Poor Brett Favre?!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Native Lamp Pod is a production of iHeartRadio in partnership
with Recent Choice Media.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
All right, d'all, welcome home. It's episode forty two of
Native Lamp Pod. So the pod is almost as old
as us, you guys, because I can't believe we're already
on forty two.

Speaker 3 (00:18):
Uh yeah, well I'm older than that.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
But yes, it's well, we're Angela's elders, but almost as Andrew.
You look pretty snazzy and you're Miami Vice.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
You know.

Speaker 5 (00:31):
I just you know, here's my hurricane outfit in case
y'all find me, you know, under a break.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Well, we are.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
Seriously concerned because there is a storm headed your way.

Speaker 3 (00:41):
Yeah, are you saying your direct hit here in Tallahassee?
Possibly a Cat three, which would be about the strongest
storm that we've had here.

Speaker 5 (00:49):
So I had two hurricanes when I was mayor of Tallahassee,
and that was after almost fifty years of no storm.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
You know, it's thirty years of no storms.

Speaker 5 (00:58):
And now we've been you know whatever. So I'm actually
we get packing the family up and they're trying to
get out of here any minute now, and I'll get
out when I finished some house preparations.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
But yeah, well, thank you for being dedicated to stick around.
Welcome home, and already right exactly, angel I've already complimented
you on your Shreditdnim.

Speaker 6 (01:23):
I just got thrown around in a garbage disposal, but
don't mind me. I just don't think I was gonna
wear it. So you know, in Seattle it's get a
little colder. So I was like, well, I'm at home,
so let me put this on before. This is not
in vogue? Is this?

Speaker 1 (01:39):
It's the first show.

Speaker 6 (01:41):
I'm in Denham. I don't know what happened to you
all since this photo.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
Shoot right down below. I can't show it right now, but.

Speaker 6 (01:47):
Yeah, okay, okay, well so draws today to.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
I don't know what I counted. Trust me, I got
on dental. I'm somewhere.

Speaker 6 (01:58):
Let me tell you to don't ever have on dinnim.
Tiff By write dinhim on her hands, and I just
want y'all to know again for the record, in case
came from Tiffany, she is not followed.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
And only got those boots because Angela had them. I
thought they were cute, so then I went and bottom
and I probably had worn them since anyway, Angela, what
are we or what are you? What are you talking
about today?

Speaker 4 (02:23):
On boy?

Speaker 6 (02:24):
Well, I want to talk about Brett Farr. Tiff. I
know you're a resident sports expert, so you know what
NFL team this man's played for.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Okay, let me just say I know this. Let me
say I know this because I was reading an article
on my I just landed and on a flight this morning.
I was reading the Times and they did a whole
article on it, so I know that he played for
the Tennessee type Oh right now.

Speaker 6 (02:50):
About green Baka.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
Okay, then never mind, I was reading something about somebody
who played.

Speaker 6 (02:55):
We were just sharing to demonstrate for you all is
how easy it is for people in influential position to
cover the media, uh, to be also swayed by misinformation.
That was just.

Speaker 3 (03:06):
Exactly you're going right up.

Speaker 6 (03:10):
What I want to talk about? To go up your alley, go,
Andrew go.

Speaker 5 (03:14):
And there's been a lot in the news office about
Janet jackson commentary about Kamala Harris, And while that has
been interesting, I'm actually much more interested in the angle
love why it is that we think celebrities people in
the public space are supposed to be educated and aware
and knowledgeable about all things politics, and is it right?

Speaker 3 (03:32):
Is it fair? I love to have that conversation with y'all.

Speaker 1 (03:35):
Yeah, I like that. I actually am interested in talking
about this Brat Farr thing in Tennessee. Yes, yes, the
former Titans player in Tennessee.

Speaker 6 (03:44):
And it also happens to be something happening in Mississippi.
Look up Tanni Mississippi.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
Now that I am familiar with, so I know you.
I have a lot of thoughts on that. So I'm
curious how we're in covering. So my subject is kind
of somber, so I definitely don't want to kick us off,
but I want to talk about the death penalty in
this country. You all have probably seen those posts that
a man was lynched today. You saw a lot of
people posting about that this week, and I just I

(04:11):
want to talk about this because it's a challenging position
for us as black folks to be in in this country.
So I don't know how we're gonna kick it off first,
but let's kick it off. Nonetheless, Welcome home, y'all. I
don't want to kick us off because my subject is somber.

Speaker 3 (04:31):
And I'm on the show.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
But I think you should not. But see that's somber
in a different way. So I think we should end
with celebrities. I think Angela, you should kick us off.

Speaker 6 (04:43):
But that's different. All right, I'm kicking us off. So
why don't we do this instead of me kicking you off.
Let's go straight to the Ways and Means Committee testimony
testimony that Brett Favre gave earlier this week at a
hearing about the misuse of TANNIF, which temporary assistance for
needy families. All of those dollars being misallocated in several states,

(05:05):
and Mississippi is one of them. Brett Farbus found himself
in the crosshairs. Let's roll it.

Speaker 7 (05:10):
Democrats and Republicans should agree. Rampant state misuse of TANNA
funds is hurting efforts to help vulnerable families and children.
And I was told Ways and Means Committee was working
on this problem. So I was willing to speak to
you to encourage Congress to reform this important anti poverty program.
And I urge Congress to put taniff guardrails in place

(05:30):
to ensure that what happened in Mississippi doesn't happen again.
I urge Congress to pass the TANNA reforms included in
the Committee member bills, Reforms designed to target funds to
those truly most in need, to help low income American
find and keep a job, to limit how states can
spend tan of grants and reduce wasteful bureaucracy, and to

(05:51):
protect tax fair funds from fraud and abuse. And in closing,
thank you Chairmans Smith and ranking Member Neil.

Speaker 6 (05:59):
Now, when you hear Brett Favre here, he sounds like
the model citizen. He's using all the right talking points. Waste, fraud,
and abuse is something that Democrats and Republicans have agreed
on for a long time when we talk about government spending.
Now here's the challenge. There is a lot that was
left out and a lot left to be desired. But
I'm going to go to a Green Bay Packers fan.

(06:20):
Congressoman Gynmore, who worked on tannef legislation in the state
legislature and has certainly worked on it in the House
as a single mother, please drow the tape.

Speaker 8 (06:30):
But I do want to say that I was at.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
The scene of the crime.

Speaker 8 (06:35):
When we ended welfare as we knew it in nineteen
ninety six.

Speaker 9 (06:39):
I was in.

Speaker 8 (06:39):
Wisconsin, I was a state senator. I had one hundred
amendments that would have addressed this problem. And what I
am saying to you, I just want to repeat some
of the things that have been said here already that
this flexibility was deliberate it. Indeed, I agree with mister
George's characterization of it is that it literally became a

(07:00):
slush fund for states to do what they wanted to do.
In our own state, we literally had people called diversion specialists,
and it was their.

Speaker 6 (07:11):
Job to convince.

Speaker 8 (07:13):
You when you showed up pregnant and one baby on
one arm and the other at your feet, that you
didn't need welfare funds, and all of that profit could
be used to pay bonuses. I even had an amendment
that was directed at some of the vendors who administered
welfare to say.

Speaker 6 (07:31):
You can't earn more than the governor of the state.

Speaker 8 (07:35):
Because of these salaries were so lucrative. So surprise, surprise,
here we are, what twenty eight years later, discovering the
fraud and waste and abuse in this program. We have
the same level of poverty we have, you know, eighty
percent of the people who qualified, people who live in

(07:58):
deep deep, deep poverty, not getting the benefits people in
Mississippi getting What did you say, mister Dorr two hundred
and thirty six dollars a month in twenty twenty four,
that that that's the truth. These data are not updated.
It's not true. I just want to go on to

(08:20):
talk about some other things that I saw on the report.
You say that that. Oh and also some of your
data the six hundred industries that's in Maine. So I
want to congratulate you with whatever you did in Maine.
Whatever happened in Maine didn't happen Mississippi.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
So just so okay.

