Political HOT Topics

or in my lived experience. As someone who's been in community with black folks and Latinos, I don't see the I don't see the teamwork in that or I don't see it happening the way I wish it was happening. And so I guess my question is do you think during this time and during these next four years, the black community should turn inwards and focus more on black folks and not necessarily leave everyone else behind? Because we

know that when black folks win, actually everyone wins. But what do you think should be happening, because I think we're seeing that, you know, other people of color don't have black people's backs the way we wish they would.

million votes, which is a fourteen million margin separation. And if you provide that by the fifty states, you get a two hundred and eighty thousand margin on average for each state, and it could be higher depending on how they were voting. Again, that is my two cents. I appreciate it.

we're dealing with right now. So we need to know that there are people out there that are speaking for us and that are just as concerned about this nation's future as us. So please please please continue. I love you guys.

four is too big for any one think tank. This has to be a movement, and what we've done is use our convening power haired Heritage to bring the entire movement together. So twenty twenty five is not a Heritage thing, it's a Conservative movement thing. What we're doing is systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state.

also known as twenty Project twenty twenty five. All nine hundred plus pages of it have been shared with you, Tiff and Andrew. I did not go through every single page, but I went through enough. And here's the thing that

stood out to me. Woke progressivism, woke culture warriors, woke bureaucrats, woke extremism, woke propaganda, woke agenda, woke ism, woke dominated system of public schools and university, woke revolutionaries who radicals supposedly woke faction, woke policies in corporate America, woke gender ideology, and even the Department of Education caught some strays with as a convenient one stop shop for the woke education cartel. Do you notice the trend?

of groups, a lot of constituencies have policy agendas. So policy or Project twenty five is kind of like that, but extremely more dangerous. And I'll tell you why. It's a boor of more than eighty conservative organizations all as one hundred Project is one hundred, one hundred organizations, all linked in this whole cesspool of policies to dark money, including Leonard Leo, who was very influential in shaping the Supreme Court of the United States under Donald Trump, very

attached to him. It does not respect the separation of church and state, and it is literally trying to reimagine the executive brands of government. You heard him say weaponized conservatives. They've put millions of dollars in their political arm Heritage

for America. The interesting thing about this, angeliau U and Andrew you both probably know this Heritage Foundation used to be led by a black woman, k Cole James, who is a Hampton University graduate and sister Girl, was definitely parroting all the talking points, all the ridiculous statements coming out of Heritage Foundation. They're not new. A lot of these policies aren't even new, they're just repackaged and put

out there. The reason why we should take this seriously, because like I said, a lot of groups will put out these policy agendas, is because they have all aligned. And so Andrew makes this point. I don't want to steal your point, Andrew, but Andrew makes the point all the time that we talk about Donald Trump and the Republican Party as though they're separate things, and they have now merged. The Republican Party is now run by right wing zealots and MAGA extremists. These are the people they

are beholden to. And so the whole list that Angela just ran down. Should Republicans take the presidency and potentially the House and potentially the Senate, they will be able to rough house and ramshot all of these policies through at the federal level, which is their agenda. Andrew and Angela go through all of it. I have more questions than I do answers, but I want to punctuate how dangerous Project twenty twenty five is. It's not the first time we've seen it, and hopefully it will be the

last time we talk about it. But I have my doubts, and Andrew.

brother Industries, Da DA Da DA. Well before there were the Koch Brothers, there was Richard Mellon Scaithe He is the person responsible for founding the Heritage Foundation and setting up the initial cadre of conservative organizations that didn't exist then, but were created in the mid nineteen seventies after Republicans felt frankly annihilated after Nixon's stepping down from the White House.

At that time, liberals frankly actually had organization. They had funded media outlets, they had funded think tanks, their ideas had gotten traction. They had just passed the Voting Rights Act. We were thriving in many ways, and at that point point, rich white men, as represented by scathe melonscafe meals, cokes. All those folks there were top five cores as we

know the course beer at Corps Family. The top five conservative donors got together and put tens of millions, now hundreds of millions of dollars into building what we now know today as the new Conservative movie.

right and governing through the elected process. Now it is about the tens of I don't know hundreds of thousands of federal workers who will now be replaced as public servants, which means these are individuals who serve regardless of whether there's a democratic or Republican administration. Where these folks kept getting caught up were because they wanted to achieve one goal.

