July 3, 2024 • 56 mins
It’s been an eventful week, y’all!
IMMUNE. That’s what the Supreme Court said is the case for any “official” act taken by a sitting US President. Boy are they tearing this country up.
To quote the dissenting opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, “Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune… In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.” Justice Soto, we join your dissent!
The hosts Tiffany Cross, Angela Rye, and Andrew Gillum dive into what this crisis of a ruling really means for the rest of us.
In what is undeniably a difficult political moment, we want to provide y’all some ways to take action. Don’t become despondent!! Support your local candidates and bolster Democratic forces near you AT THIS LINK.
And of course we’ll hear from you, our #NLPFam. We are 127 number days away from the election. Welcome home y’all!
—---------
We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast.
Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on Youtube.
Thank you to the Native Land Pod team:
Angela Rye as host, executive producer and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Tiffany Cross as host and producer, Andrew Gillum as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; Loren Mychael is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media.
Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Native Lamp Pod is a re production of iHeartRadio in
partnership with Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, who Welcome home to the Native
landing on the podcast face that's a for greatness sixteen minutes.
It's so hit, not too long for the great ship,
high level combo politics in a way that you could
taste it then digest it. Politics touches you even if you.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Don't touch it.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
So get invested across the t's and doctor Odds kill
them back to get them staying on business with Rie.
You could have been anywhere, but you chose us Native
Land Podcast, the brand that you can trust us.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Welcome Home you guys is episode twenty sixth of Native Lamppod.
I am your host, Tiffany Cross. So here's my co
host Andrew Gillum and Angela Rai and right here we
give it to you like that crown.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Wow, straight, no chaser. What's going on you guys.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
It's been a billion rady some milk.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
All the changes, the difficulties we had a so just
so y'all know we've had a lot of technical little
difficulties today Getting it.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
Ain't nothing but the devil.
Speaker 5 (01:07):
I mean it can be, but he not over here.
I think the devil don't want us to get this
truth to all today.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
But we shall be moved. That's gotta be what it is.
That's gotta be what it.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Well, we better get into it before before something else happened.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
We didn't have audio issues, video issues.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
So but we still standing, y'all, We still stand.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
But we get up.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
All right, Nick, we fell down. Gonna get us on
up and drop that beat, all right, you guys. So
we have a lot to get into. First of all,
I know y'all wanted to hear from us after the debate,
but this is our recording schedule. We dropped the day
that debate happened, and so unfortunately you did not get
(01:56):
to hear from us. But we're gonna get into the
fallout from that, which I think is way more important
on this episode. So Angela, I know because we were
in group chats and talking about it, this Trump Community case.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
Yes, here's the thing.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
We all knew that this was going to be one
of these things that was going to happen. But that's
what happens when you have insurrectionists on the Supreme Court.
So we will talk about the Supreme court ruling, the
opinion that was just brought down yesterday. We're recording a
day early this week, and we will talk about my
favorite part as well, the dissenters, because sometimes it's the
(02:33):
dissenters who preserve.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
The union, so we'll talk about that.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
I'm looking forward to get into this discussion, although I'm
not excited about what the ruling was at all.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
No, no, what you bring up, yeah, I mean, and
follow up to this course ruling, I think the stakes
of this presidential US and it congressional. You list the
offices and we can talk about its importance. I believe
they shifted and I love to sort of get into
Yes there was the debate, Yes there was the poor performance,
(03:02):
but yes, there is a presidential election at stake, and
the six couldn't be much higher. We'll get into that,
all right.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Before we get into the show, I'm gonna throw it
back because I got to disappoint you guys. There are
no sports in the show this week. So I got
three throwbacks for you that are all sports. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
it's good. So July sixth, nineteen fifty seven, ALTHEA. Gibson
became the first black woman to win Wimbledon. July fifth,
nineteen seventy five, Arthur Ash became the first black man
(03:31):
to win with Wimbledon, and July six, two thousand and two,
Serena Williams defeated Venus to win her first Wimbledon singles title.
I haven't given you all my tennis knowledge, so there
you go.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
I appreciate that. That's our little shot, you know.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
I just want to bring the people to sports, because everybody,
no matter how you feel about anything, everybody like sports, like.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Me, any who.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
I wanted to get into that too, because now we
must depress you with a mayor to the beautiful America
to ghetto.
Speaker 6 (04:07):
Hello Andrew, Hello Tiffany, and hello Angelum. My name is
Jason Bowman. I am from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Love Native Land podcast,
and I'm hoping that you guys can answer my question
because I'm sure, like most Americans, we are confused over
the Supreme Court ruling in regards to January sixth insurrection.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
So here goes.
Speaker 6 (04:27):
So I'm confused because I would love to know what
exactly does the Supreme Court mean? Do they mean that
Donald Trump has immunity over his behavior that basically excited
the riot? To happen on January sixth. Does this mean
that he was on official president duty while sitting in
lame duck status? Does this mean that he's immune from
(04:48):
all charges? What exactly does this mean? And from my understanding,
I assume that when the president was taking office that
they were under oath to protect the constitution. Everything that
he did on January sixth did not protect the constitution.
So I'm just confused. What message does this send to
future presidents of this nation.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Apparently the Supreme Court is still bon and so, and
apparently Justice Clarence Thomas is still dropping it like it's
hot and the bar couldn't be lower. So we have
the Supreme Court which talked about Donald Trump having immunity.
We have absolute immunity, which was on the table, and
(05:33):
presumptive immunity, which was on the table before this particular ruling.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
This court is John Roberts.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Justice Roberts starts this decision saying that they've never had
to consider criminal immunity for a president before, and that's
what was at stake in this particular case. The most
critical line in the opinion is this, this case is
the first criminal prosecution in our nation's history. Of a
former president for actions taken during his presidency.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Now, you would think with.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
The line like that that they are going to side
with morality, that they are going to side with a
president having to be above reproach, kind of like a
bishop in the Bible. Right, That's not what happens here.
They instead say that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. Great, right,
you meet us.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Where we are. There's no immunity for our.
Speaker 5 (06:26):
Official or unofficial acts, but that there is absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Preclusive constitutional authority. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from
prosecution for all his official acts. That's a lot of
word salad, but here's the bottom line. Donald Trump, if
he takes any number of actions, is not going to
be criminally prosecuted, should not be as the office of
the president. And many of you have asked, well, this
(07:01):
applies to Donald Trump, how's it?
Speaker 4 (07:02):
How does it apply to Joe Biden.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
I just want to give you this one, this one
observation Joe Biden was being uh, they were considering trying
Joe Biden for a violation of how of handling classified
documents that particular case. In that particular case, Special Prosecutor
Richard Hurst says he's too old to be to be
(07:26):
to be tried on this matter. There should be no
criminal liability. Well, now under this case doctrine, he couldn't
be because he's the president and while it was while
he was officially in office.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Maybe they could argue because he was a.
Speaker 5 (07:41):
Vice president at the time right that that he didn't
do anything that he could actually be liable. It is
interesting to see how this uh philosophy will be will
come to pass with other officials in a president's cabinet.
But the thing that's most interesting to me at this point, y'all,
and we can get it more into the weasis, but
I want to say, have a conversation, not just a lecture,
(08:02):
but the thing that I think is interesting about this
particular case as well is Donald Trump. And this is
what we've been talking about on this podcast, kind of
litigating on this podcast. Is Donald Trump using this immunity
to say, therefore I should not be convicted or sentenced
(08:24):
on these other counts. As we know, there are eighty
eight indictments against against Donald Trump. Eighty eight counts thirty
four he was found guilty of in a New York court.
He used this case from yesterday, this holding in this case,
and said I should not be criminally prosecuted. I should
have never been convicted and I certainly shouldn't be sentenced
in this New York case because this should apply even
(08:46):
in state.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
In state matters.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
Well, the verdict of the sentencing is now postponed by
two weeks. We are supposed to get lucky on seven
to eleven, not anymore. And now he's saying that this
should apply. Here's the problem. Donald Trump was not a
sitting president when this happened. Donald Trump was running for office.
That is not an official act. So I'm interested to
see what this judge does. It makes me nervous that
(09:10):
he's postponed this. But I want y'all to weigh in
because it's a lot of things that I want and
I want to get into some of the what IF's
and ask y'all my pole questions because you know, y'all,
y'all know we are poland firm.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Now, well, one, thank you for helping to break that
down for us Angela. And on the last point, with
regard to the New York case, he did sign a
number of the checks while in the White House, and
apparently in the in the trial there uh, there was
(09:38):
evidence allowed to be viewed by the jury of public statements,
public tweets that were administered by the President from the
White House. And it is now their contention that because
that now protected and privileged information was allowed to be
(09:59):
shown to the jury, and some might say, possibly reasonably
calculated in their in their verdict, that the entire verdict,
all thirty four counts ought to be vacated. In fact,
the first chilling effect that occurred yesterday was the US
Department of Justice in New York was supposed to submit
(10:21):
their recommendations to the judge privately to the judge around
around what he should be facing visa vs. Sentencing. They
did not submit that document to the judges. New York
States Attorney Yeah, yeah, no, Well, the United States Department
of Justice Southern District was supposed to submit recommendations. I'm sorry,
(10:43):
you're right, I apologize. Angelo's Alvin brageah, And they did
not submit those recommendations to the judge yesterday when they
were due. Then, as a result, the Alvin Bragg's office
that we would be in favor of delaying the sentencing
by two weeks, and the judge, of course has complied.
(11:04):
But Angela one of the shocking decision in the sense
that not only did they get it is because it
is one thing to give Donald Trump what he asked for.
They went way above and beyond the simple parameters of
what Donald Trump asked for. In fact, in one of
the extreme ways, while they said of president, a former
(11:25):
president can be prosecuted for actions he's taken that are
of a personal nature. It precludes being shown as submitted
as evidence any discussions, conversations planning, his method his thinking
of those actions taken while he was president. They preclude
a jury from being able to have access to any
(11:47):
of that information for fear that it may chill the
bold actions of a president from doing, saying and acting
as a bold president should. It confused me because there
was never, ever, ever an argument that presidents are not
bold and haven't been bold prior to Donald Trump because
of fear of prosecution. That's never I've never heard that before.
(12:09):
In fact, we've seen very activists and strong demonstrations of
individuals in the presidency. In fact, the court said that
the reason why we have to go so far to
protect this president and give him immunity so that this decision,
which is for the ages, doesn't cause us to have
presidents who are trepidacious about making the kinds of decisions
(12:32):
that they must make while in office. But that assumption,
that statement by the Chief Justice assumes that presidents prior
to Donald Trump, but we're under the suspension that they
could never be prosecuted, and that can't be right. Let's
just look at the case of Lyndon B. Johnson and Ford.
Why would Ford have pardoned I'm sorry, why would Ford
have parted Nixon if I didn't But but but why
(12:59):
would he is to pardon to Nixon if there was
not a reasonable fear that a president could be prosecuted
for actions that they took in office?
Speaker 5 (13:06):
Of course, and I think when I was even pushing
back and tip, I love for you to weigh in here,
when I was pushing back on that, it was shocking.