Speaker 6 (08:40):
So what you see is Brett Farb, a former All
star NFL quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, who found
himself embroiled in a huge scandal in Mississippi. Mississippi is
accused of misallocating ninety four million dollars in TANNE funds. Again,

(09:01):
that's the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It is
a block grant program that exists all throughout the country.
There is a lot of waste, fraud and abuse, as
you just heard Congresswoman when Moore talking about in this
particular program with Brett Farvre, he was working with a nonprofit.
Some states utilize nonprofits to allocate these funds through varying programs,

(09:25):
varying families who need them, and for the most part,
the families that need the resources the most don't actually
see these resources. So Brett Farr, for example, his accues
of receiving one point one million dollars in speaking fees
from Tannet funds and also helping to broker a five

(09:45):
million dollar volleyball stadium to the University of Southern Mississippi,
where his daughter attends. These are just some of the
ways in which these resources have been used or misused.
And I think what makes it egregious is yesterday. This
is particularly for you yesterday what you see from the headlines.

(10:06):
And I know by the time this podcast will be
two day so from Tuesday, the headlines are the next
day that Brett Favre tells this committee that he is
suffering from Parkinson's because there was also a business who
he helped get resources to in the millions that is
supposed to help players who have experienced concussions. He uses

(10:29):
this moment to disclose to the public that he's been
diagnosed with Parkinson's. On the other side of giving millions
of dollars to tan Of funds to this business. The
woman that helped to get the resources to this company
has now pled guilty. Her son has pled guilty. There's
a civil lawsuit in Mississippi with with more than twenty

(10:50):
defendants for their role in misallocating tant Of funds to
everyone except for the people who need them most. So
that is what this is all about. It is infuriating,
especially when we talk about this handout concept. The people
who need handouts are really hand ups, don't get them
because they're busy patting the pockets of folks who run

(11:11):
these organizations and are ensuring that the folks who do
need assistants, who are needed families never see the resources.
So Brett Favre, I am so sorry about your diagnosis.
I really am, But that does not excuse you from
what you knew when you look at these text messages
that I know that we're gonna put up on the screen.
But for those of you who are listening, he says
things like if I get these resources, will people find out?

Speaker 7 (11:36):
Right?

Speaker 6 (11:37):
He says, is the money I was paid one hundred
percent legal for the radio commercials. We didn't even talk
about those, and then she tells him yes. On another message,
he says, I can have my CPA talk with you
and get a better understanding of this and go from there.
Maybe the university will figure out some things as well,
as long as we can use the money any way

(11:59):
we choose some how will the public perception be that
I became a spokesperson for various state funded shelters, schools, homes,
et cetera, and was compensated with state money or can
we keep this confidential? This does not sound like someone
who says in his testimony that he did not know.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
He let me just add to that. So this company
that you're talking about where he funneled two point one
million dollars, to be exact, is run by Jason van Landingham.
So that two point one million dollars that he funneled
to him. Jason pleaded guilty to wirefraud. This was in July,

(12:39):
admitting to using those funds to pay off gambling and
personal debts. Brett farre In the one point one million
dollars you referenced, Angela, those were for speeches that he never.

Speaker 6 (12:50):
Gave, allegedly allegedly because he's saying he made the speeches,
so we don't want to be caught up in the
same defamation.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Allegedly that he according to the reporting, right, he never
gave them, but he says allegedly. I just want to
point out here because why this matters to me. My
mother's family is from Mississippi. A lot of folks, you know,
you all know the Great Migration, A lot of us
have roots in Mississippi. Mississippi is a challenge. It is

(13:17):
the state with the highest number of black folks there
and they are in the bottom ten percent of poverty
when it comes to this country. There's not a single
black statewide elected official in Mississippi, despite having the highest
population there. The racism is literally written into the state's
constitution in Mississippi. Let me just tell you a little

(13:39):
bit about the folks in Mississippi. Then this is welfare
essentially what we're talking Tana funds are another word for
it will be welfare. Mississippi in twenty sixteen approved just
one point five percent of applicants who are applying for
these funds. That's according to reporting from Mississippi today, just

(14:01):
five out of eight hundred and twenty four applicants were approved.
This is all during the time when Brett Favre was
stealing millions among other people. After the reporting came out
about this, Mississippi inexplicably started approving more people, still not enough.

(14:21):
In twenty eighteen, this is at the height of the scandal,
Mississippi spent one hundred and thirteen million dollars in federal
funds for TANA funds. This was over its allotment of
eighty six point five million dollars of unspent funds. Just
five percent of that cash went to needy families. That
left over one hundred million dollars on the table for

(14:43):
them to do essentially what they wanted to do. This
was under Republican Governor Phil Bryant at the time. His
office oversaw the Welfare Department and their goals. So, like
Angela said, state and nonprofits used tens of millions of
dollars in these federal funds as a playground and did
pretty much whatever they wanted to do. They purchased lavish homes,

(15:03):
they gave money to their friends and families. They propped
up programs that had little to do with alleviating poverty.
Millions also went to other purposes, including other pro football
players who have yet to be named, wrestlers, lobbyists, expensive
pr campaigns, conservative radio talk shows. The Mississippi Department of
Human Services still pushes out these funds, and it's really

(15:27):
very little oversight. And so there are real names and
faces and consequences to what Brett Favre did. Now, why
I got this information, Angela, is because this morning. I
read the Times every day, and I read the Times,
and you would think by reading the article about it,
that Brett Farr was on Capitol Hill to talk about
his Parkinson's diagnosed.

Speaker 6 (15:48):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
There was no mention, no mention of the people of Mississippi.
There was no reference of how impoverished the state is.
There was no demographic breakdown on who was a applying
for these funds overwhelmingly black folks, who was applying for
these funds and who was being denied also a lot
of poor white folks in Mississippi. I might add, so
the fact that we are playing a violin for this

(16:11):
man for stealing millions of dollars, and the media took
that and said, we will add, we will sing your
songs of sorrow with you and completely bypass the impoverished
people and Andrew, you know a lot about this, because
we've talked about this as if they don't deserve a
song of sympathy, as if they are not the main
point of this story. I find it disgusting and yet

(16:33):
again another failure of the media who would rather center
conservative white folks at the literal cost of our lives
and our livelihoods when it comes to black folks.

Speaker 5 (16:44):
Total, total, abject failure by the media in complicity, by
the way, because at this stage, when the controversy was
first uncovered, you know, Brett fav was all.

Speaker 3 (16:56):
In the middle of it.

Speaker 5 (16:56):
We saw messages come out, we saw his complicity and
cooperate with it, and so it isn't as if the
media had no clue what he was doing on Capitol Hill,
what he was there to testify about, so on and
so forth. I won't name the source, I mean the
media organization, but I got a text, you know, a
message alert in the middle of the day about Brett Farban.
It was about his diagnosis. And again we can have

(17:20):
sympathy for his diagnosis and wish him well on his
journey ahead, but also hold him fully accountable for why
he was on Capitol Hill in the first place to
further underscore Angela and Tiffany's points around the real need
in Mississippi is that Mississippi's poverty rate is twenty percent,

(17:41):
which is double the national poverty rate. So when we're
talking about poor, we're talking about the epicenter of poverty
in this country being at a state where twenty percent
of the people we're out of ten people, right, two
of every ten is suffering at or below the poverty level.

Speaker 3 (17:59):
In this state.

Speaker 5 (18:00):
These are resources that are desperately needed to wind up
in the hands of the people who are struggling to
keep food on the table and the roof over their head.
But that's not what it's going to. And the shame
of it all, the real shame of it all, is
that these are the same elected officials who have as
part of their talking points the need for people to
pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Right, So that's supposed

(18:23):
to apply to working poor people in your state, but
it doesn't apply to the corporations and the moneyed interest
and the former athletes whose children are at your state's
schools who need a new volleyball course or some new turf.
Added to this, that and the third is shameful because
what Republicans know, and I have to call them what

(18:44):
they are because they're the ones who manufacture these talking points.

Speaker 3 (18:48):
What they are is they're hypocrites of the greatest order.

Speaker 5 (18:51):
It is not that they don't believe in handouts or
hand ups, it's just that they only believe in those
things when it comes to other white folks and white
people's companies and their white constituency who are by the way, not.

Speaker 3 (19:02):
Poor, but the ones who are well healed, well mented.

Speaker 5 (19:05):
Or in gambling debt right, who have the luxury to
be in gambling a debt. So this is embarrassing for
the state at a whole new level, except they'll take
no embarrassment at all. And I'm confused about what the
change is going to be because I was a local
as a former person mented in government through.

Speaker 3 (19:24):
The local level.

Speaker 5 (19:26):
I know that there's something called categorical grants which could
have gone directly to the cities, to the counties where
poverty is the greatest, where there could have been much
more how do you say, specific oversight by the local communities.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
But they didn't come down.