But career service people, professionals who worked in the Department of Agriculture and Energy and Education would say, oh, I'm so sorry, mister secretary, you can't do that because that's against the law per section such and such and such and such and such. Well, they don't want people checking them like that. They want loyalists who are willing to

do whatever the executive says. These people envisioned something that is known as the unitary executive, and what that means is not just They don't believe in a separation of powers. They don't believe in a separation of states, separation of governance, meaning the judiciary, the executive in the legislative. They believe that the president, when elected president, has all the power. I have news for those folks. We got rid of

that when we were founded. The American Revolution was about throwing off the yoke of the unitary executive, the king. We don't elect kings in the United States of America. So if anybody ever gets deluded that these folks are actually championing democracy, that these folks actually believe in standing up, protecting, conserving the constitution, or that their strict construction is we hear that term a lot of times referred to Republicans

or conservatives. That's not what it is at all. They only believe that to this end that their agenda wins. When their agenda doesn't win, they don't believe in the judiciary, they don't believe in the legislative, and if the president is the problem, they don't believe in the executive. At that time, there are no commitments to beliefs, as we've all heard in politics, no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interest So their interests and their beliefs and

their philosophy is all about winning for them. And the moment that they're not winning, oh, that philosophy can be offended at any moment. And that's what we are right now.

found the safest career job and they stay there. They've been talking about doing that, and now I think now it's on a larger scale. I think the other thing that's very fascinating to me. I just want to acknowledge that I envy their ability to unite around some common goals. I am jealous of it. I am frustrated by the fact that we don't have something like this, we meaning Black folks that represent our interests, because when we do.

I talk about it all the time, the Black Agenda that was put forth by the Black to the Future Action Fund, by our dear sister Alicia Garza. It is like pulling teeth to get Black folks to support something that benefits our best interest. They want to know who wrote it, why they wrote it, When did they write it, Who's in charge? Was it a man. If it's not a man, I can't get behind it. If it was

a woman, is a woman that I like? All of that is so frustrating to me, and I get so upset when we can't set aside a thing to focus on the main thing. And they've done this here and they've been doing it for many years. Here's one place where I will say that they have a big benefit speaking of DEI and dollars they didn't earn. They put the dollars, they didn't earn towards something that benefits them in a very towards a common goal twenty two million dollars.

So I bet, I'm just thinking we probably could get on the same page, and we probably could move the needle a little bit further down the road if we had the same resources they have to expend on these things, whether it's Americans for Prosperity or the American Legislative Exchange Council, or the Heritage Foundation or now Project twenty twenty five, all of which have benefited from the infrastructure that they've been establishing. Frankly since sixteen nineteen. How about that.

I think that's the beauty of us as a people, and I often hear people credit the Republicans with like, oh, but they have such a simple message or they're better at communicating. I don't know if that's true. I think their audience is a little more simple and wilfully ignorant to a lot of things around policy. I think on the left and look, listen, ignorance extends to no matter what political party, no matter what kills our economic background. Yeah, exactly,

it's not partisan. However, I think on the right side you have people who are just pretty much flatlined. They're an easier group to coalesce. On the left, you have people who I would argue are a bit more curious about things, are not so easily manipulated, and is a much bigger tent of people, and so we all represent

our interests passionately. On the right, you you know, have something that's very complicated, like the Affordable Care Act, and you could throw out something like death panels and people will latch onto it. On the left, it's a little

more intellectual. People have questions about that, and certainly when it comes to black folks, I think we because we have been so out of the process for so long, we have been denied for so long that now that we're in this process, I think we've done an amazing job of working together and being a tight community and supporting each other and fighting for a lot of our rights in a much more wholesome and holistic way than the Republican Party, whose entire agenda is based on hate,

uh and hating other people who they think is taking something from them.

it's incredibly intricate. Even if the messaging is simple, I think that it would be really uh, it's not smart for us to say that it's not very complex. They have five oh one C three C fours packs. They have again an American Legislative Exchange Council, which is boilerplate legislation for people in all fifty states to send in and to ensure that it all gets past. That's what all this anti DEI legislation is now in thirty plus states.