I think that there was a part of us that
kind of knew this was going to happen.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
We saw just based on what this Supreme.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Court is ruling around reproductive justice, what they've ruled around homelessness,
what they ruled in Chevron, what they ruled around assault weapons.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
I mean, we can't keep going. I don't know that
we were really shocked.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
And then of course January sixth itself just last week,
So I don't know that we were super shocked because
of the makeup of this court, not because this is
what this court would do. So Tip, I want you
to weigh in here, and then I have some you know,
I got some focused group questions for you.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Well, I have to say, like, it's so frustrating when
I have consumed some of the media around this, in
both print and broadcast, because I do think people are
so into the weeds that for people out there who wonder, like,
why do I care about this, this seems like, you know,
a thousand miles away from me, this is why you
should care. Essentially, the court, there is no appeal. The
(14:10):
Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, and
they have essentially given the office of the president free
reign to do whatever they like. So Donald Trump, were
he to win another election, could have a political rival assassinated.
Donald Trump, were he to win reelection, could use that
(14:32):
office to enrich his pockets, which he did the first term.
I believe Jared and Ivanka made eighty million dollars the
first year he was in office, and it continued to grow.
Let's not forget that this is a man who had
Kislyak Russian operative in the Oval office. What would stop him?
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Now?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
One thing that the one of the attorneys argued, who
was arguing on Donald Trump's behalf a question that he posed,
which I thought was legitimate. If we are going to
allow presidents to be prosecuted, Let's say a president has
to make the call to have a foreign adversary taken out.
Could he then later be subject subjected to criminal charges?
(15:13):
And I thought, well, you know that is a legitimate question.
Now that they've essentially said you can do whatever you
want in office, that should give everyone chills because imagine
what an unhinged, uh politically inept person whose first job
in government was president of the United States. Imagine what
(15:34):
he might do or the second term, well, second term.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
No, one second.
Speaker 5 (15:43):
I was just going to say one second on this,
I want to roll Katanji Brown Jackson's sound from when
they heard the oral arguments in April, because she raises
some of the very points in questions or you make
made them statements as declarations to she raised the best
questions to Trumps lawyer, let's robe that sound.
Speaker 7 (16:02):
I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning
the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal
activity in this country.
Speaker 8 (16:13):
I don't know if there's any allegation of that in
this case. And what George Washington said is what Benjamin
Franklin said is we viewed the prosecution of a chief
executive as something that everybody cried out against is unconstitutional.
And what George Washington said is we're worried about factional strife,
which will.
Speaker 7 (16:28):
No I also let me let me let me put
this worry on the table. If the potential for criminal
liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a
significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit
crimes with abandon while they're in office. It's right now
the fact that we're having this debate because OLC has
(16:49):
said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning
of time have understood that that's a possibility. That might
be what has kept this office from turning into the
kind of crime center that I'm envisioning. But once we
say no criminal liability. Mister President, you can do whatever
you want. I'm worried that we would have a worse
(17:11):
problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to
follow the law while he's in office.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
So I want I wanted to play that clip because,
as Tiff said, we are very much in the weeds
on this.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
It is important for me to try to lay out
how many layers and how detailed they were and meticulous
they were about showing all of the ways that Trump
is protected in this role. When we learn Civics, and
this is the danger of taking textbooks out of schools,
(17:45):
we learn that the legislative branch makes laws, that the
judicial branch interprets or evaluates laws, and that the executive
branch carries out the laws. What they're saying now is
that the executive branch will make the law, will break
the law, will take the law, and will do as
they see fit with the law. That's the point, and
(18:07):
I think when we look at those pieces, that is very,
very scary. This isn't about what Donald Trump will do
in office.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
This is about what anybody elected to the highest office
of the land can do. And Justice Jackson Kazanji Brown
Jackson was absolutely right. There are people who would have
never considered running for office, Tiffany and Andrew, who now
will consider it because they see it as a way
to get away with all of the things that they
never could potentially unless they're a CEO of a big company.
(18:37):
Some of those folks have been running circles and running
game for a long time. I'll lie in Ron, but
I think that we have to really consider what all
this means. Now you have a court not just turning
a blind eye, but putting pen to paper.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
To say this is these are the things you can
do that.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
Even and this was the part that was scary for
me too. I don't know if this if you all
saw this, but they talked about the outer perimeter of
official responsibilities and that outer perimeter it still covers your
actions as long as they are not manifestly or probably
beyond his authority. But they go on to say all
these things that are beyond authority. Clarence Thomas went into
(19:17):
talking about how you know, even the role of a
special prosecutor should not be a thing.
Speaker 4 (19:24):
They're perimeter like when you say it, because I mean,
I'm as basically like yeah, and I don't know either.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
But tip, what I'm saying is they look like what
it looks like they were doing is like, here are
these things that are your official responsibilities. Here are these
things that are like kind of related to your official responsibilities.
And even if it looks like you were signing the
checks for the hush money, even though you already made
some payments in a twenty sixteen campaign, That's what I
was going to say earlier, Andrew. But if you sign
the checks because you were sitting in the taxpayer paid
(19:53):
chair in the oval office, that is the outer perimeter
of your official responsibility, because you were signing them while
in aging in the course of other activity. They didn't
use that example specifically, but I can see that saying
it's not manifestly or probably beyond his authority, because if
he were convicted of this, it could be frowned upon
and looked bad upon by the you know, the rest
(20:15):
of the world leaders, or it could look bad for
the country. So because it looked bad for the country,
we should allow this in as an official activity or
out of perimeter activity.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
And Angela, I don't think they were opake about that.
I think they were very clear, which is even if
it is a act that is non presidential outside of
your duties and responsibilities, nothing, you can't get any evidence
gathered from why you were president and support of you
having broken the laws. So they've made it, they've handicapped.
(20:43):
They say he can be accountable, but then they handicap
his responsibility. And I just want to cite a few examples.
One the Department of Justice, which we all previously fought,
was the chief attorney on behalf of the United States.
The court was explicit. In fact, they said all charges
regarding his conversations and his directions given to the Attorney
General to take certain actions like a letter saying we
(21:05):
need to investigate your state and send fake electors or
send a whole another slate which Donald Trump asked the
attorney the acting internet a General to do, and he
refused to do it and say he will resign the court.
The US Supreme Court said it will be it is
not permissible for you to account that as a charge
against the president because the Department of Justice is his
(21:27):
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General reports to him,
and the President can give direction, have conversation with the
Attorney General as well about active investigations, direct who he
should investigate, Direct who they can bring charges against. All
of this they have, they have, they have quote in
the universal unitary Executive, Donald Trump or whomever else may
(21:51):
come after him. The president can also take a bribe
for pardoning somebody. Pardon power is exclusively in the jurisdiction
of president of the United States, which means it is
a core function, constitutional function, and anything that he does
regarding pardons cannot be questioned and he cannot be prosecuted.
So if you went to him to with a million
dollars and say I give you a million dollars if
(22:13):
you give me a pardon, that cannot be prosecuted in office,
out of office, no day of the week.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
And that's absolute immunity too. So pardoning if he does
anything associated with partner, that's absolute immunity. Anything associated with
any member of his cabinet that he wants to remove
because he's trying to break the law, absolute immunity. But
there's presumptive immunity for pressuring Mike Pence to reject the
state's electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures.
(22:43):
So I don't understand they're saying that because it's an
official act, but it's not associated specifically with his constitutional
powers that that is presumptive, it is presumed that he
would be immune from this, but absolute for anything that
is that is written and enshrined in the Constitution. So
(23:07):
I want to ask you all, based on what you've
seen from this Supreme Court, if you think they will
try to expand this doctrine to qualified immunity, where that,
of course you know, has been in debate and in
hot contention around law enforcement and police in this country.
Do you think that they will try to extend this
(23:27):
doctrine to police officers who are pursuing qualified immunity for shooting,
killing injuring us And.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
Just to explain to the listeners, qualified immunity, is it
basically you're shielded from.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Your actions that you're taking your capacity as a law.
Speaker 5 (23:43):
Enforcement from from yes, from being civilly serious, so any
civil liability, and in some instances it is extended to
criminal liability.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Sure no, they operate in my state, at least under
the cloak of of immunity from prosecution through anything that
they do in the in the in the course of
their work as a law enforcement officer, civil criminal I
honestly tell you, Angela, I wish I could even get
to that concern. I mean, I in so many ways
(24:12):
it's already been extended, if not, if not in black
and white, certainly in practice. Remember our friend Marilyn Moseby
one of the very first about the first prosecutor to
take these law enforcement officers on. And that's not because
they've never done anything wrong before. It's because the norms
of society say that you can't you know that it
(24:34):
is that it's beyond the pale, you can't pursue them
in that way. But this, honestly, this.
Speaker 5 (24:41):
This is, this is in writing as the law now though,
So I'm wondering, kids, this is now going to be
extended like you cannot write. So that's what I'm curious about, Like, yeah,
if we and I know, we got to take a break,
I know we gotta take a break. But I want
to know, do we think it's going to be extended
to captains? Do we think it'll be extended to mayors
and governors? Do we I think this would be extended
(25:01):
to other people on the federal level, But do we
think that this same.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
The same letter of the.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Law, interpretation of the law well, and really the making
of a brand new law will be extended to other
folks who are acting on behalf of the government in
these roles, or is it only going to be the president.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
No, I think the Court has already proven that they
they know no bounds with the egregiousness of some of
these decisions that they issue. I would say, though, specifically
to your question around qualified immunity as it relates to officers,
my understanding is that would only extend to federal officers,
which is why we always talk about the first step.
Act needs a second step and a third step. I
(25:40):
think in terms of shielding law enforcement officers who are
not federal police, that would have to happen at the
local level, like you know, like the state rights Ye,
state supreme courts. I'm just talking about Yeah, But I
but I think the question you're raising is a legitimate point.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
I understand your question.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
I'm making a different point and that if that has
to happen like at the state supreme court level. And
that is also a potential challenge because while we pay
so much attention to the Supreme Court, before something makes
it to the Supreme Court, they've gone through the lower
courts first, So it's even more I think a reason
to pay attention to those down ballot issues that are
(26:18):
on that are on the ballot when when you're voting
for something, because I can see particularly in the state
like Florida that Andrew was talking about, where we absolutely
Ron DeSantis could do something like that. You think about
red states like Alabama Governor k Ivy and already the
abysmal decisions that she's made, especially when it comes around
criminal justice in prisons Mississippi with Tate Reeves like, I
(26:41):
can't even imagine where this might go.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
So yes, I think they already started rolling back that.
Taken to your point, states have already in this legislative
session have already preempted the Court by laying down law
in the states that are shredding doctrines around ethics, around
being able to be prosecuted for what they do in
(27:03):
their office. So this, this is a steping that to Angela,
now that I understand your question better, the Court said
that in the executive branch, the executive branch is the
President of the United States, singularly, that the Congress has
four foun nd and thirty five members. The Court has
nine members. And thousands of judges underneath it. But in
this case, what makes him so exceptional is that he
(27:25):
alone is the executive branch. So as it relates to
extending immunity to officers, people who work with under him,
cabinet members, so on, and so forth, that's off the table.
But what isn't off the table is that the president
can direct them to take an action, and he can
then immediately part them, immediately pardon them from any future prosecution.
Speaker 5 (27:46):
Or anyone he deputizes, which some of that is enshrined
in the Constitution, which is absolute immunity, and any other
official act again is that presumed immunity.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
I know we're over time.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
To take a break, so we hit this brake, and
I do want to make sure we hear a question.
We have a I'm gonna say, but maybe that's gonna
being at the top. I skipped over that I was
ready to jump.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
We're going to pay some bills. But when we come
back on the other side, we want to bring you
into the conversation. And this is a reminder please remember
to keep submitting your videos. We want to make sure
that this is a confrehensive conversation that involves our listeners.