Speaker 5 (19:42):
To Mississippi that way, and they don't come to the
other states that way they're coming into these states to
these block grants where universally we have seen abuse not
just in this not just in this area, but across
the board. When you send a big old chunk of
money and you say to the state that this is
intended for this purpose, and the state undoubted figures out
a way to undermine the system, to undermine its intentional goal,

(20:04):
to undermine.

Speaker 3 (20:05):
Those policies that they disagree with.

Speaker 5 (20:08):
Why would you send to Florida and all these other
states money for uh, the Obamacare Universal Care and then
allow them to redivert that money, reallocate that money, or
reduce the state's commitment in this area, supplant it with
the federal government's committed commitment. So you don't get any

(20:29):
increase in resourcing at all. All you got was a
plug and play. You got You got them using federal
money UH and relieving state money and then not increasing
the real need, not really not increasing the the financial
support into the areas that it's needed. I would just
say Congress needs to take a really good hard look
at itself. They are the ones that created these categories

(20:52):
of granted and I would I would charge them to
look at ways in which they can get the resources
to the people who need them the most. And I
know that we got to go to break, so I'll
stop there.

Speaker 6 (21:03):
Yeah. Well, on the other side, ahead, no, i'd say
if I was going to say too. On the other side,
there's another little twist in this story that I think
we need to get to. That is it demonstrates a
failure of the courts and media combined.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
Interestingly enough, that is a perfect segue into the death
penalty that I want to talk about too, the failure
of the courts and media combined. So right after this break,
we'll pick it up.

Speaker 6 (21:38):
So as you can see, there are so much there's
so much passion around this topic, and I think living
in our black bodies in this country, you constantly are
seeing the lack of justice. We're not asking to be
able to cheat, We're asking for you to be able
to play fair, and that is beyond the pale. So again,
Brett Favre at this hearing says he's showing up because

(21:58):
he doesn't want to see any more abuse when he's
at the center of the abuse. He did pay back
one point one million dollars in the speaking fees, but
he was asked to also pay two hundred and twenty
eight thousand dollars in interest, and he did not do that.
Now here's the twist I wanted.

Speaker 1 (22:14):
He refused.

Speaker 6 (22:14):
Yeah, I wanted. Here's the twist I wanted to I
wanted to throw out there for y'all. An Wolf, who
is the Politzer Prize winning journalist who broke this story,
is now facing jail time. Tiff let me tell you why.
The defamation case that that she's at the center of
is requiring through the courts, that she turns over all

(22:37):
of her sources that enabled her to be able to
break this story to begin with. Now they've been able
to do the money trial that I mean, they could
trace all of the steps. Whether Brett farre says he
knew or did not know, it is indeed factual that
this money came from Tanef. It was redirected money from Tanef.
So the fact that she's now in the center of

(22:59):
this defamation case being asked to turn over our sources
we know is crossing a red line for journalists.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
Turning over your source concept is crossing a constitutional the
rest but that is constitutionally protected right. It is freedom
of the press in the First Amendment, case like this
could go all the way to the Supreme Court, which
who knows that that's helpful because that's a Republican funded
place where they legislate from from the highest court.

Speaker 5 (23:22):
And that's and Angela, you've already pointed out the receipts
are clear. They're clear that there's no need that you're
not uncovering sources so that you can get to what
is the source of the information, right they're uncovering sources.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
For retribution, for payback. Yes, for you don't get away.
You don't get to get.

Speaker 5 (23:37):
Away with telling on us and not paying some kind
of of of of costs for having done so. It's
clear retribution. They're not trying to establish an order or
a line of facts right here. They're not trying to
get to the point. The point is the cruelty of it, well,
the point the person.

Speaker 6 (23:55):
The point also is what Tiff raised, which is the
fact that this has now gone to the miss Ssissippi
Supreme Court. The editor in chief of Mississippi Today, which
is of course where this story initially broke, says, with
our appeal, the stakes are incredibly high. The Supreme Court
can guarantee these critical rights for the first time in
our state's history, or it could establish a dangerous precedent

(24:17):
for Mississippi journalists and the public at large by tossing
aside an essential First Amendment protection. So I just want
to tell y'all. So, the dude who broke the law
not once, not twice, but three times by receiving these
tanted funds to do things he knows weren't okay, which
is why he has that in his text messages, is
not on the hook. But he's getting deservedly so sympathy

(24:41):
for Parkinson's but not even being forced to answer questions
about what he said in the hearing yesterday, the places
where he perjured himself, where he's directly in contradiction with
things that the facts tell us, and the person who
broke the story is now facing jail time because she's
refusing to comply with this court order as she should.

Speaker 5 (24:59):
So I'm just I mean, I got to give the
guy because a lot of times celebrities don't even always
know the details. But what his text messages show us
is that he's clear that he's on the wrong side
of them, clear about what the lines are that he
shouldn't be crossing, which is why you asked for competens exactly,
which is why you asked for these things to be
done under the table, off the books.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
You don't ask for that when stuff is on the
up and up. We all know that.

Speaker 5 (25:24):
Well, when we're asked to give a speech somewhere, I
am not asking whether it's on the up and up.
I assume that this is all being done in line
with what is allowable to the source of funding, of which.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
I would get what's ethical, we get paid, what's what's ethical,
but what's also what's it right? Otherwise you don't do it.

Speaker 6 (25:40):
I want to call this poor Brett Farv. I know
I don't.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
I don't want him getting that.

Speaker 6 (25:47):
I want to call it poor Brett Favre. And there
is there is I want to make because I want
the people to see that this man benefited from resources
designed for poor people, and he took advantage of it,
and he did not need it. The fact that he

(26:08):
was able to pay back the money demonstrates that he
did not need the money. So you taking food out
of poor children's mouths, You taking money out of the
hands of people who desperately need these resources to feed
these kids. That y'all's asses keep making them have.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
I think it is. I think he gave the money
back because it was ill gotten.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
It was a pr camp.

Speaker 5 (26:33):
The reason why I don't think we ought to name
it after him is one because we are a center
of the dude who.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
I don't know if that's clibait, you.

Speaker 3 (26:43):
Know, forget the clip.

Speaker 5 (26:44):
Well it may be, but you know what the truth
is is that the shortcut is going to work. The
shortcut about this story is is that you can get
to the you can get to what it's about by
knowing that he's got Parkinson's not what the substance of
the matter is, but the shortcut that was just created
by him yesterday, him and his.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
The media and the media.

Speaker 3 (27:02):
That the best way to bury this thing is to
break other news.

Speaker 1 (27:05):
What about all right, we'll talk about the latter. I
want to shift us to a somber story that is
relevant in the news this week. Yeah, it is so
Marcellus Williams. If you've not heard this name, I'll tell
you a little bit about who this is. He's was
fifty five years old. He was convicted in the nineteen
ninety eight killing of a well known journalist in Saint

(27:27):
Louis Her name was Alicia Gale. She was a newspaper reporter.
She was stabbed to death during a home invasion robbery
and her suburban home. Now, I want to talk about
why this conviction was faulty. Marcellus Williams was scheduled to
be executed. He fought for years, for decades to stay

(27:52):
the execution. He was successful twice. He was not successful
this week. Sadly, Here's why this is a challenge. The
prosecutor's office in this case admitted that it was wrong
and it fought to overturn the death sentence. There had
been several violations of Marcellus's constitutional rights during the investigation

(28:13):
at trial. In the filing, we've talked about Wesley Bell before,
who is recently won his Democratic primary. He was now
the prosecutor at this time. He wasn't the person who
bought the case, but he inherited the case. He asserted
that the defense lawyer had not presented mitigating evidence that

(28:34):
could have spared mister Williams the death penalty. The prosecutor
who had the case at the time had improperly rejected
potential black jurors, resulting with the jury of eleven white people.
And one black member. Now let me just tell you
why this prosecutor rejected some of the jurors. One in particular,

(28:57):
the prosecutor who then was Keith Lerner. He testified that
in one case he excluded a prospective black juror because
he closely resembled Marcellus Williams. He's quoted as saying they
look like they could be brothers. Perhaps in his mind,
we all look alike. The prosecutor detailed multiple issues with
credibility of two key witnesses against Marcellus Williams, and noted

(29:21):
that mister Williams was not the source of footprints or
heirs found at the crime scene, nor was any if
his DNA found on the murder weapon. So he received
a state of execution in twenty fifteen and twenty seventeen,
but neither of these led to his conviction being thrown out.
The family, also, by the way, did not want to
see him executed. The state Attorney General, Republican Andrew Bailey,

(29:45):
who's facing a primary election right now Saint Louis, asked
the state Supreme Court to set an execution date for
Marcellus Williams. While in prison, mister Williams became a Muslim,
he took the name Khalifa. He appeared in court recently
with the white skull cap. You guys have seen those

(30:07):
to signify his Islamic devotion. And I want you all
to hear what his son said, uh, just days before
his execution, in an act of remaining hopeful. And then
I'll close us out on the other.

