INTERVIEW: Byron Donalds Talks Trump Vs. Kamala, Jan. 6 Insurrection, Racism In America, Reparations + More

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Wake that ass up in the morning.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
The Breakfast Club Morning, everybody in stej n V, Jess, Hilarrys, Charlamagne,
the gud We are the Breakfast Club, just as on
maternity leave. So Laura Ross is filling in. We also
have our sister Angela Rye with us this.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Morning, the host of the Native Lamb podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
That's right, and we got a special guest in the building.
He's from Brooklyn, the brother Byron Donald's.

Speaker 3 (00:24):
Also with the fam.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
You too, HBCU there you Gooklyn, Yeah, Crownheightst. Brooklyn.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Can't you tell us the meeting way speaks. I'm like,
you don't sound like nothing but.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
The New Yorker Park Place, Choring, Schenectady.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Man, the way he walked in, I was like, new Yorker,
we'll welcome brother.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
So how'd you become a well, I guess because you
know in New York is considered such a liberal place.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
How did you become a conservative?

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Oh man? Politics came late from me in life. I
started as a Democrat, right, Yeah, it was a registered Democrat.
Didn't really care about politics. I think a lot of
people like that in the country. They just register as
whatever family or friends are, not really thinking about it.
My career was financed, so I graduated with a your
finance marketing from Florida State. I had too much fun
at FAMU, so I had to transfer. So I transferred
to the FSU got my degree there. Started in my career,

(01:08):
worked in banking, worked in insurance, and then do a
financial collapse of a wait. My company had international clients
and they were saying, we need to get information for
our clients so we can keep the investment going. So
I started doing the research because I had worked in
banking for five years. And when I did the research,
one of the last things I did was watch the
House Financial Services Committee in Congress. First time I ever

(01:28):
watched the Congressional Committee, and I watched it, and really,
for me, it was that the members didn't know what
they were talking about. I was like, who are these people?
You know, I was twenty nine at the time, twenty
nine to thirty, and I'm thinking, who are these guys?
They don't know what they're talking about a lot of
stuff doesn't make sense. And so that's really what started
having me starting to think about politics, and you know,
the journey kind of went from there. But I got

(01:49):
to tell y'all both. My son, he's sitting at home,
my son Mason, and he's a huge fan, so he
listens all the time. So I got to get a
shot to Mason.

Speaker 5 (01:59):
Congress, you just mentioned that you attended FAMU but graduated
from Florida State. We know that Donald Trump committed two
hundred and fifty five million dollars annually to HBCUs, while
the Biden administration invested more than sixteen billion since fiscal
year twenty twenty one to HBCUs, averaging more than four
billion dollars annually. They also challenged states through the Department

(02:21):
of Education on that same department that projects twenty twenty
five wants to abolish, and the US Department of Agriculture
to close a twelve billion dollar gap between funding of
land grant institutions that are traditionally white institutions and historically
black colleges. FAMU is, of course one of those schools,
as you know. The letator to Governor DeSantis said, in

(02:43):
the last thirty years alone, an additional over one point
nine billion dollars would have been available for FAMU had
this disparity not existed. We obligation this Florida have to
properly fund FAMU to ensure rattlers like yourself are properly
educated with the resources they do serve.

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Well, look, I mean thank you for the question. I
think that the disparities you talk about between some of
the you know, I guess probably more prolific universities in
our state like UF and FSU versus FAM YOU, and
from some of the younger universities like UWF, un F,
et cetera. It's something that when I was in the
state legislature, we actually talked a lot about. My last

(03:23):
year in Tallahassee, there was a project for the Student
Services Build and it was about a twenty five million
dollar contract project. Myself and members on the Democrats side
of the aisle, we worked with the leadership in Tallahassee
and then Governor Destiantis to make sure that fam YOU
got the money they needed to build that project out completely.

(03:43):
And so that's something specifically I worked on. I think
going forward, you know, that is something we gotta definitely address.
I totally agree with that. I think there's two issues though,
in higher education we got to also address. We do
have a problem with the unaffordability of college and a partner.
Of the reason why it is a problem is because
so much money is poured into universities, and we have

(04:04):
told so many kids in the United States that the
only way to be successful is to go to college.
I'm from the generation I don't want to talk about
your age, aams just humble, leave that alone. I'm gonna
call you thirty two years old and I'm gonna walk away.

Speaker 5 (04:16):
I'm forty four. I'll be forty five, not thirty two.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
Is way better. But anyway, you know, it's all right,
it's all right, it's all right. But I think the
point is that we have to start telling, you know,
young people that there's multiple ways to be successful. When
you have a situation coming from high school where all
your successes can only be found with a four year degree,
what you also end up doing is you put up
with pressure on the cost of college. But you're getting

(04:41):
a lot of people coming out of college who have
a degree that doesn't have economic value when there are
multiple pathways for success in the United States. So funding
that is on par through all universities is important. I
do agree, but we also have to address the realities
that's pushing every high school student into college. With the
alse reality that a college degree is going to make

(05:02):
you successful. It's not going to help them help help
them for successful term because they're going to be burdened
with the cost of that degree. Go into the real
world and then realize, hold on, wait a minute, I
can't get a job with the degree I have. Not
all degrees are the same. I believe, personally, an accounting degree,
a finance degree, like I have an engineering degree, a
law degree that has more economic value overall in the

(05:25):
economy than a marketing degree, which I also have, or
a communications degree, or or or a psychology degree, or
a philosophy degree, et cetera. If you can get into
psychology and make that work for yourself. So I think
there's multiple layers to college education that we need to address.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
Let me ask you a question, right, yeah, So I
want to go back a little bit. So you you
were arrested before for marijuana. Yeah, you're arrested for bank fraud.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (05:48):
You're also of Caribbean descent Jamaican. When you hear Donald
Trump talk about some of the other brothers that were
arrested and taking out that full ad in the paper,
all you hear them talking about Haitian people are eating
dogs and cats. You still stand by them and what
they believe in?

Speaker 1 (06:04):
If you do, why, well, a couple of things.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Given a second chance, but like we should have like
you should have been But you know, why do you
still stand by them?

Speaker 1 (06:13):
If you do well? I think you also got to
acknowledge that when he was president, he also did the
First Step Act, which underdid which undid a lot of
the issues with the ninety four crime Bill that a
lot of politicians, including the current president, were four. He
undid that when he was president of the United States.
I think second changes are important in society. I think
everybody's afforded them. You know what happened with the Central

(06:35):
Park five. I was probably sixth seventh grade, eighth grade
when that was going down in New York, YEP. I
can't really speak to that.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
But what I also where you couldn't escape around it.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
Everywhere you couldn't escape it. But what I would also
add is that in two thousand, Donald Trump was a
member of the Reform Party. Most people don't talk about this.
He was a member of the Reform Party. When David
Duke joined the Reform Party, he left. He famed. She
said I can't be associated with that party because they
let David do come in. That man is a klansman.
When he bought Mara a Lago, he desegregated Maro Lago.

(07:07):
But at the time when he bought it, only white
people were allowed in Marlago. He desegregated that a lot
of black people and Jewish people be a part of
Mari Lago. So I think that when you start going
down the road of the past, you have to take
a man in his totality. I know the man today,
and then when you couple that with the economic policies,
the energy policies, the foreign policy, we have to acknowledge
the reality that in the world today, the United States

(07:29):
is in the midst of two conflicts, not directly but indirectly.
We just sent troops over into the Middle East because
of the growing conflict with our ally Israel having to
essentially secure it's a sovereignty and its protection from Hesbalah
and hamas well. When Donald Trump was president, we didn't
have to do any of that. So I acknowledged the
stuff that you're talking about what happened in the past.

(07:51):
But I think you have to take a man on
the full record and when he was president, he did
release a lot of black people from prison. He did that.
He did try to reform or some of the criminal
justice system. He did that as well. And so that
work is just as important as something that might he
might have said back during the central part five.

Speaker 4 (08:07):
I acknowledge the first step back when you said he
undid the ninety four.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
Crime bill, what do you mean? What I mean is
that the reforms in the first step back did undid
impart some of the issues in the ninety four crime
build Not totally, not totally. It dealt with the sentencing
of those people who were who either had their sentences
reduced or were released, and their convictions were in line
with the ninety four Crime Bill in the way criminal
statutes were written during that during that under that piece

(08:30):
of legislation, and on the whole.

Speaker 5 (08:33):
Uh sorry, just on the same point. You talked about
taking the man in his totality. So one of those
things in his totality is what happened on January sixth,
which is your first term in Congress. Yeah, do you
think he should be held accountable? Donald Trump should be
held accountable for his role in the January sixth insurrection?

