he
needs to go into negotiation with Iran to prevent them
from getting a nuclear bomb.

Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
I certainly don't believe that the United States or anybody
else would be engaging in a regime change.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
I totally am with you on that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
I'm just wondering whether or not Iran is somebody that
you can trust When they've changed to death to Israel,
death to America, you know, a million times over over
the years, are they somebody that you can trust to
engage in diplomacy with.

Speaker 1 (01:06:09):
That's what I'm wondering about.

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
You really feel that that that's plausible or that's possible
when dealing with you ran.

Speaker 5 (01:06:15):
Yeah, and trust them, but you can verify. You know,
the famous Reagan thing was trust but verify, verified, verified.
That's what Obama did. Look, Obama doesn't get their places. Look,
I criticized Obama on Libya, right, so I'm not just
a part of is it here? But on the Iran deal,
they got a deal where they were verified, They had

(01:06:36):
monitors and people in and run it the whole supply
chain of uranium and they were monitoring it up through
twenty eighteen and there was no enrichment beyond five percent.
That's not because the Iranian government is trustworthy. It's because
they were basically being monitored by the IEAE. Now, there
was one criticism of that deal. That deal did not
apply to ballistic missiles, so they limited the enrichment in

(01:06:58):
Iran could still develop ballistic missiles. And what would have
been appropriate is for the next president to come in
and say, I'm going to strengthen the JCPOA, I'm going
to work to make sure that they can't develop missiles.
But we have a framework. We know that Iran will
negotiate with verification, and that's the policy we should pursue,
not because it's somehow you know, a week or peace loving,

(01:07:22):
because it's the only thing that's effective. You've got two choices.
You can either bomb them every year the waste American
tax dollars and put our troops at risk, or we
can engage in verification and get the IEAE inspectors there
like we had in the JCPOA.

Speaker 2 (01:07:38):
Three quick questions before I let you get on out
of here because we only got a few minutes left,
and I thank you so much for your time. Representative,
kind of really really appreciate talking to you and seeing
you again as well. Number One, I want to get
to something that's knee and dear toy y'all, are you
were here in January to discuss the looming TikTok band,
which has been extended for the third time despite a
Bob Protistan law passed by Congress that mandates TikTok's Chinese

(01:08:00):
parent company Byte Dance sell the app.

Speaker 1 (01:08:03):
What does that stand now.

Speaker 5 (01:08:05):
I'm glad that that law has been extended. We can't
kick one hundred and seventy five million people off of
an app. We can't kick off people who use this
app to make a livelihood. You know, they're one point
five million people who are content creators in America and
make a living of that. To put that in context,
there's seventy thousand people who make a living and steel,

(01:08:26):
and to just shut all that down, we would be
devastating for the economy, not to mention for free speech.
So what we should do is keep the app open.
We should require the company to be an American company.
We should require the data be stored in America. We
should make a criminal for any algorithmic interference by the Chinese.
The president is trying to do that, and I actually

(01:08:47):
support that effort. It's place, it's another place where I
think that Trump is doing the right thing by keeping
the app open.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
Transitioning to another topic, What the hell is this I'm
hearing about calif One of the legislators are proposing a
ban on online fantasy sports.

Speaker 1 (01:09:05):
What is the I mean, what are your thoughts about that?
What do they do?

Speaker 7 (01:09:08):
So?

Speaker 5 (01:09:09):
I'm opposed to that. Look, I I'm never gonna get
into a sports discussion with the stephen A. But you
know I was on a fantasy I did fantasy teams
growing up. You know, I grew up with Philli's fan,
Philadelphia fan. I used to collect baseball cards. We used
to have a team, my team. You almost never won
my fantasy team. And you know, I never quit quite
figured out whether you need to graph the quarterback or

(01:09:31):
the running back first. And you know, everyone else is
looking at points. And it always amazed me that you'd
be watching these games and folks would be less concerned about,
you know, whether the Eagle's gonna get a win or
forty nine ers were gonna win. They just be cheering
for the like the random offensive lineman because they had
them on their fantasy team.

Speaker 10 (01:09:47):
But that's you know that, that's the fun of sports.
Like when you talk about dumb things the Democratic Party does,
it's like, let's go ban fantasy sports and then let's
pay twenty million dollars to.

Speaker 5 (01:10:00):
I understand why we're losing young men. I mean, come on,
and you wonder why we're in the state we are
as a party. It's laughable.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:10:09):
Well, I will say this, and this is my last question.
Can't say that in the state of New York or
the city of New York. New York City, we saw
zoran On Mamdani beat former governor of New York three
term governor of New York, of New York and mister
Andrew Cuomo, I mean, he beat him in the Democratic
primaries just a couple of days ago.

Speaker 1 (01:10:30):
What was your reaction, What was your thoughts about that?

Speaker 5 (01:10:34):
It says one simple message, which is people care about
the cost of living. You know, everyone is focused on
what was Zoran's position on Israel, What was his position
on the cultural issues, what was his position on ice?
You know what Zooran talked about. He said rent is
too high. He said that you can't afford your groceries.
He said that I understand why people voted for Trump

(01:10:55):
because they can't afford to buy a house and the
cost of living. They aren't making ends meet. And what
I'm gonna do is provide actual policies to lower the
cost of living for folks, to make New York affordable again.
That's all he talked about. He had videos out there
going to street vendors telling you about why it costs

(01:11:16):
ten bucks for chicken over rice ajlal Neil as opposed
to eight bucks, and what he was going to do
to bring the cost of living down. And so what
this tells me is the Democrats need an economic message.
We need a message telling about how we're going to
deal with the affordability crisis in this country. We need
a message about how we're going to create good paying
jobs in America through technology and with AI coming, we

(01:11:37):
need a message about how we're gonna build things in
this country.