Speaker 4 (30:21):
Side, like I hope a miracle happens. You know what
I'm saying. I hope It's all I wish is to
free my father from abundance, enslavement and spirit's life.

Speaker 5 (30:31):
What would you say to the Supreme Court if you
had the opportunity to testify on behalf of your dad.

Speaker 4 (30:36):
I would try to make them see that this is
a murder on their behalf and this is wrong, you know,
And I believe my father is truly innocent and they
need to take a closer look.

Speaker 3 (30:48):
Have you allowed yourself to even get to Tuesday right now?

Speaker 4 (30:51):
Yeah? I already put it inside my body that I
would be a witness to it, to the execution. I'm
standing firm and show my Daddy's on the loan if
that's what it comes to, and I'm ready for it.
My mind sat my spirit strong, like I'm doing this
for my dad. It's bigger than me.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
I want to read exactly what happened. This is according
to the at As Williams lay awaiting execution, he appeared
to converse with the spiritual advisor is seated next to him.
Williams wiggled his feet underneath a white sheet that was
pulled up to his neck and moved his head slightly
while his spiritual advisor continued to talk to him. Then

(31:32):
Williams's test heaved about a half dozen times, and he
showed no further movement. He was pronounced dead at six '
ten pm at a state prison in Voluntarry, the Missouri
who's run by the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Speaker 6 (31:47):
I want to.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
Say, this is not the party of pro life, This
is not the party of law and order. They are
liars and they are lynchers. When we look at death penalties,
the way that people are allowed to bear witness. The
family did not appear there. We've talked on this show
about how these executions go, how they're botched, how sometimes
they're torture because we don't know how to kill people properly,

(32:10):
so we don't know if they suffer. They certainly have
appeared to when we talked about the number of black
people who are on death row. So this week in America,
a man was lynched. And I have to say, as
black people who are so excited to carry one of
our own to the White House, to ascend to the

(32:35):
highest post and government, it is quite a paradox for
us to be celebratory of this moment when state sanctioned
violence and murder persist. I don't know how to feel
good about how we treat our people in this country,

(32:56):
but I do know I have a lot of fight
left in me. When I hear the these kind of stories,
it is just heartbreaking.

Speaker 4 (33:05):
You know.

Speaker 5 (33:05):
I to consider that the population in Saint Louis is
almost twenty percent black and that only one of twelve
jurors was black. Is malpracticed by the state by who
brought the charge. This is a sentence that it sounds

(33:27):
like if you hear from the prosecutor's office that there
was a violation of rights in this process, actually multiple
violations of rights in this of the accused rights.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
You now have.

Speaker 5 (33:42):
Sort of a backtracking on the fact pattern. Now you
have forensics that don't put him at the scene don't
have any portion of it. Again, think about forensics. We're
going back now, you know, forty years and using forensics
to tie individuals to crime scenes in ways that could
not have been done before. And in this case it's
the exact opposite. You can't you're not able to tie

(34:03):
the individual who you've accused to the crime scene. Now,
if this much malpractice had taken place, one that they
should have vacated this sentence long ago.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
And if they thought that that that that there was a.

Speaker 5 (34:16):
Chance that they had the wrong person on trial here
and worse over schedule for the death penalty, that that that,
I don't know, common sense might prevail. And it just
in this case, it just again goes to show how
value lists our black bodies are in the eyes of
so many and too many places. And I find it
especially upsetting that it oftentimes happens in places where the

(34:40):
black population is a significant force to be dealt with
by way of by share population. Miss we just talked
about a story in Mississippi, the Black and State nckdamn country,
where where the black population is a significant force to
be dealt with. Yet these kinds of injustices tend to happen,
and I can't help but think, what a shot over

(35:02):
the bow. This is supposed to be almost every time
to us, because they don't go in places where we're
not part of the population, where we're minuscule, but in
places where we're significant parts of the population, where the
offense just seems that much.

Speaker 3 (35:16):
Greater, and yet no justice can be found.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
We barely make up fourteen percent of the population, we
make up forty one percent of the population on death row.

Speaker 6 (35:27):
And the thing is, in this particular case, we see
something that we hear about happening all the time informant testimony.
According to the Center on Wrongful Convictions, false testimony from
incentivized witnesses is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, with
informant testimony present in forty nine point five percent of

(35:51):
wrongful conviction since the mid seventies. Like that is that
is astronomical, especially the fact that that that that could
even be the case that you could rely on informant
testimony to even give someone the death penalty is beyond
the pail.

Speaker 3 (36:07):
No, their testimony, whereas leverage not.

Speaker 6 (36:09):
Yes, they are incentivized, incentivized informant.

Speaker 1 (36:14):
And according to the Times, his girlfriend at the time
was one of those people.

Speaker 6 (36:18):
She has the record.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
Precisely, but also have.

Speaker 5 (36:22):
Consequence on the other side of their testimony. Right when
you talk about incentivized, just so folks know it is,
it is you have something to gain by saying what
we need you to say against this other person, and
if you don't deliver it that way, you are not
of value and therefore you're gonna be penalized too. And

(36:42):
my whole point around, and I know it's y'alls too,
I believe that the whole point around having diverse juries
is not so that you have somebody who looks like
you and therefore is going to decide in your interest. No,
it's so that you've got somebody that might resemble a
lived experience that you might have, who may see this
thing differently, who may questions that folks who don't have
that same lived experience will never ask. It'll never come

(37:04):
to them because it never occurs to come to them.
It never occurs to ask the question differently, to to
inquire around a set of facts that are different than
what your own lived experience has have been. So we
don't conclude that having black jurors mean that you're going
to get off on something that you've done not at all.
In fact, I think when you have a diverse jury,

(37:26):
it's that you get diverse experiences, diverse perspectives, diverse lived
experiences that see the questions and the answers differently than.

Speaker 3 (37:35):
How they get boilerplate delivered.

Speaker 5 (37:38):
I know it to be true because I've sat on
boards where had we not asked the question, the question
would never have been asked. And oftentimes the question being
asked becomes a difference between what whether something goes forward
or it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
Yeah, well, I just I want to say our thoughts
are with the family of Marcellus Williams, the man who
is arguing, and the many like him, and the many
who are still sitting on death row as we speak,
because according to the reported evidence by the New York

(38:13):
Times and others, it certainly points to doubt. And that
is the whole point of a jury, that you of
a trial, that you are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
People keep saying shadow of a doubt, but legally it
is beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are multiple reasonable
doubts here. Our families also go out to our hearts,

(38:35):
also go out to Leicia Gale who was the victim here,
because at this point I would say, on my own
opinion is that it's quite possible that her killer remains
at large or unpunished. It's been a little somber. We

(38:57):
do have some viewer questions, and Andrew, I know that
you have a topic. So what do you guys think
if we play in the question now and then we'll
answer it on the other side. Okay, so give us
give us a question.

Speaker 10 (39:07):
Nick, Good morning, Native Lampid. The name is Devin from Houston, Texas.
First off, I really love the pod, love the work
you all are doing. Keep up the good work. One
of the questions that I had for you all is
shortly after Vice President Harris became the Democratic nominee, or
even before that, some Republicans came out and fully endorsed

(39:30):
her as their presidential candidate. I feel like that might
cause some split ticket issues down the line, because there
are some down ballot Republicans who still who still fully
support the former president's platform. So, first off, first question
is why isn't more attention being given to those candidates

(39:54):
and highlighting where they might diverge from Vice President Harris's
platform and could potentially put you know, be be ahead
when to her efforts. Second question is is there anything
that can be done from a from a political strategy
standpoint to offset that?

Speaker 1 (40:15):
Thanks, all right, We're going to answer that question on
the other side of this rank.

Speaker 10 (40:28):
M.

