Limerick Park in Los Angeles, California. I'm Tavis Smiley and I'm so glad to see you and me back in stride again. Before we get started with today's show, let me invite you to follow me on Facebook and Instagram at TheRealTavisSmiley and get updates on X, that's formally Twitter, at Tavis Smiley. By the way, Should you miss any part of today's program or want to catch up on previous shows, you can always visit TheTavisSmileyShow.com. That's TheTavisSmileyShow.com or wherever you get your podcast and listen to The Tavis Smiley Podcast version of this live program at your leisure. Another great show on tap for you today. In our second hour, two conversations. Up first, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward and a Time 100 honoree, talks about her brand-new textbook. Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times, How to Reclaim Your Power, Fight for Freedom, and Reimagine Democracy. On the B side of our two, America's Loneliness Trap, take a listen to this. One group of people in this country is more isolated than anyone else. No, it's not men. We'll talk to journalist and editor Nick Kepler about his latest provocative piece, interesting piece, for Slate Magazine. Who is the most lonely group of Americans? Stick around for the backside of our two. In our third hour, Wilbert Cooper, author of the New York Times and Time Magazine's most anticipated book of the summer. That's high cotton when the New York Times and Time Magazine both list your book as the most anticipated of the summer. It's called The Black Shield, An American Memoir of Family and Power. The book tells an astonishing story of family, race, and the complex duality of black cops in America. Fascinating text. I think you'll appreciate the conversation we're going to have in hour three about all that. But in this first hour today, let's talk politics and more with our regular contributor, philosopher, lawyer, and professor, Tim Golden. There is so much that we talked about yesterday that has had reverberation. since yesterday. I'm going to play a clip in just a moment here of Hakeem Jeffries feeling the need to defend that meeting with Jared Kushner that we talked about yesterday. So he's on the defensive now about that meeting. I said yesterday, you have these private meetings and somebody finds out about it. You can't keep nothing secret, especially in DC these days. So now he's having to speak publicly about what this meeting was really about. So we'll hear from Hakeem Jeffries here in just a second. Donald Trump, there's a new poll out. The question is, what does it really mean? I'll put that question to Tim Goldham. Here's the data. Trump, in this new poll, is underwater now in 47 states. I repeat that. He's underwater now in 47 states. I wasn't a math major, but I think since there are only 50 of them, that means he's underwater in a lot of red states. A lot of states have voted for him. He's now underwater now in this latest poll in 47 states. We'll talk about that with Tim Golden. We talked yesterday about impeachment, whether or not Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries and others, would have the temerity to impeach Donald Trump. Donald Trump is sort of playing with him. He was in South Carolina over the weekend saying, they're going to impeach me. They're going to impeach me. He's kind of rubbing it in their face, I think, because he knows they ain't going to impeach him. But that didn't stop Al Green on his way out. He's leaving Congress after this term. But yesterday he introduced, he filed articles of impeachment against Donald Trump yet again. We'll talk about whether or not this impeachment thing is going to go anywhere. Al Green is going back to Texas. But will this impeachment argument with the file go anywhere in Congress once he leaves after he introduced it yesterday? And this backlash is growing, it seems, about Atlanta being snubbed as the host city for the Democratic Convention come 2028. I said yesterday on this program, I don't think it really matters what the convention is these days. It comes down to a few districts and a few swing states. Does it really matter where either convention is held? But Andy Beshear, the white male governor of Kentucky, has sided with the black mayor of Atlanta in saying that Democrats can't take black voters or the South for granted. OK, I expect that from a southern governor. But this this squabble up inside the DNC, another squabble up inside the DNC now about where they're going to have their convention. The finalist, the final three cities are what? Boston, Philadelphia and where am I missing? Denver, Boston, Philly and Denver, the final three cities. Atlanta gets snubbed, and the black folk there ain't happy about it. The black mayor ain't happy about it. But other Southerners are now saying you snubbed the South, and that's not a good thing. So the infighting inside the Democratic Party continues. What else is new? Another day, another fight. I'm going to unleash Tim Golden for the rest of the hour after I play you an Akeem Jeffries piece when we come forward. I'll start with the piece. I'm sorry, Miles, not to confuse you. We'll play the clip when we come forward and then go to Tim Golden. You're listening to Tavisman. You're on D with Tim Golden, philosopher, professor, and lawyer, legal analyst. Always good to have him on the program. Tim, how are you today, sir? I am doing fantastic, Tavis. Thank you so much for having me. As usual, it is great to be with you. As usual, good to have you on the program. Let me start with Akeem Jeffries. We talked again yesterday about a few things that have legs, as we say in this business. We'll come back to them and tell you how the story on these issues is