Speaker 1 (08:57):
Well, I mean, listen, First of all, I will tell
you that every bodies responsible for their own actions, just
like I'm not gonna blame friends or blame anybody else
for the things I've done wrong in my life. I'm
not gonna put that on him. I'm not gonna go
I'm not gonna run around and blame Bernie Sanders for
the fact that Steve's salicice was shot. Because if you
go back and looking with Steve Scalise, who's the current
leader in the House of Representatives, who almost died at

(09:18):
a congressional baseball practice. Hold on, I'm explaining. So I'm
gonna come back to January sixth, Yeah, please do now. Well,
of course, the shooter that almost killed Steve Scalise, the
Republican leader. He said vehemently that the reason why he
went to the congressional baseball practice of Republicans to shoot
it up was because he felt that Republicans were going
to take away health care, and what he had heard
in his rhetoric was that was dangerous and these Republicans

(09:41):
had to be stopped. So I'm gonna translate that to
January sixth. The shooter is the one that perpetrated that crime.
I'm not gonna put that on Bernie Sanders, who he
cited for the rhetoric around why he went to the
congressional baseball practice. That's the shooter that almost killed Steve Scalise.
Let me translate. Donald Trump authorized ten thousand National Guard troops.
I'm on the oversight committee. He actually authorized ten thousand

(10:04):
troops on January fourth, two days before January sixth. Obviously,
So if you're gonna say that you incited an insurrection,
how you also are gonna how are you also going
to authorize ten thousand National Guard troops to be at
the Capitol? Are you inciting or are you not? Because
the record is he authorized the troops. Nancy Pelosi and
Mario Bowser, the mayor of DC, did not want the

(10:25):
troops at the capitol. Mario Bowser signed a letter on
January fifth wanting the National Guard troops to be on
traffic duty in DC. Here's a funny thing about January fifth,
twenty twenty one, is that nobody was in DC because
DC's rules around COVID nineteen had the entire city shut down.
The streets were empty during this time. So the National

(10:46):
Guard that was authorized by Donald Trump were on traffic
duty when there was no traffic, when they could have
been at the capitol. That's the history of January sixth.
So your question is, well, did he did he inside
a riot? Well, I never seen somebody inside.

Speaker 5 (11:00):
Because no, no, But I just I want to make
sure that you're addressing the right point, because I actually
did not use that language. What I asked you was
should Donald Trump be held accountable for his role in
January sixth? And so, what I think is important is
to compare this to Steve Scalise being shot after someone

(11:20):
wanted healthcare versus the rhetoric, the very dangerous rhetoric that
Donald Trump spouted on January sixth. Were more than more
than more than twelve hundred people have been charged in
nearly all fifty states for their role, and one hundred
and forty police officers were assaulted, the same police officers
that your party has said they want qualified immunity for,

(11:42):
and Donald Trump, because we're looking at the totality of
the person, has said they should have full immunity, right,
And when you think about the number of police officers
who would get full immunity for their role in killing
and being violent with people, in our community, like George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, Tamor, Rice Freddy Gray, Filando Castile, Charlena Lyles

(12:06):
manny Ellis, is that really the kind of rhetoric that
you want to push, especially at the breakfast club.

Speaker 1 (12:12):
Well, hold on a second, because you brought in like
four different topics.

Speaker 5 (12:15):
Now, no, I didn't. What I brought in was January sixth, responsibility,
police accountability, and I used examples of why they should
be held accountable. But all you talked about how fantastic
he was with the crime Bill, which I object, but
I'll let you finish your point. You also have not
acknowledged the fact that this man was vehemently opposed to

(12:36):
the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. And you all
are supposed to be the party that protects law enforcement,
where over one hundred and fifty police officers were assaulted
that day on January sixth because of Donald.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
Trump's Okay, so let me respond to a couple of things.
Number One, the George Floyd George Floyd Justice and Policing Act.
There were actually two bills that were moving through the
United States Senate that year. There was the George Floyd
Policing Act that you discussed, and it was the bill
that was written by Senator Tim Scott. They were both moving.
They're go through the moving through the Senate right. The
Tim Scott bill is the one that could have got

(13:09):
signed into law. It was essentially a mirror image of
the George Foyd Bill except for a qualified immunity. The
difference between those two bills and Angeliae you just acknowledged it.
The only difference between those two bills was qualified immunity.
The issue with qualified immunity is very simple. If you
remove qualified immunity from policing, you're gonna have less officers
on the street. Police officers make what seventy eighty ninety

(13:32):
thousand dollars a year. They have most law enforcement has
about forty million or more encounters every single year with
citizens under if you've removed qualified immunity. I'm telling you
this right now because I've talked with law enforcement of
officers all across the country. Not the chiefs, the officers,
they will not be working these communities. I'm from Brooklyn,
New York. I'm from Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I may not

(13:53):
have always loved having a police in my neighborhood, and
that's just the thing from a kid. I may not
have always loved it, but when I needed them, they
were there. And a lot of our officers today, they're black,
they're Hispanic, they're white. So removing qualified immunity only lowers
the number of officers in communities. What we're seeing right
now is a movement of policing from states where they're
not really respecting law enforcement to states where they do

(14:16):
or there's not that moral support for law enforcement. I
was in my district yesterday. I was talking with an
officer who's from Philadelphia. He was a Philadelphia officer. He
now is a Fort Myers officer. I asked, someone said, well,
why did you make the move? He goes, because up
there there was no support for me as an officer
for what I love to do, which to serve my community.
So I said, enough is enough. I'm a movie. He
went to Florida. My sheriff in Florida, He's like, I

(14:38):
have more applications coming from officers who are in states
or in localities where they're not getting the moral support
or whatever they need to continue to do their job
day in, day out, and so they're leaving well, who
does that hurt? That hurts hurt? Who does that really hurt? Though, Charlemagne,
Because if you don't have officers, if you don't have
offices on the streets or officers you know in urban areas,

(15:00):
who's really left in that lurch?

Speaker 4 (15:01):
Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what is qualified immunity.
You have to do it having less police.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
Offices because because the economic incentive of qualified immunity means
that your personal assets aren't going after if something goes wrong.
So you know, you're in business, you're in business.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
Do you get.

Speaker 1 (15:17):
Involved in a project or a deal that leaves you
massively exposed financially? You may, depending on your passion for
that project, But then you also sit back and think, now,
wait a minute, if something goes wrong, I'm gonna be
held massively by maybe.

Speaker 5 (15:32):
We're talking about people getting violent. Yeah, hurt or killed, rushed.

Speaker 3 (15:38):
Over violates the constitutional right.

Speaker 1 (15:41):
And when you're when you violate a constitutional right, qualified
immunity doesn't apply to you. And that's what I'm talking about.
It does not Angel don't do that. It does not
know the definition if you if you carry yourself outside
of the confines of your training and the protocols of
that department. Qualified immunity doesn't apply to you.

Speaker 5 (16:02):
It's not true.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
That is very true. That is very Truely is patently true,
and we need to make sure we have that accurate.
We cannot make that statement because you have a lot
of officers out here who do their job with honor
and dignity and respect for the people that they serve.

Speaker 4 (16:16):
Okay, The qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protect
government government officials from civil lawsuits when they perform their
jobs unless they clearly violated constitutional right.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
That's exactly what I'm saying. And what is a violation
of that right is when they're outside the norms of
their training and the protocols of that department, of that agent,
of that agency.

Speaker 5 (16:30):
But here's the main thing, because we can actually go
past qualified immunity, because this is the place where you've
refused to answer both on Donald Trump's accountability and on
the law enforcement that you love so dearly. What we
know is that he's seeking full immunity, like the same
immunity he now has because of the Supreme Court, because
of the corruption of the Supreme Court. We have now

(16:53):
gone beyond civil presidential immunity to criminal presidential immunity. He
would like to give that same immunity to law enforcement.

Speaker 1 (17:03):
True or false, Well, let's let's expand that a couple
of people are false. You can't ask or false, Angela,
because you've got to explain the details. Don't see this
the part.

Speaker 5 (17:10):
I don't want you to explain the details, because when
you don't want.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
People to hear details, angel the details of what the
things that matter, You've.

Speaker 5 (17:16):
Got to explain the details and then explain if you don't.

Speaker 1 (17:22):
If you don't explain the details, then you're just talking.

Speaker 5 (17:24):
You don't want to say that because you know that
it's not true.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
That is not true. You want a true false statement,
I want to I don't want to argue with you.
I want to explain the facts country, Angela. I don't
want to argue with you.

Speaker 5 (17:33):
If you ever experienced racism in this country, Congressman, yeah,
actually I have. Okay, do you believe America is a
racist country?

Speaker 1 (17:41):
No? I don't.