Speaker 5 (40:32):
Well, we just heard a question from a viewer before,
right before we took a took a break, and were
appreciative of you, Devin for one year support and listenership
support of the show. And I think where I want
to make sure we get his question clearly, and so
I want to ask y'all because I may be a
little confused. I understand what ballot split sort of split

(40:53):
that ballot voting is, which is where you may choose
a Democrat on one and then flip over and do
a Republican on another race. But the accountability piece that
he's referring to, who does he want us to hold
to account of these Republicans who are running for public
office who are saying that they're with Kamala on one
end to get the benefit of a split ticket voting

(41:16):
or what I could be complicating in some ways that
aren't necessary to what.

Speaker 1 (41:19):
I understood his question. Devin, apologies if I get it wrong.
But what I think he was trying to ask is, first,
just because you're voting for Kamala Harris, you are still
a problem. Not always is the enemy of my enemy
my friend. If you're voting for her because you don't
like Donald Trump, but you're still going to vote down
ballot for Republican senators who are going to do everything

(41:40):
they can to block her agenda, then you are a problem.
And how do we navigate that? And why isn't there
more coverage and discussion around that. That's what I understated
it to me, And I just want to say a
quick example of that could potentially be in Texas, where
you know, Angela Colin Allred is running for Senate in
a really tight race in Texas, and there are Republicans

(42:01):
who have come out and publicly endorsed Congressman Colin Already
format That's who it was. That is who played for
the Tennessee Titans. I knew I read something about somebody.

Speaker 6 (42:12):
Was happening. I never thought about it, thought man, So.

Speaker 1 (42:19):
I'm trying to tell y'all knowing anyway, the Tennessee Titans,
and now he is in Congress and he's running the
unseen Ted Cruise and multiple Democrats, but there have been
some Republicans, uh, to endorse him. There have been some
Democrats to endorse ted Cruise. But that is a perfect example. Yeah, yes, yeah,
that is a mess. Call him, I know, let me

(42:42):
find it, Let me find it, let me find it. Oh,
we come back to it.

Speaker 6 (42:46):
I'm a I'm gonna tap in here while you find that.
I just want to say quickly, I don't I'm not
personally aware. Doesn't mean just like in this instance that
that my personal awareness means that it's not happening. But
I'm not aware of any current sitting Republican elected official
who has endorsed Kamala Harris. I am aware of Trump staffers,

(43:12):
former Trump Cabinet officials, former national security advisors from multiple administrations,
former economic advisors for multiple administrations endorsing the Harris Walls ticket.
That said, it could very well be that those folks
too voter split ticket. It very well could be. I

(43:34):
think that you calling it out in the question and
the way that you just did, and Tiff and andrews
answers are the kinds of things that we should be
doing to calling it out. That's great that you're promoting
and endorsing this particular agenda and platform. You do understand
how politics works, and that does mean that people need
to be and lockstep with them in getting that agenda passed.

(43:56):
I'm already worried because I do know of one Democrat
who's saying that he will not endorse Kamla Heyres. I'll
say Democrat, and that is Joe Manchin, who said that
he can't support her, and she ought to be ashamed
of herself because she wants to throw out the filibuster
to codify Roe. Wow, Joe Manchin, if there was ever
a time to throw out the damned philibuster, you would

(44:17):
think it'd be then. Anyway, Tip, it looks like you found.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
Your Democrat, I mean Joe, but I thought he officially
Party independent.

Speaker 6 (44:26):
I understand that. But as far as I know.

Speaker 3 (44:28):
He's the man.

Speaker 5 (44:30):
The man is a legend in his own mind. He
also contemplated running for president against if y'all remember when
he when when when Joe Biden vacated originally, So, first
of all, there is a sitting Republicans who have endorsed her.
That the Republican John John Giles Arizona is the sitting

(44:52):
mayor a sitting mayor in Arizona who has endorsed her.
But your point is well taken, Angela, which is if
you for Republicans who have thing to potentially lose, like
their elections or re elections, they have not by and
large gone to the record to say that they support
Kamala Harris. I don't want that, by any means to
undermine the bravity of bravery of those who have come out,

(45:17):
including you know, somebody who I detested and really still do,
mister Inron himself, you know, coming forward and throwing his
support but you know, behind her.

Speaker 3 (45:27):
But the truth is is there are going to be
ballot splitters. We've seen that.

Speaker 5 (45:34):
We saw that in Georgia where two Democrats got elected
to the US Senate yet a Republican governor got re
elected to the governorship. We've seen it, frankly, in many
places around the country. And I think the only way
we can extract, I think something from this is to
be as loud and proud as we can by saying

(45:54):
that Donald Trump in and of himself is not the
only problem. He is a problem. He may be at
the apex of the problem, but if he's got a
locked step us Senate behind him, someone who is willing
to carry out mass theft against the American people by
not appointing or confirming democratic appointees by Democratic presidents who
sit in office right now, who put people up for

(46:16):
the courts because they don't believe a Democrat how to
be able to appoint justices or judges to the federal bench.

Speaker 3 (46:22):
That's what's happening right now. Let's be clear about it.

Speaker 11 (46:24):
We have Republicans who are holding hostage, who are acting
in contrary and contradiction of the contra Constitution by staving
off a democratic prejudicibility to appoint the individuals of.

Speaker 3 (46:35):
His choice to offices that he has.

Speaker 5 (46:38):
Total autonomy, with the exception of advising and consent from
the US Senate to a point, he's the only one
who can make those appointments.

Speaker 6 (46:46):
I think.

Speaker 1 (46:46):
But I agree with all that I think his point,
which is one we all echo. It's kind of like
how people are always like big up in the Lincoln project, right,
you know, the wing of never Trumpers who are like,
we don't rock with him, But then when you look,
it's like, yeah, but y'all were part of the problem
that helped him get there. Like y'all are cannibalizing. So

(47:06):
if if this is where we are, like, we're watching
y'all after we get a president Harris right, because I
don't really trust you like we allies for now watching right,
So all these never trumpets, It's like, just remember this
because you all were exactly you were. You supported the
Tea Party, you supported the first Make America Great Again candidate.

(47:27):
We ain't forgot, we know and we ain't no.

Speaker 5 (47:29):
Fools, Tiffany, as you know are the ones who helped
to engineer Bush into office and before him breaking and
so on.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
And Nixon and all of them. I wanted to say,
the Democrat who's supporting Ted Cruz, just so y'all know
in Texas, do the right thing in Texas. Make Texas
purple for crying out loud is kim Ogg. She's the
Democratic district attorney for Harris County. But and this is
according to the New York Times. On the other side
of that, uh, Liz Cheney has endorsed Colin Allred, so

(47:58):
split party. And then when it comes to Joe Manton,
he according to the NBC News this is in May,
uh he said that he is leaving the Democratic Party
and registering as an independent, and that at the time
was raising speculation about whether he may run for another
Senate term or if he's eyeing a run for governor
in the fall. So, anyway, Joe Manton, can I got

(48:22):
a question? I got I got a question for you, Andrew. Andrew,
what since you're dressed like Philip Michael Thomas today, No,
let me let him be geeked O my god, Okay, well,
my computer is running a little right here too, exactly. Anyway,

(48:45):
what do you think because I have some thoughts, but
I know you want to talk about it, But what
do you think about these celebrities.

Speaker 3 (48:54):
Weighing in being asked to weigh in? Being asked Oftentimes?

Speaker 5 (48:59):
It's not that they are They're not necessarily coming to
the table trying to get their opinion political opinions out there,
but are oftentimes asked and Tiff, actually, this really falls
better in your court because you're often one who reminds
us that why is it that the media is going
to the athlete or the actor or actress to talk
about politics one Likewise, they don't do the same oftentimes

(49:22):
with white actors or white athletes or activists asking them
to opine on major political questions. And by the way,
this is to say that actors, actresses and athletes don't
have opinions about these things that that may be well
integedis absolutely they should. But but this all came up obviously,
and we've we visited this on episodes before, but this
all came up in light of Janet Jackson being or

(49:46):
essentially saying that she had heard that Kamala Harris wasn't
wasn't black and maybe her dad was white, and you
know a lot of voices have descended upon her on
that note. I got my own private thoughts about how
I felt about it. But we're at the stage now
where I think it's important to lift this beyond just
being about her and how it is that we treat

(50:07):
celebrity when it comes to engaging in politics and whether
or not should we really be going to them asking
them about their opinion about wars here and there and
candidates here and there that they that's as Whoopy said,
and I think we ought to roll Whoopies comments here.

Speaker 3 (50:24):
This ain't what they do. It's not what they do.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
A superstar.