advancing 24 hours later. We start with Hakeem Jeffries on that meeting with Jared Kushner. I want to give you a little real talk on this Jared Kushner situation. He asked for a meeting and I took it to discuss the affordability crisis that exists that is not a hoax. At the same period of time, I shouldn't have to say it. But I am. No one is going to get a pass We're going to hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable. Beginning on day one. If you're stealing from the American people, shortchanging the American people, or screwing over the American people, you're going to be held accountable. We're going to follow the facts, apply the law, and be guided by the Constitution. Beginning on day one. and hold the crooks accountable. There are a number of things about that clip, Tim Golden, that jump out at me. Let me just give you a few of them right quick, and I'll shut up and pass the mic to you. Number one, he says they're going to be held accountable. Every member of the cartel, the Trump cartel, is going to be held accountable on day one. Number one, he assumes that Democrats went back to the House and the Senate. That's the first thing. I've been saying for months now, warning this audience about what I call an irrational exuberance. We were looking for a big red wave. It did not happen in the Biden midterm. And now everybody's talking about this big blue wave that they expect to come in November. I pray that it does. But there's a lot of assumption in that comment from Hakeem Jeffries about what's going to happen on day one, assuming that he's the speaker on day one, number one. Number two, when he says we're going to hold every member of the Trump cartel accountable, I think that means everybody but Donald Trump. So I have not seen anything come out of Hakeem Jeffries' mouth that suggests to me that they really want to go after Donald Trump. We're going to connect this dot to the impeachment articles filed by Al Green yesterday. You and I both know Hakeem Jeffries don't want none of that. We talked about that on this show yesterday. So he says we're going to hold every member of the cartel accountable. Yeah, except for Jared Kushner's father-in-law, the one you had the meeting with. I could go on. Let me just stop for a second. But that clip, I like Hakeem, but that clip was funny to me for a lot of reasons. I don't want to take up all your time. Go, Tim Golden. So, Tavis, my initial reaction when I heard this was a reaction that we used to get out of the Reagan-Bush Republicans, who seem to be, as a practical matter, extinct in electoral politics nowadays. But I remember part of their rhetorical message was, that you don't negotiate with terrorists. I remember that would be said often in the context of foreign policy. And that's what was called to my mind when I heard about this meeting. I thought to myself, Leader Jeffries has created, whether he intended to or not, a real political mess for himself through taking this meeting, because people... don't understand nuance in the heat of an upcoming election. And whenever you have to explain yourself and justify yourself, you are really at a disadvantage. So my thinking is, on one hand, I can understand where Leader Jeffries is coming from, because let's be honest, Him and Jared Kushner do have a history of having worked together. They worked together on the First Step Act during Trump's first term. But what troubles me, Tavis, more than, you know, I understand they have a history and I understand he's trying to get things done. But I'm wondering to what extent this feeds into the notion of oligarchy. when an elected representative accountable to the people is meeting with someone who albeit has proximity to the president, but does not hold a position in government. That's what concerns me about the meeting most, more than all of the rhetorical things you could say about the meeting and not meeting with terrorists, etc., and even more than their history of working together, I'm concerned now that taking this meeting signals a real influence, an influence that we know has existed for a long time from the Trump family. But it just became more real to me to look at this situation and see, wow, now you have elected leaders meeting with unelected influencers, and that to me smacks of oligarchy. And that concerns me more about that meeting than anything else. So I hear you. I've got a more grave concern than that. Let me just say, with all due respect, the only part of your argument that's missing for me is that if Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, were to meet with Donald Trump, the president of the United States, he'd be meeting with a terrorist. He'd be meeting with a war criminal. You and I both know that. So to suggest that that's the standard in this particular iteration of government, I'm not sure that holds respectfully. Because, again, if you call Jared Kushner that, then Donald Trump is that on steroids. So is Hakeem Jeffries, by your logic, not to meet with the president? I don't think that's what you're arguing. Because, again, I see Trump as a terrorist. I see Trump as a war criminal. So that can't be the box that you want to put Hakeem Jeffries in, is it, for starters? No, I don't want to put them in their box. And when I borrowed that rhetoric from Reagan-Bush Republicans, I wasn't making a hardcore one-to-one comparison and saying that Jared Kushner is a terrorist. I was using that term loosely to indicate the fact that these are two people on opposite sides of the aisle. So don't interpret my invocation of that statement as something where I was indicating that Jared Kushner is actually a terrorist, right? Donald Trump may be all of those things that you said, but at