So it is incredibly complex, and we could argue that many of them are focused just on the racism of it all. But it started under the guise of fiscal conservativism. Even when you look at their four pillars that they're all saying that they had to agree on, they're still really broad and honestly, Joe Biden's border policy fits in with number three. I'll read it. It says, restore the family. This is number one. Restore the family as the centerpiece

of American life, and protect our children. We know what that really means to somebody else. Maybe it means something exactly what it is. Number two, dismantle the administrative state and return self governance to the American people. Expect for what is Yovagina. Number three, defend our nation's sovereignty, borders and bounty against global threats. Sounds like, in my not be a bad idea if you don't read between the lines. And four secure our God given individual rights to live.

I'm sorry to live freely, I said, to lie to life freely, that too, to live freely? What our constitution calls the blessings of liberty. So when you hear these things on their face, they don't sound bad. But when you get into the nine hundred plus pages and they want to dismantle the Department of Justice and they want to ensure that a president can manipulate what's happening in the FBI and DOJ to target political opponents, that reads

a little differently. So I just I think that there's something smart here.

what the right existed. A lot of people know me as a candidate, but perform as a candidate, And while I was running for office and serving an office, I was part of building progressive pipelining. In my case, it was candidate development, recruitment, and then after that it was gathering those same people that we saw and helped get elected to make sure that they were then pushing the

policies that would advance our goals. Tiffany, I agree with you from the standpoint that there's some is so much easier to organize people who are all similarly interested in the same thing, and that same thing we can all differ about. But I think that same thing is about We've had power for a very long time. There are threats to our access to that power. We exist to maintain our power. The Koch brothers are not gratuitous. The reason why they helped build a conservative pipeline on the right,

it is because they are the largest polluting industries. The coke industries and the subsidiaries that they own are among the largest polluters in the country. So it would make all the sense in the world to see them elect conservatives who are anti EPA, who are judges who say, oh no, we're not going to be the big enforcement state. We are going to be the little, small government state where these issues are handled discreetly and not with a

big hammer like the EPA. They were acting in their interests. I'll say this, I think the left has fallen off on uh on girding up our institutions that then advance our ideas these But what the right has taught us is that they are willing to go all the way in and and and constitution be damned, and courts be damned, it doesn't matter. We're willing to go all the way

in to conserve our power. The reason why the left, I think, is a harder group to to organize and coalesce around a single idea is because largely we're motivated by what our need is, just as the right is. Their need is to maintain the power that they've always had For us. Our need might be food on the table, gas in the tank, women, protections at the workplace, and also with autonomy on their bodies. Black people's ability to go to schools are then our ability to maintain those

same institutions. When those institutions start producing black folks who then end up becoming successful parts of boards, elected officials, potentially presidents of the United States, and then they challenge our power. So what do we do. We go and delegitimize their institutions so that they can't continue to produce the folks who are going to threaten our power. The right is the right is they're no more brilliant than

we are. We did this first, they learned from us, and then we fell off the bus because our needs, as basically as they may be, became more divergent with the diversity of people in our coalition and the needs that each of us have had. And so we've got to get back to the basic, y'all. And even if we were dealing with your point here, Angela, which is

just amongst black folks, how do we do this? My suggestion would be one we need to get a political operation in order that trains the candidates we want to see then can get those folks successfully elected. Right, So there's a whole political arm to this thing.