Speaker 9 (50:28):
Jenn Jackson just did a wide ranging interview with British
newspaper The Guardian, but most of the focus is on
when she was asked her thoughts on VP Kamala Harris
possibly become the first black female president she said. She
answered by saying that she had heard that Harris's father

(50:48):
was white, which we all know is false. Janet Jackson
is not a political animal. She does She's a musician.
Her life is doing this, and she's warning her brother.
Sometimes I've said stuff and you know I was wrong.
We all do it, so okay, a little grace for.

Speaker 5 (51:08):
The girl, and y'all, I mean, I think we should
take those comments, you know, in the heart that they
are intended, but also to ask the question of whether
or not we ought to be holding celebrities to the
same standards that we might hold other politicians or public leaders,
public figures when it comes to, frankly, talking about things

(51:28):
that are not in their bellywick that are not frankly,
the things that they get up and look at the
news and follow and so on and so forth, like
we might. And moreover, if they can be infected with
missus information, who will we to blame regular citizen Joe
who starts, you know, retorting comments that sound ape shit
crazy because they're being directly filtered toward them so that

(51:51):
they can repeat it. I'm curious if y'all think this
is a double standard. No standard should be.

Speaker 1 (52:01):
I just want to be clear because I definitely don't
want anyone to mistake any of the three of us.
I don't want you all to think any of us
are saying, to Andrew's point that they don't have a
right to speak. Like you are a tax paying citizen.
You have every right to use your platform how you
want to do it, and if you choose to weigh
in on politics, great, you know, do it. I do
think when you have large platforms, there comes with it

(52:25):
a responsibility to be somewhat informed, somewhat well read on
the subject you're talking about. When it falls short of that,
I do think it's irresponsible to come out there and
say something that's demonstrably false or googleably false. I think
we have to share responsibly. I don't think it's responsible
to share conspiracy theories or say things you know. And
just a reminder to celebrities, like shutting up is free,

(52:47):
Like you don't even have to weigh in on if
somebody asks you a question you don't know, it's probably
best to just say, you know, I don't really know
about things like that, so almost keep quiet.

Speaker 6 (52:56):
Now.

Speaker 1 (52:57):
I want to say when we look at some of
the celebrity engagement here, to me, the responsibility does fall
to the media. A large following does not a political
operative make Okay. I do not want to hear from
people like it is ridiculous to me, and Angela knows.

(53:19):
I go off on this all the time. You will
see people on these news platforms, okay, on a news show,
and they are chirned as strategists. And I want y'all
to start googling some of these people and tell me
what campaign they ever strategized on. They are not strategists.
If they work for some who gives a crap election
twenty years ago for the school board that counts, it

(53:42):
does not make you a Democratic strategist or a Republican
strategist for that matter. Talking on television is not a job,
you know. It is in conjunction with none of us
ever just popped up out here like a fetus, and
oh here we are. We have opinions. We all had
decades of work that led to an informed opinion, informed thought,

(54:03):
informed work.

Speaker 5 (54:05):
I'm sorry I'll just complicated, because don't We often go
after political you know, celebrities to weigh in, Hey will
you endorse?

Speaker 3 (54:12):
Will you do this?

Speaker 1 (54:13):
We don't. But there are some people, Well you're saying, yes,
I do not, We don't. Your campaign may have camp
but as campaigns yes, As a journalist, no, I don't care.
And even when I did do, anytime I worked on campaign,
it was from a comm's perspective. I what the data
shows is it really does not matter when celebrities endorse
or not. That does not if there's not any proof more.

(54:39):
But if you're not a national campaign, yes, it can
bring national attention. What matters more than a celebrity endorsement
are those local community validators. That's what matters. And I
also think it's a difference between a campaign going after
a celebrity then it is a news outlet platforming a
celebrity and presenting propping them up like they have any

(54:59):
idea what the hell they're talking about. You can ask
them about their platform, you can ask them about their show.
You can ask them how they built it. You can
ask them what are you hearing from people who who
follow you, who watch you, who like you? Asking them
what does the party need to do for these things.
I just think that's a disservice to the audience and
it helps to dumb down the American electorate. But Angela,
it sounds like you might disagree.

Speaker 6 (55:18):
I just I feel very conflicted here for a number
of reasons. I think, first, I just want to point
out I'm not going to whoopyes thing, because I think
that that's of no consequence here. I think what I
really want to tap into is what the article was about.
So Janet Jackson was getting profiled in The Guardian. The
name of the piece is I shouldn't have listened to

(55:39):
those around me Janet Jackson on Michael motherhood and how
she's taking back control. When you read that headline, you
do not, and really the entire article, you do not
expect that Janet Jackson is going to somehow be used
in a Donald Trump ad misinformation for why Kamala Harris
is not a black woman. The journalist even says in

(56:00):
this piece, and I'm doing this because there are a
lot of people who are seeing that one quote, but
it's completely out of context. Out of context or not,
she is wrong. That is true. So it is on
that record she's saying about joining voices in protests to
social injustice and pushing toward a world rid of color lines.
I wonder where she stands on the forthcoming election, after all,
I say, America could be on the verge of voting

(56:21):
in its first black female president, Kamala Harris. That's when
Jana Jackson Pop said, well, well, you know what, I heard
what they said. I haven't watched the news in a
few days. All of that, She's not really being propped
up as a political strategist here, or as someone who
should be speaking, you know, for democracy and protecting it.
As someone who no longer even lives here. She's being
asked in the historical nature of this, just as so

(56:43):
many other people did when we saw every single magazine
covering Barack Obama, every single you know, rapper, rock star,
country music artist, Bruce Springsteen, whomever, talking about the importance
of Barack Obama's election in two thousand and eight. Right,
those things were all welcome.

Speaker 5 (57:01):
Then.

Speaker 6 (57:01):
They were welcomed by magazines who sold more because they
were included. They were welcomed certainly by Barack Obama's campaign,
which I would argue was the first time in a
presidential where they had a full on surrogate operation because
of how important celebrity voices were in that context. That said,
I think it is just as critical to know. If

(57:23):
we know that celebrity voices could be influential as Taylor
Swift's endorsement was the night of the debate, literally changing
the news cycle, then we also know that they could
be equally harmful, and they should be held to account
for the things they do that are harmful. I have
not liked the very personal attacks that have been lobbed
against her for saying something ignorant, right, And I understand,

(57:47):
like people can joke about it and all of that,
but you're not shaming her into truth. You're getting her
to be more cocooned in the more cocluon than she
already was, which who even knew that was possible. I
think that jan Jackson should be made to apologize for
the misinformation. It sounds like she's not. It sounds like
she's doubling down in it when you look at her

(58:08):
manager brother's Instagram account. There's no wonder why I'll let
you guys go do that for yourselves. But it is
remarkably frustrating because on one hand, we'll say, these people
really do matter, and on the other hand we'll be like, well,
who are they? They don't know nothing. It's like we
got to kind of find a place, And I think
I would argue the place is they do matter, and
if they don't know anything, it is the obligation of

(58:30):
those who would teach us about sports, who would teach
us about entertainment, who when we leave our or distance
ourselves a little more from our normal strategy jobs and
go into TV and media and into speeches and into
you know, influencer deals or endorsement deals. Those say, people
who coach us up on those things, we need to
be coaching them up about how politics works in facts

(58:51):
when they come into play. That's my WoT.

Speaker 2 (58:56):
For me.

Speaker 5 (58:56):
The context of why she did the interview was not
important to me because at the point that she decided
she was going to contradict the asker of the question,
the journalists and saying how will you feel about the
first black woman president, and her interjecting a set of facts,
not real facts, a set of information that was not
introduced through the question by saying oh, no, no, no,

(59:18):
I heard that that that she ain't that That's when
it turns for me because you're not responding to the
question that was asked of you, which is by a journalist,
how do you feel about the first black woman president?
You've now said, oh no, no, let me give you news.
They say she not black. So then it's like now
we're now we're trifling into what is the irresponsible? But

(59:40):
the reason why I tried to lift it to you know,
sort of what the what the the power is of
misinformation that if you can be Janet Jackson believably by
most of us, to be surrounded by handlers, people who
shuffle and maybe publicists who keep her, you know, to
date on things that that if you can be, in
fact to buy misinformation, what guard do what safeguards exist

(01:00:04):
for the average citizen as to what they are?

Speaker 3 (01:00:07):
You know, what standard we then treat them to.

Speaker 5 (01:00:09):
And the truth is I think about average since I
mean one, the woman has been vice president for almost
four years. She's not a new entity onto the onto
the onto the stage.