a minimum, Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Jared Kushner does not hold any elected office whatsoever. And so for me, the concerns about undue influence, of oligarchy in American politics took precedence over that. So that's why I took that position. I take your point. I ain't got an issue with the leader, Leader Jeffries, meeting with citizens of influence. I mean, you know, that's his prerogative. What troubles me about this meeting, and I said so yesterday, and here's why Hakeem Jeffries had to respond to it today, because I was right yesterday, with all due humility. I said yesterday, the problem with this meeting is is that it was private. You cannot meet with Jared Kushner when your name is Hakeem Jeffries and think that ain't nobody going to find out about this. And this is the issue of decision-making about Hakeem Jeffries that bothers me. If Jared Kushner asked for a meeting and you decide to meet with Jared Kushner, put it on your public schedule. Say you're meeting with Jared Kushner, and at least you avoid the issue of people thinking that you were meeting in secret to your point, with an oligarch. And I just don't understand the calculus on that. Why have a private meeting as if there was something to hide when now you've been forced to come out publicly and talk about it, and now you've got to spin it and say, yeah, I met with Jared privately. Y'all wasn't supposed to know about that. You found out about it, and since you did, let me tell you what we talked about, but we're going to hold every member of the Trump cartel accountable. That don't pass muster, Tim Golden. It don't pass the smell test. No, it doesn't. And part of it, I think you and I are in a way saying something very similar, Travis, right? Because when you meet with private citizens of influence, private citizens of influence want private meetings. They want things to be clandestine. They want to operate in the shadows. And if I could quote the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, who said democracy dies behind closed doors. Now, if you are meeting with a private citizen. to whom you're accountable, that's one of your constituents, that's one thing. But you're meeting with somebody who does not hold office, to whom you are not accountable as a representative, and you're taking a meeting with this person in private, and this person's only real credential is that they have a lot of money and they have a lot of influence and they have a direct access to to the president. And when you do that with a private citizen, any private, again, I agree with you, it absolutely sends the wrong message. Let me pivot then to this impeachment issue. I mentioned yesterday that Al Green, the congressman, let me do this first. Tim Golden had a slip of the tongue there. It happens to me all the time on this show, so we're all guilty of this every now and then. You can't do it, as I say to my friends, a live show for three hours every day and not slip up. But he just gave a great quote that he attributed to Thurgood Marshall, but it wasn't Thurgood Marshall. It was a justice, but it was not Thurgood Marshall. I'll tell you why I know this. I know this because I know the judge who said that. It was written in his decision about the Watergate hearing, and it was not Thurgood Marshall. It was Damon Keith, federal judge Damon Keith out of Detroit, who used that phrase. Thurgood Marshall may have borrowed it, but the phrase comes from Damon Keith, and I'm only saying that because I knew Judge Keith was a dear friend of mine. He wrote that line in his decision. The Watergate case was so hot in Washington that it went outside of Washington to the circuit in D.C., on which Judge Damon Keith sat. And he wrote that famous line, democracies die behind closed doors. It was coined by him in that 2002 landmark decision. I can almost guarantee you, Tevis, that one, you're correct. And two, Justice Marshall probably, my association of the quote with Justice Marshall is probably because Justice Marshall quoted Justice Keith in one of his opinions. There you go. Trust me. I just want to clarify that for two reasons. One, because I know the back story. It was Damon Keith, iconic black federal judge in Detroit. The second reason why I'm sharing is because this program right now is being heard in Detroit. And I'm going to get 25 phone calls from Detroit that we hate, that we hating on Detroit's own Judge Damon Keith, the late, great Damon Keith, by not giving him his respect. I don't want those phone calls coming from Detroit later today when they hear this program. I hear that comment. So anyway, it was Judge Damon Keith who originally said that Judge Thurgood Marshall may have quoted Keith in the decision. But it's a great quote. And I didn't say that to push back on Tim Golden. I just want to provide some light on that quote. It is a great quote. He said it then and he's right now. Democracies die. behind closed doors you see why tim golden used to quote uh it again underscores the view that so many of us have about what really happens in dc behind these closed doors washington is bought and bossed by big money and big business and it is these oligarchs and those with money and power uh to quote tim golden accurately that get the kind of access that most of us never would get do you think you could just ask uh hakeem jeffries for a private meeting and you'd get it The answer is no. You would not get a private meeting with Hakeem Jeffries. It doesn't work that way. But if you're Jared Kushner, to Tim's point, even if you don't hold any office, but you happen to have that level of stature, you can get a private meeting with Hakeem Jeffries. It sends the wrong signal. And that's why I said the