So on the other side of this break, we're gonna
hear from one of our favorite viewers, Phoebe. She's got
a question, so we'll see you on the other side.
Speaker 9 (28:36):
Phoebe Smith, California. Welcome home, y'all. I love saying that
inspirational Angela that you thought about that. I loved the
last segment where y'all were talking about the poll question. Hilarious.
I was clapping my hands in laughter.
Speaker 6 (28:57):
So good.
Speaker 9 (28:59):
And I love how Andrew can keep his self together
and sustain himself in a room of women rolling their
eyes to the back of their head because they think
he's missing the point when he's the one who understands
the point right, which is we have to value ourselves
(29:19):
higher than they value us.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
And that's what he was standing on. I love that
and he did it with tin toes.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Love it.
Speaker 9 (29:27):
This is my question, y'all, what are the true basic
values of Republicans and why would any Republican ever think
that they are sustaining values that would support and speak
to the needs of all community members in America. What
were those values and how would they ever possibly serve
(29:49):
Black people? Thanks y'all, love.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
The show and out so you should probably jump in
there and answer her question.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I would, first of all, Phebe, thank you and thank
you for your support and love for the show. We
love you back, welcome home.
Speaker 6 (30:06):
You know.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
The truth is this is probably I not be rolling
my eyes and my brother, Oh.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
No, I should be punching menab But I'm joking. I'm
I'm joking. But it's all love here. We're siblings. We're siblings.
It's all love. But I will say, you know what.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
Welcome home y'all? Was you welcome home? The whole home
idea is you?
Speaker 4 (30:23):
That is not I can't claim credit for that.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
So since you love Andrew so much, Phoebe, it was
actually Andrew's welcome home y'all.
Speaker 3 (30:30):
Oh, I thought it just organically kept like welcome home, y'all,
and it just stuck right we're in Atlanta. But anyway,
I don't know about you, Tiff and angel Love. Maybe
twenty years ago I could have given a more cogent
response to what Republicans stand for, even if I disagreed.
There's just none of that these days. I think, from
(30:50):
top to bottom, the party right now it's composed of sickophants,
and it's not just the party it is now bled
it's way and deeply ensconced itself and what was supposed
to be the justices blind right aspect of our constitution,
the judiciary, and at the highest levels this court has
(31:13):
been bought, paid for, and delivered by Donald Trump, the thief,
Mitch McConnell, and all of their Republican culprits in the
United States Senate who stole to US Supreme Court justice
seats and now have seated on this court six conservatives
(31:33):
against three constitutionalists. And I think it's a damn shame,
and I think for those of us who have been
trepidacious about this upcoming election, I don't think the stakes
can be any clearer than what they are right now.
Our freedoms, our very democracy is at stake thanks to
(31:54):
a court that is on the take, unethical, unconstitutional, creates
new law out of whole cloth. Thank you Katanji Brown
Jackson and Justice Sonya Soda Mayor for pointing that out
in your dissents this week. I'm aggrieved, and I hope
everybody out there feels agreed by the fact that, No,
(32:15):
it wasn't a great debate for Joe Biden the other day,
but y'all. One of the men on that stage at
least told the truth. The other win for ninety minutes
told straight lies period. Enough said, and if nothing else
motivates us, let the idea that Donald Trump can choose
to go after any one of us and prosecute us
(32:36):
and never ever have to answer for why it is
that he started a prosecution against us. And some people say, well,
you don't lose your constitutional right, you can still fight
it in court. Well, guess what, Try to remake your
life after you've been drugg through the damn gutter defending
yourself against the government of the United States of America.
Because that's the seal that the man carries by his
name when he's president. It is him the United States
(32:59):
government versus little old us. And there are no limits
to this dude. When he has unchecked, unfettered, unaccountable power,
He's coming for all of us, y'all. So you know what,
Joe Biden can be sleepy on some days, he can
be lame, on some days, he can be sharp and gregarious,
and I'm going on other days, I'll take him and
(33:19):
his administration any day over one day, one hour, one minute,
one second of Donald Trump and that White House again
being able to wreck havoc not over only our democracy,
but over any one of us that he chooses to.
The stakes are just that high this week. And petty
conversation about little stuff I don't have time for.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
Anymore, you know, I think the piece about the debate,
I don't think is petty. But it just feels like
the both like on both sides, not Donald Trump both sides,
but on both sides it feels like there are two
different they're operating in two different universes. So we know,
like with Donald Trump, it's like the end of all democracy,
(34:02):
and on Joe Biden's side, like people who say legitimately
like we really ain't got nobody else, Like I understand
the sentiment, and also, yeah, we really ain't got nobody
else at this point, like no candidate is willing to
challenge it. But I think one of the things I
appreciated earlier, at least in our pre pro call Andrews,
you were talking about there are some solutions, there are
some things that the people could do to make sure
(34:24):
that we don't just stay stuck Tiff in our gloom
and doom and like just you.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Know, God, now I'm America, Like, we just don't stay there?
So what do we do to not stay there? Andrew?
You got to bring us home and welcome us home, y'all.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
We got to figure this some of those thoughts. But
if I wanted to just throw it back to you
our hostel today, whether or not you had other, you know,
thoughts to offer, just on this, this this idea, I
think well.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
To her question.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
And I'm kind of stealing this from you, Andrew, because
you say this all the time. But we have to
stop talking about the Republican Party like it's a separate
entity from Donald Trump. There is no Republican Party. There
is only the Maga party now. And I think it's
important to address how we got here because so many
(35:08):
people have been given a pass, you know, like Donald
Trump just came on the scene and changed everything. That
is not true. The devil is a lie. This is
the only Republican Party we have ever known. Ronald Reagan,
George H. Bush, George HW.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
Bush.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
They may have been more articulate and less clumsy and
what they said, but their policies were just as damaging
and we are still They've rippled through generations and time
and destroyed generations of black and brown folks in this
country and poor white people. We've all been impacted by this.
And so even the people the never trumpers, You'll know,
(35:45):
a lot of these people voted just like Donald Trump.
They just don't like the way he presents himself. So
you have to ask him, do you not like him
as a person or do you not like his policies?
Because the battle we've been fighting has always been on
a policy side of things, less so than the politics
side of things.
Speaker 4 (36:02):
So you know, I.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
Don't think the Republicans have values anymore. Their value seem
to be whatever Donald Trump's values are. And he recognized
that he could tap into a base by saying, hey,
you're losing because they're winning and they look like you
and me. And I'm here to tell y'all, we ain't winning.
We are still very much in a battle, buying battles
(36:26):
our grandparents fought. So I get a little frustrated with
the media trying to sanitize some people. I mean, you
see people who worked for the insurrections alongside the insurrections
taking up space on cable news panels, writing books, appearing
on Dancing with the Stars like it's all good, And
we have to remind the folks that Frankenstein's my brother
Michael Eric Dyson says frank Ztein was the doctor.
Speaker 4 (36:47):
He was not the monster.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
So every single person who was ever a part of
this Republican party, you are the doctor that created this
monster and now you're being cannibalized.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
That's real. And angela intitive to your point around moving
forward and what folks can do, particularly around this issue
of the courts. One I just got to underscore you
can't separate the courts from the presidency. The president makes
those appointments to the federal judiciary and those are confirmed
or not by the US by the United States Senate.
(37:17):
So to the point of the US Senate, the president
by himself can't get the kind of sweeping change that
we want to see. It matters that we compete for
and we work for candidates who are supportive of in
the US Senate in the US Senate contests. And just
to give you some information, the last I think it's
(37:39):
fifteen of the last eighteen appointments to the United States
Supreme Court have been Republican appointees. Fifteen of the last
eighteen have been Republican presidential appointees that have been confirmed
to the High Court, even though Democrats, progressive, liberals, whatever
(37:59):
you want to call call it, represent forty million more
residents of the United States and the US Senate. So
how do we get here. We have a system that
is disproportionately disempowering states that are more diverse, states where
black folks and brown folks are living, paying their taxes
without the kind of equitable representation that we deserve and
(38:21):
that we need in Washington. And the fallout from that
is that they're able to make last stands like what
we've seen happen at the Supreme Court, and even worse
in other decisions because they're unchecked. Mitch mccona can still
a seat and never have to pay the consequence of
what that's like. And so let's presume we get the
White House hold the Senate and get the House Democrats.
(38:46):
My suggestion, and this has come forth through other people's
voices as well, need to enlarge the United States Supreme
Court to thirteen members, add four new appointments to the
Supreme Court that a Democrat Joe Biden, will appoint and
that a Democratic Senate will confirm and move forward after
they abolish the filibuster, and then they ought to incorporate
(39:10):
term limits for the United States Supreme Court. That way,
a Clarence Thomas and his grift and his take and
his lavish vacations and millions and millions of dollars and
gifts can't ever get so comfortable on a court without
recognizing that he's got to be accountable at the end
of the day on the other side of that term.
And guess what, even though they are lifetime appointments, it
(39:31):
doesn't say a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court.
It is to the court. And so they can spend
eighteen years on the US Supreme Court and then go
into service under a lower federal court and continue for
the rest of their lives until their force retirement or
their voluntary retirement or demise.
Speaker 4 (39:47):
This is awesome, Trew.
Speaker 5 (39:48):
Yeah, I was just going to say really quickly sometimes
as Typic was saying earlier, and I do think it's
important for us to always remember this because we live,
eat and breathe this that we are in the.
Speaker 4 (39:58):
Weeds a lot.
Speaker 5 (39:59):
Like just show how practical what you're saying is thirty
four of the United States Senates one hundred seats are
up for election this election year in November on November
twenty four, or thirty four of those seats. Two of
them are special elections, but thirty four of those seats
are up for grabs.
Speaker 4 (40:16):
Most of them are Democratic seats, that's right.
Speaker 5 (40:19):
So it's about preserving what is already existing. Hopefully these
folks vote in alignment with your values and also working
to fight back against Republican senators who have not represented
your best interest in values and expanding the court is
absolutely something Congress can do, and.
Speaker 3 (40:35):
I just wanted to. I want to give an example,
some examples of things that can happen as a result
of us having voted, because some folks may throw up
their hands and say, all right, the Supreme Court aside it.
What are we going to do about it? What can
a new democratic president do about it? What can it
do a Democratic Congress do about it? There are a
lot of things that can be done about it, but
it can't happen unless we sweep, unless we sweek this thing,
(40:58):
and that requires our full put to disipation in the process.
A lot is being said about Joe Biden. Obviously it's
the top of the ticket, but I make these comments
out of a plea for folks to see that it's
not just the presidency that we've got to be concerned about.
You can't sent a president in there and then handicap
him with the left and the right hand tie behind
their back because we didn't then vote for the US
(41:20):
Senate and the US House. I want to just quickly
name check these states, and then I'm off West Virginia.
I don't know who all in West Virginia, but you
all have a Senate seat that is now occupied by
a Democrat that is likely going to go allegedly, well
anyway another time.
Speaker 6 (41:38):
He is.
Speaker 3 (41:39):
He's an independent of caucuses with the Democrats, which is
how we're still able to hold the allegedly well, he
may not vote with us all the time, but he
does caucus with with the Democrats.
Speaker 4 (41:49):
Allegedly.
Speaker 3 (41:50):
Okay. In Maryland, a lot of y'all are in Maryland.
We have the former governor of Maryland who is also
running and has made this now a closer contest Democrats,
black folk folk period. There. We've got to organized, organized,
organized to ensure that that seat in Maryland, that Senate
seat remains in Democratic hands.