Speaker 6 (01:00:19):
But some people I think it is a point.

Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
Of privilege for years in the public space.

Speaker 6 (01:00:24):
But it hasn't been that sure, Andrew, But it hasn't
been that public. We have to acknowledge the fact that
as much work as Kamala Harris has done, there was
not a lot of coverage of her until.

Speaker 3 (01:00:35):
I agree that.

Speaker 6 (01:00:36):
That's all I'm saying. So we're expecting people to go
and dig I think that's a point of privilege we
have because of our connection to this work.

Speaker 5 (01:00:43):
I am not saying I don't expect people to introduce
facts that are not fast.

Speaker 6 (01:00:47):
Do that because they consistently do it, And I do expect,
maybe this is where I have too many high hopes
over media. I expect that the moment somebody says something
like this, you see it going off the rails, that's
not the point of the piece, Like why are you
the print? Why print that?

Speaker 3 (01:01:05):
Well, but that is suggested. No, but this is the.

Speaker 6 (01:01:08):
Same publication that is like, oh there's rampant misinformation. There's
rampid misinformation. If you go and then publish it, you
know that's the piece that's gonna be clipped in the SoundBite.
You're now feeding the very monster that you rail against
that you raised money for The Guardian. And I'm not
saying I'm not pointing blame at one person or one entity.
Janet Jackson is at fault Randy Jackson is at fault.

(01:01:30):
The people questioning her blackness are at fault. The Guardian
for printing it, I think are at fault. They did
not need the traffic in this they did.

Speaker 1 (01:01:38):
So that is where I would say, like, that's the
hard thing I think with newsrooms, because it's all, you know, subjective.

Speaker 6 (01:01:44):
Sure, you know, like you.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
Can't write like you you saying that you should not
have run it. You know, other people can say, well, no,
that's newsworthy. She said something, I'm kind of with you, Angela, Like,
I don't know that I would have if I were
the reporter in that case, I've probably would not have
run it. I don't know that I would fault somebody
else for making a different choice. But I personally and professionally,

(01:02:06):
I think that was irresponsible, especially when you could correct
her and keep.

Speaker 6 (01:02:11):
Credit to the journalists credit. She did try to correct her,
and then they and it looks like there was a
back and forth for some times she printed.

Speaker 1 (01:02:18):
I'm saying, correct her and not run it, you know, yeah,
but I would say, right, I get it, and and
viewers and readers and all that matters. But the difference
in because Angela, you were talking about oh, well, Obama
came and you know, people were weighing in on that.
That is very different for what I'm talking about. When
I say, yeah, I would, I would think if I
were a reporter covering entertainment. Yes, I want to ask,

(01:02:39):
you're a woman, how does it feel to see, you know,
a woman, a sense of this? What are your thoughts?
You're a black person, how does it feel to see this?
You can ask questions like that. To me, the problem
comes when you say, what does the Democratic Party need
to be doing when it comes to reaching a broader
coalition of voters? Taylor Swift, Wayne, what are your thoughts
on that? Why are we ever asking Taylor Swift about that?

(01:02:59):
Is not her area of expertise. That is a problem.
The thing is they would not ask Taylors with that.
They only do that when it comes to black folks.
They disproportionately do that when it comes to black folks.
They don't know the difference between and Isabella or Wilkinson
and a Janet Jackson. To be honest, they think, oh,
it's all the same thing. And I think that is
not only disrespectful, it is irrespond to hear that point

(01:03:21):
that these people don't have a right to weigh in,
but it's irresponding for the media to elevate that.

Speaker 6 (01:03:26):
I hear that point, Tiff and Andrew, I want you
to jump in. I just have one little thing, and
I would say this here too. For Andrew's campaign, one
of the things that I thought was really important was
that we got a firm that had run ads and
run successful corporate campaigns to give Andrew a different type
of appeal, because we know that there are certain products

(01:03:48):
that do better at appealing to broad swaths of audiences.
So that was not a typical political firm, and so
we're asking them, Hey, what do you think we can
do to ensure broad appeal of this candidate and present
him differently. I think there's no difference in asking someone
with expertise in entertainment, whether they've cut ads or movies,

(01:04:10):
if they do trailers or whatever, how can we present
this information in a different way. We shouted out Gary
Chambers on this program for presenting a political ad in
a different way, and I think when we get those
other voices, it's to add perspective, not because they've had
fifty years of expertise in the political space.

Speaker 1 (01:04:28):
Like James you understand the difference. You're talking about a campaign,
I'm talking about it.

Speaker 6 (01:04:32):
What I guess. If the newsroom is asking a question
because they're curious about how a candidate could break through,
I'm still not even faulting them for that. Now if
they use that to say, oh, well, Mike Tyson said
that this is everything. Sometimes I'm trying to acknowledge that's
the point of and you're inside your point that I

(01:04:54):
agree with. I am saying there's still spaciousness for allowing
diverse voices to say say, these are some places where
what that I know could work if they use them
on me, or if they took this approach, or if
they took this approach for this zip code where I'm from.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that for diverse opinions.

Speaker 1 (01:05:13):
But if they I think there are there's an embarrassment
of riches of people who actually do that work, who
are experts. I don't understand.

Speaker 5 (01:05:20):
I get you, I get your point, Tiff, and I
buy a lawge degree. I will say, I am never
going to expect a newsroom to do the editing when
they can quite as easily go out and ask anybody
they want who they think might be a newsmaker that
might give them a bigger break, that might make their
story that much bigger. I don't expect that they're ever

(01:05:41):
going to turn away from that person, should they be
willing to answer the question and put it out there,
and especially if their answer creates a whole new conversation
in and of itself. And that's what happened here. This
was not a gotcha question to jan Jackson. This was
not a you've got.

Speaker 3 (01:05:57):
Well cinched in politics to know one way or another.

Speaker 12 (01:06:01):
This was like.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
And this is one of the problems.

Speaker 5 (01:06:06):
This is where identify the problem for her, which is
she tried to having not watch news in the past
couple of days, to introduce some facts a couple no
no for her, I mean introduced information. You're right, You're
absolutely right, Angela. She attempted to introduce information that she

(01:06:27):
thought was new and different than what the report of.

Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
Herself was asking.

Speaker 5 (01:06:31):
And so when she took that liberty, when she took
that liberty, she opened up.

Speaker 3 (01:06:36):
A different can.

Speaker 5 (01:06:37):
And that's why you know again, I think everybody is
everybody can make mistakes. But I'll tell you this much,
these artists know how to stay out of trouble. They
spent a lifetime staying out of trouble, and so you
walk headfirst into it or trying to at least make
at least cover over it, at least when.

Speaker 3 (01:06:56):
We should take a break. Actually, you know what, I'll
take us to the break.

Speaker 5 (01:07:00):
I'm going to finish my point, which is simply to
say my point is now done, and we can go
to a break. But it seems like a break is
only possible when I'm in the middle of saying.

Speaker 8 (01:07:09):
And.

Speaker 1 (01:07:12):
Take a break. Take up your point on the other side, Andrew.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Speaker 5 (01:07:24):
Welcome, Welcome back, everybody. We are coming to the end
of the episode that I thought end did.

Speaker 3 (01:07:35):
We're going to do it doing this today, and we're
going to start. We're going to start the end by
listening to one more of your question.

Speaker 12 (01:07:44):
Hi, everyone is as deeply. I grew up in Central Ohio.
Now I live in Dallas, Texas, and I wanted to
ask if y'all had been watching Fight Night on Hulu.
It's a show about Atlanta in the sixties and kind.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
Of wearing getting all.

Speaker 12 (01:08:03):
What the show is called Black Vegas as a really
awesome mostly black cast and I was wondering if you
guys you know, had seen it, where your thoughts are
and what you may think it's irrelevance could be in
pop culture in terms of just seeing black stories told
in a more mainstream way. Thanks for listening and chatting.

(01:08:23):
And I also want to shout out a great little
small business. This is Christy Rice. She's got these great
shoes shirts that say wear your shoes ladies. There's a
glass everywhere. Highly recommend, but thanks.

Speaker 1 (01:08:35):
We want one. We wanted t shirts.

Speaker 6 (01:08:37):
Also, Will Back, we're running some money because I don't
know why you got this girl to sending this question
in the show, like you didn't have to pay for advertising.

Speaker 1 (01:08:45):
You know who else is aby on that iHeart?