Speaker 5 (17:43):
Okay, I believe that that's true because you say that
in an offed on Fox News as a black conservative,
I like Senator Scott agree in our two lives and
the lives of many Black men and women like us
are living proof that America is indeed no longer a
racist nation and by far the best place to reach
your fullest potential. And so here's my question. You did, however,

(18:05):
vote to support the Emmet hil Anti Lynching Act along
with every member of the House except for three Republicans.
So I appreciate your bipartisans bipartisanship there and what I
do know as well, because America is, in fact a
racist country was founded on such principles. Black men were
lynched by the Carsorol State last week. I'm sure you've
heard of Marcello's Williams by Now in Missouri, who was

(18:28):
convicted by a nearly all white jury, and Freddie Owens
in South Carolina, who was executed despite his friend recanting
testimony that Owens was not in fact there. This is
the same state, by the way, that allowed for a
firing squad as an execution option. Black people are about
seven and a half times more likely to be wrongfully

(18:48):
convicted of murder in the United States than are white folks,
and about eighty percent more likely to be innocent than
others convicted of murder, according to a twenty twenty two
report by the National Registry of Exonerations. So please tell
me how America's not erasedst country.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
First thing I would say is that our past is
a dark one. It really is. We can't walk away
from that. We had whole laws that were subjugating black
people in the south of this nation for decades after
the Civil War. We can't walk away from that. One.
I believe that in America, we have great people in
this country, and we have some people, quite frankly, that
even I can't stand. But they're the vast, vast, vast

(19:29):
minority of people in our country. Most people just want
to live in harmony and peace. That's what they That's
what they really want. I think the important thing to
acknowledge today is what's going to help black people going forward.
And what's going to help black people moving forward is
economic policy. It's actually wide open energy policy so we
can be energy dominant. It's yes, securing our southern border

(19:50):
because we have a situation right now where, yeah, there
are more than fifteen million illegal aliens in the country.
Where do they reside? Mostly in sanctuary cities like New York.
Where are they at sanctuary states like illinoisl like California.
What's happening in those cities? Hospital systems are overrun. Why
are they overrun because you have people in the country
illegally who don't have resources, so they're going into the

(20:11):
emergency room. What are they taking up? They're taking resources
from poor people in our country, whether they're black, whether
they're Hispanic, whether they're white. That's wrong. What about education?
We have a situation where in too many inner cities
kids are not reading at grade level, or they're not
doing they don't have math skills at grade level. How
does that help them excel and achieve? I don't want
to discount what Angela is saying. I don't I acknowledge

(20:33):
the issue of our nation, but we always are trying
to strive to be the more perfect union. So in
twenty twenty four, what are the economic policies, what are
the national security policies, What are the border security policies
that are gonna make our country thrive? So, whether you black, Hispanic,
or white, you could thrive. And so I think it's so.

Speaker 5 (20:52):
Would you have to say that if it wasn't a
racist country, whether you're black, white, or Hispanic, you could thrive. No, No,
are we thriving is members, and I would.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Argue we're not. I would argue, we're not really thriving
right now. This inflation, which by the way, was brought
to us by Kamala Harris, it has really slowed down
people from being able to excel by Kamala Yes, Oh, Charlemagne,
President Charlemagne listen man. When Joe Biden wanted to do
his American Rescue Plan, Kamala Harris was a tie break
and vote in the United States Senate. She broke the

(21:23):
tide and started this inflation that has hurt so many
people in our country. Everybody listening to your show, who's
it's not true.

Speaker 5 (21:32):
You want to go outside, Okay, let's go. That's fine.

Speaker 3 (21:42):
I have no I'm gonna give it. I'm gonna give it.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
Because because Angel.

Speaker 5 (21:50):
For every infrastructure project in your community, just highlight Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris and the Congress that voted for
the American Rescue Plan, and that's what should be had.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
Larry Summers wrote a op ed back in twenty twenty one.
Larry Larry Summers was a Treasury Secretary for Bill Clan.
He was an economic advisor to a Barack Obama. He
said that the American Rescue Plan that Joe Biden wanted
that Kamala Harris was a tiebreaking vote in the United
States Senate would create a massive inflation that we have
not seen in a generation. Well, guess what, Larry Summers

(22:22):
was correct? You know who also was correct? Angela? I
was because I was in the Budget committee when they
brought the bill, and I said in that committee it's
gonna cause massive inflation. That's what happened. So the problem
we have in our economy today is that prices have
gone up massively, wages adjusted for inflation is down. People's
pocketbooks are hurting. But we have a presidential election of

(22:43):
forty days. So and I'm gonna ask Envy this question. Mvy,
you do how you do? You're in the housing business
as well. I know because I'm watching your to the show. No,
I'm just asking him a question. Chill Angela. So you know,
and I listened to the show. I know you do
a lot of business in housing. Would you hire somebody
that broke up stuff in one of your houses to
fix the other houses? Exactly? She broke the economy. That's

(23:07):
not me.

Speaker 5 (23:10):
Because I'm bringing facts.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
So now I'm bringing facts. You don't want to do
it no more. Come on now, Angela, that's not right.
I'm bringing fact. I thought we were going to have
a fact based conversation. I want to have a fact
based conversation.

Speaker 5 (23:23):
You wanted to bring up votes, and so let's talk
about votes. You have a ninety six percent voting record
with Heritage Action, but we could talk about for those
who are listening. Heritage Action is a part of the
Heritage Foundation, which is the architect of Project twenty twenty five,
which we can talk about more later. You voted no

(23:45):
on HR eighty four zero four, which provide federal recognition
and protection to interracial couples, and that actually is a
law that would benefit you, Congressman, given your your marriage.
You voted no. HR six s eight on requiring the
Bureau of Prisons to provide incarcerated women with certain pregnancy

(24:07):
related care including sexually transmitted infectious testing, contraception, appropriate housing, betting, clothing,
access to hydration and restrooms, prenatal vitamins, and other appropriate
conditions of confinement, Screening and care for high risk pregnancy,
substance use, and mental health support including postpartum depression and

(24:29):
prenatal education. The list goes on, and it would limit
the use of solitary confinement for pregnant women. You voted
no twice on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which
would have restored the protections originally enshrined in the Voting
Rights Act of nineteen sixty five, which I've heard you teut.
You also voted no on Hr thirty two to thirty three,

(24:50):
which established the Bipartisan Commission to Investigate the terrace and
Insurrectionist attack on January sixth at the Capitol. So you
want to talk about voting, sure, Please explain why you
would vote so clearly against the interests of people who
look just like you and I.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
So the first two bills you talk about, I actually
have to go back and see it, because a lot
of problems with some of these bills are all of
the other things that get put into them, not just
the things that you're talking about. Specific to the John
Lewis Voting Rights Act, the reason why I did not
vote for that bill is because that bill would reinstitute
what's called preclearance. Right now, hold on, man, Angela, you
don't let me talk.

Speaker 5 (25:27):
Here we go, here we go, Okay, you say, yes.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Okay, here we go, Yah okay. Preclearance right now under
federal law really by Supreme Court President is no longer
the law of the land. The reason why that is
is because there's not been over the last thirty years
in elections. There's not been cases or there's not been
any specific cases around why you need preclearance in the
first place, like was needed back in nineteen sixty five,

(25:51):
where you did have counties that were systematically discriminating against
black people, so it could not prove the plaintiffs could
not prove at any point in the last thirty years
where you still need a preclearance. I live in a
pre Clarence county. Callyer County, Florida is a pre Clarence County.
I've lived in Collyer County for twenty three years now,
twenty three years. There's never been an issue with me
casting a vote in Kye County, Florida at any time

(26:13):
over the last twenty three years. And that's before I
became an elected official. That's when I showed up down
there working the cracker barrel, being a waiter and just
figuring out how to make ends meet, and I could
still cast my ballot, So every other protection under the
Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty five is still law today.
What my Democratic colleagues want is they want national preclearance
so that if any jurisdiction, whether if they were a

(26:35):
historically discriminatory jurisdiction or not, if they made a change
in their procedure like reshifting a precinct, deciding to shrink
or expand precincts, that would actually have to go to
the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department for approval
before they can make those changes. Now, why is that
not important? Today? More people are voting by mail, So

(26:56):
you have a situation where local election jurisdictions are shrinking
precincts or resizing precincts, are putting two pricincts together because
they don't have the volume of people going to cast
ballants in those precincts. You're now telling me that you
have to now go to the Civil Rights Division of
the Justice Department to get approval to put two voting
precincts together. That's why the John Lewis Acts, And all

(27:19):
due respect to John Lewis, great man, phenomenal career, but
that's why that bill of putting preclearance in nationally, even
in jurisdictions where there were no historical discrimination of black people,
is not necessary legislation.

Speaker 5 (27:33):
And this is on the other side of seven hundred
and forty seven thousand voters being purged in North Carolina.
This is on the other side. This preclearance provision was
struck in Shelby County versus Holder, which is a super
and has had a pass of being super discriminatory since
that one hundred laws have been put in place to

(27:53):
make voting rights more restrictive for people of color for
the last ten years. So what you're saying is.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
So Actually it's very factual. And I remember when Georgia
changed their voting law. It was Joe Biden who was
down in Georgia talking about how this was not even
Jim Crow or whatever. I forget what he said, Jim Crow.

Speaker 5 (28:10):
Or whatever Joe want to talk about Jim, but this.