never exist without us. And so if you are interested in advancing the less agenda, then your interests must coincide with building an electoral operation that, by the way, doesn't just train, doesn't just elect, but has a hammer at the end of the day, which means if you don't do what you committed to doing, if you get in there and then you get sold out to the power interests that you were elected to dismantle, we're taking you out, all right, We're taking you So our enforcement mechanism has

to exist on a level that's bigger than the fact that we share the same skin tone. That, ain't it. We can be that, right. You just gave examples of the Hampton woman who used to be you know, over heritage. They got them everywhere. I would venture to argue that the people who are being appointed to the board of trustees at Tennessee State University, who all may look like us, have a different interest in mind. They didn't get a pointer on the same that they that the others got

booted out for no reason. All right, So we got to be suspicious about those intentions. But we have the power to build those same structures on our side and maintain them on our side. We just have to decide

that that's what we're in the interest of doing. And instead, I think we all get freaked out by election cycle to election cycle, we have this big old threat of democracy diminishing over our heads, and we compromise our way out of what we want and sake of what we know, and sake of what we have available at this current time.

comes from us. They didn't know what woke was ten years ago. They literally cut in paste, and none of this stuff is new. We've already had to make America a great again. Candidate that was Ronald Reagan. That was his whole slogan. We already saw all these policies come out of the Nixon error, and that's why I think it's so important to say they were aided by white women because Phyllis Slapley let a whole army of folks trying and even physical conservative movements Angela are rooted in racism.

So I think we all agree the same, but I think we all have different approaches. I think this could be a mini pod personally, but I think we all have different approaches. It needs to be come to how to get there. But I know we got to move on and to have a question for you because so, okay, we see this policy that the Heritage Foundation is putting

out Project twenty twenty five. Let's say, worst case scenario, Donald Trump is elected and the Republicans have one of the chambers of Congress the Upper Chamber and the Senator or lower Chamber in the House. How likely is it that this policy will start to take shape? How likely will they be able to reimagine the executive branch of government because they can't do much without congressional approval.

federal appointments that are not Senate confirmed. If they have you said, he has a chamber, if he has the Senate, he can confirm his full slate of judges, his full slate of everybody that is senior enough in the administration that needs a Senate confirmed appointment. So there's a lot that they can do. He can do a lot with the executive order. If Donald Trump is elected again, he will dare the Supreme Court to challenge anything that he

tries to get through via executive order. And I think it will be including things that should be reserved for legislation. So I yeah, like at this point, go ahead, I.

you in the fuck the appointments. Excuse me, lord, please forgive me, y'all, forget the appointments. This is about We're going to go into these departments and staff up with conservatives who will effectuate our agenda regardless of who the president is. And if the president is the president of our choosing at this time, then you act in their interest.

If they're not, then you act in our interests, and you be a stop gap to whatever progressives may want to do, because now you're part of the wheel that keeps this machine running and that we have to all be tearing refied.

and as psychologically destructive as any crime. I mean, it's I just think.

to know what exactly does the Supreme Court mean? Do they mean that Donald Trump has the immunity over his behavior that basically excited a riot to happen on January sixth? Does this mean that he was on official president duty while sitting in laying duck status. Does this mean that he's immune from 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?

This Court it's John Roberts. 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. Now, you would think with 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 where we are. There's no immunity for our official, unfutual acts, but that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. We'll talk about that. 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 applies to Donald Trump, How's how does it apply to Joe Biden. 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 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. Maybe I could argue because he was a vice president at the time, right that he didn't do anything that he could actually be liable. It is interesting to see how this philosophy will 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 us to have a conversation, not just a lecture, 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 on these

other counts. As we know, there are eighty eight indictments against Donald against Donald Trump, eighty eight counts, thirty four he was found guilty of in a New York court. He used this case for me yesterday, this holding in this case, and said I should not be criminal prosecuted. I should have never been convicted and I certainly shouldn't be sentenced in this New York case because this should apply even in state. In state matters well. The verdict

and the sentencing is now postponed by two weeks. We are supposed to get levin Lucky on seven 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 he's postponed this, but I want y'all weigh in because it's a lot of things and 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.

White House. And it is now their contention that because that now protected and privileged information was allowed to be 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 their recommendations to the judge privately to the judge around

around what he should be facing Visavis sentencing. They did not submit that document to the judges.

get bake. 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 of what Donald Trump asked for. In fact, in one of the extreme ways, while they said of president, a former 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 he's thinking of

those actions taken while he was president. They preclude a jury from being able to have access to any of that information for fear that it may chill the bold actions of a president from doing, saying and acting as a bold president.