meeting should not have been in private. Should have put it out there publicly to begin with. OK, enough of that. It's a great quote from Judge Keith. I love that guy. Democracies die behind. closed doors. All right, let me just play Al Green, Congressman Al Green, talking about his filing of these articles of impeachment against Trump again yesterday. When we come forward, I'll let Tim Golden go in on that. Here he is, Congressman Al Green. Hello, everyone. I'm your Congressman Al Green, and today I have just filed articles of impeachment. I have the articles in. My hand, H. Res. 1486, teaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm not going to go into great detail right now about these articles, but I shall in the days to follow. But I will say this, these articles are not about Democrats. They're not about conservatives or liberals. They're not about left or right. They're about right and wrong. They're about life and death. I'm Travis Molley, I'm the brilliant philosopher, professor, legal analyst. all-around amazing public intellectual Tim Golden, who is our lead guest today. I can't call him a guest. He's a regular contributor, and I'm blessed to have him on this program. Let me play one more again in case you've just tuned in. The Al Green clip, we've been talking in the first half hour, in case you've just turned this on, about some stories that we raised yesterday that have grown over the last 24 hours. We started talking about this meeting between Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House, and Jared Kushner, a private meeting they had They broke all out into the public and people found out about the meeting. And so now Hakeem Jeffries on his heels trying to explain why he had this private meeting with Jared Kushner. I won't play that clip again, but he tries his best to explain it. But he said ultimately that, yeah, we met and we talked about affordability as if, again, another point, Tim, as if Jared Kushner knows anything about affordability. That's the funny part here. This guy... Jared Kushner can't spell affordability. He doesn't have any affordability issues in his own life, but that's what the meeting was about? Okay, Hakeem. Anyway, the oligarchs get access to the leaders. That's the way it works in D.C. But Hakeem Jeffries, that is, explaining, trying to explain why he met with Jared Kushner privately. It's now out in the public, and so we played that clip earlier. But I want to come back now to this Al Green clip. Congressman Al Green out of Houston has once again introduced impeachment articles against Donald Trump. You know Al Green. He's been kicked out of the Senate. out of the well of the House two or three times during Trump speeches for standing up and protesting the president to his face in real time. I love Al Green for that. He's finishing up his last term. He was beaten. They redrew the lines in Texas. He lost a race to a young brother named Christian Menifee, a sharp brother. But Christian is a new congressman in that area, so Al Green is now in his last term. But he ain't getting out of there without introducing these articles of impeachment at least one more again. Here is Al Green talking about it, and then we'll have Tim respond. Hello, everyone. I'm your Congressman Al Green, and today I have just filed articles of impeachment. I have the articles in my hand, H. Res. 1486, impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. I'm not going to go into great detail right now about these articles, but I shall in the days to follow. But I will say this. These articles are not about Democrats. They're not about conservatives or liberals. They're not about left or right. They're about right and wrong. They're about life and death. All right, Tim Golden, Al Green once again files articles of impeachment. Let me connect this dot, as I promised I would earlier, to Hakeem Jeffrey suggesting that he is going to hold every member of the Trump cartel accountable. I think he meant every member except Donald Trump. But how do you read these impeachment articles being introduced yesterday and whether or not there's any hope that Democrats would actually investigate Donald Trump if they get the gavel back, much less impeach Donald Trump? Representative Green has the right spirit, but regrettably he's in the wrong venue to expect results on these articles of impeachment. The framers of the Constitution... designed impeachment to be a political process. And what I mean by political is they designed it precisely to function with all of the things that Representative Green says these articles are not about. It was designed to be drawn along partisan lines, whether or not articles of impeachment actually go forward. And so The difference is that there's also a legal process, which is based more on the law, the evidence, etc. And for impeachment, it's a horse of a different color. So unfortunately, the impeachment process is all about partisanship. It's all about left and right. It's all about Democrat versus Republican. It's not really about right and wrong at all. If you remember, President Clinton was impeached for conduct that didn't arguably didn't really have anything to do with his abilities or his policies or any criminal behavior that he engaged in. So I think, again, Representative Green has the right spirit, but that's not the right venue to expect results, especially if it is about right and wrong. Now, Tavis, the broken clock is right twice a day, right? Every now and then, Congress might do something important morally that's also important from a policy standpoint, but that's not really the norm. in that institution of American public life. So, again, I think it's the right spirit, but I think he's in the