Speaker 1 (28:12):
Is what Joe Biden said, hold on, let's finish, let
me finish now. So this is what Joe Biden said
back in twenty twenty two, I think is what he said.
What happened with Georgia's new voting law that I would
assume I'm going to assume Angeler, I don't know for sure.
I haven't seen what you said that I would assume
you would say is restrictive of black people. In Georgia.
In twenty twenty two, there was record turnout of black
voters in the state of Georgia. Record turnout, I'm assuming

(28:35):
in twenty twenty four, because those are the trends in
the state of Georgia, you're gonna have record turnout of
black voters in twenty twenty four. So you had Joe
Biden use a terrible part of our past to try
to move people emotionally in a negative response to what
Georgia was doing. What we have seen in the outcome
is that Georgia has actually had more voting voting inclusion

(28:57):
of people of color and of black people in that state.

Speaker 3 (29:00):
Georgia laws make voter intimidation easier.

Speaker 5 (29:04):
So yeah, I think the most important thing here, Byron,
that I think we're overwhelmingly here you say, is as
a black man in Florida, your argument is that it's
easier to vote today than it was in twenty thirteen,
when the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of
nineteen sixty five. Which again i've heard you teut. Your

(29:24):
argument is that states don't need preclearance, that counties don't
need preclearance, that there's been no discriminatory impact since Shelby
counter versus Holder, and that's why they should get rid
of it. You brought up Jim Crow, and I'm glad
you did, because you also have had something to say
about Jim Crow. And I know that this is, for
whatever reason, has been unnecessarily tense, but I would love

(29:47):
to invite you to clarify your remarks around Jim Crow
so that that can you can at least get rid
of that part of misinformation. It's clear that you do
stand opposed to the Voting Rights Act, though in.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
Twenty twenty four, now we were talking, we were in Philadelphia,
we were talking to just the rise of black families
again and which is actually a great thing in our country,
and really comparing that to what was happening under that
time period, the Jim Crow era, where your marriage rates
in the black family were very high. After that era
with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, in part, that is the

(30:17):
reason for the decrease in the marriage rate in black families.
And if you're going to have a strong In order
to have strong black families, obviously you need to father
in the home. You're starting to see that again in America.
That's a great thing because when fathers are at home
helping to raise their kids and nurture their kids, it
puts their kids in a better position to be able
to be successful going forward. Like my dad wasn't there

(30:38):
when I grew up. It was really hard from my mom.
You know, my mom still lives in Brooklyn. You know,
she still lives here today. So I stand on her
shoulders because she did so many things for me. She
was mom. To quote her, she was mom and dad
and she did it all. But were no, no, no.
But we also got to acknowledge that your kids standing

(30:58):
on your shoulders is what propels them to be successful.
You know, like my sons are in position in part
because my success, my wife's success, but then also because
you had two parents in there, living together, growing together,
thriving together.

Speaker 2 (31:12):
Black people, let's listening, you know, because I did homework
and I like to see sometimes what black people feel
about congressmen, and a lot of black people who I
look at online and look at the comments, don't feel
like you're for them, whether it's, uh, you don't feel
like this is a racist country, you.

Speaker 4 (31:28):
Don't let me ask the question though, I'm sorry, was
the question clarified.

Speaker 1 (31:35):
I was just I was just saying about Yeah, I'm sorry,
go ahead, Angel, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Speaker 4 (31:38):
I guess what you should ask me. For those who
criticized those comments, what did they get wrong?

Speaker 1 (31:44):
I think what they got wrong is they think that
I was trying to say that Jim Crow was this
great era for black people. That's crazy. I would never
say that, never ever say that matter.

Speaker 4 (31:51):
I took from it, not just because of the way
the narrative was.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
That's what I took.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
And I think what happened, what the narrative happened was
in that room, it was all black people. A handful
of reporters, the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote the story. The Philadelphia
Inquirer actually wrote it accurately. What happened was is that
when it was the Biden campaign, the Biden campaign saw
the story and they came out with this, uh, this
tweet that made it seem like I was memorializing Jim Crow.

(32:17):
That's crazy. So then King Jeffreys, the Democratic leader, he
went to the floor gave a speech about it, and
before you know what, this thing is going worldwide. So
then I found myself in this position like wait, hold up.
My comms guys telling me, Hey, they're trying to hit
you on your comments in Philadelphia. I'm like, over what
I was talking about black families and the growth of
black families going forward in America and that's a good thing.
They said, No, they're saying you're memorializing Jim Crow. I

(32:39):
was like, man, that's awa. I was just like, why
can't say fuck Jim Crowdon? I mean, easy, fuck Jim Crow.
Nobody wants that. Just the problem though, But what happens
in politics is people will see a statement and then
they want to emotionalize it. They want to sensationalize it
to diminish your point of view and what you stand for,
what you believe, Like, I believe in economic growth for everybody.

(33:03):
I grew up. I was in the banking That was
banking background is my career. So when I hear MV
talk sometimes about access to capital, I know exactly what
he's talking about because current financial regulatory policy in Capitol
Hill has only made the large banks bigger. They've mass
massively decreased community banking in America. Well, if you're a
young entrepreneur, young black entrepreneur, where you're going to go

(33:24):
to get capital from city, from Wells Fargo, from Chase,
or from the community bank down the street, Well, that
community bank is in your community. We have less community
banking today in the United States than we had in
two thousand and nine. The only difference financial regulatory policy. Now,
if I want to bring politics into it, that policy
was Dodd Frank which was written by Congressional Democrats. They

(33:46):
passed it unanimously by themselves, and then President Barack Obama
signed it into law. The impacts of that regulatory policy
has seen a decrease in community banking in the United States.
That is the facts. And what that also does. It
helps to diminish access to capital for people who look
like us, who don't have the credit background, they don't

(34:06):
have the family backgrounds, they don't have the historical backgrounds
to get that capital and to rise and succeed. I
want to change all that. That's what I believe.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
What you say, you're saying black people don't like I
was going to say, don't.

Speaker 6 (34:16):
You do you feel like you get it? Honest though
with people not liking you because of all the other stuff.
Sometimes that you too when you stand on and I
just want to read this quote to make sure this
is what you said, because you're saying that they misquoted
you or they took things. So you said, during Jim Crow,
more black people were not just conservative because black people
are Black people always have always been conservative minded, but
more black people will voted conservatively.

Speaker 5 (34:37):
Is that correct?

Speaker 6 (34:38):
Yeah, that's what I said, right, But like during that
time the parties were a lot different though.

Speaker 1 (34:42):
Right, not totally. I think that that's one of the
things I was.

Speaker 3 (34:46):
Asking a question.

Speaker 5 (34:46):
I know, to.

Speaker 3 (34:50):
Question I answer to trying to answer question.

Speaker 6 (34:53):
I want you to answer your question that you know
that I'm a person that can read, of course, Okay, so.

Speaker 3 (34:57):
During that time, you know, just trut it to me.

Speaker 6 (34:59):
I know, yeah, thank you. So during that time the
parties were different. So when you say something like this
and then people take what you say and put it
in a context as to where the parties were at
that time, you can explain to the people where the
parties were during Jim Crow and what the difference is
between now, and then you understand why people headlined it
and got upset the way that they did correct a

(35:20):
couple things.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
Let's talk about the parties historically, yes, let's talk about
the Republican Party was a party of emancipation. It has
always been a party that for the freedom, for the
freeing of slaves, and for civil rights. If you go
back to the Civil Rights Acts, and it's not just
the sixty four Act, there were actually five other civil
rights acts before nineteen sixty four, massively overwhelmingly supported by

(35:43):
the Republican Party. It was Democrats that were holding up
those When the sixty four Act was going and before
it went into law, the Philipbuster in the United States
Senate was led by Democrat senators of the United States Senate.
All those Democratic senators that Philip Buster the nineteen sixty
four Civil Rights Act, they remained Democrat senators. They didn't
switch to become Republican senators. Robert Byrd was a lawyer

(36:05):
for the Klan. He was a Democrat senator. He was
the dean of the Democrat Senate until the day he died.
He didn't change parties. Now, I will acknowledge that Richard Nixon,
in response, in response to just political moves of that era,
he started going into the South to try and to
go find the conservative Democrat votes in the South, you

(36:27):
call them Dixocrats or whatever, to find conservative Democrat voters
in the South in order to be able to Frankly
win the presidential election when he was running during that era.
He did do that. Where I'm highly critical of the
Republican Party, my colleagues will tell you, is that the
Republican Party in the sixties really didn't even try to
get black votes, didn't try to court black voters, didn't

(36:48):
try to talk about black issues, didn't try to engage
black people. And so as I come along, my politics
are about policy, not about personalities. I believe in policies
that help people thrive in six seed. Where I tell
people today in the Republican Party is you have black
voters who are sitting back and saying, Okay, now, wait
a minute. I've heard these speeches before, I've heard these

(37:09):
talking points before, but nothing in my life is really changing.
If you're trying to go court black voters, you actually
have to go and engage black people. And so that's
why I go everywhere. I just don't do Fox News.
I think people kind of know that about me. I
just don't do. I go everywhere a while because I'm
trying to share my philosophies and my thoughts. I think
political parties over time, they do adjust. But what's really

(37:31):
happening today is that people are moving underneath the feet
of the political parties. I think that's a good thing
for the country.