Speaker 4 (42:11):
Angela also also.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
Brooks the county executive. Which county is it? County Arizona?
Current independent holds that seat, retiring caucuses of the Democrat retiring.
That seat is now open, y'all. Remember that?
Speaker 10 (42:29):
Uh uh.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
Wild right? Huhga, Yes, but I was trying to think
of Kerry Lake who he is running against. You remember
the wild Carry Lake who just went crazy over Trump. Well,
ran for governor of the least election Denier and is
running for the US Senate. That is a seat that
(42:51):
we have got to compete for. We got a whole Michigan, Michigan, Michigan, y'all.
Debbie stabbing Ow is out, she's leaving, she's retired. That
seat is an open contest. Michigan is a close state.
Pennsylvania Senator Casey is up for re elections Bob Casey
Junior in Pennsylvania another closely contested state. We got to
(43:12):
show up there, y'all. Wisconsin, I know we in Wisconsin,
Tammy Baldwin, incumbent Democrat, up very close race. We need
us there. Montana. I don't know who all out there, y'all,
but if you're out there, we need you to show up.
We need you to count Nevada not to be confused
with Nevada. There is a competitive US Senate seat organized
(43:34):
get connected, plug in there, and then last and certainly
not least Ohio Share It Brown sitting incumbent. But Ohio
is the state the Democrats in the presidential column lost
by double digits. We have got to, got to got
to hold that seat for a Senator Shared Brown, who
for some reason, strange reason, is an alien there because
(43:54):
he has been able to win reelection even when his
state has gone wildly for Donald Trump and presidential contest.
Those are the states that are are are seemingly most
consequential to Democrats holding onto the US Senate. Y'all, I
hope you'll plug in, and we'll plug in our in
our analysis of this episode. Some sites that you can
visit three sixty five, five thirty eight Cook Political Report.
(44:19):
There are a number of others that you can visit
and learn which seats in the House as well as
in the Senate are competitive that you can plug in
to help out.
Speaker 5 (44:27):
If I could just say really quickly, right now, the
House Republicans have a very very very slim majority to
nineteen to Democrats two thirteen, and there's a vac there
are vacancy possible.
Speaker 4 (44:43):
Possible to flips.
Speaker 5 (44:45):
Of course, four hundred and thirty five total voting members.
If the House flips, it is likely that Hakim Jeffries
would become speaker. So again, this is all about turnout,
and it's about turnout down ballot. We often talk about voting,
but we don't always talk about voting in off your elections.
It matters during midterms, it matters during presidentials, and it
matters not to just fill in that circle on that
(45:07):
top of that ballot. It matters to go all the
way down ballot for initiatives in your community. Council members, mayors,
county commissioners. Andrew was both a county commissioner and he
was a mayor, and he should have been governor. I
maintained that we'll talk about that on another bitty pot
when we're ready. But I think that what we need
to understand and there's is there so much at stake.
(45:28):
I'm talking through what should be a break, and so
we shall toss to this break.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
We gotta pay some bills. But on the other side
of this break, we're bringing you back into the conversation.
We have another viewer question, and this time we're hearing
from Breonte, so don't go anywhere. We'll see you on
the other side.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome.
Speaker 10 (45:55):
Hey, good day Native Land family. Hey, I got a
quick question for y'all. You know names Breontam from Texas
in Dallas texts to be specific. Uh, but my question
for y'all is, you know, last night, you know, we
watched Jamaal Bowman taking al last night in New York
and it's really frustrating to watch because Jamal Bowman, you know,
(46:16):
he represents the best of us.
Speaker 3 (46:18):
Uh.
Speaker 10 (46:18):
He represents everything that needs to be in DC fight
for changes that we want to see. My question is,
what is it that we need to be doing as
black people. Rather it's contributing our dollars or putting our
attention towards, what do we need to be doing to
make sure we're protecting representatives or senators or whoever. Politicians
(46:38):
that are like jamalro Bowman, that are there fighting so
they won't fill alone. So when they do have these challenges,
these primary primary challengers, but they're able to with stand
against all the money that's being thrown black folks.
Speaker 6 (46:51):
We have some.
Speaker 10 (46:51):
Of the highest spending power in the world, but we
don't seem to have a collective situation to when it
comes to making sure our dollars come together. So what
is it that we can be doing or building to
make sure we're getting to that point to where you know,
Apek was funded well funded by Jewish and others.
Speaker 3 (47:13):
What can we do to get to that point?
Speaker 8 (47:14):
You know.
Speaker 10 (47:15):
Appreciate y'all, thanks for taking a question. Also a little
man back. Yeah, thanks y'all.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
Yeah, came over from the Baby. I love it, and
I love that question. I think it's such a good
question because so many people. I think when we present
information sometimes people can feel blanketed. They don't you know
fully I know I feel that way. I don't fully
grasp you know, all these acronyms and inside baseball talk,
and so you can feel just like, if I'm being
(47:45):
asked to care about everything, it's easy to care about nothing.
Speaker 4 (47:49):
So I really appreciate that question.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
And I'm stealing this from Angela when we were in
Miami at our first stop on our Native Land tour
and we were talking about being tired, and Angela, you
made the point like if you're sitting next to someone like, yeah,
we're all tired, but maybe someone else isn't tired in
the same way. You know, maybe you're tired of hearing information,
(48:11):
maybe you're tired of canvas and whatever that is. So
I would say every little bit helps. If everyone does
a little, no one has to do a lot. If
you have the financial resources, fund a candidate that speaks
to your interests, your issues. If you don't have the
financial resources, show up. There's always bodies need a canvas.
You can knock door to door. If you don't have
(48:32):
financial resources and you don't have time capacity learn, be informed,
share responsibly. You can post something on social media from
a reputable source that you have personally looked at and
you understand this information to be true and it's verified.
Be sure that you're sharing responsibly. Vote obviously, we always
say that, but show up on election day and make
(48:53):
your voice heard, and not just during presidential election years.
And I will be honest, I have challenges to votevoing
in some of those off year elections where it might
just be a ballid initiative that accounts or a special election.
Speaker 4 (49:06):
But those are all.
Speaker 1 (49:07):
Just some basic things that you can do. And I'm
sure my co hosts have thoughts I haven't even thought of.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
I just want to plug collective Pack as an avenue
of concentrating our giving power, multiplying our giving power so
that resources can go to progressive black and brown candidates,
or in the case of Collective you know, concentrating on
black candidates who are running particularly for these higher offices
that people never give a shot to, but because they
can come in with real resources, our collective resources, it
(49:36):
can make a real big difference. So look them up.
Collective Pack.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
Oh, just to clarify for the listeners really quickly, Collective
pack pack as a political action committee. Collective Pack is
something that's run by a husband and wife couple, Stephanie
Brown James and Clinton James, and they raise money for
candidates running.
Speaker 4 (49:53):
At the federal level.
Speaker 1 (49:55):
I'd imagine they're probably similar organizations for people running at
the state and low And if there isn't something like
this that exists at the state and local level in
your area, then be that started. You know, make sure
you look up those campaign finance laws. But if you
don't see what you need, then created sorry.
Speaker 3 (50:13):
Support at this by the way they do for correct
and its Collective pack dot org. I'm sorry. I had
to look it up real quick collective.
Speaker 5 (50:21):
And there are some additional packs as well. Of course,
shout out to Quentin and Stephanie, we see we love y'all, like,
thank you for the work that you do every single day.
There's also Higher Heights, there's Black pack, and then the
CBC pack, which just so you all know, I do
sit on that board. I want to just acknowledge some
of the other pieces that Brionte raised in his question.
(50:42):
So one of the things that I heard in Brionta's
question is something that we didn't get to and we
talked about Jamal Bowman last week. Sometimes what we have
to know it and I'm so glad that he talked
about with black folks can do with our dollars, how
we can support our candidates. We talked about some of
those packs, and I'm thanking him for thrusting us right
into the heart of our calls to action for this week.
(51:05):
But I was really frustrated by the need for Hillary
Clinton to get involved with this primary contest. You will
see overwhelmingly a number of packs, including where there are
incumbents involved.
Speaker 4 (51:20):
The CBC, even.
Speaker 5 (51:21):
When there is a black primary challenger, will often not
get involved when the incumbent is one of their housemates,
it's somebody that is one of their colleagues.
Speaker 4 (51:33):
And so even though Hillary Clinton did.
Speaker 5 (51:37):
Not serve with Jamal Bowman, I am hard pressed to
understand why she felt the need to engage in this
race when there are the Joe Manchins of the world,
when there are the Curesten Cinemas of the world, and
I have not heard her say anything about challenging them,
or of course Cinema's out now, but I haven't heard
(51:58):
the need for them to push back on these folks,
and that rhetoric is one single issue so important for
you to undermine history. Right, this is a black member
that may get that got the CBC over fifty to
sixty members when we are finally seeing representation. The same
(52:19):
CBC that ensured that you had an opportunity right had
a credible run in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4 (52:26):
So it is beyond me that she would get involved.
Speaker 5 (52:32):
And I think that my call to action here would
be that we always remember that our actions don't always align.
Speaker 4 (52:40):
Just because we.
Speaker 5 (52:41):
May align in how we vote or what policy priorities
we have based on party, sometimes our interests collide and
it is okay for us to represent and protect our
interests even when they are not aligned with people who
we may look up to, with people who we may
have supported, with people who we may have ended, and
with folks we may have even donated to. I also
(53:03):
don't think it is it is it is it is
unnecessary for us to remind them of where their loyalties
should and must lie when we did stand with them
when we didn't have to. And I think that that
will be how we get to the other side of
recognizing and harnessing our collective black political power.
Speaker 1 (53:33):
I feel like we've given some calls to action, but
we it's that time and the show where we give
calls to action. So you guys want to go first
and give one or you feel like you already gave yours.
Speaker 3 (53:44):
I know this was a dense that was mine.
Speaker 4 (53:46):
Brionta thrusted me into mind. I'm good, Okay, A.
Speaker 3 (53:50):
More dense and substantive uh you know, pod And sometimes
these things can be heavy. But I trust your intelligence.
I don't want to underestimate based off the questions that
you all asked, the way the various specifics that you
already know, you've picked up, you've read, you've looked at
that this isn't too heavy for any one of us
to carry our own respective pieces. And so I'll just
(54:13):
you know, just my ass would be. While it feels
like sometimes like we're breathing down of fire hose, please
resist the urge to check out, to tune out, to
turn the page. In fact, I think oftentimes people in
higher office and power and positions of influence, they want
you to check out. They want to say this is
too hard, They want you to feel like you don't
(54:35):
have the brain capacity to take it all in. I
know different, I trust different, I believe different, and so
I'm never gonna I'm never gonna talk down to you
and talk at you and with you in conversation and
the way that I would anyone else who I believe
to be interested in these kinds of subjects. And just
thank you for your support of Native Land and allow
(54:57):
us to hopefully bring you yes some fun as then
as we can, but also as much as we can
the real the substance.
Speaker 1 (55:04):
All right, thank you guys for tuning in. Before we
end the show, I want to let you all know
remind you to please leave a review, subscribe to native
Land Pod. We're available on out all platforms and YouTube.
New episodes drop every Thursday. You can also follow us
on social media. We are Tiffany Cross, Angel Riot Angie Gillum.
(55:26):
Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 4 (55:27):
There are one hundred and twenty five days the election day.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
Thank you for joining the Natives. Attention to what the
info and all of the latest rock gulum and cross
connected to the statements that you leave on our socials.