wrong venue to expect those kind of results. And if Representative Jeffries is trying to go after the Trump administration or the people in what he calls the Trump cartel, I think what he has to understand is if Democrats do win the House, in November, then they better get down to the business of addressing all these issues of affordability that are so important to everyone. Because if they assume power and they spend their time trying to exact vengeance on the Trump administration through impeachment, that's going to be a huge distraction for to the affordability issues that are so important to average everyday Americans. Speaking of everyday Americans, if you are an everyday listener to this program, we're now 2-0 with lead guests two days in a row who argue that strategically it would be a mistake for Democrats to go down the impeachment path that Al Green has suggested, and Democrats ought to spend their time, if they get the gavel back, working on these affordability issues that everybody spends so much time talking about. Eli Addy, who was a former White House speechwriter, was our lead guest yesterday. That was his opinion yesterday. Here comes Tim Golden. I didn't see that coming. But here comes Tim Golden a day later agreeing with Eli Addy that Democrats would not be well served to spend time on impeachment proceedings. But here's the rub for me, Tim, as I said yesterday to Eli Addy. I hear the point you and Eli are making strategically. What that suggests to me then is that you and Eli are going to let Donald Trump, you're okay with Donald Trump getting away with his high crimes and misdemeanors. So when you talk about holding him accountable, when Hakeem Jeffrey says we're going to hold accountable every member of the Trump cartel, then it's a bunch of nonsense. You don't really mean it. Because if the decision is already made that it's bad strategically to spend time going after impeachment, we got to show the American people what we can do to make their lives better and working on these affordability issues, which I get, then how does Donald Trump ever get held accountable? You just said that impeachment is the wrong process. So what is the right process? What is the right path? What is the right venue? Or is Donald Trump just going to get away with all of this? Well, something interesting happened in the wake of January 6th and Trump's second impeachment. All of the Republicans were talking about look, this is a political process. Trump could be indicted when he leaves office and so forth and so on. So that's why I'm voting no to remove him from office. A number of Republican senators said that during the impeachment trial. The problem that we have now is theoretically you can't rely on the Justice Department the way you could because all of those institutional barriers have been broken down and at least I'm sure Trump is going to make certain the way he has with his illegal appointments to go after people like Letitia James and other of his foes, he is essentially protected by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Trump versus United States decision. So, Tavis, I don't know if the answer to your question is, could be that Trump would ever be held accountable for any of this. And perhaps that may lead to outrage, but I think a political calculation has to be made. Trump for two more years? Trump for two more years, there's another presidential election, or you expend your capital on an impeachment process in which you likely will not have the votes because the Senate has to vote to remove him if he is impeached. So you've got to take the House and the Senate, and you've got to hope that works. And if it doesn't, and the affordability issues are perceived as being ignored, then in 28, you have another problem because the Congress and Senate are, I mean, everybody in Congress is, well, not everybody, but everybody in the House is going to be up for re-election again, and they're going to be facing this difficulty. And so my question is, if this is the place where we found ourselves, Then the question for me is, how did we get here and what will it take to undo this situation where we're essentially stuck? Those are legitimate questions. I just don't think the answer is either or. I think the answer is both and. Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, what Tim Golden just told you, the brilliant Tim Golden, and he's right about it. I hate to admit it, but he's right. What Tim Golden just told you, if I can just break it down, is that Donald Trump has not and will never be held accountable by the court system He has not and he will not be held to account by the United States Congress. He has not and will not ever be held to account by any international court. He has not and will not ever be held accountable by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, given the immunity that they've already given him on pretty much everything. And I think you can deduce from that that Donald Trump is going to get away with every single thing he has done and every single thing he will do between now and the time he leaves office, if, if he leaves office. But I digress for now. You're listening to Tavis. You are indeed inside the Tavis and Tim show, the Tim and Tavis show. This happens every so many weeks, and I'm always pleased to have Tim Golden on this program. Tim, no naivete here, as I often say, but I know the audience is processing the your commentary the same way I'm processing it, which is essentially that Donald Trump is going to get away literally with murder. He's getting away with everything. And every time I process this in my own head, I think about Letitia and Jamal. I think about Jose and Maria, all these black and