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