Thank you sincerely for the patients. Reason for your choice
is clear, So grateful it took to execute roads. Thank
you for serve, defend and protect the truth, even if PA.
We welcome home to all of the Natives wait, Thank you,
(55:53):
Welcome y'all.
Speaker 3 (55:55):
Welcome.
Speaker 4 (56:05):
Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership
with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
your favorite shows.
Native Lamp Pod is a re production of iHeartRadio in
partnership with Reason Choice Media.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, who Welcome home to the Native
landing on the podcast face that's a for greatness sixteen minutes.
It's so hit, not too long for the great ship,
high level combo politics in a way that you could
taste it then digest it. Politics touches you even if you.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Don't touch it.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
So get invested across the t's and doctor Odds kill
them back to get them staying on business with Rie.
You could have been anywhere, but you chose us Native
Land Podcast, the brand that you can trust us.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Welcome Home you guys is episode twenty sixth of Native Lamppod.
I am your host, Tiffany Cross. So here's my co
host Andrew Gillum and Angela Rai and right here we
give it to you like that crown.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Wow, straight, no chaser. What's going on you guys.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
It's been a billion rady some milk.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
All the changes, the difficulties we had a so just
so y'all know we've had a lot of technical little
difficulties today Getting it.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
Ain't nothing but the devil.
Speaker 5 (01:07):
I mean it can be, but he not over here.
I think the devil don't want us to get this
truth to all today.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
But we shall be moved. That's gotta be what it is.
That's gotta be what it.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Well, we better get into it before before something else happened.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
We didn't have audio issues, video issues.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
So but we still standing, y'all, We still stand.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
But we get up.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
All right, Nick, we fell down. Gonna get us on
up and drop that beat, all right, you guys. So
we have a lot to get into. First of all,
I know y'all wanted to hear from us after the debate,
but this is our recording schedule. We dropped the day
that debate happened, and so unfortunately you did not get
(01:56):
to hear from us. But we're gonna get into the
fallout from that, which I think is way more important
on this episode. So Angela, I know because we were
in group chats and talking about it, this Trump Community case.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
Yes, here's the thing.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
We all knew that this was going to be one
of these things that was going to happen. But that's
what happens when you have insurrectionists on the Supreme Court.
So we will talk about the Supreme court ruling, the
opinion that was just brought down yesterday. We're recording a
day early this week, and we will talk about my
favorite part as well, the dissenters, because sometimes it's the
(02:33):
dissenters who preserve.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
The union, so we'll talk about that.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
I'm looking forward to get into this discussion, although I'm
not excited about what the ruling was at all.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
No, no, what you bring up, yeah, I mean, and
follow up to this course ruling, I think the stakes
of this presidential US and it congressional. You list the
offices and we can talk about its importance. I believe
they shifted and I love to sort of get into
Yes there was the debate, Yes there was the poor performance,
(03:02):
but yes, there is a presidential election at stake, and
the six couldn't be much higher. We'll get into that,
all right.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Before we get into the show, I'm gonna throw it
back because I got to disappoint you guys. There are
no sports in the show this week. So I got
three throwbacks for you that are all sports. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
it's good. So July sixth, nineteen fifty seven, ALTHEA. Gibson
became the first black woman to win Wimbledon. July fifth,
nineteen seventy five, Arthur Ash became the first black man
(03:31):
to win with Wimbledon, and July six, two thousand and two,
Serena Williams defeated Venus to win her first Wimbledon singles title.
I haven't given you all my tennis knowledge, so there
you go.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
I appreciate that. That's our little shot, you know.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
I just want to bring the people to sports, because everybody,
no matter how you feel about anything, everybody like sports, like.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
Me, any who.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
I wanted to get into that too, because now we
must depress you with a mayor to the beautiful America
to ghetto.
Speaker 6 (04:07):
Hello Andrew, Hello Tiffany, and hello Angelum. My name is
Jason Bowman. I am from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Love Native Land podcast,
and I'm hoping that you guys can answer my question
because I'm sure, like most Americans, we are confused over
the Supreme Court ruling in regards to January sixth insurrection.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
So here goes.
Speaker 6 (04:27):
So I'm confused because I would love to know what
exactly does the Supreme Court mean? Do they mean that
Donald Trump has immunity over his behavior that basically excited
the riot? To happen on January sixth. Does this mean
that he was on official president duty while sitting in
lame duck status? Does this mean that he's immune from
(04:48):
all charges? What exactly does this mean? And from my understanding,
I assume that when the president was taking office that
they were under oath to protect the constitution. Everything that
he did on January sixth did not protect the constitution.
So I'm just confused. What message does this send to
future presidents of this nation.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Apparently the Supreme Court is still bon and so, and
apparently Justice Clarence Thomas is still dropping it like it's
hot and the bar couldn't be lower. So we have
the Supreme Court which talked about Donald Trump having immunity.
We have absolute immunity, which was on the table, and
(05:33):
presumptive immunity, which was on the table before this particular ruling.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
This court is John Roberts.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
Justice Roberts starts this decision saying that they've never had
to consider criminal immunity for a president before, and that's
what was at stake in this particular case. The most
critical line in the opinion is this, this case is
the first criminal prosecution in our nation's history. Of a
former president for actions taken during his presidency.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Now, you would think with.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
The line like that that they are going to side
with morality, that they are going to side with a
president having to be above reproach, kind of like a
bishop in the Bible. Right, That's not what happens here.
They instead say that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. Great, right,
you meet us.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Where we are. There's no immunity for our.
Speaker 5 (06:26):
Official or unofficial acts, but that there is absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Preclusive constitutional authority. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from
prosecution for all his official acts. That's a lot of
word salad, but here's the bottom line. Donald Trump, if
he takes any number of actions, is not going to
be criminally prosecuted, should not be as the office of
the president. And many of you have asked, well, this
(07:01):
applies to Donald Trump, how's it?
Speaker 4 (07:02):
How does it apply to Joe Biden.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
I just want to give you this one, this one
observation Joe Biden was being uh, they were considering trying
Joe Biden for a violation of how of handling classified
documents that particular case. In that particular case, Special Prosecutor
Richard Hurst says he's too old to be to be
(07:26):
to be tried on this matter. There should be no
criminal liability. Well, now under this case doctrine, he couldn't
be because he's the president and while it was while
he was officially in office.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Maybe they could argue because he was a.
Speaker 5 (07:41):
Vice president at the time right that that he didn't
do anything that he could actually be liable. It is
interesting to see how this uh philosophy will be will
come to pass with other officials in a president's cabinet.
But the thing that's most interesting to me at this point, y'all,
and we can get it more into the weasis, but
I want to say, have a conversation, not just a lecture,
(08:02):
but the thing that I think is interesting about this
particular case as well is Donald Trump. And this is
what we've been talking about on this podcast, kind of
litigating on this podcast. Is Donald Trump using this immunity
to say, therefore I should not be convicted or sentenced
(08:24):
on these other counts. As we know, there are eighty
eight indictments against against Donald Trump. Eighty eight counts thirty
four he was found guilty of in a New York court.
He used this case from yesterday, this holding in this case,
and said I should not be criminally prosecuted. I should
have never been convicted and I certainly shouldn't be sentenced
in this New York case because this should apply even
(08:46):
in state.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
In state matters.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
Well, the verdict of the sentencing is now postponed by
two weeks. We are supposed to get lucky on seven
to eleven, not anymore. And now he's saying that this
should apply. Here's the problem. Donald Trump was not a
sitting president when this happened. Donald Trump was running for office.
That is not an official act. So I'm interested to
see what this judge does. It makes me nervous that
(09:10):
he's postponed this. But I want y'all to weigh in
because it's a lot of things that I want and
I want to get into some of the what IF's
and ask y'all my pole questions because you know, y'all,
y'all know we are poland firm.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Now, well, one, thank you for helping to break that
down for us Angela. And on the last point, with
regard to the New York case, he did sign a
number of the checks while in the White House, and
apparently in the in the trial there uh, there was
(09:38):
evidence allowed to be viewed by the jury of public statements,
public tweets that were administered by the President from the
White House. And it is now their contention that because
that now protected and privileged information was allowed to be
(09:59):
shown to the jury, and some might say, possibly reasonably
calculated in their in their verdict, that the entire verdict,
all thirty four counts ought to be vacated. In fact,
the first chilling effect that occurred yesterday was the US
Department of Justice in New York was supposed to submit
(10:21):
their recommendations to the judge privately to the judge around
around what he should be facing visa vs. Sentencing. They
did not submit that document to the judges. New York
States Attorney Yeah, yeah, no, Well, the United States Department
of Justice Southern District was supposed to submit recommendations. I'm sorry,
(10:43):
you're right, I apologize. Angelo's Alvin brageah, And they did
not submit those recommendations to the judge yesterday when they
were due. Then, as a result, the Alvin Bragg's office
that we would be in favor of delaying the sentencing
by two weeks, and the judge, of course has complied.
(11:04):
But Angela one of the shocking decision in the sense
that not only did they get it is because it
is one thing to give Donald Trump what he asked for.
They went way above and beyond the simple parameters of
what Donald Trump asked for. In fact, in one of
the extreme ways, while they said of president, a former
(11:25):
president can be prosecuted for actions he's taken that are
of a personal nature. It precludes being shown as submitted
as evidence any discussions, conversations planning, his method his thinking
of those actions taken while he was president. They preclude
a jury from being able to have access to any
(11:47):
of that information for fear that it may chill the
bold actions of a president from doing, saying and acting
as a bold president should. It confused me because there
was never, ever, ever an argument that presidents are not
bold and haven't been bold prior to Donald Trump because
of fear of prosecution. That's never I've never heard that before.
(12:09):
In fact, we've seen very activists and strong demonstrations of
individuals in the presidency. In fact, the court said that
the reason why we have to go so far to
protect this president and give him immunity so that this decision,
which is for the ages, doesn't cause us to have
presidents who are trepidacious about making the kinds of decisions
(12:32):
that they must make while in office. But that assumption,
that statement by the Chief Justice assumes that presidents prior
to Donald Trump, but we're under the suspension that they
could never be prosecuted, and that can't be right. Let's
just look at the case of Lyndon B. Johnson and Ford.
Why would Ford have pardoned I'm sorry, why would Ford
have parted Nixon if I didn't But but but why
(12:59):
would he is to pardon to Nixon if there was
not a reasonable fear that a president could be prosecuted
for actions that they took in office?
Speaker 5 (13:06):
Of course, and I think when I was even pushing
back and tip, I love for you to weigh in here,
when I was pushing back on that, it was shocking.
I think that there was a part of us that
kind of knew this was going to happen.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
We saw just based on what this Supreme.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Court is ruling around reproductive justice, what they've ruled around homelessness,
what they ruled in Chevron, what they ruled around assault weapons.
Speaker 4 (13:30):
I mean, we can't keep going. I don't know that
we were really shocked.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
And then of course January sixth itself just last week,
So I don't know that we were super shocked because
of the makeup of this court, not because this is
what this court would do. So Tip, I want you
to weigh in here, and then I have some you know,
I got some focused group questions for you.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Well, I have to say, like, it's so frustrating when
I have consumed some of the media around this, in
both print and broadcast, because I do think people are
so into the weeds that for people out there who wonder, like,
why do I care about this, this seems like, you know,
a thousand miles away from me, this is why you
should care. Essentially, the court, there is no appeal. The
(14:10):
Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, and
they have essentially given the office of the president free
reign to do whatever they like. So Donald Trump, were
he to win another election, could have a political rival assassinated.