Speaker 2 (01:11:41):
But representative, he's a self proclaimed socialist. He was endorsed
by AOC, amongst others, and we all know that a
lot of people in a general election for the presidency
sort of turned against that kind of rhetoric, and that's
partially why Donald Trump was voted for. I don't think
that's deniable. So do you think this is something that

(01:12:02):
could have a profoundly positive impact on a Democratic party?

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
When his message, although it was you.

Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
Know, you know, it was articulated very very well, I
might add, is that the kind of thing that's going
to win you votes in the midterms and a general
election in twenty twenty eight for the presidency.

Speaker 5 (01:12:23):
If we take the best of him and discard the
areas which we disagree with. That's the stephen A approach, right.
I heard you on one podcast saying you put alc
in your cabinet not because you agree with everything because
you would take her good ideas and you would reject
the bad ideas. And you'd have some Republican and you'd
take their good ideas and reject the bad ideas. That's
what people want in this country. So Zoran has good

(01:12:43):
ideas about how to bring food prices down, or if
he has good ideas about how to deal with rents,
let's take those. And you can still say that we
should absolutely condemn chance like globalize the Intafada, and we
should recognize that Israel has the right to exist as
a Jewish democratic state. The problem in our politics as
we've become so black and white, as if you have
to agree with something on somebody on everything. And I

(01:13:06):
think what this country is hungry for his leadership that
tries to bring people together, that takes the best ideas,
whether it's from a Steve Bannon or a Zoran and
says we're gonna look at the best when people have
to offer and offer a unifying vision of this country.

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
Very last question to you, very last question you the
way you articulate your message. I mean, you're the kind
of person that the people should be listening to, more,
should be hearing from more To be quite honest with you.
Haven't heard your name for the governor see to California.
Haven't heard your name when it comes to a presidential ambition, Sir,

(01:13:45):
should you be pursuing those things?

Speaker 1 (01:13:47):
And if not, why not.

Speaker 2 (01:13:49):
When you seem to be speaking to a vast majority
of American citizens.

Speaker 5 (01:13:53):
Well, I was promoting you, Steve, and I was just
trying to get onto your ticket. Don't do that. Don't
that's what the campaign, but they look. I think we
need more independent voices. That's why I liked what you
were out there saying. I think we need. Let me
say the three things I think we need in this country. One,

(01:14:13):
we need people are going to call out both parties
if they are right or wrong, not just being our
partisan tribes. Second, we need people focused on the economy.
My district has fourteen trillion dollars. It's even five companies
over a trillion dollars. The AI Revolution is going to
produce huge wealth, but we can't be a nation half
prosperous and half in decline. We need people who are
going to figure out what this AI revolution, how we're

(01:14:35):
going to create good paying jobs and economic opportunity and
places that have been left out and third, we got
to have people are going to be on Team America.
We're going to try to bring this country together, not
be part of it. You know, I'll end with this point.
I voted against. I led the charge against Trump on
the Iran War Powers Resolution, and then I voted to

(01:14:56):
table the impeachment. And on the left, some people say, oh,
you're a hypocrite, You're a hypocrite. I'm saying, well, there
are other presidents who have had committed unconspiritual things. I don't
want to make this partisan. I want to figure out
how we bring the country together in a big coalition.
So I don't know whether my cycle of politics can
win a particular primary, but I do know it's where
the American people are to be independent, to call balls

(01:15:19):
and strikes, not to be just reflexively partisan.

Speaker 2 (01:15:24):
Representative Rocan in seventeenth District of California. Always an honor
and a privilege to talk to you. So I really
enjoyed being on real time with Bill Maher with you.
I really enjoyed our communication since that time, and I
have no doubt we will continue to communicate with one another.
You are always welcome on this show, sir. Thank you
so much for taking time out of your busy schedule
to come on. Really appreciate it. You take care of yourself.

Speaker 5 (01:15:43):
Thank you. It was my honor.

Speaker 2 (01:15:44):
I appreciate Representative Rocan I really really do. I had
a blast being on real time with Bill Maher with him, obviously,
he's knowledgeable, he's passionate, but he's about common sense. He
makes sense, and he's willing to disagree with his own party,
calling balls and strikes.

Speaker 1 (01:16:00):
You know what that means, ladies and gentlemen.

Speaker 2 (01:16:01):
He's somebody that can be trusted, and anybody in politics
that can be trusted to, somebody that we should try
to elevate and make sure that we shine a light
upon them and give them the shine that they deserve
because at least we know where they stand and we
can trust them. It's a big, big deal. It's a
big big deal. I want to thank Ryan Smith again

(01:16:22):
for coming on the show. Of course, Representative Roe Connor
as well, book it with Trent.

Speaker 1 (01:16:26):
Always good to see.

Speaker 2 (01:16:27):
Him and my man Brian Winthors for breaking down the
NBA draft the way that he did. That's it for
this edition of The Step and A Smith Show. I
hope y'all enjoyed it as much as I did. I'll
see y'all in a few days. Have a wonderful, wonderful week,
and God bless until next time, Peace of love, everybody
be safe.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Stephen A. Smith

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Full Show: NBA Draft analysis, legal commentary on “Diddy” Combs’ federal trial, political discussion with Rep. Ro Khanna.