Speaker 6 (01:08:47):
But some money to Andrew. This is a great pot
to talk about misinformation because that show is on Peacock.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
And I would say, I've been watching this show. It
is so good. I talked to y'all about it when
I was on the Vineyard and we did a Q
and A with the cast. It is really good. And
it started out as a podcast on iHeart. Will Packer
is the executive producer on it along with Will here.
Will iHeart is also an executive producer on it. But

(01:09:19):
it's really have you all been watching?

Speaker 6 (01:09:21):
I need to start. I need to start.

Speaker 1 (01:09:23):
Okay, you have time because there I thought I was
gonna be able to binge the whole thing, and then
I got to the last episode and new episodes are
dropped every week, so I didn't. I thought I was
gonna be able to watch it in one sitting, but
it's like five episodes in now. New episodes dropped every Thursday.
Absince found out. But it is really good. It's funny.
Taraji Henson is amazing, Kevin Hart is amazing, Terrence Howard,

(01:09:43):
Sam Jackson, h Chloe from from Chloe and Bailey. It's
really good, and it's basically about this heist Kelly, Sorry, sorry,
moving fast, I just wear okay, thank you. That's so bad.
But it's basically some dudes planned to rob a party

(01:10:03):
the night Muhammed Ali was fighting in Atlanta. That is
where the story begins. And it is really good. But
that is a free ass commercial for Andrew Fellow.

Speaker 6 (01:10:14):
You a slick will packer.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
We love you will, We love you know you, said
Angela up during the DNC. We loved y'all up too.
There are supposed to be your surprise. He did. I know,
I'm mad about it. I wanted my surprise anyway. That
was because people, you know, people were asking who was
the surprise. Angela never said it was Will Packer. He
was well, and he came like five seconds after we
got off.

Speaker 6 (01:10:35):
Five minutes too late.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
Yes, about five minutes, five minutes, that's true. All right,
what should we talk about before we get to CCA's
what we talk about on the mini pot. Oh wow,
finally Andrew's on top. I know Andrew, y'all. Andrew got
an attitude right now? What you want to talk about?

Speaker 5 (01:10:56):
Andrew out of his preparation for category three hurricane hitting
you directly.

Speaker 6 (01:11:05):
We should have you have a lot, right, he should
have an attitude. He's trying to just say his family.
He's got got a Superman shirt underneath this tight white button.

Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
No, well we can't tell because it's but.

Speaker 3 (01:11:19):
You'll never see it again.

Speaker 1 (01:11:22):
Okay, I tested campaign finance. I'd be up for that
against you know. Okay, all right, skip it. We're not
gonna do that. I mean, maybe like that one that
you said, Angela, it was, oh you were talking about
we didn't really quite flush it out, but it was
like one of our more like.

Speaker 6 (01:11:40):
Spirits we need we need Jesus today too.

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
Yes, you walked us through one. It was do you remember, Andrew?

Speaker 6 (01:11:47):
Oh, I know, I know what it was. It was about.
We had this conversation. I think often, like the three
of us, we are all the responsible ones in our family,
shade anybody else in the family. But in doing that, Oh,
Andrew's on a mission today, y'all. He is burning as
he goes. He's just burning it all down. But you know,

(01:12:10):
there's this idea that when you do carry that, that
you have a lot to fix. You know, you're constantly fixing,
You're constantly problem solving, You're constantly doing. And Tiff was like,
have you ever asked people, oh, you know, if they
want your help, if they want to just vent, or
how they want you to engage? And I'm like, no, bish,

(01:12:31):
when I hear a problem, I'm jumping. It happened this morning.
I won't even say what it was, but happened this morning.
I was off to the races and nobody'd ask for
my help. And so I think there is something there
for us in surrender, in control. You're just talking about
miss Jackson. If you're nasty in learning how to show

(01:12:53):
up and where the trauma might be in people not
maybe showing up for us, and so we're trying to
always talk about it. Okay, maybe I like that as
a mini but.

Speaker 3 (01:13:03):
I can rock with it.

Speaker 1 (01:13:04):
Okay, Andrew, you're going.

Speaker 6 (01:13:05):
To start as soon as you many can only take
breaks when you're talking. You're gonna start stop telling that
we all ignoreak serious, Okay? Sometimes this ship fil a buster.
You have made your point, and you were making a

(01:13:27):
second or a third or ninth point, and we just
got to go to break.

Speaker 1 (01:13:32):
They literally putting up a science say let's go to break.

Speaker 3 (01:13:34):
Let's let's break. Now it's okay.

Speaker 6 (01:13:37):
Can I just say break? You break your glasses for
our viewers.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Our mini pods drop every Monday, so please tune into
this mini pod because it's not going to be totally political,
even though I do think there's a political element to it.
So I love this topic and I'm looking forward to talk.

Speaker 6 (01:13:55):
Andrew's going to start case he doesn't think that he
gets to talk about how and.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
Why don't you start us off with your CTA.

Speaker 6 (01:14:02):
Yeah, start us off, Andrew, Please, I.

Speaker 3 (01:14:04):
Like one plan.

Speaker 5 (01:14:05):
If you're in Florida and any of the forty or
sold states. I hope you are making preparation. This is Thursday.
Impacts expected today and uh be safe. Everybody be safe.
I like you.

Speaker 6 (01:14:18):
Mine is to please look up the names of other
people who are similarly situated to Marcellus Williams TIFFs, tears,
Andrew's tears, our heart Regie moments today should not be
in vain. We should remember the names of these folks,
and we should motivate and work to support them long

(01:14:39):
before we're requesting a stay of execution. What is our
responsibility to these folks who are on death row and
should not be We shouldn't. I don't think we should
even have death row, which is probably.

Speaker 3 (01:14:49):
Another mini pod but chet project.

Speaker 6 (01:14:52):
Oh yes, thank you AG. That's such a good shout
and shout out to Barry Sheck. We love you, Barry.

Speaker 1 (01:14:57):
Yes, Barry Shack. And can we thumbtact that because I
like the death row, so I think we should. Nick,
if you're listening, make a note. We want to add definity.
I'll be quick with mine. My CTA is President Fay.
He is the youngest elected leader in Africa. He is

(01:15:19):
the newly elected president of Senegal, and I was reading
a profile on him. He hasn't done a lot of
Western media, but I was reading a profile on him
and he said something which I thought was really interesting,
and that is, by twenty fifty, Africa's population will likely
be nearly two point five billion, which will account for
an estimated one of every four people on the planet.

(01:15:41):
I just think that's a we are the global majority.
I just think that is a really fascinating statistic. But
he also said something else about just the world on
how they deal with Africa, and he made the point
that Africa is hardly responsible for climate change, yet when
emissions from the developed world causes polar ice caps to
mel the repercussions are felt on our shores. And he

(01:16:03):
railed against the injustice of rich nations continuing to use
coal while refusing the finance fossil fuel projects and developing
countries on the continent. So I just, honestly, I saw
him and thought he was fine, and I read the
profile and I learned all this stuff and was like, wow,
he's forty four, which makes him he is in my
age range of dating if I.

Speaker 6 (01:16:24):
Don't know if he wants at the NB anyway, And
This is what you call a shade field plug. There's
not a shameless plug about this moment. This is shame.
I just thrown herself to an African president on the rescue.

Speaker 3 (01:16:42):
Today. Welcome, What are the takes? How many days did
the election?

Speaker 1 (01:16:46):
I think it's forty one days to the election.

Speaker 6 (01:16:51):
Yeah, it's forty by the time the.

Speaker 1 (01:16:52):
Party a forty days to election. Forty days.

Speaker 6 (01:16:57):
A welcome night in a lifetime before Tip throws herself
at the mercy of another big guy.

Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
Welcome, y'all.

Speaker 3 (01:17:05):
Welcome.

Speaker 13 (01:17:08):
Thank you for joining the Natives attention of with the
info and all of the latest regulum and cross connected
to the statements that you leave on our socials. Thank
you sincerely for the patients reason for your choice is clear.

Speaker 5 (01:17:20):
So grateful it took the execute roles.

Speaker 13 (01:17:23):
Thank you for serve, defend and protect the truth even
in case.

Speaker 3 (01:17:26):
We welcome home to all of the Natives. We thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:17:30):
Welcome, y'all, Welcome.

Speaker 1 (01:17:41):
Native Land Pod is the production of iHeartRadio in partnership
with Reason Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeart Radio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Hosts And Creators

Tiffany Cross

Andrew Gillum

Angela Rye

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season

Crime Junkie

.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;}Poor Brett Favre?!