Donald Trump, were he to win reelection, could use that
(14:32):
office to enrich his pockets, which he did the first term.
I believe Jared and Ivanka made eighty million dollars the
first year he was in office, and it continued to grow.
Let's not forget that this is a man who had
Kislyak Russian operative in the Oval office. What would stop him?
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Now?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
One thing that the one of the attorneys argued, who
was arguing on Donald Trump's behalf a question that he posed,
which I thought was legitimate. If we are going to
allow presidents to be prosecuted, Let's say a president has
to make the call to have a foreign adversary taken out.
Could he then later be subject subjected to criminal charges?
(15:13):
And I thought, well, you know that is a legitimate question.
Now that they've essentially said you can do whatever you
want in office, that should give everyone chills because imagine
what an unhinged, uh politically inept person whose first job
in government was president of the United States. Imagine what
(15:34):
he might do or the second term, well, second term.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
No, one second.
Speaker 5 (15:43):
I was just going to say one second on this,
I want to roll Katanji Brown Jackson's sound from when
they heard the oral arguments in April, because she raises
some of the very points in questions or you make
made them statements as declarations to she raised the best
questions to Trumps lawyer, let's robe that sound.
Speaker 7 (16:02):
I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning
the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal
activity in this country.
Speaker 8 (16:13):
I don't know if there's any allegation of that in
this case. And what George Washington said is what Benjamin
Franklin said is we viewed the prosecution of a chief
executive as something that everybody cried out against is unconstitutional.
And what George Washington said is we're worried about factional strife,
which will.
Speaker 7 (16:28):
No I also let me let me let me put
this worry on the table. If the potential for criminal
liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a
significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit
crimes with abandon while they're in office. It's right now
the fact that we're having this debate because OLC has
(16:49):
said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning
of time have understood that that's a possibility. That might
be what has kept this office from turning into the
kind of crime center that I'm envisioning. But once we
say no criminal liability. Mister President, you can do whatever
you want. I'm worried that we would have a worse
(17:11):
problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to
follow the law while he's in office.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
So I want I wanted to play that clip because,
as Tiff said, we are very much in the weeds
on this.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
It is important for me to try to lay out
how many layers and how detailed they were and meticulous
they were about showing all of the ways that Trump
is protected in this role. When we learn Civics, and
this is the danger of taking textbooks out of schools,
(17:45):
we learn that the legislative branch makes laws, that the
judicial branch interprets or evaluates laws, and that the executive
branch carries out the laws. What they're saying now is
that the executive branch will make the law, will break
the law, will take the law, and will do as
they see fit with the law. That's the point, and
(18:07):
I think when we look at those pieces, that is very,
very scary. This isn't about what Donald Trump will do
in office.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
This is about what anybody elected to the highest office
of the land can do. And Justice Jackson Kazanji Brown
Jackson was absolutely right. There are people who would have
never considered running for office, Tiffany and Andrew, who now
will consider it because they see it as a way
to get away with all of the things that they
never could potentially unless they're a CEO of a big company.
(18:37):
Some of those folks have been running circles and running
game for a long time. I'll lie in Ron, but
I think that we have to really consider what all
this means. Now you have a court not just turning
a blind eye, but putting pen to paper.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
To say this is these are the things you can
do that.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
Even and this was the part that was scary for
me too. I don't know if this if you all
saw this, but they talked about the outer perimeter of
official responsibilities and that outer perimeter it still covers your
actions as long as they are not manifestly or probably
beyond his authority. But they go on to say all
these things that are beyond authority. Clarence Thomas went into
(19:17):
talking about how you know, even the role of a
special prosecutor should not be a thing.
Speaker 4 (19:24):
They're perimeter like when you say it, because I mean,
I'm as basically like yeah, and I don't know either.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
But tip, what I'm saying is they look like what
it looks like they were doing is like, here are
these things that are your official responsibilities. Here are these
things that are like kind of related to your official responsibilities.
And even if it looks like you were signing the
checks for the hush money, even though you already made
some payments in a twenty sixteen campaign, That's what I
was going to say earlier, Andrew. But if you sign
the checks because you were sitting in the taxpayer paid
(19:53):
chair in the oval office, that is the outer perimeter
of your official responsibility, because you were signing them while
in aging in the course of other activity. They didn't
use that example specifically, but I can see that saying
it's not manifestly or probably beyond his authority, because if
he were convicted of this, it could be frowned upon
and looked bad upon by the you know, the rest
(20:15):
of the world leaders, or it could look bad for
the country. So because it looked bad for the country,
we should allow this in as an official activity or
out of perimeter activity.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
And Angela, I don't think they were opake about that.
I think they were very clear, which is even if
it is a act that is non presidential outside of
your duties and responsibilities, nothing, you can't get any evidence
gathered from why you were president and support of you
having broken the laws. So they've made it, they've handicapped.
(20:43):
They say he can be accountable, but then they handicap
his responsibility. And I just want to cite a few examples.
One the Department of Justice, which we all previously fought,
was the chief attorney on behalf of the United States.
The court was explicit. In fact, they said all charges
regarding his conversations and his directions given to the Attorney
General to take certain actions like a letter saying we
(21:05):
need to investigate your state and send fake electors or
send a whole another slate which Donald Trump asked the
attorney the acting internet a General to do, and he
refused to do it and say he will resign the court.
The US Supreme Court said it will be it is
not permissible for you to account that as a charge
against the president because the Department of Justice is his
(21:27):
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General reports to him,
and the President can give direction, have conversation with the
Attorney General as well about active investigations, direct who he
should investigate, Direct who they can bring charges against. All
of this they have, they have, they have quote in
the universal unitary Executive, Donald Trump or whomever else may
(21:51):
come after him. The president can also take a bribe
for pardoning somebody. Pardon power is exclusively in the jurisdiction
of president of the United States, which means it is
a core function, constitutional function, and anything that he does
regarding pardons cannot be questioned and he cannot be prosecuted.
So if you went to him to with a million
dollars and say I give you a million dollars if
(22:13):
you give me a pardon, that cannot be prosecuted in office,
out of office, no day of the week.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
And that's absolute immunity too. So pardoning if he does
anything associated with partner, that's absolute immunity. Anything associated with
any member of his cabinet that he wants to remove
because he's trying to break the law, absolute immunity. But
there's presumptive immunity for pressuring Mike Pence to reject the
state's electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures.
(22:43):
So I don't understand they're saying that because it's an
official act, but it's not associated specifically with his constitutional
powers that that is presumptive, it is presumed that he
would be immune from this, but absolute for anything that
is that is written and enshrined in the Constitution. So
(23:07):
I want to ask you all, based on what you've
seen from this Supreme Court, if you think they will
try to expand this doctrine to qualified immunity, where that,
of course you know, has been in debate and in
hot contention around law enforcement and police in this country.
Do you think that they will try to extend this
(23:27):
doctrine to police officers who are pursuing qualified immunity for shooting,
killing injuring us And.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
Just to explain to the listeners, qualified immunity, is it
basically you're shielded from.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Your actions that you're taking your capacity as a law.
Speaker 5 (23:43):
Enforcement from from yes, from being civilly serious, so any
civil liability, and in some instances it is extended to
criminal liability.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
Sure no, they operate in my state, at least under
the cloak of of immunity from prosecution through anything that
they do in the in the in the course of
their work as a law enforcement officer, civil criminal I
honestly tell you, Angela, I wish I could even get
to that concern. I mean, I in so many ways
(24:12):
it's already been extended, if not, if not in black
and white, certainly in practice. Remember our friend Marilyn Moseby
one of the very first about the first prosecutor to
take these law enforcement officers on. And that's not because
they've never done anything wrong before. It's because the norms
of society say that you can't you know that it
(24:34):
is that it's beyond the pale, you can't pursue them
in that way. But this, honestly, this.
Speaker 5 (24:41):
This is, this is in writing as the law now though,
So I'm wondering, kids, this is now going to be
extended like you cannot write. So that's what I'm curious about, Like, yeah,
if we and I know, we got to take a break,
I know we gotta take a break. But I want
to know, do we think it's going to be extended
to captains? Do we think it'll be extended to mayors
and governors? Do we I think this would be extended
(25:01):
to other people on the federal level, But do we
think that this same.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
The same letter of the.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Law, interpretation of the law well, and really the making
of a brand new law will be extended to other
folks who are acting on behalf of the government in
these roles, or is it only going to be the president.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
No, I think the Court has already proven that they
they know no bounds with the egregiousness of some of
these decisions that they issue. I would say, though, specifically
to your question around qualified immunity as it relates to officers,
my understanding is that would only extend to federal officers,
which is why we always talk about the first step.
Act needs a second step and a third step. I
(25:40):
think in terms of shielding law enforcement officers who are
not federal police, that would have to happen at the
local level, like you know, like the state rights Ye,
state supreme courts. I'm just talking about Yeah, But I
but I think the question you're raising is a legitimate point.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
I understand your question.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
I'm making a different point and that if that has
to happen like at the state supreme court level. And
that is also a potential challenge because while we pay
so much attention to the Supreme Court, before something makes
it to the Supreme Court, they've gone through the lower
courts first, So it's even more I think a reason
to pay attention to those down ballot issues that are
(26:18):
on that are on the ballot when when you're voting
for something, because I can see particularly in the state
like Florida that Andrew was talking about, where we absolutely
Ron DeSantis could do something like that. You think about
red states like Alabama Governor k Ivy and already the
abysmal decisions that she's made, especially when it comes around
criminal justice in prisons Mississippi with Tate Reeves like, I
(26:41):
can't even imagine where this might go.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
So yes, I think they already started rolling back that.
Taken to your point, states have already in this legislative
session have already preempted the Court by laying down law
in the states that are shredding doctrines around ethics, around
being able to be prosecuted for what they do in
(27:03):
their office. So this, this is a steping that to Angela,
now that I understand your question better, the Court said
that in the executive branch, the executive branch is the
President of the United States, singularly, that the Congress has
four foun nd and thirty five members. The Court has
nine members. And thousands of judges underneath it. But in
this case, what makes him so exceptional is that he
(27:25):
alone is the executive branch. So as it relates to
extending immunity to officers, people who work with under him,
cabinet members, so on, and so forth, that's off the table.
But what isn't off the table is that the president
can direct them to take an action, and he can
then immediately part them, immediately pardon them from any future prosecution.
Speaker 5 (27:46):
Or anyone he deputizes, which some of that is enshrined
in the Constitution, which is absolute immunity, and any other
official act again is that presumed immunity.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
I know we're over time.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
To take a break, so we hit this brake, and
I do want to make sure we hear a question.
We have a I'm gonna say, but maybe that's gonna
being at the top. I skipped over that I was
ready to jump.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
We're going to pay some bills. But when we come
back on the other side, we want to bring you
into the conversation. And this is a reminder please remember
to keep submitting your videos. We want to make sure
that this is a confrehensive conversation that involves our listeners.
So on the other side of this break, we're gonna
hear from one of our favorite viewers, Phoebe. She's got
a question, so we'll see you on the other side.
Speaker 9 (28:36):
Phoebe Smith, California. Welcome home, y'all. I love saying that
inspirational Angela that you thought about that. I loved the
last segment where y'all were talking about the poll question. Hilarious.
I was clapping my hands in laughter.
Speaker 6 (28:57):
So good.