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 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 yes too, but not but but but why would he have issued a pardon to Nixon if there was not a reasonable fear that a president could be prosecuted for actions that they took in office?

really shocked. 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.

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 office to enrich his pockets, which he did the first term. I believe Jared and Ivanka made eighty million dollars. It's the first year he was in office, and it continued to grow. Let's not forget that this is a man who had Kislak Russian operative in the oval office. What would stop him?

Now that they've essentially said you can do whatever you want in office, that should give everyone chills, because imagine what an unhinged, politically inept person whose first job in government was president of the United States.

do whatever you want. I'm worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he's in office.

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 I think when we look at those pieces, that is very, very scary. This isn't about what Donald Trump will do in office. 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. 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 guy putting pin in the paper to say this is these are the things you can do that 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 talking about how, you know, even the role of a special prosecutor should not be.

gonna say earlier, Andrew. But if you signed the checks because you were sitting in the taxpayer paid chair in the Oval office, that is the outer perimeter of your official responsibility, because you were signing them while engaging 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 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.

One the Department of Justice, which we all previously thought was 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 need to investigate your state and send fake electors or send a whole another slate, which Donald Trump asked the attorney the acting Internet General to do, and he refused to do it and say he would 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. 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 quote in the universal Unitary Executive Donald Trump or whomever else may come after him. The president can also take a bribe for pardoning somebody. Pardon power is exclusively in the jurisdiction of the 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 you give me a pardon, that cannot be prosecuted in office, out of office, no day of the week.

So I don't understand they're saying that because it's an official act, but it's not associated it specifically with his constitutional powers. That that is presumptive. It's it is it is presumed that he would be immune from this, but absolute for anything that is that is written in and

enshrined in the Constitution. So 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 doctrine to police officers who are pursuing qualified immunity for shooting, killing injuring.

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 is that it's beyond the pale, you can't pursue them in that way. But this, honestly, this, this is this.

on the federal level? But do we think that this same U, this same letter of the 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?

needs a second step and a third step. I 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 Yes, State Supreme Court, I'm just talking about Yeah. But I but I think the question you're raising is a legitimate point. I understand

your question. I'm making a different point, and that if that has to happen at 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 on that that 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 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 can't even imagine where this might go.

So this is the steing 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 founder 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 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 immediately pardon them from any future prosecution.

about it once before on this show. What should President Biden do before he leaves office?

I'm going somewhere else, and it's not going to be the Republican Party or that grand old Party. Again. Thank you for taking the time to look at my video. Hope this helps out again. You're listening to the Native Land Podcast, the Innovators of US politics.

the party in this country to the next level. It is so important that he continues to solidify his legacy with the rest of his term. So since on this podcast, we like to keep our imagination as Tiffany always challenges us, and our good brother Andrew challenges us. Y'all when you dream big, What does Joe Biden accomplish for the rest of his term.

to pardon the fifty thousand people, like do it? There are people sitting I mean, what happens in our prisons is inhumane. I used to focus on that a lot. And when you take away somebody's liberty, like it needs to be like no other choice. And we we've just been adversely impacted by a very punishing criminal justice system.

So pardon is probably at the top of my list. Legally, I don't know if he can do this, but a federal protection for bodily autonomy for women, I think if he can pull that off, I'd like to see that. And if we're really letting our imaginations just like run free, imagine in America that is fair and you know, for the people, by the people. Other people include us. Reparations. I think reparations is something in a form. It may not be cash payments, maybe as land, maybe's home ownership.

Maybe we don't pay taxes for the rest of our lives, whatever that looks like. See, I would like him to be bold enough to do that. So off the top of my head, those are the three things I'd say.

to this point. I mean, we've even seen under Mitchell McConnell's leadership where they had basically temporary suspensions.

us in the House to get a bill through. And I think obviously we'll have to do what we can in the Senate, and then lastly on the courts is the appointments of of of judges. Uh, this process has been slowan by Republicans to to screeching Holt, You've got Senate Republicans who are from states where vacancies occur, who have literally stood, you know, figuratively stood in the doorway

from letting any nominations get through. They will not provide slips, I forget what they call them, maybe blue slips or or angela you may know, the terminology which basically green lights the name of the person coming from their state to move forward in that committee process. And then the only that was just on the course. And then the last thing I'll throw in there is just we've got a letter already out there on the on the Fearless Fund.