brown people in the country who could never imagine just getting away with this. And here's the insult. What's that old adage? Here's the pouring of salt into the wound. It's not just that Donald Trump gets away with it is that he's getting all of his friends off. I mean, he pardoned all those insurrectionists. So it's not just him getting away with it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Leader Jeffries, you're wrong. The Democrats are not going to hold every member of the Trump cartel accountable because if they tried to do that, Donald Trump still has the power to pardon every member of his cartel. So it's not just Donald Trump. It's everybody in the cartel is going to get away with it to him. It's everybody. It's everybody, Tavis. Everybody is going to get away with it. We're talking about somebody. In fact, in fact, I don't think this is a controversial claim to make. Donald Trump ran for president to keep himself out of prison. Yep. He ran for president two years ago with the hope that if he won, all of his legal troubles would go away. And that's exactly what happened. And so he ran for president to stay out of jail. And now that he knows, because here's the thing, those prosecutions are gone. They're not coming back. They're gone forever. And there were four of them. And they're all gone. So he ran for president to stay out of prison. And now that he won the election, he can ensure that he will not be held accountable to anybody except E. Gene Carroll for $ 5. 8 million. And except E. Gene Carroll and one other person who sits high and looks low. He's still going to be held accountable to that person that sits high and looks low. None of us. gets away with everything, even when we think we do. There is a God that we all have to answer to at some point. I don't mean to be sacrilegious or proselytize here, but he's going to be held to account one day for all the damage he's done to so many other people. It might not be by the Congress, by the Supreme Court, or any national court, or even by the American people, but at some point he's going to have to give an answer for all his dastardly deeds. I digress on that for now. When we come forward, not that Donald Trump cares about this, Because as we've just discussed, he's getting away with everything anyway. So does it really matter to him that he's underwater in 47 states? Likely not. We'll talk about it anyway with Tim Golden on Tavis Smart. Donald Trump's approval rating is a negative 26. Negative 26. He's down even more so from last week. He is now underwater in 47 states. I asked Tim Golden, does it really matter? Does he care? No. Yes, Tevis. I'm sorry. No, that wasn't rhetorical. That was not rhetorical. Does it really matter? Does he care? I don't think... I think he cares at this point. For him, it's about his legacy. Assuming he doesn't try to upend the Constitution and run for a third term. Or somehow try to finagle his way into a third term. So I think it It matters for him in terms of legacy. As a practical matter, because the Supreme Court has been so friendly to him, I think he is pretty safe from criminal prosecution once he leaves office. And I think he will ride that off into the sunset. What has really... perhaps deluded him to this point, and you and I have talked about this before, Tavis, is that despite him being underwater in so many of these states in the primary seasons that we've been experiencing this year, his candidates who he has endorsed have come out smelling like roses. And that's a good thing, but the problem is that those are not national elections, right? We're typically talking about congressional elections, House elections, where people are voting only in one district. And so we'll see what comes of that. But in the end, it may not matter. It may not matter at all. But again, he's not going to... Theoretically, he can't run again. But theoretically, it has to be underscored big time because... And upending the Constitution has never stopped him before. Mayor Andre Dickens finally here. Got 60 seconds to go. Andre Dickens, mayor of Atlanta, has sent a letter out addressed to Atlanta, the South, and all Democrats. The DNC continues to make the wrong choices. He goes on to go in on this in this letter on the Democratic Party. Ken Martin, the Democratic chairperson, they made a huge mistake not choosing Atlanta. The final three cities for the convention in 2038 are Boston, Philly, and Denver. We'll see which of those three wins. Andy Beshear, governor of Kentucky, has sided with Andre Dickens, mayor of Atlanta, saying this is not a good decision. In a quick 30 seconds, I'm not sure it matters where the convention is, but it does make a statement. This is a controversy now about whether or not the DNC is ignoring black voters. I think the Atlanta mayor and the Kentucky governor are correct. This would have been the perfect time to host the convention in Atlanta, especially given Given the importance of black voting rights and black political power, the recent Calais decision of the Supreme Court, I think Atlanta was a prime opportunity for the Democratic Party to saturate itself in the richness of black history. at a time when black history is so profoundly under attack by an administration that's fundamentally, at its core, white supremacist. Nope. It's a strong letter. You should just Google it. Google the letter written by Mayor Andre Dickens to Atlanta, the South, and all Democrats. I ain't got time to go through it. It's a strong letter. He wasn't feeling this decision. I digress for now. Tim Gordon, we'll talk again soon. Take care of yourself. Yes, sir. Thank you, Tavis. Take care. One hour down, two to go. You're listening, and I'm glad about it to Tavis Smart.