Speaker 9 (28:59):
And I love how Andrew can keep his self together
and sustain himself in a room of women rolling their
eyes to the back of their head because they think
he's missing the point when he's the one who understands
the point right, which is we have to value ourselves
(29:19):
higher than they value us.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
And that's what he was standing on. I love that
and he did it with tin toes.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Love it.
Speaker 9 (29:27):
This is my question, y'all, what are the true basic
values of Republicans and why would any Republican ever think
that they are sustaining values that would support and speak
to the needs of all community members in America. What
were those values and how would they ever possibly serve
(29:49):
Black people? Thanks y'all, love.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
The show and out so you should probably jump in
there and answer her question.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I would, first of all, Phebe, thank you and thank
you for your support and love for the show. We
love you back, welcome home.
Speaker 6 (30:06):
You know.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
The truth is this is probably I not be rolling
my eyes and my brother, Oh.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
No, I should be punching menab But I'm joking. I'm
I'm joking. But it's all love here. We're siblings. We're siblings.
It's all love. But I will say, you know what.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
Welcome home y'all? Was you welcome home? The whole home
idea is you?
Speaker 4 (30:23):
That is not I can't claim credit for that.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
So since you love Andrew so much, Phoebe, it was
actually Andrew's welcome home y'all.
Speaker 3 (30:30):
Oh, I thought it just organically kept like welcome home, y'all,
and it just stuck right we're in Atlanta. But anyway,
I don't know about you, Tiff and angel Love. Maybe
twenty years ago I could have given a more cogent
response to what Republicans stand for, even if I disagreed.
There's just none of that these days. I think, from
(30:50):
top to bottom, the party right now it's composed of sickophants,
and it's not just the party it is now bled
it's way and deeply ensconced itself and what was supposed
to be the justices blind right aspect of our constitution,
the judiciary, and at the highest levels this court has
(31:13):
been bought, paid for, and delivered by Donald Trump, the thief,
Mitch McConnell, and all of their Republican culprits in the
United States Senate who stole to US Supreme Court justice
seats and now have seated on this court six conservatives
(31:33):
against three constitutionalists. And I think it's a damn shame,
and I think for those of us who have been
trepidacious about this upcoming election, I don't think the stakes
can be any clearer than what they are right now.
Our freedoms, our very democracy is at stake thanks to
(31:54):
a court that is on the take, unethical, unconstitutional, creates
new law out of whole cloth. Thank you Katanji Brown
Jackson and Justice Sonya Soda Mayor for pointing that out
in your dissents this week. I'm aggrieved, and I hope
everybody out there feels agreed by the fact that, No,
(32:15):
it wasn't a great debate for Joe Biden the other day,
but y'all. One of the men on that stage at
least told the truth. The other win for ninety minutes
told straight lies period. Enough said, and if nothing else
motivates us, let the idea that Donald Trump can choose
to go after any one of us and prosecute us
(32:36):
and never ever have to answer for why it is
that he started a prosecution against us. And some people say, well,
you don't lose your constitutional right, you can still fight
it in court. Well, guess what, Try to remake your
life after you've been drugg through the damn gutter defending
yourself against the government of the United States of America.
Because that's the seal that the man carries by his
name when he's president. It is him the United States
(32:59):
government versus little old us. And there are no limits
to this dude. When he has unchecked, unfettered, unaccountable power,
He's coming for all of us, y'all. So you know what,
Joe Biden can be sleepy on some days, he can
be lame, on some days, he can be sharp and gregarious,
and I'm going on other days, I'll take him and
(33:19):
his administration any day over one day, one hour, one minute,
one second of Donald Trump and that White House again
being able to wreck havoc not over only our democracy,
but over any one of us that he chooses to.
The stakes are just that high this week. And petty
conversation about little stuff I don't have time for.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
Anymore, you know, I think the piece about the debate,
I don't think is petty. But it just feels like
the both like on both sides, not Donald Trump both sides,
but on both sides it feels like there are two
different they're operating in two different universes. So we know,
like with Donald Trump, it's like the end of all democracy,
(34:02):
and on Joe Biden's side, like people who say legitimately
like we really ain't got nobody else, Like I understand
the sentiment, and also, yeah, we really ain't got nobody
else at this point, like no candidate is willing to
challenge it. But I think one of the things I
appreciated earlier, at least in our pre pro call Andrews,
you were talking about there are some solutions, there are
some things that the people could do to make sure
(34:24):
that we don't just stay stuck Tiff in our gloom
and doom and like just you.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Know, God, now I'm America, Like, we just don't stay there?
So what do we do to not stay there? Andrew?
You got to bring us home and welcome us home, y'all.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
We got to figure this some of those thoughts. But
if I wanted to just throw it back to you
our hostel today, whether or not you had other, you know,
thoughts to offer, just on this, this this idea, I
think well.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
To her question.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
And I'm kind of stealing this from you, Andrew, because
you say this all the time. But we have to
stop talking about the Republican Party like it's a separate
entity from Donald Trump. There is no Republican Party. There
is only the Maga party now. And I think it's
important to address how we got here because so many
(35:08):
people have been given a pass, you know, like Donald
Trump just came on the scene and changed everything. That
is not true. The devil is a lie. This is
the only Republican Party we have ever known. Ronald Reagan,
George H. Bush, George HW.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
Bush.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
They may have been more articulate and less clumsy and
what they said, but their policies were just as damaging
and we are still They've rippled through generations and time
and destroyed generations of black and brown folks in this
country and poor white people. We've all been impacted by this.
And so even the people the never trumpers, You'll know,
(35:45):
a lot of these people voted just like Donald Trump.
They just don't like the way he presents himself. So
you have to ask him, do you not like him
as a person or do you not like his policies?
Because the battle we've been fighting has always been on
a policy side of things, less so than the politics
side of things.
Speaker 4 (36:02):
So you know, I.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
Don't think the Republicans have values anymore. Their value seem
to be whatever Donald Trump's values are. And he recognized
that he could tap into a base by saying, hey,
you're losing because they're winning and they look like you
and me. And I'm here to tell y'all, we ain't winning.
We are still very much in a battle, buying battles
(36:26):
our grandparents fought. So I get a little frustrated with
the media trying to sanitize some people. I mean, you
see people who worked for the insurrections alongside the insurrections
taking up space on cable news panels, writing books, appearing
on Dancing with the Stars like it's all good, And
we have to remind the folks that Frankenstein's my brother
Michael Eric Dyson says frank Ztein was the doctor.
Speaker 4 (36:47):
He was not the monster.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
So every single person who was ever a part of
this Republican party, you are the doctor that created this
monster and now you're being cannibalized.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
That's real. And angela intitive to your point around moving
forward and what folks can do, particularly around this issue
of the courts. One I just got to underscore you
can't separate the courts from the presidency. The president makes
those appointments to the federal judiciary and those are confirmed
or not by the US by the United States Senate.
(37:17):
So to the point of the US Senate, the president
by himself can't get the kind of sweeping change that
we want to see. It matters that we compete for
and we work for candidates who are supportive of in
the US Senate in the US Senate contests. And just
to give you some information, the last I think it's
(37:39):
fifteen of the last eighteen appointments to the United States
Supreme Court have been Republican appointees. Fifteen of the last
eighteen have been Republican presidential appointees that have been confirmed
to the High Court, even though Democrats, progressive, liberals, whatever
(37:59):
you want to call call it, represent forty million more
residents of the United States and the US Senate. So
how do we get here. We have a system that
is disproportionately disempowering states that are more diverse, states where
black folks and brown folks are living, paying their taxes
without the kind of equitable representation that we deserve and
(38:21):
that we need in Washington. And the fallout from that
is that they're able to make last stands like what
we've seen happen at the Supreme Court, and even worse
in other decisions because they're unchecked. Mitch mccona can still
a seat and never have to pay the consequence of
what that's like. And so let's presume we get the
White House hold the Senate and get the House Democrats.
(38:46):
My suggestion, and this has come forth through other people's
voices as well, need to enlarge the United States Supreme
Court to thirteen members, add four new appointments to the
Supreme Court that a Democrat Joe Biden, will appoint and
that a Democratic Senate will confirm and move forward after
they abolish the filibuster, and then they ought to incorporate
(39:10):
term limits for the United States Supreme Court. That way,
a Clarence Thomas and his grift and his take and
his lavish vacations and millions and millions of dollars and
gifts can't ever get so comfortable on a court without
recognizing that he's got to be accountable at the end
of the day on the other side of that term.
And guess what, even though they are lifetime appointments, it
(39:31):
doesn't say a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court.
It is to the court. And so they can spend
eighteen years on the US Supreme Court and then go
into service under a lower federal court and continue for
the rest of their lives until their force retirement or
their voluntary retirement or demise.
Speaker 4 (39:47):
This is awesome, Trew.
Speaker 5 (39:48):
Yeah, I was just going to say really quickly sometimes
as Typic was saying earlier, and I do think it's
important for us to always remember this because we live,
eat and breathe this that we are in the.
Speaker 4 (39:58):
Weeds a lot.
Speaker 5 (39:59):
Like just show how practical what you're saying is thirty
four of the United States Senates one hundred seats are
up for election this election year in November on November
twenty four, or thirty four of those seats. Two of
them are special elections, but thirty four of those seats
are up for grabs.
Speaker 4 (40:16):
Most of them are Democratic seats, that's right.
Speaker 5 (40:19):
So it's about preserving what is already existing. Hopefully these
folks vote in alignment with your values and also working
to fight back against Republican senators who have not represented
your best interest in values and expanding the court is
absolutely something Congress can do, and.
Speaker 3 (40:35):
I just wanted to. I want to give an example,
some examples of things that can happen as a result
of us having voted, because some folks may throw up
their hands and say, all right, the Supreme Court aside it.
What are we going to do about it? What can
a new democratic president do about it? What can it
do a Democratic Congress do about it? There are a
lot of things that can be done about it, but
it can't happen unless we sweep, unless we sweek this thing,
(40:58):
and that requires our full put to disipation in the process.
A lot is being said about Joe Biden. Obviously it's
the top of the ticket, but I make these comments
out of a plea for folks to see that it's
not just the presidency that we've got to be concerned about.
You can't sent a president in there and then handicap
him with the left and the right hand tie behind
their back because we didn't then vote for the US
(41:20):
Senate and the US House. I want to just quickly
name check these states, and then I'm off West Virginia.
I don't know who all in West Virginia, but you
all have a Senate seat that is now occupied by
a Democrat that is likely going to go allegedly, well
anyway another time.
Speaker 6 (41:38):
He is.
Speaker 3 (41:39):
He's an independent of caucuses with the Democrats, which is
how we're still able to hold the allegedly well, he
may not vote with us all the time, but he
does caucus with with the Democrats.
Speaker 4 (41:49):
Allegedly.
Speaker 3 (41:50):
Okay. In Maryland, a lot of y'all are in Maryland.
We have the former governor of Maryland who is also
running and has made this now a closer contest Democrats,
black folk folk period. There. We've got to organized, organized,
organized to ensure that that seat in Maryland, that Senate
seat remains in Democratic hands.
Speaker 4 (42:11):
Angela also also.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
Brooks the county executive. Which county is it? County Arizona?
Current independent holds that seat, retiring caucuses of the Democrat retiring.
That seat is now open, y'all. Remember that?
Speaker 10 (42:29):
Uh uh.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
Wild right? Huhga, Yes, but I was trying to think
of Kerry Lake who he is running against. You remember
the wild Carry Lake who just went crazy over Trump. Well,
ran for governor of the least election Denier and is
running for the US Senate. That is a seat that
(42:51):
we have got to compete for. We got a whole Michigan, Michigan, Michigan, y'all.