I'd love to see the President take very simple action as a relate to what is being requested by the Fearless Fund, which is additional protection and an executive order to expand on that protection.

part of. You didn't earn it. You shouldn't be able to to to go to schools to get funding with us, to get access to capital. So you start your own

thing and then they target you for that. So I absolutely think there should be an executive order not only protecting entities like the Fearless Fund, but really doing the disparity studies necessary across the board, in every industry, in every organization, and all of all systems of education to demonstrate why discriminatory impact is still just as significant as discriminatory intent. You cannot prove intent without the data. The data is there. We all know it, we've seen it,

we've witnessed it. So we need something, some federal protection VI severe executive order to help us get across that finish line. I think the other thing that I want to see him do is an executive order on voting rights. Everything that they've said in the past, the Supreme Court is said has not been the makeup of this court. So I believe if Donald Trump was were in office, they would give him broad sweeping authority on executive orders. I think Joe Biden should test that leading up to

the fall. I really do. I think that he should go hard on executive orders like he's If you can legislate from the bench, certainly you can do it from the oval and prove them wrong. So yes on abortion or reproductive justice. Yes on affirmative action and equitable outcomes and opportunities. Yes on everything else and voting rice, all the things that we know that we need, and reparations. Absolutely So I like all those answers.

because of the United States funds. What we've seen in just the abhorrent things that we've seen happen in Gaza, and now it used to be an unsafe thing to even say this. And I think we can stand in allieship with our Jewish brothers and sisters, but we mainly stand on the right side of what is good and righteous, and what we're seeing happening there is not that, and the money being used to fund the inhumane treatment there,

I would hope that President Biden could reconsider. I would also realign our foreign policy to some of the shifting foreign powers that we actually see. It kind of feels like the United States is like, you know, a few decades behind the rest of the world on when it comes to global powers. So that's from a foreign policy expert, but also a few decades behind even when it comes to infrastructure when you look at public transit in other countries and their bullet trains and you know their streets

and you know just how different countries look. So I would love to see some change on that side as well. And I you know, I have to say watching when I do watch news and it is not domestic news, you really would be, you know, just terrified when you look at what's happening in the country, and I'm as I said on our main podcast, I hope you guys tune in if you haven't already. I could see an all out war happening in the Middle East, and that

would not benefit Vice President Harris. I do think, unfortunately, that would likely benefit Donald Trump for this country to see its first female commander in chief, and so that definitely has my attention, as well as if there's something that Joe Biden could do before he left office to stay that state of unrest, that would also be helpful.

the Department of Justice. I don't think that this Department of Justice. Their failures around Tulsa, you know, the shortcomings around some of the police killings that we've seen, and their inability to reach a conclusion on investigations, the targeting of black prosecutors, black elected officials, including our own brother Andrew under this Department of Justice. For failure to revisit

any of Trump's targeted prosecutions is highly problematic. They have been non responsive to what we know is a necessary justice for the Tulsa race massacre survivors. We have lost one since this administration has been in with Uncle Red's passing. So it's time for these folks to get and receive the justice they deserve, and their descendants to get and receive the justice they deserve. If that can happen under Merrit Garland's watch, then we should get a new Attorney General.

That's another thing that I think he should do before he leaves, appoint someone else at DOJ.

tell you about October babies. She gonna go hard in the paint. She get right up there and be like, let me tell you what you're not gonna do. Yeah, okay.

the truth is. The legal system is much more complex than that. There are many way manners of accountability with injustice, and I'd love to see someone who comes from a different front seated background with a respect for the law to come in there and shake it up.

attorneys getting engaged and involved. He's there from day zero, oftentimes ushering these families through the criminal justice process and then being there as a backstop when the civil side kicks up and kicks in. I just think his nuanced understanding is different than really much of what we can find anywhere wholesale endorser.