Speaker 5 (37:37):
So speaking and moving underneath the feet of the parties,
you want to talk about policy, and so I want
to just play quickly what you said about reparations.

Speaker 7 (37:53):
Were going to and get out of kid. You know
what I'm saying. So I don't believe Auntie.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
Oh wow, why do you play the rest of the clip?

Speaker 3 (38:18):
Man?

Speaker 1 (38:18):
I was on fire during that one.

Speaker 5 (38:20):
Because Byron, I think it's important for people to get
your ya's and a's, just like you have to do
on the House floor. You have to take an up
or down vote on an issue. You took a down
vote on this and you haven't supported HR forty. So
if you want to talk about the complexities of reparations,
whether or not there should be a study in this country,
you again have said that this country is not racist,

(38:42):
and even though it's it has a dark pass, it
doesn't sound like you think it has a dark present.
You have not sponsored that bill. You haven't co sponsored
that bill? Why not?

Speaker 1 (38:52):
Well, a couple of things. One, that's why I wish
you played the clip because I actually went to very
but I will, Uh, A couple of things, is all right,
how many people in the United States today are actually
descendants of slave owners? Forget descendants of slaves, let's hold
that to the side. Descendants of slave owners. You've had
massive immigration into the United States over the last one
hundred and fifty years. So now you're going to say

(39:14):
that people who immigrated to the United States who are
not descendants of slave owners were not descendants of that trade.
Now they're going to be responsible for paying that out
going forward. My mother's Jamaican, my father's Panamanian. You have
a lot of black people in this country who are
not descendants of the American slave trade. So I already
know off top there's a lot of black people in

(39:35):
America who aren't going to be able to get that
kind of benefit or get reparations.

Speaker 4 (39:40):
Well, most people who are for reparations, they feel like
you should go to what they call foundational Black Americans anyway,
and I agree with that point.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
I at that point but I'm just saying, I'm just
laying out these are the reasons for why I'm no.
So while I'm do.

Speaker 5 (39:50):
Support reparations for what Leonard just deemed as quote foundational
black Americans.

Speaker 1 (39:55):
No, no, no, I don't. But I want to explain that.
I want to explain that. And so that's why you
have a lot of people saying, Okay, well, then what
are we going to do? And so my view is
is that what you do going forward is this way.
You have to have wholesale changes in economic, medical policy,
et cetera, so that the ability to access various parts
of our economy and grow in our economy work for everybody,

(40:16):
including people in our country who are quote unquote found
foundationally black. Now let me translate to what's happened in California.
It's Yo state. In California, there was a push.

Speaker 5 (40:27):
To have Washington state.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
I'm sorry, but I heard earlier using California. So that's
why I'm saying. So there was a bill in California
for reparations. The California Assembly, which is massively Democrat, they
didn't move that bill. They could have moved that bill.
When they were asked why they weren't moving that bill.
They tucked tail and turn and turned a ran away.
They didn't even have that, They didn't even have the

(40:49):
guts to actually answer that question. So I'm here with y'all.
I'll tell you why. I'm gonna know. But you have
Democrats who will say therefore something, but when it comes
time to actually do it, they're not there for you.
They say, they run away, they don't answer the question,
or and to be blunt, like the current vice president
not answering a lot of questions. But she did say
that she's for reparations after she said she wasn't, So

(41:10):
which one is?

Speaker 3 (41:10):
No, she knows that she wasn't. That's never all right,
that's fine, But she was here. She was here.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
I'm gonna let you have it. I'm not gonna I'm
not gonna challenge. I'm Almo Childing.

Speaker 5 (41:19):
But I guess the question is, Congressman, you say that
you're not for reparations, then you go on to say
that there are a lot of elected officials. We know
that racism is a bipartisan problem, right, So on that,
do you know who was the father of affirmative action?

Speaker 1 (41:37):
Now that's a good question. Actually I don't know.

Speaker 5 (41:38):
They answer to that one, The answer is a Republican
by the name of doctor Arthur Fletcher, who worked you
brought up Richard Nixon earlier. He worked with Richard Nixon.
But I've noted that you are opposed to affirmative action again,
another policy that would democratize access to all of the
things that you've talked about today, including economic access for

(41:59):
black people.

Speaker 3 (42:00):
So on that what do you want black people to have?

Speaker 1 (42:02):
But I want them to have everything. I want them
to have access to everything that this nation can do
when it's running right.

Speaker 3 (42:08):
Why be against the legislation that provides it.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
Because you have a situation now where the real question
is do you need an affirmative action today? Now? Did
you need affirmative action? The answer to that is one
hundred percent yes, you absolutely needed it. The question is
in twenty twenty four, in twenty twenty eight, in twenty
thirty two, do you need that now? I would argue
the thing you need more now is you got to
have equality in terms of the level of academic attainment

(42:34):
for young black kids. What a young black kid needs
more now than anything today is to be able to
read and write. Read at grade level, write at grade
level do math at grade level and frankly and beyond,
that's what they need to do. You know, I don't
disagree with you, but I just don't trust white supremacy
that much.

Speaker 4 (42:50):
I feel like you need that type of legislation. I
feel like you need those guardrails in place to make
sure protect, to protect, yes, and to make sure those
type of things happen.

Speaker 6 (42:57):
You coming out of Brooklyn.

Speaker 5 (42:58):
You don't.

Speaker 6 (42:58):
You don't like that doesn't because you talked about your
mom a movie private school. So why now, like because
the kid that had to be moved out of that
public school to a private school because you said that
you were being trapped in a failing school. You know
that those schools, a lot of them are still failing.
So why do you But you you think that if
we get these things and we put these people in
place that you are mentioning, that all of that would

(43:19):
just change, Like I don't. We know that it doesn't
even work that fast even if people wanted to let me.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Put it this way, Because you know, Charlomage, you brought
up the port about you think that you need those
to guard against white supremacy. Well, I would argue, is
it white supremacy to lot kids in failing schools to
not give them an option to go to find the
academic environment that sus their interests. I would argue that
it would be white supremacy to basically move millions of
people into our country illegally on purpose and have them

(43:46):
overwhelm our systems. Here in New York City, the system
is overwhelmed. You know, that's just a one party problem.

Speaker 4 (43:51):
Like I feel like, you know, what's been happening at
the border has been happening under so many different administrations.

Speaker 6 (43:56):
Redlining has to Redlining is not just a.

Speaker 1 (43:59):
Full stop, not like this, not like this under Donald
Trump through about two point four million people that came
into the country illegally under Joe Biden, Na Kamala Harris,
that number is easily ten million, that's what they know of.
It's probably more like fifteen million, because it's people that
came through the border. It's not even the same thing. Paul,
I'm gonna make my point.

Speaker 3 (44:17):
My point.

Speaker 1 (44:18):
We talked about financial regulatory policy, access to capital. I
would argue it actually upholds the pillars of quote unquote
white supremacy to not have free flowing access to capital
in the United States. So if you're a black person
trying to find a way to raise money for your business,
it is harder for you because you just don't even
have as many avenues to go to. But the policies
I advocate for the obviously the policies that conservatives advocate for.

(44:42):
It's actually loosening up the ability for kids to find
a school of their choice, putting their parents at the
head of the line, giving their parents the ability to
make that purchasing decision. My mom made a purchase decision
for me when it was very hard for her to
put the resources together. She was barely making ends met
to do that, but she loved me did that for me.
I think if you're gonna fund publica education fund the parents'
ability to make that decision so they can decide where

(45:04):
their kids go. That's some of the us some of
the policy I think Charlemagne that gives all families, especially
black families, black mothers, black fathers, the ability to have
their kids go further in America than anything before.

Speaker 6 (45:17):
And I don't think that. I mean, I'm not against that.
I'm just also not against putting something in place that
like make sure that when that fails, because it's so
many people, and it will It's.

Speaker 3 (45:26):
Already doing it right now, white people more. You know that.

Speaker 7 (45:29):
You know what I mean.

Speaker 6 (45:30):
It's just like, why not have something that comes in
and says, Okay, this kid from Brooklyn can get to
go to that school because that mom didn't get that money. However,
that kid is still smart and should be able to
go to that school.

Speaker 1 (45:39):
It's who I don't trust is I don't trust bureaucrats,
and I don't trust politicians coming in here saying I'm
gonna invest blah blah blah billions and it's gonna do this.
Then when you turn around later there was no investment,
or the agencies or the administrators don't know what the
hell they're doing to invest that money. Anyway. I rather
give people those opportunities directly. I rather give people those

(46:00):
resources directly. I rather make sure that the rules are
clear and understood by everybody so people can make decisions.
Nothing's perfect. I grant you that we are all in
perfect people, So the institutions we put up are going
to be imperfect. There's going to be failures along the way.
But centralizing everything in Washington is an absolute goddamn disaster.