Debbie stabbing Ow is out, she's leaving, she's retired. That
seat is an open contest. Michigan is a close state.
Pennsylvania Senator Casey is up for re elections Bob Casey
Junior in Pennsylvania another closely contested state. We got to
(43:12):
show up there, y'all. Wisconsin, I know we in Wisconsin,
Tammy Baldwin, incumbent Democrat, up very close race. We need
us there. Montana. I don't know who all out there, y'all,
but if you're out there, we need you to show up.
We need you to count Nevada not to be confused
with Nevada. There is a competitive US Senate seat organized
(43:34):
get connected, plug in there, and then last and certainly
not least Ohio Share It Brown sitting incumbent. But Ohio
is the state the Democrats in the presidential column lost
by double digits. We have got to, got to got
to hold that seat for a Senator Shared Brown, who
for some reason, strange reason, is an alien there because
(43:54):
he has been able to win reelection even when his
state has gone wildly for Donald Trump and presidential contest.
Those are the states that are are are seemingly most
consequential to Democrats holding onto the US Senate. Y'all, I
hope you'll plug in, and we'll plug in our in
our analysis of this episode. Some sites that you can
visit three sixty five, five thirty eight Cook Political Report.
(44:19):
There are a number of others that you can visit
and learn which seats in the House as well as
in the Senate are competitive that you can plug in
to help out.
Speaker 5 (44:27):
If I could just say really quickly, right now, the
House Republicans have a very very very slim majority to
nineteen to Democrats two thirteen, and there's a vac there
are vacancy possible.
Speaker 4 (44:43):
Possible to flips.
Speaker 5 (44:45):
Of course, four hundred and thirty five total voting members.
If the House flips, it is likely that Hakim Jeffries
would become speaker. So again, this is all about turnout,
and it's about turnout down ballot. We often talk about voting,
but we don't always talk about voting in off your elections.
It matters during midterms, it matters during presidentials, and it
matters not to just fill in that circle on that
(45:07):
top of that ballot. It matters to go all the
way down ballot for initiatives in your community. Council members, mayors,
county commissioners. Andrew was both a county commissioner and he
was a mayor, and he should have been governor. I
maintained that we'll talk about that on another bitty pot
when we're ready. But I think that what we need
to understand and there's is there so much at stake.
(45:28):
I'm talking through what should be a break, and so
we shall toss to this break.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
We gotta pay some bills. But on the other side
of this break, we're bringing you back into the conversation.
We have another viewer question, and this time we're hearing
from Breonte, so don't go anywhere. We'll see you on
the other side.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome.
Speaker 10 (45:55):
Hey, good day Native Land family. Hey, I got a
quick question for y'all. You know names Breontam from Texas
in Dallas texts to be specific. Uh, but my question
for y'all is, you know, last night, you know, we
watched Jamaal Bowman taking al last night in New York
and it's really frustrating to watch because Jamal Bowman, you know,
(46:16):
he represents the best of us.
Speaker 3 (46:18):
Uh.
Speaker 10 (46:18):
He represents everything that needs to be in DC fight
for changes that we want to see. My question is,
what is it that we need to be doing as
black people. Rather it's contributing our dollars or putting our
attention towards, what do we need to be doing to
make sure we're protecting representatives or senators or whoever. Politicians
(46:38):
that are like jamalro Bowman, that are there fighting so
they won't fill alone. So when they do have these challenges,
these primary primary challengers, but they're able to with stand
against all the money that's being thrown black folks.
Speaker 6 (46:51):
We have some.
Speaker 10 (46:51):
Of the highest spending power in the world, but we
don't seem to have a collective situation to when it
comes to making sure our dollars come together. So what
is it that we can be doing or building to
make sure we're getting to that point to where you know,
Apek was funded well funded by Jewish and others.
Speaker 3 (47:13):
What can we do to get to that point?
Speaker 8 (47:14):
You know.
Speaker 10 (47:15):
Appreciate y'all, thanks for taking a question. Also a little
man back. Yeah, thanks y'all.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
Yeah, came over from the Baby. I love it, and
I love that question. I think it's such a good
question because so many people. I think when we present
information sometimes people can feel blanketed. They don't you know
fully I know I feel that way. I don't fully
grasp you know, all these acronyms and inside baseball talk,
and so you can feel just like, if I'm being
(47:45):
asked to care about everything, it's easy to care about nothing.
Speaker 4 (47:49):
So I really appreciate that question.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
And I'm stealing this from Angela when we were in
Miami at our first stop on our Native Land tour
and we were talking about being tired, and Angela, you
made the point like if you're sitting next to someone like, yeah,
we're all tired, but maybe someone else isn't tired in
the same way. You know, maybe you're tired of hearing information,
(48:11):
maybe you're tired of canvas and whatever that is. So
I would say every little bit helps. If everyone does
a little, no one has to do a lot. If
you have the financial resources, fund a candidate that speaks
to your interests, your issues. If you don't have the
financial resources, show up. There's always bodies need a canvas.
You can knock door to door. If you don't have
(48:32):
financial resources and you don't have time capacity learn, be informed,
share responsibly. You can post something on social media from
a reputable source that you have personally looked at and
you understand this information to be true and it's verified.
Be sure that you're sharing responsibly. Vote obviously, we always
say that, but show up on election day and make
(48:53):
your voice heard, and not just during presidential election years.
And I will be honest, I have challenges to votevoing
in some of those off year elections where it might
just be a ballid initiative that accounts or a special election.
Speaker 4 (49:06):
But those are all.
Speaker 1 (49:07):
Just some basic things that you can do. And I'm
sure my co hosts have thoughts I haven't even thought of.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
I just want to plug collective Pack as an avenue
of concentrating our giving power, multiplying our giving power so
that resources can go to progressive black and brown candidates,
or in the case of Collective you know, concentrating on
black candidates who are running particularly for these higher offices
that people never give a shot to, but because they
can come in with real resources, our collective resources, it
(49:36):
can make a real big difference. So look them up.
Collective Pack.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
Oh, just to clarify for the listeners really quickly, Collective
pack pack as a political action committee. Collective Pack is
something that's run by a husband and wife couple, Stephanie
Brown James and Clinton James, and they raise money for
candidates running.
Speaker 4 (49:53):
At the federal level.
Speaker 1 (49:55):
I'd imagine they're probably similar organizations for people running at
the state and low And if there isn't something like
this that exists at the state and local level in
your area, then be that started. You know, make sure
you look up those campaign finance laws. But if you
don't see what you need, then created sorry.
Speaker 3 (50:13):
Support at this by the way they do for correct
and its Collective pack dot org. I'm sorry. I had
to look it up real quick collective.
Speaker 5 (50:21):
And there are some additional packs as well. Of course,
shout out to Quentin and Stephanie, we see we love y'all, like,
thank you for the work that you do every single day.
There's also Higher Heights, there's Black pack, and then the
CBC pack, which just so you all know, I do
sit on that board. I want to just acknowledge some
of the other pieces that Brionte raised in his question.
(50:42):
So one of the things that I heard in Brionta's
question is something that we didn't get to and we
talked about Jamal Bowman last week. Sometimes what we have
to know it and I'm so glad that he talked
about with black folks can do with our dollars, how
we can support our candidates. We talked about some of
those packs, and I'm thanking him for thrusting us right
into the heart of our calls to action for this week.
(51:05):
But I was really frustrated by the need for Hillary
Clinton to get involved with this primary contest. You will
see overwhelmingly a number of packs, including where there are
incumbents involved.
Speaker 4 (51:20):
The CBC, even.
Speaker 5 (51:21):
When there is a black primary challenger, will often not
get involved when the incumbent is one of their housemates,
it's somebody that is one of their colleagues.
Speaker 4 (51:33):
And so even though Hillary Clinton did.
Speaker 5 (51:37):
Not serve with Jamal Bowman, I am hard pressed to
understand why she felt the need to engage in this
race when there are the Joe Manchins of the world,
when there are the Curesten Cinemas of the world, and
I have not heard her say anything about challenging them,
or of course Cinema's out now, but I haven't heard
(51:58):
the need for them to push back on these folks,
and that rhetoric is one single issue so important for
you to undermine history. Right, this is a black member
that may get that got the CBC over fifty to
sixty members when we are finally seeing representation. The same
(52:19):
CBC that ensured that you had an opportunity right had
a credible run in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4 (52:26):
So it is beyond me that she would get involved.
Speaker 5 (52:32):
And I think that my call to action here would
be that we always remember that our actions don't always align.
Speaker 4 (52:40):
Just because we.
Speaker 5 (52:41):
May align in how we vote or what policy priorities
we have based on party, sometimes our interests collide and
it is okay for us to represent and protect our
interests even when they are not aligned with people who
we may look up to, with people who we may
have supported, with people who we may have ended, and
with folks we may have even donated to. I also
(53:03):
don't think it is it is it is it is
unnecessary for us to remind them of where their loyalties
should and must lie when we did stand with them
when we didn't have to. And I think that that
will be how we get to the other side of
recognizing and harnessing our collective black political power.
Speaker 1 (53:33):
I feel like we've given some calls to action, but
we it's that time and the show where we give
calls to action. So you guys want to go first
and give one or you feel like you already gave yours.
Speaker 3 (53:44):
I know this was a dense that was mine.
Speaker 4 (53:46):
Brionta thrusted me into mind. I'm good, Okay, A.
Speaker 3 (53:50):
More dense and substantive uh you know, pod And sometimes
these things can be heavy. But I trust your intelligence.
I don't want to underestimate based off the questions that
you all asked, the way the various specifics that you
already know, you've picked up, you've read, you've looked at
that this isn't too heavy for any one of us
to carry our own respective pieces. And so I'll just
(54:13):
you know, just my ass would be. While it feels
like sometimes like we're breathing down of fire hose, please
resist the urge to check out, to tune out, to
turn the page. In fact, I think oftentimes people in
higher office and power and positions of influence, they want
you to check out. They want to say this is
too hard, They want you to feel like you don't
(54:35):
have the brain capacity to take it all in. I
know different, I trust different, I believe different, and so
I'm never gonna I'm never gonna talk down to you
and talk at you and with you in conversation and
the way that I would anyone else who I believe
to be interested in these kinds of subjects. And just
thank you for your support of Native Land and allow
(54:57):
us to hopefully bring you yes some fun as then
as we can, but also as much as we can
the real the substance.
Speaker 1 (55:04):
All right, thank you guys for tuning in. Before we
end the show, I want to let you all know
remind you to please leave a review, subscribe to native
Land Pod. We're available on out all platforms and YouTube.
New episodes drop every Thursday. You can also follow us
on social media. We are Tiffany Cross, Angel Riot Angie Gillum.
(55:26):
Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 4 (55:27):
There are one hundred and twenty five days the election day.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
Thank you for joining the Natives. Attention to what the
info and all of the latest rock gulum and cross
connected to the statements that you leave on our socials.
Thank you sincerely for the patients. Reason for your choice
is clear, So grateful it took to execute roads. Thank
you for serve, defend and protect the truth, even if PA.
We welcome home to all of the Natives wait, Thank you,
(55:53):
Welcome y'all.
Speaker 3 (55:55):
Welcome.
Speaker 4 (56:05):
Native Land Pod is a production of iHeartRadio and partnership
with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
your favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Tiffany Cross
Andrew Gillum
Angela Rye
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.