(46:21):
What do you say that. I'm sorry, Lord, I mean
I mean to do that.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
People say that look like you, you don't support people
that look like you, and that you said against I
mean you said raist. Racism doesn't agree or doesn't it's
not in this country, talk about a lot of things,
so a lot of people don't feel like that you're
actually for the people that you look like.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
I'm for everybody, man, including the people I look like,
not for everybody. I'm talking the people like that you
look like, But I'm for them too. I'm a one
hundred percent, one hundred percent. I want people to drive
to say, listen, listen, I came up from nothing. I'm
to be blunt with you. I'm not even supposed to
be here. We talked a little bit about my past,
the things that I've done wrong, et cetera. The fact
that I'm in this position now really is by the
grace of God. That's why I'm sorry God. I mean

(46:59):
made that earliest statement, but it's about a grace of God.
So what I want is for people to thrive and succeed.
But what I also know, when you're talking about economics,
when you're talking about public policy, the reality is you
got to have it set up so people everybody can
thrive and succeed. In that vehicle, black people can thrive
and succeed.

Speaker 5 (47:18):
When when you ensure that everyone succeeds, Congressman, is to
ensure that there's legislation in place to hold entities and
folks accountable for that success.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
So you've this is not essentially Angela, that's actually not true.

Speaker 5 (47:33):
Actually, okay, then I just disagree with you, But this
is a place where I think we do agree. You've
cited the sixty four Civil Rights Act, we talked about
the sixty five Voting Rights Act. We haven't talked about
sixty eight Fearhousing Act. But I think that you would
say that all of those things were helpful to black folks,
right of Okay, So if it is legislation to Leonard's point,

(47:55):
thank you Leonard. And so then I think we should
just touch briefly on Project twenty twenty five, which would
erode most of that progress. Right. So we've already noted
your overwhelming voting record with the Heritage Foundation based agenda.
Project twenty twenty five is a joint proposal of the
Heritage Foundation in twenty five of the thirty chapters written

(48:19):
in Project twenty twenty five were written by former Trump staffers.
At least one hundred and forty people who worked for
Donald Trump worked on Project twenty twenty five. And we
know that it is treacherous for the black community because
it seeks to dismantle firmative action. We can anti discrimination laws,
reduce the enforcement powers of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

(48:41):
which by the way, Clarence Thomas used to work there,
reduce medicaid funding, eliminate programs aimed at addressing health disparities,
includes measures to increase policing and incarceration, reduce funding for
community based alternatives, and eliminate initiatives aimed at are using
systemic racism in the justice system. As a black man,

(49:05):
how are you not concerned with the agenda that is
proposed by Project twenty twenty five.

Speaker 1 (49:11):
Uh, to bet, I'm not concerned about it because nobody
in the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself is even
talking about it. To be blunt with you, Angela, none
of us have even read it. So here's the problem, right,
I get it.

Speaker 5 (49:23):
So none of us is. You're saying that the thirty
the twenty five of the thirty chapters that were written
by his former staff, and at least one hundred and
forty people who worked for Donald Trump haven't touched it.
Are you now distancing yourself from those people? I'm happy
to name names, including Steven Miller, who I know you're
very familiar with, was a very senior official in the

(49:44):
Trump administration. And I know that we're clear about the
fact that you guys are not naming it anymore because
it's kind of become the boogeyman of this campaign, right.

Speaker 4 (49:53):
I think I might have to start saying a fun
project twenty twenty five. To be honest with you, I'm
really like, this is yourself.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
That's what Donald Trump has done. He's this is himself
every sce time, every time he's asked about it, he goes,
I have nothing to do with it. I don't even know.

Speaker 5 (50:03):
Ronald Trump isn't here today. Byron I know I am.

Speaker 1 (50:05):
Hold on, now let me because you like it. I
haven't read it. So this is the thing, Charlemagne, I
haven't just named what it does. Angela. First of all,
with all due respect, I like to read things for
myself before smart. You know what I'm saying, and that's
it's all due respects to you, but I want to
read everything for myself before I make a judgment. I
will tell you that, like the Heritage Foundation, there are
think tanks all through Washington. You have the Center for

(50:27):
American Progress and all these other thing tanks. They all
do a bunch of policy prescriptions. They all do a
bunch of programs and projects. I think the UN has
something called Project twenty thirty. That's a UN project that's
going on right now. What I do know is that
Heritage Foundation or any other policy group is not setting
policy for Donald Trump. Donald Trump set in policy for

(50:49):
Donald Trump.

Speaker 5 (50:50):
Are you going to distance yourself from the Heritage Foundation
as well? Byron? Are you saying that that's.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
Just myself Angela, I'm not a part of the Heritage Foundation.
I'm a United A United.

Speaker 5 (50:59):
States consenty six percent in alignment with what they've prescribed
as policy recommendations for this country, ninety six percent.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
If Kamala Harris's voting record is ninety six percent of
the time aligned with the Center for American Progress, does
that mean now, that means she works at the Center
for American Progress.

Speaker 5 (51:14):
And that's not the analogy what you made.

Speaker 3 (51:16):
That is exactly the analogy you make it come out.

Speaker 5 (51:19):
I have a question immediately analogy and said. What I
said was, would you distance yourself from the Heritage Foundations?
Would you distance yourself from the Project twenty twenty five?
Would you condemn Project twenty twenty five? Noting that it
will have some horrible impacts on the people who look
like you, the very folks who you said that you're
working over time to ensure they have access to this economy.

(51:42):
This project would decimate that access and would decimate the
Voting Rights Act of sixty five, which you're still not supporting,
free clearance for nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act, and
the Fair Housing Act, that all the things that you
said that you want to decrease access to.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
You got to read it, Angela, I just said it.
I haven't read it, so it's not something I'm abscribing
to or supporting in it. Nobody on the Trump campaign,
to my knowledge, including President Trump, hasn't. They have not
read it. They're not abscribed to it. And let's be
very clear, because you mentioned all the people that were
in the Trump admin network over there we're doing some
of that work. There were people in the Obama admin
that work at think tanks. Now they're doing policy work

(52:18):
people at the Georgia. So this happens all the time.
I think the issue Hold on now, let me finish. Now.
There are people who work in presidential administrations on Capitol Hill,
they go to think tanks, they write up white papers
all the time. That does not mean that what they
write up actually becomes law. And so that's the point
I'm making. So for for Vice President Harris's campaign to

(52:38):
be talking so much about Project twenty twenty five, which
Donald Trump isn't even a part of, has not abscribed to,
has not said this is my plan. When you can
go to his website and you see the policies he
wants to support, when you can know it is not Angela,
you need to stop now, or you can read or
you can read the Republican Platform, which Donald Trump actually

(52:59):
changed at our convention this year, which is the policy
sets of our party and what we are ascribing to
and what we want to do as a party. I
think that's where voters need to go.

Speaker 5 (53:07):
Trump has there's trump distinction between Project twenty twenty five,
the Republican Platform, and Donald Trump's campaign platform. How can
you distance yourself from Project I got it.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
I got a different question because Trump has disavowed, but
he did praise the Heritage Foundition a lot for years.
Of course. I mean, yeah, we all have praised the
Heritage Foundation, but that doesn't mean we agree with that
work that Heritage did. But here's my question, what does
Kamala Harris actually want to do? Because let's talk about
her economic plans that she's coming. I'm gonna go through
a couple of them. She says she wants to tax

(53:39):
unrealized games. I don't know if she really wants to
do that anymore because Mark Cuban, who's supporting her, went
on CNBC and said that it would destroy.

Speaker 5 (53:46):
The stock market.

Speaker 1 (53:48):
But already answered that because because we have a presidential
election in thirty eight days now, which is the thing
that's coming forward, so we need to have this conversation.
The she wants to do price gouging or go after
price gouging, Well, how are you going to do that?
Because when you do that, what you're actually going to

(54:08):
do is put downward pressure on prices in our country.
When you do that artificially, what you create is scarcity
of product. So that what is that What that means
is you're going to have poor people in our country.
You are going to have less access to goods and
services because rich people gonn get their goods and services
no matter what, they have the access points they're gonna
get them. So you're gonna have less product for poor
people in our country. She had a thing about she

(54:29):
wants to do twenty five thousand dollars for a new
home for new first time home buyers. I think that's great. Well, no,
it's not, because what's going to happen is it's going
to increase the cost of housing twenty five thousand dollars.
Because if you know, every first time home buyer has
twenty five thousand dollars from the government in their back pocket,
you as the seller, you're gonna be like, oh wait
a minute. Every celler ate large is going to be like,
you know what, well, then I can increase my price
is twenty five thousand dollars. It's going to have an

(54:51):
upward trajectory shot on housing costs in our country, which
is the thing we don't need in America. Those are
three economic policies I know to work like a hypothetical.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
Why would it increase that twenty five thousand from the
government to purchase it.

Speaker 1 (55:05):
For Let's say, let's say there's three million first time
home buyers in the United States of America. They all
have an additional twenty five thousand dollars of purchasing power.
You do have a situation where every seller in the
country is going to realize, oh, shoot, is this a
first time home buyer? Well, I know you have an
additional twenty five When you provide that type of stimulus
into an economy, what you end up doing is you

(55:26):
increase prices and whatever that that whatever that economy is.
She says, she wants to build three million new homes.
How are you going to do that? Let me let
me explain why environmental policy built at the federal and
state level makes it much harder to build housing. Whether
you believe in climate change or not, weather rising, energy efficiency,
all of those regulations has made it more expensive to

(55:47):
build housing. If the federal government says, okay, now we're
going to go for three million new homes, okay, well,
how's that going to work. Are you going to change
the regulatory burden for building those new homes? Are you
not going to have a disjointed regulatory burden between federal
house and one built in a private sector. That's not smart.
You can't do that. So if you're not gonna change
the regulation, you're just gonna pump more money into the system.

(56:08):
What you're gonna do is you're gonna push up the
costs for the materials to build housing, which is gonna
make it more expensive, not less expensive. And so if
you take advantage of the home that kamil for you,
great for you, But for the entire economy ritt large,
it's not gonna be good because the cost of housing
is gonna go up on everybody that doesn't help you.
So that said, you disagree with the stimulus check student

(56:31):
at the time when stimulus checks were going through under
COVID nineteen, the only reason I agreed with them is
because the entire economy was shut down. So when you
shut down the entire economy and nobody has an ability
to go and earn money, then yeah, you got to
step in the gap and do that. The only difference
was the last one we did, which is that's the
article I gave you on the American Rescue Plan. Even
Larry Summer said the amount of stimulus they were gonna

(56:54):
put in was five times the amount of decreased economic
input we were having in the country because of the
COVID nineteen medical protocols that lockdown communities in lockdown states.
So that's what created your inflation, which has crippled purchasing
power for everybody in our country. Man, go fix a car.
Forget we talk about food so much, or we talk

(57:15):
about housing so much, and of course that's important. Go
fix your car. I just got the bill from my
son's car. That thing got me, and I can and
I can make it work. What about people who aren't
in my position, or frankly, who were in my position
when I was thirty and not forty five, because thirty
year old me couldn't live under this price regime that
has been brought to us by Kamala Harrison, Joe Biden.

Speaker 4 (57:37):
Hold On, and about that, we're going to rap in
a second. But I want to ask you a couple
questions about the party. Really, one question, why do people
think the economy does better under Republicans when the data
showed otherwise.

Speaker 3 (57:47):
And this is a question I've been.

Speaker 4 (57:48):
Asking the different people that are have economy backgrounds, like
why do people think the economy does better under Republicans,
but the data showed since World War Two the economy
has performed better under democratic presidents.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
Well, I would actually make one adjustment to that statement.
I think the economy typically performs better when you have
split government because what ends up happening is you don't
have one party just pushing all economic policy. It kind
of stagnates out economic policy. And what businesses want more
than anything is consistency and policy. Like you know, a
business owner is you know, like like any athlete, as

(58:21):
long as you're not changing the landscape of the field.
Once I know what the rules are, I can go
operate and be effective.

Speaker 4 (58:26):
So what do you think you think democratic president and everything?

Speaker 3 (58:30):
What do you think? What do you what do you say?

Speaker 6 (58:33):
Support to business owners.

Speaker 1 (58:35):
Saying when you say split government, what do you mean?
I'm saying historically our economy has performed best under split government.
I'm not saying that typically it's a Republican president and
Democrats that does better under democratic president. No, no, No, What
I'm saying is that historically, over time is when you
have split government. But I think the reason why to
your original point about why do people feel that way,

(58:57):
is because when Donald Trump was president versus when Joe
Biden president. That's what people are looking at right now.
Donald Trump, wages adjusted for inflation were up, costs were stabilized,
and so those two inputs in an economy make you
feel like you have more money in your pocket. When
Donald Trump came into office, under them President Obama, our

(59:18):
economy was somewhat stagnant. We were growing at about one one
and a half percent per year. And so his changes
in economic and tax policy in particular, but then also
regulatory policy, where he cut up a ton of regulations,
our economic growth moved from one one and a half
to three three and a half. That's a real boost
of people, and they see it and they remember it.

(59:38):
Now you have the Biden Harris economy, well we've stagnated
again and inflation is massively up. So how people feel is,
wait a minute. I just went to the grocery store.
I bought bread, I bought cookies, I brought milk. It's
way more expensive. I got a raise, but it doesn't
feel like I'm still getting ahead. My rent's more expensive,
fixing my car is moreen and all those things are

(01:00:01):
obviously ascribed to the current administration. Because the inflation started
really in September twenty twenty one, after the American Rescue
Plan that was Joe Biden's plan came into law. So
people are feeling that, Charlotta Mane, and I think that's why,
you know, in the backdrop of politics, I talked a
little bit about people moving under the feet of the parties.
One of the reasons why black men in particular are
starting to look at Donald Trump because they're like, you

(01:00:24):
know what, at least my pockets were good when he
was president. The other stuff, that's other stuff. I was
making more money and my money was going further.

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
But I think they feel like that because the stimulus
checks in the PvP loans. But you you got to
look at what had to happen in order for that
money to go out, Like you had to have a
freaking pandemic with millions of people died.

Speaker 1 (01:00:39):
But no, no, that's not going to happen. But but oh no,
I don't want it to happen either. But I want
to be clear on this. Wages adjusted for inflation before
the COVID nineteen pandemic was at the highest level for
Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, White Americans in the history of
the country. The wage gap, which gets talked about so
much in our politics. The wage gap was actually decreasing

(01:01:01):
under Donald Trump's presidency. And then the COVID nineteen pandemic hit,
and then COVID was just such a disaster for everybody.
And now we have a situation where we have massive
inflation in the country. Inflation today is like a little
over three percent year over year, but when you take
in the totality of these price increases, prices are up
well over twenty percent in our country the last four years.

(01:01:25):
That's real life stuff everybody's dealing with. And I think
that's why Donald Trump is being more successful in some
parts of the electorate than he has in the past.

Speaker 6 (01:01:35):
I got real quick, just Jdvance, where are you at? Like,
how do you feel about where he is now and
where he's taking the party too?

Speaker 3 (01:01:41):
Because you was you was in the running for VP
at one point.

Speaker 6 (01:01:44):
I know you say that day when he announced it
wasn't you no, no.

Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
No, no, no, It was good. You know. I told
President Trump. I was like, man, whatever you do is
whatever you do that conversation. But JD, I think JD's
hit his stride. I'm here, actually, I'm in New York
because I'm gonna be at the debate tomorrow night, and
I think it's going to be a really important debate
for the country to start hearing about all these different
policies in deptail. The way Angela and I are going
back through policy, I think that's important. And I think

(01:02:08):
JD's doing good. You know again, victory is what Matt
He's not doing that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:11):
He's actually terrible.

Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
He's actually he's actually done so much more damage that
did I take it? He should have made Nikki Heley.

Speaker 6 (01:02:21):
In his stride.

Speaker 3 (01:02:21):
He's terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:02:23):
The cat lady thing. I mean, I don't agree with that, man,
I don't agree. I don't agree with what.

Speaker 3 (01:02:28):
Came from him too.

Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
I don't agree with that either. I just don't.

Speaker 5 (01:02:33):
What do you mean, what do do you agree with?

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Because what JD is doing is that he's basically doing
the thing that Tim Wallas and Kamala Harris are not doing.
He's engaging media every single day, he's engaging it all
over the country and especially in this twenty four hour
news cycle. We have so many outlets for information like
this one here, which, by the way, man, thank y'all
for letting me come here. I really appreciate it. But
when you have all these outlets, it's important to fill

(01:02:57):
that gap. And if we're gonna I.

Speaker 3 (01:03:00):
Agree with that, but.

Speaker 4 (01:03:02):
I don't want you on the microphone just saying anything
making me look bad. That means you can make all
the appearances you want. But if you just making me,
making making us look bad every time you talk, it's
like standing down JD doing good man.

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
I do want to ask you about thes you look
at the third question.

Speaker 4 (01:03:15):
You are getting a lot of smoke right now from
the Office of Congressional Ethics because it says you failed
to probably disclose two years worth of you and your
wife's stop trades. Why didn't you disclose that information?

Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
Actually a great question. I'm glad you brought this up.
So a couple of things. One, we actually self reported
to the Ethics Committee on this, So we self reported saying, hey,
we didn't file this paperwork, and I got to take
that that was me. I didn't file. I didn't file
it like I should have. We went back and we
were making those adjustments. That report is actually going to
get refiled. I used to be in investments. That was
my last stop in my career, so I'm securities licensed.

(01:03:47):
Also the periodic transaction reports that this report speaks to.
My firm does all the trading on my behalf. I
actually gave them trading authority for my accounts, so I
do not trade. I do not initiate trades. My firm
makes them on my behalf. So my team is working
with my firm. We have all that data. We're actually

(01:04:08):
going to make an amendment to that filing. We're gonna
push it forward. And I don't want to speak any
more of that because that's what ethics, but that's where
we are right now. I got to take ownership of that.
But we're gonna fix it.

Speaker 4 (01:04:18):
We're going because in the past you spoke out in
support of banning lawmakers.

Speaker 1 (01:04:22):
I agree with that. I don't think lawmakers should make
trades directly. And the way this works is, you know,
as a as a financial advisor, Charla Mane, if you
are my client, you can either initiate the trade by
calling me or I can call you and say, Charlet Manne,
I think you should do. This is a good move
as long as the investment advisor is bringing the information

(01:04:43):
and pressing the trade, I think there's nothing wrong with that.
What we What should never be allowed is the member
of Congress in this example, calling the investment advisor and saying, hey,
trade this trade that I think that is totally wrong
and out of bounds. We have information that the public
doesn't have. I do not initiate trade.

Speaker 3 (01:05:00):
What differences the show and who initiates it?

Speaker 6 (01:05:01):
Because if your advisor calls you and says I think
you should do this, are you not feeding back opinion
and saying, well, based on what I know, blah blah blah,
I don't think that's a good idea.

Speaker 3 (01:05:09):
We should do more.

Speaker 6 (01:05:09):
It's the same thing who starts to come as far.

Speaker 4 (01:05:11):
As right because you did have stock and companies that
you oversaw with het, Yeah, and my company makes those trades.
And if you actually go into the note to my
of my firm, my management team that runs my stock portfolio,
there's no record of.

Speaker 1 (01:05:23):
Us even having that conversation. So, as an investment advisor,
every time I was on the phone with the client,
I had to take a note of that conversation. And
so the reason why I have less concern about the
advisor making the call to a client, specifically a member
of Congress, is because that's the advisor bringing information to
that that member of Congress, not the other right around.
If they're up to me just being pure about it,

(01:05:44):
the member of Congress shouldn't even be on a call
at all. That's how I run my business. I'm not
on the phone with my firm. They make their trades
regardless of whatever I say with the regardless of whatever
I think, because the trades that are made are actually
in lockstep with every other client we have, or I
say they have. When I was with the firman was
we they have under that product line. And I think
that's how it should be.

Speaker 6 (01:06:04):
Why even though get into stock at all, it's like,
you know what I mean, if that is if that
could be a controversy into the trading, Like why even
do that at all?

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
Because at the end of the day, No, because at
the end of the day, you're still an American. Like
I mean, let me put this way. Should I have
to sell all my assets to be a member of Congress?
I don't think that's right either. I just don't think
that's right. You're an American still even though you're a
member of Congress. I think where all the angs comes
in is that you have had some members the most
notable is Nancy Pelosi, but there's other members, and it's
been on both sides of the aisle, So I'm not

(01:06:32):
just going to just throw Nancy out there. But Nancy's
the most egregious where her husband is making all the
trades like you got whole people on Twitter on X
excuse me who are literally following Paul Pelosi's trades. That's
not right, Angela.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
You said you had a last question.

Speaker 5 (01:06:50):
Yes, will you vote to certify the twenty twenty four
election results even if they don't go in your favor?

Speaker 1 (01:06:56):
Yeah, I mean, the biggest thing, and this is a
great question. I'm glad you or I don't know if
we're but it's cool. I'm glad that you asked that. One.
The biggest thing I want to see is that states
and local localities follow election procedure. As long as they
do that, I'll certify, no problem.

Speaker 5 (01:07:10):
Yeah, And you know there are a number of states
where that's in contest right now. In fact, in Georgia,
where you talked about things being more democratized, they are
actually making it tougher to certify election results on the
state level.

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
How honestly, Angela, masking your expertise I don't know how.

Speaker 5 (01:07:26):
Yeah, there's a whole commission that just voted to make
it more difficult. They even talked about counting ballots by hand,
which would delay the certifying of the election results.

Speaker 1 (01:07:37):
I mean, look, if they count them by hand to
ensure results, you know, I think that's overall, I think
that's a good thing. I think the other thing is
we do need some states who are going to improve
the way they go through their ballot procedure. Like you know,
I'm gonna bring up California again, but.

Speaker 5 (01:07:52):
In California, maybe Florida.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
No, because in Florida, you know our results by eleven
PM that night.

Speaker 5 (01:07:57):
In California, a number of irregularities voting processes.

Speaker 1 (01:08:02):
You sit in California, you have a situation where it
takes them three four days to say what the results
are of an election. That's crazy. That was like watching
a football game. I was like watching the Ravens Bills
game last night and not knowing what the score was
until two days later on Sports Center. That don't make
any sense. We could do that.

Speaker 5 (01:08:18):
Well. Yeah, and the reason why I'm asking this question
is because you voted to overturn the twenty twenty election results.
Right in the heart of the insurrection, the same day
of the insurrection.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
Impact, Yeah, I did. And that was the reason why
is because I believe the two states were Arizona and Pennsylvania.
I think were that day. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme
Court ruled they were going to allow ballots three days
after the polls closed. Well, that's actually in violation of
state law because state law in Pennsylvania Code says that
only time that ballots are allowed to actually be accepted

(01:08:49):
is when the polls closed. Anything after that, this is
Pennsylvania law. Anything after that, you're not allowed to accept
those ballots. The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania changed that. They
only changed that because of COVID nineteen. I disagreed with
that because of what I felt that that did is
it expanded the voting pot to to other issues that
should not have been allowed. So that's why.

Speaker 5 (01:09:07):
And right, And you do know a number of issues
that have been raised by the Republican Party are around
voter fraud. You know how many voter fraud cases there
were in Pennsylvania in twenty twenty around the twenty twenty election.

Speaker 1 (01:09:20):
No, all I'm talking to is about the fact that
they did not follow election procedure in the state of Pennsylvania,
and so by not following.

Speaker 5 (01:09:27):
Record, some of what was raised is voter fraud cases.
So your issue is not voter fraud.

Speaker 1 (01:09:31):
Listen, I have an issue whether it's fraud or not
following the rules to the game, and so I think
both are just as egregious. If you changed if you
change the rules upon election procedure in the fourth quarter
of an election, that's not good for either side competing
in that election. And let me expound on this. You
know I played basketball growing up, right, If you know,

(01:09:53):
if if a ref decided that you know, for the
first three quarters, we you know, we're gonna call traveling
tick tack, and fourth quarter we just gonna let it go.
That's not right for the fluidity of that game. You
got to be consistent. And so I look at it
the same way I look at elections. Just be consistent.
Whatever the rules are. The rules are, it's the responsibility
of citizens and local officials to fall under that and

(01:10:15):
make sure in the issue of voting that everybody can
make sure they're vote is counted.

Speaker 4 (01:10:18):
We're gonna get out of after this. Do you speaking
of fluidy, do you leave Mark Robinsons just stepped down
thirty seconds or less.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
Man, I'm gonna leave that in Mark's hands. And no, seriously.
The reason why, No, seriously, The reason why is because
I've seen so many situations where the early reporting looks
terrible then you find out after the fact that it's
either a shade of what's being reported or not true
at all. So anybody making the decision to run, that's

(01:10:45):
in the hands of that man and his team and
his family. And I'm serious about that. Let me tell
you them, I'm serious about it.

Speaker 4 (01:10:50):
I that's the one thing, one thing I do wanted,
the thing that respected our Republicans is that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:54):
They that's how we feel about That's how we feel
about that. Mcruts man. That's because that's because Eric came
at them. I don't go about that. I'm leave that long.
I don't know what happened in the Eric situation. They
were riding with Joe Biden until he realized that, you know,
he wasn't with us, and the second they realized he
wasn't with us. Let's be real about this, Joe Biden

(01:11:16):
was the nominee. If that debate in Atlanta two weeks
ago didn't happen two months ago. Didn't happen, we'd be
talking about Donald Trump Joe Biden. The only reason that
they got rid of Joe Biden is because his poll
numbers were creating it, not just for him, for Senate Democrat, Republican,
for Senate Democrats, and for and for House Democrats. And
when they looked at their numbers dropping, then that's when
they were like, man, showed the old dude the door.

(01:11:37):
We got to move on.

Speaker 4 (01:11:38):
I'm glad they made the right decision and with somebody
in the Republican Party would do the same, because y'all
can do much better than Donald J.

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
Trump. Now we're gonna be good man. We're gonna make
America great again.

Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
A right, lord, Congressman Byron Donalds, appreciate you for joining.

Speaker 1 (01:11:52):
Appreciate See there you go, wake that up in the
morning breakfast club.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Breakfast Club News

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Charlamagne Tha God

DJ Envy

Jess Hilarious

Popular Podcasts

The Breakfast Club

Dateline NBC

Decisions, Decisions

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}INTERVIEW: Byron Donalds Talks Trump Vs. Kamala, Jan. 6 Insurrection, Racism In America, Reparations + More